PDA

View Full Version : War With Iran?



5stringJeff
07-07-2008, 07:57 PM
For those unfamiliar with our Constitution, the power to declare war rests with the Congress. In modern times, Congress has seen fit to not declare war, but to authorize the President to use force against a certain country (see: Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I, Afghanistan, Iraq). And, many see a conflict with Iran in the near future. However, the President, as discussed above, cannot just go attack whomever he pleases. Congress must authorize him to do so.

Question 1: Under what circumstances would a Democrat-controlled Congress authorize force against Iran?
Question 1: Under what circumstances should a Democrat-controlled Congress authorize force against Iran?

Gaffer
07-07-2008, 08:33 PM
Your assuming a dem congress would do what is best for the nation and national defense. They will only do something if it makes Bush look bad and they can blame him in some way. They will only act if their hand is forced in some way.

namvet
07-07-2008, 09:31 PM
first you would have to show these democraps where it is on a map. then go from there.
2nd it would take them generations to make up their feeble minds what to do.
3rd let the Israelis do it. their much more qualified.

mundame
07-07-2008, 09:45 PM
However, the President, as discussed above, cannot just go attack whomever he pleases. Congress must authorize him to do so.

I question your premise.

To me the whole lesson of the Bush administration is say anything to get elected, then do whatever you want because you're the president.

Certainly the Prez can attack whomever he pleases!! Congress knows that very well --- that's why they retracted Pelosi's impulse to require a declaration of war by Congress before Bush attacks Iran: they are afraid he will simply ignore it.

The normal process is that a prez decides he wants a war, then they blow up a ship or something somewhere far away (Cuba, Tonkin Bay) and say the enemy did it. Then the war starts, without benefit of Congress. No need for a Declaration anymore: that went out with WWII, the last time it was used.



Question 1: Under what circumstances would a Democrat-controlled Congress authorize force against Iran?
Question 1: Under what circumstances should a Democrat-controlled Congress authorize force against Iran?


Well, obviously Dems are willing to tolerate our embassy being taken hostage and our diplomatic staff maltreated for 444 days; we know that.

Would Dems want a war against Iran if Iran started shooting tankers in the Gulf? Tried to cut off the Strait of Hormuz to shipping? Invaded Iraqi oil fields?

Our military is currently non-functional, so it probably wouldn't seem like a good idea to Dems to start a war with Iran ------- it shouldn't seem like a good idea to anyone at this time!!

Which is why this is when Iran will probably make their move: better to get some power against us when we CAN'T fight, rather than when we can.

AFbombloader
07-08-2008, 01:58 AM
Our military is currently non-functional, so it probably wouldn't seem like a good idea to Dems to start a war with Iran ------- it shouldn't seem like a good idea to anyone at this time!!

Which is why this is when Iran will probably make their move: better to get some power against us when we CAN'T fight, rather than when we can.

Should I go tell the 200+ Airmen out in the 95 degree heat and 95% humidity, turning wrenches and loading bombs on the F-16's here that they are "non-functional"? Or the thousands of others doing the same thing in the states? What about the Navy? Are they broken too?

If and when we attack Iran, it will be from the air, with special forces assisting on targeting and other fun stuff they do. The Air Force and the Naval air forces are ready and willing to bomb them back into the stone age.

Non-functional my a$$!

AF:salute:

5stringJeff
07-08-2008, 06:15 AM
I question your premise.

To me the whole lesson of the Bush administration is say anything to get elected, then do whatever you want because you're the president.

Certainly the Prez can attack whomever he pleases!! Congress knows that very well --- that's why they retracted Pelosi's impulse to require a declaration of war by Congress before Bush attacks Iran: they are afraid he will simply ignore it.

The normal process is that a prez decides he wants a war, then they blow up a ship or something somewhere far away (Cuba, Tonkin Bay) and say the enemy did it. Then the war starts, without benefit of Congress. No need for a Declaration anymore: that went out with WWII, the last time it was used.

The President cannot attack whomever he pleases. That's why I gave the background information on declaration of war/authorization of Congress. If Bush (or Obama) used military force without prior approval, he would be violating the Constitution. Even in the two wars you brought up, the Presidents involved brought the evidence before Congress, who then voted to declare war (with Spain) and authorize use of force (in Vietnam).

5stringJeff
07-08-2008, 06:16 AM
Would Dems want a war against Iran if Iran started shooting tankers in the Gulf? Tried to cut off the Strait of Hormuz to shipping? Invaded Iraqi oil fields?

That's my question. I don't think they'd authorize force under any of those three circumstances.

LiberalNation
07-08-2008, 06:42 AM
Iran would have to do something really stupid to start a war but yeah if they started destroying tankers or attacked our ships even a dem congress would authorize the president to use force. It's been what, since ww2 since a war was actually declared. It will go down like iraq and vietnam, congress will have hearing, give the prez the nod but not go so far as to declare war.

and ummm, unless Iran attacks us directly there will be no war there. American would have to be killed first. We have two wars going right now, we don't need to start another. We couldn't do it with the size of the military right now anyway. 4 to 5 back to back combat tours will wear even the best soldiers down.

theHawk
07-08-2008, 07:40 AM
Question 1: Under what circumstances would a Democrat-controlled Congress authorize force against Iran?
Question 1: Under what circumstances should a Democrat-controlled Congress authorize force against Iran?

The Democratic Congress would only authorize force against Iran if a Democrat is the President.

namvet
07-08-2008, 07:51 AM
For those unfamiliar with our Constitution, the power to declare war rests with the Congress. In modern times, Congress has seen fit to not declare war, but to authorize the President to use force against a certain country (see: Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I, Afghanistan, Iraq). And, many see a conflict with Iran in the near future. However, the President, as discussed above, cannot just go attack whomever he pleases. Congress must authorize him to do so.

Question 1: Under what circumstances would a Democrat-controlled Congress authorize force against Iran?
Question 1: Under what circumstances should a Democrat-controlled Congress authorize force against Iran?

its a totally bogus question.

darin
07-08-2008, 08:00 AM
I'm cynical - but I think a liberal-democrat-controlled congress would only authorize the use of force when it serves them politically. That is to say, they'd poll places like Berkley and SF and when the numbers showed they'd have 'support', they'd go in as if they were looking out for any interests other than their own.

namvet
07-08-2008, 08:09 AM
I'm cynical - but I think a liberal-democrat-controlled congress would only authorize the use of force when it serves them politically. That is to say, they'd poll places like Berkley and SF and when the numbers showed they'd have 'support', they'd go in as if they were looking out for any interests other than their own.

they'll have to go somewhere else for support. Berkley and SF ???? :laugh2:

darin
07-08-2008, 08:16 AM
That's my point. Things would have to get SO bad, those places would support conflict.

Thing is, Libs, being largely godless, fear death more than anything. Few libs believe ANYTHING is worth fighting or dying for. They want to 'create a dialog'. :-/

mundame
07-08-2008, 08:49 AM
Should I go tell the 200+ Airmen out in the 95 degree heat and 95% humidity, turning wrenches and loading bombs on the F-16's here that they are "non-functional"? Or the thousands of others doing the same thing in the states? What about the Navy? Are they broken too?

If and when we attack Iran, it will be from the air, with special forces assisting on targeting and other fun stuff they do. The Air Force and the Naval air forces are ready and willing to bomb them back into the stone age.

Non-functional my a$$!

AF:salute:

Okay, AF, you think you all can handle war with Iran, all on your lonesome? Maybe with help from the Navy.

You ARE aware that the Army, at least, is currently non-functional? Losing two wars, unable to keep officers, unable to recruit enough men who can read, lots of bad stuff happening in a pair of deeply unpopular wars?

CAN you do this -- and actually succeed for a change as opposed to getting bogged down for many years -- without help from the U.S. Army, which hasn't got the manpower for an invasion?

And can you all protect this Army from attack by land from Iran's hundreds of thousands of troops running across the border like they did during the Iraq/Iran war? Because that is sort of an obvious tactic: send the Iranian ground troops after our 140,000 in Iraq: the Iranians wildly outnumber us.

namvet
07-08-2008, 08:52 AM
That's my point. Things would have to get SO bad, those places would support conflict.

Thing is, Libs, being largely godless, fear death more than anything. Few libs believe ANYTHING is worth fighting or dying for. They want to 'create a dialog'. :-/

you mean this dialog????


http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/05/18/ba_monkeys_012_mac.jpg

namvet
07-08-2008, 08:55 AM
Okay, AF, you think you all can handle war with Iran, all on your lonesome? Maybe with help from the Navy.

You ARE aware that the Army, at least, is currently non-functional? Losing two wars, unable to keep officers, unable to recruit enough men who can read, lots of bad stuff happening in a pair of deeply unpopular wars?

CAN you do this -- and actually succeed for a change as opposed to getting bogged down for many years -- without help from the U.S. Army, which hasn't got the manpower for an invasion?

And can you all protect this Army from attack by land from Iran's hundreds of thousands of troops running across the border like they did during the Iraq/Iran war? Because that is sort of an obvious tactic: send the Iranian ground troops after our 140,000 in Iraq: the Iranians wildly outnumber us.

so your solution is????..................................

AFbombloader
07-08-2008, 09:11 AM
Okay, AF, you think you all can handle war with Iran, all on your lonesome? Maybe with help from the Navy.

You ARE aware that the Army, at least, is currently non-functional? Losing two wars, unable to keep officers, unable to recruit enough men who can read, lots of bad stuff happening in a pair of deeply unpopular wars?

CAN you do this -- and actually succeed for a change as opposed to getting bogged down for many years -- without help from the U.S. Army, which hasn't got the manpower for an invasion?

And can you all protect this Army from attack by land from Iran's hundreds of thousands of troops running across the border like they did during the Iraq/Iran war? Because that is sort of an obvious tactic: send the Iranian ground troops after our 140,000 in Iraq: the Iranians wildly outnumber us.


Honestly, yes. The article that I read (forgiveme if I can't find it, it was on a .mil site that I cannot access from home) called for sustained air strikes very similar to the first gulf war. I think the AF and USN can knock Iran so far into the dark ages that they wont be able to find up! As far as their army, do you remember the highway of death (1st gulf war)? A-10 Warthogs flying freely along the border shooting anything that moves; B-52 bombers with 84 laser guided MK-82's each; B-2's, B-1's, F/A-18's, F-15e's, and so on, let them come. They have no air force or naval avation to speak of, who is going to stop us? Yes they have anti-air missiles, so did Iraq. Stealth technology trumps that, better stealth than the first gulf war too, and we didn't lose a stealth aircraft then. And last I checked, we don't want to occupy them, overthrow their govermment, nation build, ec. We want their nuc program halted.

Now I will give it to you, the Army is having problems and maybe the Marine Corps too. But the military is not broken. Semantic's, maybe.....

AF:salute:

mundame
07-08-2008, 09:13 AM
Iran to "hit Tel Aviv, U.S. ships" if attacked

8:50am EDT July 8

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran will hit Tel Aviv, U.S. shipping in the Gulf and American interests around the world if it is attacked over its disputed nuclear activities, an aide to Iran's Supreme Leader was quoted as saying on Tuesday.
************************************************** *****

This is being headlined on most sites right now. They certainly seem worried...........or, as I suspect, they are trying to drive the price of oil up, which is quite a good way to attack us and the rest of the West. Oil went under $140 a barrel yesterday; I'm interested to see if it goes way up again today because of this saber-rattling by Iran.



so your solution is????..................................

It's a hard problem. I don't want Israel hit. But then, Israel is an independent country and SHOULD be able to defend themselves. Is it really our problem? What does Israel do for us? Nothing but cause us endless trouble.

I don't think this is a good time for war because Bush is incompetent and certainly our military is stretched WAY too far, and besides, everybody knows half of it would be about getting McCain elected anyway. And Bush would probably screw that up, too.

No, I don't think anything difficult should happen the rest of this year and into January, because Bush just isn't able to tie his own shoes.

So I'd say..........wait. As long as possible.

We may HAVE to have a war with Iran, and we certainly owe them one. But not with Bush. We can't be losing yet a third war.

Look: Iran is stronger than Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan. We like to attack very primitive, apparently defenseless countries ---- but they win! Over and over. Iran could attack us back, and that is what they are threatening now. I think they could do it. Sooner or later we were bound to come up against an enemy that could and would fight back, and that's another reason NOT to go to war with Iran with our Army so broken as it is.

mundame
07-08-2008, 09:20 AM
Honestly, yes. The article that I read (forgiveme if I can't find it, it was on a .mil site that I cannot access from home) called for sustained air strikes very similar to the first gulf war. I think the AF and USN can knock Iran so far into the dark ages that they wont be able to find up! As far as their army, do you remember the highway of death (1st gulf war)? A-10 Warthogs flying freely along the border shooting anything that moves; B-52 bombers with 84 laser guided MK-82's each; B-2's, B-1's, F/A-18's, F-15e's, and so on, let them come. They have no air force or naval avation to speak of, who is going to stop us? Yes they have anti-air missiles, so did Iraq. Stealth technology trumps that, better stealth than the first gulf war too, and we didn't lose a stealth aircraft then. And last I checked, we don't want to occupy them, overthrow their govermment, nation build, ec. We want their nuc program halted.
AF:salute:


Okay, thanks, that was a heartening reply. And yes, the first Gulf War WAS a big success, and a whole lot (well, most) was due to the Air Force.

You make me feel better, because I do think we may well be headed for war with Iran (the clues aren't real subtle, are they?) and I'd sure like us to win any such war!

I think if we kept it simple, as you say, just bombers and destroy the nuke factories, don't for god's sake get bogged down in regime change and "humanitarian" social reform!!!!!!!! ---- then we might be all right. It's these invasions and long occupations that aren't working out. If we stick to plain war, we might win something for a change.


I suspect, AF, that things are looking very much like war coming.

avatar4321
07-08-2008, 09:23 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but last time I checked the Authorization for the Use of Force passed a week or two after 9/11 is still in affect. That bill authorizes the President to use force against terrorism and the state sponsors of terrorism.

Last time I checked Iran was a state sponsor of terrorism.

Unless that authorization is repeal, I would argue that Congress has already authorized the use of force against Iran.

However, if we are looking for a new resolution. i would expect nothing, including a nuclear bomb going off in San Fransisco convincing Democrats to go to war.

mundame
07-08-2008, 09:29 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but last time I checked the Authorization for the Use of Force passed a week or two after 9/11 is still in affect. That bill authorizes the President to use force against terrorism and the state sponsors of terrorism.

Last time I checked Iran was a state sponsor of terrorism.

Unless that authorization is repeal, I would argue that Congress has already authorized the use of force against Iran.

Aaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh. You are right, of course. Bush can and may take us to war on his own say-so, like he's done all his other mistakes.



However, if we are looking for a new resolution. i would expect nothing, including a nuclear bomb going off in San Fransisco convincing Democrats to go to war.

I would hope nothing but ACTUAL AMERICAN INTERESTS would take us to war. And I'm not AT ALL sure American interests include the safety of Israel! Do you think attacking Iran for Israel is an American interest, Avatar?

What ARE American interests re Iran?

1) They do not get to stop up the oil traffic; they just don't.

2) They don't get to take over Iraq or any other country: we can't have them controlling the oil.

ARE there any other interests? I know they are nuking up, but isn't everyone? That genie seems to have escaped the bottle. Your thoughts?

AFbombloader
07-08-2008, 09:32 AM
Okay, thanks, that was a heartening reply. And yes, the first Gulf War WAS a big success, and a whole lot (well, most) was due to the Air Force.

You make me feel better, because I do think we may well be headed for war with Iran (the clues aren't real subtle, are they?) and I'd sure like us to win any such war!

I think if we kept it simple, as you say, just bombers and destroy the nuke factories, don't for god's sake get bogged down in regime change and "humanitarian" social reform!!!!!!!! ---- then we might be all right. It's these invasions and long occupations that aren't working out. If we stick to plain war, we might win something for a change.


I suspect, AF, that things are looking very much like war coming.

I also suspect the same. And If it goes like I read, like the first 90+ days of the gulf war, we will be ok. But does war ever go like you plan?

I wish there was another way, I really do. I am not a warmonger (some would disagree). But other than Israel going in I see no real other option. If Israel goes in, you can see from your post that we will be brought into it anyway. I suspect nothing will happen right now, maybe in the winter, who knows. All I do know is I will be retired from the AF in 4 months, its time to let the younger guys/gals do this stuff!

AF:salute:

mundame
07-08-2008, 09:39 AM
I also suspect the same. And If it goes like I read, like the first 90+ days of the gulf war, we will be ok. But does war ever go like you plan?

I wish there was another way, I really do. I am not a warmonger (some would disagree). But other than Israel going in I see no real other option. If Israel goes in, you can see from your post that we will be brought into it anyway. I suspect nothing will happen right now, maybe in the winter, who knows. All I do know is I will be retired from the AF in 4 months, its time to let the younger guys/gals do this stuff!

AF:salute:

I suppose it is likely we'll be sucked in if Israel attacks; so much so that I would expect it all to be coordinated. They have to have overflight permission from us over Iraq. I think. They might simply announce it to us rather than ask permission, of course.

Four months! Wow. You may miss all the excitement, but perhaps that's just as well. http://forums.offtopic.com/images/smilies/happysad.gif

AFbombloader
07-08-2008, 09:49 AM
I suppose it is likely we'll be sucked in if Israel attacks; so much so that I would expect it all to be coordinated. They have to have overflight permission from us over Iraq. I think. They might simply announce it to us rather than ask permission, of course.

Four months! Wow. You may miss all the excitement, but perhaps that's just as well. http://forums.offtopic.com/images/smilies/happysad.gif

This is how it will go:

AF Commander: "Hey guys, take a day off, call it a comp day."
AF guys: "Yeah! First day off in weeks."

Israel over fly's Iraq on that day, AF guys do what they are told and look the other way. Same with the navy and army. We won't stop them, it will come ona "maintenance down day".

And I really hope I do miss all the "fun". I've done my fair share.

AF:salute:

namvet
07-08-2008, 09:54 AM
we can use Iran for target practice.

mundame
07-08-2008, 01:01 PM
we can use Iran for target practice.


It looks like other people are worried about all the war talk and the possibility of war with Iran to promote McCain ------- this story just now popped up on the Reuter's new news banner.

*******************************************
Panel urges new law on government war powers

Tue Jul 8, 2008 1:43pm EDT

<SCRIPT language=javascript> var storyKeywords = "US USA WAR LEGISLATION"; var RTR_ArticleTitle = "Panel urges new law on government war powers"; var RTR_ArticleBlurb = "By Susan Cornwell WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The president should be forced by law to consult Congress before going to war, a bipartisan panel including several prominent former U.S. officials said on Tuesday. The commission led by former Secretaries..."; </SCRIPT>By Susan Cornwell

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The president should be forced by law to consult Congress before going to war, a bipartisan panel including several prominent former U.S. officials said on Tuesday.

The commission led by former Secretaries of State James Baker, a Republican, and Warren Christopher, a Democrat, aimed to clarify the cloudy division between the White House and the U.S. Congress over the power to conduct war.

The panel proposed a new law -- the "War Powers Consultation Act" -- that would require the president to consult with Congress before deploying U.S. troops into "significant armed conflict," defined as combat operations lasting, or expected to last, more than a week.

Disputes over the unpopular Iraq war have revived constitutional arguments about the limits of congressional and presidential war powers. Under the Constitution, Congress declares war and controls funding, but the president is commander-in-chief of the armed forces.
*************************************************

This business of a king/dictator/czar/kaiser type just casually deciding to send everyone to war is EXACTLY what happened with World War I. And it's why four empires fell and democracy or worse replaced monarchical systems directly after WWI, not that it did much good, considering Hitler.

Bush is very like Kaiser Wilhelm -- warmongering, brash, aggressive, arrogant. And inclined to simply wave his hand and activate armies!

The whole POINT of democracy is to stop this sort of thing, but since Congress doesn't declare war anymore, presidents are seizing the power once given to kaisers and czars.

If democracy means anything, surely it means the people's representatives should vote on war. And yet Bush sends us into war after war and may well do it yet again.

5stringJeff
07-08-2008, 02:12 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but last time I checked the Authorization for the Use of Force passed a week or two after 9/11 is still in affect. That bill authorizes the President to use force against terrorism and the state sponsors of terrorism.

Last time I checked Iran was a state sponsor of terrorism.

Unless that authorization is repeal, I would argue that Congress has already authorized the use of force against Iran.

However, if we are looking for a new resolution. i would expect nothing, including a nuclear bomb going off in San Fransisco convincing Democrats to go to war.

That particular bill, which we studied in our law class over winter, only authorizes the use of force against those who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks, i.e. al Qaeda, who was camped out with the Taliban at the time. It is not a blank check to fight "terrorism" whenever, wherever.

5stringJeff
07-08-2008, 02:16 PM
Okay, AF, you think you all can handle war with Iran, all on your lonesome? Maybe with help from the Navy.

You ARE aware that the Army, at least, is currently non-functional? Losing two wars, unable to keep officers, unable to recruit enough men who can read, lots of bad stuff happening in a pair of deeply unpopular wars?

OK, I'm calling bullshit on this one. Is the Army wearing down? Yes. Is the Army non-functional? No. Back in the 90's, DoD doctrine was that we were to be able to fight two regional conflicts at once. That's essentially what the Army has been doing since 2003. And we aren't "losing two wars." As as been posted in other threads, the Iraqi army is taking up the mission of defending their own country, which defines success for the American military mission in Iraq, not defeat.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the Army can't recruit enough men who can read. The Army continues to fill its recruiting goals each year.

mundame
07-08-2008, 02:43 PM
I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the Army can't recruit enough men who can read. The Army continues to fill its recruiting goals each year.

By taking more and more men with lower and lower IQ and skills scores, and more and more morals waivers for various criminal records. Everyone knows this, Jeff: it was even in an article in the Journal.

Smart people aren't going to sign up to fight these unpopular and unsuccessful wars that take so long and keep people in the field so long!

namvet
07-08-2008, 03:42 PM
It looks like other people are worried about all the war talk and the possibility of war with Iran to promote McCain ------- this story just now popped up on the Reuter's new news banner.

*******************************************
Panel urges new law on government war powers

Tue Jul 8, 2008 1:43pm EDT

<SCRIPT language=javascript> var storyKeywords = "US USA WAR LEGISLATION"; var RTR_ArticleTitle = "Panel urges new law on government war powers"; var RTR_ArticleBlurb = "By Susan Cornwell WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The president should be forced by law to consult Congress before going to war, a bipartisan panel including several prominent former U.S. officials said on Tuesday. The commission led by former Secretaries..."; </SCRIPT>By Susan Cornwell

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The president should be forced by law to consult Congress before going to war, a bipartisan panel including several prominent former U.S. officials said on Tuesday.

The commission led by former Secretaries of State James Baker, a Republican, and Warren Christopher, a Democrat, aimed to clarify the cloudy division between the White House and the U.S. Congress over the power to conduct war.

The panel proposed a new law -- the "War Powers Consultation Act" -- that would require the president to consult with Congress before deploying U.S. troops into "significant armed conflict," defined as combat operations lasting, or expected to last, more than a week.

Disputes over the unpopular Iraq war have revived constitutional arguments about the limits of congressional and presidential war powers. Under the Constitution, Congress declares war and controls funding, but the president is commander-in-chief of the armed forces.
*************************************************

This business of a king/dictator/czar/kaiser type just casually deciding to send everyone to war is EXACTLY what happened with World War I. And it's why four empires fell and democracy or worse replaced monarchical systems directly after WWI, not that it did much good, considering Hitler.

Bush is very like Kaiser Wilhelm -- warmongering, brash, aggressive, arrogant. And inclined to simply wave his hand and activate armies!

The whole POINT of democracy is to stop this sort of thing, but since Congress doesn't declare war anymore, presidents are seizing the power once given to kaisers and czars.

If democracy means anything, surely it means the people's representatives should vote on war. And yet Bush sends us into war after war and may well do it yet again.


The president should be forced by law to consult Congress before going to war, a bipartisan panel including several prominent former U.S. officials said on Tuesday.


be sure and tell Reuter's thanks for something we already know. would not hurt to provide a link. so we can all read it?????


If democracy means anything, surely it means the people's representatives should vote on war. And yet Bush sends us into war after war and may well do it yet again.
I believe he got permisson from the house and senate.

Gaffer
07-08-2008, 07:00 PM
iran's revolutionary guard is gearing up for war. They just did a huge excersize involving missile crews and have made threats against US ships and tankers in the gulf, along with threats to close the straits.

They want to develop nukes to strike Israel, and anyone that tries to stop them they will start a war with. Seems we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. Don't you just love having options.

namvet
07-08-2008, 09:39 PM
iran's revolutionary guard is gearing up for war. They just did a huge excersize involving missile crews and have made threats against US ships and tankers in the gulf, along with threats to close the straits.

They want to develop nukes to strike Israel, and anyone that tries to stop them they will start a war with. Seems we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. Don't you just love having options.

so??? our boys have the toys to make the noise. and FAR more advanced than that antique Russian shit they have. bring it on. anytime. anywhere. baby

mundame
07-08-2008, 10:16 PM
That particular bill, which we studied in our law class over winter, only authorizes the use of force against those who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks, i.e. al Qaeda, who was camped out with the Taliban at the time. It is not a blank check to fight "terrorism" whenever, wherever.


Avatar is right that Iran is a "labeled" state sponsor of terror, however, and so I'm thinking it would count --------- certainly no one speculating on all this recent war talk has ever supposed anyone would STOP Bush from ordering strikes if he wanted to.

I could be wrong, but given Congress surely won't authorize another war, especially not one that promotes McCain's candidacy, any fear of war with Iran turns on Bush being able to simply start one all by himself, just by ordering it, like Kaiser Wilhelm did, and the Czar, and Emperor Josef, in 1914.

Otherwise there is no point in even considering war with Iran --- the Dem Congress would of course stop any such war, they'll never approve it with Bush in the White House, barring a real strike against oil by Iran, of course. So why are we talking about it and why is the world worrying?

Because everyone thinks Bush can simply order a new war, without bothering with Congress.

mundame
07-09-2008, 08:47 AM
Rising Iran tensions

9:00am ET 7/9/2008
Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/)


http://static.reuters.com/resources/r/?m=02&d=20080709&t=2&i=5080608&w=219

Iran test-fired nine missiles and warned the U.S. and Israel it was ready to retaliate if they attacked the Islamic Republic over its disputed nuclear projects.
************************************************** ***

Darn, that'll send oil up again, after an $8 drop yesterday, and the stock market, which is attached to oil like a teeter-totter, will fall, presumably.

It's starting to look a lot like war to me, though I may be wrong. It seems to me Iran is provoking it, not us, because we don't have troop buildups and such. Anyone differ on that?

I wonder if Iran thinks we can be scared off? Saddam clearly thought that, it could be an Arab/Persian mindset, that threats work. Obviously Saddam was wrong, but the Persians may not have got the idea. The thing about Americans is, threats tend to make us mad. Actual attacks make us SERIOUSLY mad.

namvet
07-09-2008, 09:08 AM
Rising Iran tensions

9:00am ET 7/9/2008
Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/)


http://static.reuters.com/resources/r/?m=02&d=20080709&t=2&i=5080608&w=219

Iran test-fired nine missiles and warned the U.S. and Israel it was ready to retaliate if they attacked the Islamic Republic over its disputed nuclear projects.
************************************************** ***

Darn, that'll send oil up again, after an $8 drop yesterday, and the stock market, which is attached to oil like a teeter-totter, will fall, presumably.

It's starting to look a lot like war to me, though I may be wrong. It seems to me Iran is provoking it, not us, because we don't have troop buildups and such. Anyone differ on that?

I wonder if Iran thinks we can be scared off? Saddam clearly thought that, it could be an Arab/Persian mindset, that threats work. Obviously Saddam was wrong, but the Persians may not have got the idea. The thing about Americans is, threats tend to make us mad. Actual attacks make us SERIOUSLY mad.

wow. great lil' photo. but are those actually Irans or a fake???? or maybe edited to scare the crap out of the west????
-- '"if we're attacked"..................yawn

namvet
07-10-2008, 01:42 PM
Rising Iran tensions

9:00am ET 7/9/2008
Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/)


http://static.reuters.com/resources/r/?m=02&d=20080709&t=2&i=5080608&w=219

Iran test-fired nine missiles and warned the U.S. and Israel it was ready to retaliate if they attacked the Islamic Republic over its disputed nuclear projects.
************************************************** ***

Darn, that'll send oil up again, after an $8 drop yesterday, and the stock market, which is attached to oil like a teeter-totter, will fall, presumably.

It's starting to look a lot like war to me, though I may be wrong. It seems to me Iran is provoking it, not us, because we don't have troop buildups and such. Anyone differ on that?

I wonder if Iran thinks we can be scared off? Saddam clearly thought that, it could be an Arab/Persian mindset, that threats work. Obviously Saddam was wrong, but the Persians may not have got the idea. The thing about Americans is, threats tend to make us mad. Actual attacks make us SERIOUSLY mad.

concerning your photo. it now appears to be a fake.

Photo of Detonated Iranian Missiles Appears to Have Been Digitally Altered
link (link)

a hoax

http://www.foxnews.com/images/393039/3_21_071008_Iran.jpg

mundame
07-10-2008, 01:52 PM
concerning your photo. it now appears to be a fake.

Photo of Detonated Iranian Missiles Appears to Have Been Digitally Altered
link (http://link)

a hoax


http://www.foxnews.com/images/393039/3_21_071008_Iran.jpg



The photo I posted had three missiles.................................

Where did that fourth come from??

I'm reading rumors the fourth one was photoshopped in by somebody.

Though if you look at the two pix, the second pix could be with a fourth missile firing a few seconds later than the others.

namvet
07-10-2008, 01:55 PM
The photo I posted had three missiles.................................

Where did that fourth come from??

I'm reading rumors the fourth one was photoshopped in by somebody.

Though if you look at the two pix, the second pix could be with a fourth missile firing a few seconds later than the others.

hence the deception. the 4th was probably added. the entire photo may be a hoax. point is they faked it. why?????? to scare the crap out of us.

mundame
07-10-2008, 02:15 PM
hence the deception. the 4th was probably added. the entire photo may be a hoax. point is they faked it. why?????? to scare the crap out of us.


If you look at the two pictures in my post above --- the first picture I posted has three missiles near the ground.

Your picture has those missiles further on their way and a fourth rising behind them, and it's still near the ground as if it's been fired seconds later.

That's a plausible explanation for the fourth missile.

So is fraud.

If you see any expert opinion that is sourced, I wish you'd post it, and I'll do the same.

Gaffer
07-10-2008, 02:27 PM
If you look at the two pictures in my post above --- the first picture I posted has three missiles near the ground.

Your picture has those missiles further on their way and a fourth rising behind them, and it's still near the ground as if it's been fired seconds later.

That's a plausible explanation for the fourth missile.

So is fraud.

If you see any expert opinion that is sourced, I wish you'd post it, and I'll do the same.

Look closely at the center ground smoke and the right ground smoke, they are identical. Look at the rocket trails you see the same smoke trail on them. This is a poor doctoring job. Half out photo enthusiasts here could do a better job than this.

It's designed to scare everyone into thinking iran has more than they do. They learned that lesson from saddam, they just didn't learn the lesson of the consequences for telling such lies. They don't have the capabilities everyone is attributing to them....yet.

namvet
07-10-2008, 02:30 PM
If you look at the two pictures in my post above --- the first picture I posted has three missiles near the ground.

Your picture has those missiles further on their way and a fourth rising behind them, and it's still near the ground as if it's been fired seconds later.

That's a plausible explanation for the fourth missile.

So is fraud.

If you see any expert opinion that is sourced, I wish you'd post it, and I'll do the same.

its an old trick Hamas used. they fake this shit in hopes the US or Isreal will attack them. they they'll crawl to the UN with fake photo's of fake dead bodies, fake injured and maimed. see what the bad US did to our poor faked people??? hell Hamas even had a video studio to run the scams. i saw it. it was just halarious. haha:laugh2:

here ya go:
Iran Missile Photo Faked (Updated)

Yesterday, bloggers like Gateway Pundit, Kamangir, Suitably Flip, and Little Green Footballs noticed something fishy about the picture Iran released of its mega missile launch
source (source)

there's something fishy about these plumes. just run it thru the search engine. it posted everywhere.


http://blog.wired.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/07/10/0709ledeiran.jpg

namvet
07-10-2008, 02:34 PM
Look closely at the center ground smoke and the right ground smoke, they are identical. Look at the rocket trails you see the same smoke trail on them. This is a poor doctoring job. Half out photo enthusiasts here could do a better job than this.

It's designed to scare everyone into thinking iran has more than they do. They learned that lesson from saddam, they just didn't learn the lesson of the consequences for telling such lies. They don't have the capabilities everyone is attributing to them....yet.

i laffed so hard i had ta go pee !!!!! hehehehe

mundame
07-10-2008, 02:34 PM
There were only three, and someone tried to make it four?

Doesn't seem worth the effort, really. Especially if they are going to get caught.

Gaffer
07-10-2008, 02:53 PM
There were only three, and someone tried to make it four?

Doesn't seem worth the effort, really. Especially if they are going to get caught.

They claimed to have launched three medium range and 6 smaller rockets. Nine total. This particular photo is a fake. Which means all their photo's will be closely scrutinized now. There was one launched and someone tried to make it look like four.

Rockets are not launched simultaneously. They are launched consecutively, with a short delay to prevent collisions as rockets can go of course.

namvet
07-10-2008, 02:57 PM
They claimed to have launched three medium range and 6 smaller rockets. Nine total. This particular photo is a fake. Which means all their photo's will be closely scrutinized now. There was one launched and someone tried to make it look like four.

Rockets are not launched simultaneously. They are launched consecutively, with a short delay to prevent collisions as rockets can go of course.

ive scrutinized everything they show. army navy all of it. its problaby all or most all a fake.

Gaffer
07-10-2008, 03:13 PM
ive scrutinized everything they show. army navy all of it. its problaby all or most all a fake.

Yep, just a PR ploy. Would probably work except there are too many computer savvy people around now days.

I still say a war with iran would last about three weeks. The occupation would be much longer.

mundame
07-10-2008, 03:20 PM
I still say a war with iran would last about three weeks. The occupation would be much longer.


Ho, boy. Guys, you aren't learning fast. This idea has failed twice.

Try to get it right the third war.

Gaffer
07-10-2008, 03:30 PM
Ho, boy. Guys, you aren't learning fast. This idea has failed twice.

Try to get it right the third war.

Failed where? In your mind?

It's not over till the fat lady sings.

namvet
07-10-2008, 03:37 PM
Yep, just a PR ploy. Would probably work except there are too many computer savvy people around now days.

I still say a war with iran would last about three weeks. The occupation would be much longer.

I doubt if any ground force's go in. no need to invade. it can be done from the sky. so less than 3 weeks to wipe it clean. I ran into these archives.

Hamas fakes a funeral. watch the body on the stretcher. halarious

link (link)

Hamas caught red handed
the directors cut (the directors cut)


http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4640/388/1600/qana%20001.jpg

this is exactly the same shit Iran wants to pull on the world.

namvet
07-10-2008, 03:43 PM
Failed where? In your mind?

It's not over till the fat lady sings.

she might be wearing a buarque

namvet
07-10-2008, 03:50 PM
Ho, boy. Guys, you aren't learning fast. This idea has failed twice.

Try to get it right the third war.

we're NOT going to send in ground troops. no need to. don't throw a tizzy. we're after the nukes. I think Iran will implode internally. a revolt. just like Russia.

Gaffer
07-10-2008, 03:50 PM
I remember watching that, laughed my ass off.

Yeah an air war is probably all we will need to take iran down. But they will have to do some serious damage to the power structure of the mullahs and supply the population with the means to take their country back. Similar to afghan.

LiberalNation
07-10-2008, 04:06 PM
Bull, a people under attack will rally around their leadership against the foreign aggressors.

namvet
07-10-2008, 04:15 PM
Bull, a people under attack will rally around their leadership against the foreign aggressors.

what leadership??? I think its hardship. the god almighty Khomeini is killing people for wearing western clothes. for starters

Gaffer
07-10-2008, 04:40 PM
what leadership??? I think its hardship. the god almighty Khomeini is killing people for wearing western clothes. for starters

Not to mention women raped and beaten for not dressing properly. Queers are publicly lynched. Anyone who disagrees with the government is imprisoned and usually executed.

Women and children without husbands and fathers are left to wander the streets. Women are not allowed to work. Thousands are taken as prisoners and sold as sex slaves to the arabs in the south.

If the US attacks iran there will be an uprising against the mullahs just as soon as the revolutionary guard has been crippled enough for the population to take over.

mundame
07-11-2008, 11:34 AM
If the US attacks iran there will be an uprising against the mullahs just as soon as the revolutionary guard has been crippled enough for the population to take over.




Suuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrre there will, Gaffer........and the populace will line the streets, handing our troops flowers. It'll be a CAKEWALK! The Iranese will LOVE us, see, because we're HELPING them. It'll really be a HUMANITARIAN war. We'll give them FREEDOM. And DEMOCRACY. They'll get PURPLE FINGERS, won't that be nice? And anyone objects, with guns, see, that'll just be DEADENDERS and NO HOPERS.


[Sigh] I think this is where I came it. See ya later ------

Gaffer
07-11-2008, 12:42 PM
Suuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrre there will, Gaffer........and the populace will line the streets, handing our troops flowers. It'll be a CAKEWALK! The Iranese will LOVE us, see, because we're HELPING them. It'll really be a HUMANITARIAN war. We'll give them FREEDOM. And DEMOCRACY. They'll get PURPLE FINGERS, won't that be nice? And anyone objects, with guns, see, that'll just be DEADENDERS and NO HOPERS.


[Sigh] I think this is where I came it. See ya later ------

I never said it would be a cake walk. I think it would go down a lot like afghan. We might take some coastal regions and put in special forces but the country will fall to the populace armies that exist in the wilderness regions, similar to the northern alliance of afghanistan.

We'll just have to wait and see if I'm right.

mundame
07-11-2008, 02:48 PM
I think it would go down a lot like afghan.


Oh, goodie.

Because we're losing Afghanistan bigtime. The Taliban have retaken most of the territory outside the city limits of Kabul, they have established permanent bases inside Pakistan with the connivance of the Paki army, and attack us constantly; our allies mostly don't fight (okay, except maybe the British), the girls schools that were left are now all burned down, and opium poppy cultivation has doubled. Suicide bombing and roadside IEDs are way up, and we're shelling wedding parties as they walk along the dirt roads.

Yes, actually, I agree entirely with you: I think a ground invasion of Iran would be quite a LOT like Afghanistan!!

Our losing steadily, as usual.

namvet
07-11-2008, 02:56 PM
http://ibdeditorials.com/IMAGES/CARTOONS/toon042508c.gif