Eeewww (Mideast Nastiness)

[proseros]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080709/wl_nm/iran_missiles_test_dc

Not that I am as concerned about what is happening here as much as the potential U.S. Gov. response -ahem, I mean reaction(?)- to it. Either way it is not very encouraging as far as International resolve is concerned.

[jamieknyc]

The ayatollahs of Teheran are shrewd political operators who are willing to play chicken with the Western powers, and believe that in a confrontation, the Western powers will blink. When the Western powers stand up to them, they back down.

[darkeyes]

The ayatollahs of Teheran are shrewd political operators who are willing to play chicken with the Western powers, and believe that in a confrontation, the Western powers will blink. When the Western powers stand up to them, they back down.

Jus like Hitler did..an Ole uncle Ho, Fidel..an Saddam.. not every 1 scared a the west.. an not every1 baks down... an not every 1 loses. eitha... mayb they jus playin hard 2 get an waitin 2 b bought off... yea rite... sure they r..

[FalconAngel]

Jus like Hitler did..an Ole uncle Ho, Fidel..an Saddam.. not every 1 scared a the west.. an not every1 baks down... an not every 1 loses. eitha... mayb they jus playin hard 2 get an waitin 2 b bought off... yea rite... sure they r..


Actualy, Jamiek has a bit of a point.
Has anyone noticed that we haven't heard word one from that loudmouth in Libya, Khadaffy, since we did that little raid on their military targets? That was over 20 years ago. He's kept pretty quiet since then.

Iran is the same thing.
If the western powers went in and hit every military facility that they had, or at least as many as possible in a single raid, Iran would do nothing. If they did do anything at all, it would be to send out terrorist cells. Not exactly a serious threat, when you look at the big picture.
They talk a big game, but in the end, the fact is that they have no military aircraft building industry, are ten years from being able to build nuclear weapons, have no ICBM's to deliver the nuclear weapons that they are 10 years from being able to make, have no effective weapons industry, or am I the only one to notice that their soldiers, like all of the other Middle Eastern Arabic nations, are using Russian made AK-47s (tanks, etc.) instead of weapons that they should have manufactured for themselves.
Even the Israelis, who have almost no combat aircraft manufacturing industry, make their own infantry weapons.

With the exception of the warmongering president, emperor bush, I'm glad that most of our presidents have walked softly and carried a big stick, rather than having a long series of leaders that beat the war drum just begging for someone to attack.

Of course,and this could be a bit of a stretch; it could be a case of "the mouse that roared". Maybe they want us to invade, so that they can reap the benefits like Germany and Japan have done after WWII.

[darkeyes]

Actualy, Jamiek has a bit of a point.
Has anyone noticed that we haven't heard word one from that loudmouth in Libya, Khadaffy, since we did that little raid on their military targets? That was over 20 years ago. He's kept pretty quiet since then.

Iran is the same thing.
If the western powers went in and hit every military facility that they had, or at least as many as possible in a single raid, Iran would do nothing. If they did do anything at all, it would be to send out terrorist cells. Not exactly a serious threat, when you look at the big picture.
They talk a big game, but in the end, the fact is that they have no military aircraft building industry, are ten years from being able to build nuclear weapons, have no ICBM's to deliver the nuclear weapons that they are 10 years from being able to make, have no effective weapons industry, or am I the only one to notice that their soldiers, like all of the other Middle Eastern Arabic nations, are using Russian made AK-47s (tanks, etc.) instead of weapons that they should have manufactured for themselves.
Even the Israelis, who have almost no combat aircraft manufacturing industry, make their own infantry weapons.

With the exception of the warmongering president, emperor bush, I'm glad that most of our presidents have walked softly and carried a big stick, rather than having a long series of leaders that beat the war drum just begging for someone to attack.

Of course,and this could be a bit of a stretch; it could be a case of "the mouse that roared". Maybe they want us to invade, so that they can reap the benefits like Germany and Japan have done after WWII.Didn say e didn hav a point.. jus tryin 2 point out that diff peeps an states react in a diff manna.. sum will b bought off.. ie Libya, North Korea.. an they hav been.. sum r unlikely 2 b.. Iran.. 2 much religious fantacism for that me suspects.. an sum like Saddam wer pushed or at least wer stupid enuff 2 push emselves inta a corner an so they had no choice but 2 stand an make a fite of it.. Jus lil point ere... considerin the struggle in Iraq..a country wiv 18 million peeps.. how much more of a struggle it gonna b in Iran..wiv 60 mill an far far more jihadists than eva existed in Iraq... point me makin is.. not every 1 will bak down in face a western or external pressure... an in not every case..will the west or external force win for alla ther technilogical an military superiority..

... an no.. in the case a Iran..a Japan? Germany post ww2 situation don even enter inta it.... ifya think that..dream on...

[pasco_lol_cpl]

Jus like Hitler did..an Ole uncle Ho, Fidel..an Saddam.. not every 1 scared a the west.. an not every1 baks down... an not every 1 loses. eitha... mayb they jus playin hard 2 get an waitin 2 b bought off... yea rite... sure they r..
Ho one ever stood up to Hitler or ToJo or Mao until it was too late or not at all. Castro was a Soviet puppet and they did back down. Saddam miscalculated once. The second go around he started to, but then realized at the end that his goose was cooked and tried to back down, but by then it was too late. Libya? Yeah pretty much silent now. Sure they got a little uppity after the first wake up call, but then got their sense back. North Korea? Yeah they calmed down a bit recently as well. So it does tend to work. However you only stand up and make your presence known only after other avenues have been tried.

[darkeyes]

Ho one ever stood up to Hitler or ToJo or Mao until it was too late or not at all. Castro was a Soviet puppet and they did back down. Saddam miscalculated once. The second go around he started to, but then realized at the end that his goose was cooked and tried to back down, but by then it was too late. Libya? Yeah pretty much silent now. Sure they got a little uppity after the first wake up call, but then got their sense back. North Korea? Yeah they calmed down a bit recently as well. So it does tend to work. However you only stand up and make your presence known only after other avenues have been tried.

Lil correction ere.. Castro didn bak down...the Soviets backed down durin the missile crisis.. wos them that got cold feet an thank God for it an all or me wud neva hav seen lite a day.. but Castro didn bak down cos until recently he wos still ther an arguably still is the power behind the throne... He wos neva a soviet puppet jus for info..he did wanna b a freind 2 the US but the US through Eisenhower an later Kennedy it wos that pushed im inta the Soviet camp as a an ally neva a puppet. He neva accepted the USSR as his overlord an in fact did his own thing for his country in is own way..the Soviets used 2 get rite shirty bout is independence an all. An Hitler an the Japanese an so on didn bak down eitha..they took the world on an so nearly won.. Mao neva backed down..an wos still runnin the place till he died..an its his successors wich r doin so now in ther own way.. jus think fore ya open ya gob an do sum readin otha than the 'merican rite wing press an academia.. a lil history lesson is always useful....

[jamieknyc]

Actualy, Jamiek has a bit of a point.
Has anyone noticed that we haven't heard word one from that loudmouth in Libya, Khadaffy, since we did that little raid on their military targets? That was over 20 years ago. He's kept pretty quiet since then.

Iran is the same thing.
If the western powers went in and hit every military facility that they had, or at least as many as possible in a single raid, Iran would do nothing. If they did do anything at all, it would be to send out terrorist cells. Not exactly a serious threat, when you look at the big picture.
They talk a big game, but in the end, the fact is that they have no military aircraft building industry, are ten years from being able to build nuclear weapons, have no ICBM's to deliver the nuclear weapons that they are 10 years from being able to make, have no effective weapons industry, or am I the only one to notice that their soldiers, like all of the other Middle Eastern Arabic nations, are using Russian made AK-47s (tanks, etc.) instead of weapons that they should have manufactured for themselves.
Even the Israelis, who have almost no combat aircraft manufacturing industry, make their own infantry weapons.

With the exception of the warmongering president, emperor bush, I'm glad that most of our presidents have walked softly and carried a big stick, rather than having a long series of leaders that beat the war drum just begging for someone to attack.

Of course,and this could be a bit of a stretch; it could be a case of "the mouse that roared". Maybe they want us to invade, so that they can reap the benefits like Germany and Japan have done after WWII.

Hitting Iran's military facilities is unnecessary. They only need to be shown that the U.S. and NATO mean business.

Israelis, on the other hand, feel a great deal of unease over the fact that they are being made to dfeel that the Americans and Europeans are pressuring them to start a war with Iran that Israel doesn't want or need.

Hitler was a totally different case, for two important reasons. First, unlike the ayatollahs, Hitler was the dictator of the second most powerful nation in the world, and obviously dangerous to everybody. More importantly, however, Hitler intended from the beginning to actually start a war, and even when confronted with impossible odds was willing to gamble that his opponents would crumble. Which they did, until Winston Churchill put some backbone into the resistance.

[Papelucho]

All this drama is about Iran's supposed dedication to nuclear weapons. The whole world is convinced that Iran wants to build nuclear weapons, but no one has any proof. Sound familiar? It's the exact same thing that happened in Iraq before the war. Remember all the rallying about their WMD's that didn't exist?

Iran's nuclear weapons program doesn't exist either. It's a lie.

[FalconAngel]

... an no.. in the case a Iran..a Japan? Germany post ww2 situation don even enter inta it.... ifya think that..dream on...

Well, I did say it may be a bit of a stretch.

[FalconAngel]

Hitting Iran's military facilities is unnecessary. They only need to be shown that the U.S. and NATO mean business.

Israelis, on the other hand, feel a great deal of unease over the fact that they are being made to dfeel that the Americans and Europeans are pressuring them to start a war with Iran that Israel doesn't want or need.

Hitler was a totally different case, for two important reasons. First, unlike the ayatollahs, Hitler was the dictator of the second most powerful nation in the world, and obviously dangerous to everybody. More importantly, however, Hitler intended from the beginning to actually start a war, and even when confronted with impossible odds was willing to gamble that his opponents would crumble. Which they did, until Winston Churchill put some backbone into the resistance.


Well, Iran has been talking tough, for 30 years, since the Shah was overthrown in the 70's. It is almost as if they want to goad the world into a fight that we really don't want or need.

But the real core of the problem is that we keep trying to stabilize the Middle East.

Not going to happen. The Middle East will be unstable as long as the Islamic theocratic countries are hostile to non-Islamic nations, predominantly the west. They are too immersed in their religion and divided by sectarian violence.
They haven't learned to live together under their own religion and it's various sects; what makes anyone believe that they will live peacefully amongst the rest of the world which does not share even their core religion?
Even Christians have learned to live together amongst their various sects as well as (for the most part) other religions. But in fairness, it did take nearly 1800 years for Christians to reach that point. And Christianity does have a 500 year head start on Islam.

[NumberSix]

If they did do anything at all, it would be to send out terrorist cells. Not exactly a serious threat, when you look at the big picture.

Tell that to the victims of 9/11

And judging from the reaction of the US after that day, i'd say that they, the terrorists, were very successful ...after all, fear IS a weapon

[FalconAngel]

All this drama is about Iran's supposed dedication to nuclear weapons. The whole world is convinced that Iran wants to build nuclear weapons, but no one has any proof. Sound familiar? It's the exact same thing that happened in Iraq before the war. Remember all the rallying about their WMD's that didn't exist?

Iran's nuclear weapons program doesn't exist either. It's a lie.

Like I said, all of the latest intelligence (as opposed to Bushit propaganda) indicates that Iran is 10 years away from being able to produce nuclear weapons, and will still have no delivery system for those weapons if they ever do develop them.

Like you indicated, it's really a no-brainer. They are about as much of a threat to the free world as an invasion from Mars.

[FalconAngel]

Tell that to the victims of 9/11

And judging from the reaction of the US after that day, i'd say that they, the terrorists, were very successful ...after all, fear IS a weapon

Do you really believe that the terrorists actually got all of that accomplished without "inside" help?

Did you miss the reports immediately after telling about the administration's silencing of FBI field agents, for wanting to report the movements of terrorist who had gotten in, to their higher authorities?

Fired for trying to do their jobs, as their oaths and national security required.

Our current administration is doing things that are illegal. Always has. They were beating the drums of war almost from day one.

Soon, we will be targeting Mexico.
After all, why else would they put 6 Border Patrol agents in jail for doing their job? The government even went to Mexico to find the drug dealer that got shot (while illegally crossing the border and firing on the agents) and gave him immunity from prosecution so that he would testify against the officers. Thanks to things like that, our border is almost completely open with Mexico, a prime import for terrorists as well as Illegal Mexican (and other) immigrants.

What does that tell you?

[NumberSix]

Do you really believe that the terrorists actually got all of that accomplished without "inside" help?

Did you miss the reports immediately after telling about the administration's silencing of FBI field agents, for wanting to report the movements of terrorist who had gotten in, to their higher authorities?

Fired for trying to do their jobs, as their oaths and national security required.

Our current administration is doing things that are illegal. Always has. They were beating the drums of war almost from day one.

Soon, we will be targeting Mexico.
After all, why else would they put 6 Border Patrol agents in jail for doing their job? The government even went to Mexico to find the drug dealer that got shot (while illegally crossing the border and firing on the agents) and gave him immunity from prosecution so that he would testify against the officers. Thanks to things like that, our border is almost completely open with Mexico, a prime import for terrorists as well as Illegal Mexican (and other) immigrants.

What does that tell you?

That kind of was my point. No matter if they had inside help or not, all the people involved in that day were successful. They scared a whole lot of people, which is the point of terrorism.

I'm not American (I'm canadian), and i wasn't living in the US back then. But i remember that day vividly. I remember the fear I felt. Only i wasn't afraid of terrorists.

I was afraid of the US reaction and was pretty sure it would plunge the world into chaos.

[proseros]

All this drama is about Iran's supposed dedication to nuclear weapons. The whole world is convinced that Iran wants to build nuclear weapons, but no one has any proof. Sound familiar? It's the exact same thing that happened in Iraq before the war. Remember all the rallying about their WMD's that didn't exist?

Iran's nuclear weapons program doesn't exist either. It's a lie.

Heh-See that's the whole thing.
And I'm sorry I forgot to mention that I had't necessarily put that little 'bit' up there with the intent of drawing attention to anything anyone may or may not have said or done-Since I wouldn't know.

But as this is news and and this news is supposed to be important enough for everyone to know about, my concern is- What happens next.
And so...

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=5337788

And pay close attetion to the fumbling here with names...

[jamieknyc]

All this drama is about Iran's supposed dedication to nuclear weapons. The whole world is convinced that Iran wants to build nuclear weapons, but no one has any proof. Sound familiar? It's the exact same thing that happened in Iraq before the war. Remember all the rallying about their WMD's that didn't exist?

Iran's nuclear weapons program doesn't exist either. It's a lie.

If you believe that last part, can the City of New York interest you in buying a bridge downtown?

[darkeyes]

If you believe that last part, can the City of New York interest you in buying a bridge downtown?
Think ther is a point 2 comparin Iraq an Iran ere.. but wetha they hav a nuclear programme or not it dus piss me off that every 1 gets so up tite bout it cos its Iran.. Christ...its the whole Nuke thing me thinks stinks..not jus for Iran... but for every 1.. the rank, mingin hypocrisy a the US, the UK an every 1 else .. big Nuke powers.. is disgustin.. they don wan Nukes in Iran.. mayb they shud thinka doin summat bout gettin shot a ther own... funny how wen it cums 2 India, Pakistan an Israel havin em ther wos hardly a cheep... the arrogance an insanity of the nuclear powers sticks in me craw.. ok for them an ther m8s.. not so for ne 1 they choose at ne given moment in time 2 b the latest bogey man. Don excuse Iran an its shenanigans for 1 minute.. jus don expect me 2 stick up for wot is meant 2 b my side.. both stink wen it cums 2 the world power game...

[jamieknyc]

Think ther is a point 2 comparin Iraq an Iran ere.. but wetha they hav a nuclear programme or not it dus piss me off that every 1 gets so up tite bout it cos its Iran.. Christ...its the whole Nuke thing me thinks stinks..not jus for Iran... but for every 1.. the rank, mingin hypocrisy a the US, the UK an every 1 else .. big Nuke powers.. is disgustin.. they don wan Nukes in Iran.. mayb they shud thinka doin summat bout gettin shot a ther own... funny how wen it cums 2 India, Pakistan an Israel havin em ther wos hardly a cheep... the arrogance an insanity of the nuclear powers sticks in me craw.. ok for them an ther m8s.. not so for ne 1 they choose at ne given moment in time 2 b the latest bogey man. Don excuse Iran an its shenanigans for 1 minute.. jus don expect me 2 stick up for wot is meant 2 b my side.. both stink wen it cums 2 the world power game...

You overlooked the most important difference: none of those other nuclear powers are repressive dictatorships that need to divert attention from the lack of freedom and collapsing economy at home by threatening war against their neighbors, except maybe for Pakistan, which doesn't have the power to seriously threaten anyone.

Since the principal victim of Iran's intimidation is Saudi Arabia, the US is going to have to do something about it, because in Washington, whatever the Saudis want, the Saudis get.

[darkeyes]

You overlooked the most important difference: none of those other nuclear powers are repressive dictatorships that need to divert attention from the lack of freedom and collapsing economy at home by threatening war against their neighbors, except maybe for Pakistan, which doesn't have the power to seriously threaten anyone.

Since the principal victim of Iran's intimidation is Saudi Arabia, the US is going to have to do something about it, because in Washington, whatever the Saudis want, the Saudis get.Wot else is a democracy tween elections Jamie..nowt but an elective dicatatorship..jus cos states work on diff political systems from us don make us so wonderful.. an in Iran's case.. think they mite take issue wivya claim they r not a democracy of sorts.. neva fails 2 amaze me that jus cos west usually operates on the "democratic" principle.. otha ways a runnin countries havta b rong.. don like dicatorships ne more than u.. but wot we view as dictatorships or totalitarian aint necessarily how the peeps in otha places do..seem 2 notice threats frequently cummin from our countries bout havin a lil war or 2 wiv our neighbours.. an not our immediate neighbours eitha.. so the western "democracies" not so pure as driven snow eitha... cum 2 thinka it..seem 2 notice in las few years we hav had a lil war or 2.. still havin em an all...

[Papelucho]

And pay close attetion to the fumbling here with names...
That's pretty good.


If you believe that last part, can the City of New York interest you in buying a bridge downtown?

I wouldn't buy a bridge in New York City because it's fairly easy to do a little research and discover that they aren't for sale.

Why should I believe something that there is no proof of? With absolutely no reasonable evidence of Iran's nuclear weapons program, I don't think that there is one. Call me American.

Combine that with how we were lied to about Iraq's WMD's and the whole thing is downright ridiculous.

[Audioslave]

All this drama is about Iran's supposed dedication to nuclear weapons. The whole world is convinced that Iran wants to build nuclear weapons, but no one has any proof. Sound familiar? It's the exact same thing that happened in Iraq before the war. Remember all the rallying about their WMD's that didn't exist?

Iran's nuclear weapons program doesn't exist either. It's a lie.

Big difference,Papelucho,is that Iran has got a nuclear programme,and freely admits it. If you were the leaders of Israel, would you want to wait and see if that programme involves nuclear weapons or just nuclear energy, considering the country in question Iran is run by an idiot who has been on record saying he wants to remove Israel from the face of the Earth. Hes a fool if he thinks theyre gonna twiddle their thumbs and do nothing, and sadly hes about to find out!!

[jamieknyc]

Big difference,Papelucho,is that Iran has got a nuclear programme,and freely admits it. If you were the leaders of Israel, would you want to wait and see if that programme involves nuclear weapons or just nuclear energy, considering the country in question Iran is run by an idiot who has been on record saying he wants to remove Israel from the face of the Earth. Hes a fool if he thinks theyre gonna twiddle their thumbs and do nothing, and sadly hes about to find out!!

Don't be fooled by the talk about Israel. Everyone in the region knows that the real purpose of the Iranian nuclear weapons program is to threaten the Americans and the Persian Gulf states. Threats against Israel are a smokescreen to divert Western attention until the bomb can be completed. In fact, Israel and Iran do a substantial trade between themselves, over the objections of the Western powers.

[jamieknyc]

In case anyone thought that last post was just talk:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1001036.html

[FalconAngel]

In case anyone thought that last post was just talk:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1001036.html

You have to realize that they are only talking tough, They are still too far away from making nuclear weapons; 10 years, minimum.

And while they have a nuclear power program, who cares. The type of material used in nuclear weapons is not nearly as refined and processed as weapons grade nuclear material. Currently, they have no ability to make weapons grade as the processes are different.

Their delivery systems, even if they could make nukes, only have long range, or regional capacity, not intercontinental range. If they developed an ICBM program, then we should take action.

But it is true that they are a threat to developing and maintaining peace in the region. With Iraq embroiled in a civil war of our making, they are now the dominant aggressive power in the region. Because of that, they have to talk tough. They do not want to appear as weak as they really are.

They are like the bully of the neighborhood. They want everyone to toe their line, but the minute that everyone else pounces on them, they are shown to be a paper tiger.

As far as Israel, well, they are an aggressive nation, too. If they had been willing to use their post Munich terrorist policy on the PLO and other terrorist groups while trying to pursue peace, through negotiations, with the Palestinian government, there would be a lot less violence in the Middle East today. They could have demonstrated that, like the US, different religions and sects can live together in peace and prosperity.
Something that the Middle East hasn't known since before the Crusades.

[jamieknyc]

Their delivery systems, even if they could make nukes, only have long range, or regional capacity, not intercontinental range. If they developed an ICBM program, then we should take action. . . .

As far as Israel, well, they are an aggressive nation, too. If they had been willing to use their post Munich terrorist policy on the PLO and other terrorist groups while trying to pursue peace, through negotiations, with the Palestinian government, there would be a lot less violence in the Middle East today.

(1) Iran already has the capability to hit southern and eastern Europe and is working on an ICM program. They are also developing weapons-grade nuclear material.

(2) What Palestinian government???

There is also some revisionist history going on here. You are pretending that for twenty years their policy was what they called the "three nos" (no peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, and no recognition of Israel) until they were forced to the negotiating table by the defeat of the first intifada. Also, remember that what was depicted in the "Munich" movie is Hollywood.

[FalconAngel]

(1) Iran already has the capability to hit southern and eastern Europe and is working on an ICM program. They are also developing weapons-grade nuclear material.

(2) What Palestinian government???

There is also some revisionist history going on here. You are pretending that for twenty years their policy was what they called the "three nos" (no peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, and no recognition of Israel) until they were forced to the negotiating table by the defeat of the first intifada. Also, remember that what was depicted in the "Munich" movie is Hollywood.


My error on the "Palestinian government" statement.

I am intimately familiar with the realities of the program initiated after the Munich games. While stationed overseas, the specifics of one of my MOS's put me in contact with a number of people who were connected to that and similar programs which had, by that time, been canceled because of the final incident in Italy.

I never said that the Palestinian people wanted the "3 no's". Israel is as much at fault in the continued violence as terrorism by the Palestinians (as well as other Arab groups that support the Palestinian cause).
Unfortunately, too many people on both sides of that issue are too interested in not setting aside their hatred or political agendas in the interest of establishing peace.

And let's not forget the warmongers here, in our own country, that want that violence to continue as an excuse to continue involvement in the conflicts in the Middle East as well as the people over there who want the conflicts to continue for their own political gain.

As far as Iran's nuclear weapons program, let me reiterate that, according to insider defense journals, the nuclear weapons program in Iran is TEN YEARS from being able to make the fissionable material for nuclear weapons and has no real long range delivery systems.
Intermediate, yes; and those countries who are at risk should deal with Iran themselves.

Russia has a vested interest in any Iranian nuke programs,due to their proximity to Iran, which is significantly closer to the Iranians than Europe, and would be one of the first to take action if they felt that Iran was a real threat outside of the Middle East. Or have you forgotten the penchant for Russians to lean more towards paranoia than we do.

If they are not freaking, then why should we?

The US is not at risk and should take appropriate action ONLY when it becomes necessary for our own defense.

Contrary to media propaganda, we are not the world's police force.

[darkeyes]

Contrary to media propaganda, we are not the world's police force.Depends on how arrogant an superior ya feel that claim hun.

[FalconAngel]

Depends on how arrogant an superior ya feel that claim hun.

Darkeyes, dear. Most of us are not that arrogant. But since most of the world has only exposure to either the "ugly American" or media exposure from our politicians, then it would appear that we are.

The majority of us know that we are not the world's police force.
Matter of fact, Americans, in growing numbers, are getting rather sick and tired of our politicians getting us into conflicts that really would not affect us, were we not there in the first place or there for some political ambitions that did not properly serve our country; like the war in Iraq, for example.

[proseros]

And if you didn't see this coming...
Too late, it's already here. Once again somebody wants to declare war without congressional approval(?)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080714/ts_nm/afghan_iran_usa_dc

[jamieknyc]

It is a myth that a declaration of war by the Congress is required to send American forces into combat. The President has the power to do so, as commander-in-chief.

[FalconAngel]

It is a myth that a declaration of war by the Congress is required to send American forces into combat. The President has the power to do so, as commander-in-chief.

You are talking about the "clear and present danger" clause. That only applies to cases where a nation or group presents a "clear and present danger to the safety and security to the United States".
For instance, if the Iraqi navy had decided to park themselves on our coast, that would have been justification to take action against Iraq; not the mythical WMD's that we have yet to find.

That circumstance did not exist in Iraq, nor does it exist in Iran.
As far as Iraq having WMD's, they used almost all of those in the war on the Kurds as well as in the war with Iran. It has already been proven that there were no WMD's for us to hunt up because of Hussein's internal genocidal policies. Plus, Iraq had no delivery system for those WMD's with the capability to deliver them to the US or any of it's territories.

Even Iran, with it's claim of having missiles with a 1200 mile range are nothing to worry about. If Israel feels threatened, they will take action; and why shouldn't they? They've done it before. Both for themselves and on our behalf.
Hell; Mossad provided us with most of the intell for the failed rescue mission of our hostages in Iran, back in 1980. And that would have worked if Carter hadn't waited so long to act.

Clearly, the "clear and present danger" clause does not apply.

[jamieknyc]

That is also a myth: that there is a 'clear and present danger' clause in the Constitution limiting the President's poers as commander-in-chief.

[Papelucho]

considering the country in question Iran is run by an idiot who has been on record saying he wants to remove Israel from the face of the Earth.

Iran is not run by Ahmadinejad, it is run by Ali Khamenei, who believes that nuclear weapons are against Islamic law.

He issued a fatwa (religious decree) declaring that the production, stockpiling, and use of nuclear weapons are all forbidden in Islam and has said that Iran shall never acquire these weapons

[proseros]

That is also a myth: that there is a 'clear and present danger' clause in the Constitution limiting the President's poers as commander-in-chief.


THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
Article. I.
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a
Senate and House of Representatives

Section. 8. Clause 11:
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Otherwise-

http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal22/warpow.htm

[FalconAngel]

That is also a myth: that there is a 'clear and present danger' clause in the Constitution limiting the President's poers as commander-in-chief.

Did I say that it was in the Constitution? It is one of those other, more obscure laws that are among the laws that grant powers of executive priviledge and powers.
Don't remember the exact law, right off hand. Used to have it in my favs in my old computer, but lost that data when the system crashed last year.

[FalconAngel]

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
Article. I.
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a
Senate and House of Representatives

Section. 8. Clause 11:
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Otherwise-

http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal22/warpow.htm

Proseros, I know what JamieK is talking about.
It isn't about war declarations, but mobilization of the military for threats to the US that are not a case of having to declare a war. It is amongst the presidential powers as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Those powers do have limits, which bush-boy has exceeded, in violation of his oath of office.

[jamieknyc]

Proseros, I know what JamieK is talking about.
It isn't about war declarations, but mobilization of the military for threats to the US that are not a case of having to declare a war. It is amongst the presidential powers as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Those powers do have limits, which bush-boy has exceeded, in violation of his oath of office.

The 1972 War Powers Act has never actually been tested in the courts, but if it ever is, it will probably be held unconstitutional.

[FalconAngel]

The 1972 War Powers Act has never actually been tested in the courts, but if it ever is, it will probably be held unconstitutional.

Thanks, Jamie. I could not, for the life of me, remember the law. And that is the one, but it is the war powers act of 1973. Not a huge difference, but essentially right.

[Bluebiyou]

My personal perception on Iran's apparent suicidal rattling of nuclear sabers is:

They're dealing with a culture (arab islamic) that, as was earlier outlined, is very factional. Once the culture begins to faction, President I'm-a-jihadin, et all loses their job/money/status (not to mention any cultural development). The only natural resource is oil. Maintaining a perpetual 'foreign threat' helps keep oil prices higher and keeps the populace more united (Hitler's observation that nothing unifies a people like a common foe).

It's not like Iran can/will abandon the oil trade to become a manufacturing giant, technology giant, supply the world with lumber from their limitless forests, or feed the world with their vast farming network.

What ya think, Falcon? Does this pretty much sum it up?

[bisexualinsocal]

And if you didn't see this coming...
Too late, it's already here. Once again somebody wants to declare war without congressional approval(?)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080714/ts_nm/afghan_iran_usa_dc

Besides Bill Clinton, who entered into war without congressional approval?

[FalconAngel]

Here's something that just came in off the wire.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/07/why-terrorists.html

It's a pretty short article, considering the subject, but still pretty interesting.

[Rambigent]

That is interesting. And, unfortunately, in my eyes all the more reason for us to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan until the mission is truly accomplished. I was against the invasion of Iraq but now that we're there and have overthrown the existing government, we have to stay until the populace is armed, trained, and able to defend themselves against the terrorist element that has gained a foothold in the area since we came in. Hopefully we can start bringing some of our servicemen and women home soon, but we can't just cut and run.

When the people of the Middle East start realizing that the religious extremists are bigger assholes than the decadent westerners are, we've at least got a chance of getting out of there...

[jamieknyc]

Thanks, Jamie. I could not, for the life of me, remember the law. And that is the one, but it is the war powers act of 1973. Not a huge difference, but essentially right.

The War Poweres Act purports to limit the President's power to make war, which has been recognized in American constitutional law since the time of George Washington. Every president since 1973, Democrat and Republican alike, has refused to follow the War Powers Act on the grounds that it is unconsitutional, but the act has not as of yet been tested in the courts.

[jamieknyc]

My personal perception on Iran's apparent suicidal rattling of nuclear sabers is:

They're dealing with a culture (arab islamic) that, as was earlier outlined, is very factional. Once the culture begins to faction, President I'm-a-jihadin, et all loses their job/money/status (not to mention any cultural development). The only natural resource is oil. Maintaining a perpetual 'foreign threat' helps keep oil prices higher and keeps the populace more united (Hitler's observation that nothing unifies a people like a common foe).

It's not like Iran can/will abandon the oil trade to become a manufacturing giant, technology giant, supply the world with lumber from their limitless forests, or feed the world with their vast farming network.

What ya think, Falcon? Does this pretty much sum it up?

Slow down: Iranians are not Arabs, do not like Arabs, and consider Arabs a threat to their country. Until the fall of the Shah, the three non-Arab nations of the region (Turkey, Iran and Israel) maintianed an informal alliance to contain Ararb aggression, and even under trhe ayatollahs, there have been many instances in which Iran has cooperated with Israel and Turkey behind closed doors, the most famous being the Iran-contra affair.

[Papelucho]

That is interesting. And, unfortunately, in my eyes all the more reason for us to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan until the mission is truly accomplished. I was against the invasion of Iraq but now that we're there and have overthrown the existing government, we have to stay until the populace is armed, trained, and able to defend themselves against the terrorist element that has gained a foothold in the area since we came in. Hopefully we can start bringing some of our servicemen and women home soon, but we can't just cut and run.

When the people of the Middle East start realizing that the religious extremists are bigger assholes than the decadent westerners are, we've at least got a chance of getting out of there...

Don't you think that the terrorist element that has gained a foothold in the area was able to do so because we are there?

[FalconAngel]

Don't you think that the terrorist element that has gained a foothold in the area was able to do so because we are there?

Good observation.

Our actions in Iraq have swelled the rank and file membership of terrorist/insurgent groups in Iraq, and elsewhere.

Most people here in the US do not understand the way that Islamic nations think. For them, it is okay to kill other Islamics over differences in sects of their religion, but if "infidels" attack any of them, they suddenly start becoming unified against those foreigners that have attacked "Islam". That is the way they see it there.

The whole thing is a very complex dynamic that is far more than could be explained, easily, in these forums.

As was pointed out earlier, nothing unifies a bunch of different groups than a common foe.

The proof of the factionalization amongst the Islamic groups is right in front of everyone to see. In Palestine alone, during the 70's and 80's, I remember almost a dozen different factions (PLO, PLF, PLFNP, NFLP, PFNLP, etc.), all operating independent of each other against the same enemy. The difference was that each one was a different sect of Islam and had their own ideas as to how the wanted to run things once they were done kicking out their enemies.

Our biggest problem is that these groups are so controlled by their religion/sect that they see little else outside of that teaching. We don't look at things like that in this country; well, most of us don't.

If we want to end the fighting there and have a viable peace, then we need to, as the Special Forces says "win their hearts and minds". That will not happen the way that we are doing things now. Our leaders, who are all old enough to remember/or were in Vietnam failed to learn the lessons there and our troops and our nation is suffering the consequences of that failure to learn.

What we need there is a smaller, more focused counter-insurgency/counter-terrorism operation and a larger humanitarian effort. We need to get rid of operations such as Blackwater and other no-bid, uncontrolled contractors there and just do what we have shown that we do best. Help the people rebuild their country and give them hope for a better life.
It worked for Germany and Japan after WWII; it can work in the Middle East as long as we do nothing more than help and let the people there build their own country into something that they want rather than something we want.

[rissababynta]

That is interesting. And, unfortunately, in my eyes all the more reason for us to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan until the mission is truly accomplished. I was against the invasion of Iraq but now that we're there and have overthrown the existing government, we have to stay until the populace is armed, trained, and able to defend themselves against the terrorist element that has gained a foothold in the area since we came in. Hopefully we can start bringing some of our servicemen and women home soon, but we can't just cut and run.

When the people of the Middle East start realizing that the religious extremists are bigger assholes than the decadent westerners are, we've at least got a chance of getting out of there...

Every person that I know that is in the military and/or has personally been over to Iraq say that whether they agree with why they went or not, they do believe that they have a duty to at least finish what they started. Simply, out of respect for the men and women who put their lives on the line to defend me and everyone else in my country, I support them. If the people who are actually physically over there and involved feel this way, then who am I (nothing more than a citizen) to give them anything else.

My husband is leaving Thursday to go back into the military. Sure, I'm scared. Of course, I don't know what the hell to expect since anything can happen. Obviously I would love it if he didn't want to do his. But, I support him anyway. I also appreciate the fact that I can sit here and express my true feelings of how I feel about this whole military thing and not have to worry about being thrown into prison :rolleyes:

[Rambigent]

Don't you think that the terrorist element that has gained a foothold in the area was able to do so because we are there?

Yeah I do think that. Way I hear it, it was almost as hard to find terrorists in Saddam's Iraq as it was to find WMD's after we came in.

When we invaded Iraq we provided the terrorist groups with instability and an invading foreign force to rally the locals against.

My point is that now that Saddam's dictatorship has been overthrown, whether we agreed with invading Iraq or not (I did not), we now have an obligation to the people of the region to provide them with the tools and know-how to maintain the peace and establish a legitimate government. Which is gonna be pretty damn difficult to do. Overthrowing a smaller country with the greatest armed forces in the world is the easy part, cleaning up the mess afterwards is what's hard work. Which is one reason why I opposed going to war back in 2002. But now that we stuck our snout in there we kinda have a responsibility to stay until it's less fucked up than when we came in.

I think I'm kind of repeating what Falcon already said (more eloquently than I can) earlier, so I'll just leave it at that for now.

[Papelucho]

What we need there is a smaller, more focused counter-insurgency/counter-terrorism operation and a larger humanitarian effort.

I hate to sound like a hippie here, but why isn't this used on a wide scale? Giving people food, medicine and jobs is a common sense approach to insurgencies. Governments forget about the basic needs of individuals, and wonder why they can't get the hungry, sick, unemployed masses to cooperate. Meanwhile a few people get richer off the whole thing.

[Rambigent]

My husband is leaving Thursday to go back into the military. Sure, I'm scared. Of course, I don't know what the hell to expect since anything can happen. Obviously I would love it if he didn't want to do his. But, I support him anyway. I also appreciate the fact that I can sit here and express my true feelings of how I feel about this whole military thing and not have to worry about being thrown into prison :rolleyes:

Rissa, I hope my comments weren't read as a slight against the brave men and women who are serving our country in the Mideast and the rest of the world. To quote Lloyd Dobler, I can't work for that corporation, but I do respect and appreciate those people who have signed up to do what they see as their responsibility to this great country. I hope your husband's tour of duty is safe, quick, and uneventful.

[rissababynta]

Rissa, I hope my comments weren't read as a slight against the brave men and women who are serving our country in the Mideast and the rest of the world. To quote Lloyd Dobler, I can't work for that corporation, but I do respect and appreciate those people who have signed up to do what they see as their responsibility to this great country. I hope your husband's tour of duty is safe, quick, and uneventful.

No, I didn't see it that way. I was actually kind of agreeing with you on the topic haha.

And thank GOD that he had a non-deployable job so I don't have to worry about him going overseas or anything. He is leaving Thursday only because he is going to MOS school.

[FalconAngel]

I hate to sound like a hippie here, but why isn't this used on a wide scale? Giving people food, medicine and jobs is a common sense approach to insurgencies. Governments forget about the basic needs of individuals, and wonder why they can't get the hungry, sick, unemployed masses to cooperate. Meanwhile a few people get richer off the whole thing.

3 words: Military industrial complex.