Posted on 05/30/2007 3:02:25 AM PDT by Remember_Salamis
Does 'the decider' decide on war? Posted: May 30, 2007 1:00 a.m. Eastern
Has Congress given George Bush a green light to attack Iran?
For he is surely behaving as though it is his call alone. And evidence is mounting that we are on a collision course for war.
* Iran has detained several Iranian-Americans, seemingly in retaliation for our continuing to hold five Iranians in Iraq.
* The U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, says Iran is making progress in the enrichment of uranium and denying it access to Iran's nuclear sites.
* Bush is calling on Russia and China to toughen sanctions.
* A flotilla of U.S. warships, including the carriers Stennis and Nimitz, has passed through the Strait of Hormuz into the Persian Gulf.
* U.S. Maj. Gen. William Caldwell has told CNN there is "very credible intelligence" Iran is funding Sunni extremists engaged in the roadside bombing of U.S. troops.
* CBS reports the United States has engaged in the industrial sabotage of Iran's nuclear program by making the equipment Iran acquires on the black market unusable or destructive.
* ABC reports Bush has authorized the CIA to mount a "black" operation to destabilize Iran, using "non-lethal" means. The absence of White House outrage over the leak suggests it may have wanted the information out.
* ABC.com reports U.S. officials are supporting a militant group, Jundallah, in the "tri-border region" of Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Jundallah, a Sunni Islamist group seeking independence for Baluchistan, claims to have killed hundreds of Iranians.
While U.S.-Iran discussions have begun, there are reports Vice President Cheney and the neo-con remnant, along with the Israelis, are opposed to talks and believe that the only solution to Iran's nuclear program is military. Whether this is part of a good-cop, bad-cop routine to convince Tehran to suspend enrichment, we do not know.
(Column continues below)
But this much is sure. If the U.S. government is aiding Islamic militants who are killing Iranians, and Iran is providing roadside bombs to Iraqi militants, Sunni or Shia, to kill Americans, we are in a proxy war. And it could explode into a major war.
So the questions come. Where is the Congress, which alone has the power to take us to war? Why are the Democratic candidates parroting the "all-options-are-on-the-table!" mantra, when as ex-Sen. Mike Gravel noted in the first Democratic debate, this means George W. Bush is authorized to attack Iran.
Why does Congress not enact the resolution Nancy Pelosi pulled down, which declares that nothing in present law authorizes President Bush to launch a pre-emptive strike or preventive war on Iran – and before launching any such attack, he must get prior approval from both houses of Congress?
If we are going to war, is it not imperative that, this time, we know exactly why we must go to war, what exactly the threat is from Iran, what are the likely consequences of a U.S. attack on a third Islamic country and what are the alternatives to war?
For there are arguments against war, as well as for war – and the former are not receiving a hearing, as both parties compete in their fulminations against Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the new Hitler of the Middle East.
What are those arguments?
On Iran's nuclear progress, there is a real question as to whether they are producing purified uranium. Iran's refusal to let the IAEA see what it is doing suggests it may be covering up failure.
Second, though Iranians sound bellicose, Iran has not started a single war since the revolution of 1979. Indeed, Iran was the victim of a war launched by Saddam Hussein, whom we secretly supported. Not within living memory has Iran invaded or attacked another country.
But in the last 110 years, peace-loving Americans have fought Spain, Germany twice, Austria-Hungary, Japan, Italy, North Korea, North Vietnam, Iraq twice and Serbia. We have intervened militarily in the Philippines, Cuba, Mexico, Panama, Nicaragua, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Lebanon and Grenada. We bombed Libya. Now, a case can be made for most of these wars, whose fallen we honor on Memorial Day.
But the point is this. Why would Iran, with no air force or navy that can stand up 24 hours against us, no missile that can reach us, no atom bomb, and no ability to withstand U.S. air and sea attack, want a war with us that could mean the end of Iran as a modern nation and possible breakup of the country, as Iraq is breaking up?
Whether one is pro-war or anti-war, ought we not – if we are going into another war – do it the right way, the constitutional way, with Congress declaring war? Or does the Democratic Congress think what is best for America is to let "the decider" decide?
Because that is what George Bush is doing right now.
Buchanan's point was that there will be a massive Shia uprising against US forces in Iraq if we attacked Iran; 150,000 hostages, forced to fight their way out of Iraq.
On Iran's nuclear progress, there is a real question as to whether they are producing purified uranium. Iran's refusal to let the IAEA see what it is doing suggests it may be covering up failure.
Iran's security is threatened by its nuclear arms program, not by any failure of it. Patty's twist on logic is worthy of Pravda.
The Iranians are openly saying that they are processing uranium. The only issues is how much they are refining and how much is refined.
Pat has finally made a cogent arguement for withdrawing from Iraq.
rmlew,
What do YOU propose we do about Iran?
The more we threaten them, the more the ruling theocracy can use patriotism to stifle domestic opposition. The bulk of the population DESPISES the regime, but they are still patriotic. Attack them and you will see anti-Americanism in Iran skyrocket.
Analysts have been saying for years that even a secular, pro-Western Iranian state would be pursuing nuclear weapons. Hell, the current program was implemented by the Shah — and they weren’t too far off back then! Iran’s location, wealth, size, people, and history dictates that they be a regional power.
Attacking Iranian nuclear targets (if successful) only delays their nuclear program, with all the drawbacks: massive casualties in Iraq, a possible counterstrike by Hizbollah in the US, a assurance that the Mullahocracy will be in power for another generation.
Also, Germany had a multi-century history of being a liberal (in the classical sense) society. No such thing in Iran. They're good as far as that part of the world goes, but it is not a Western country.
I hope you mean, like this:
"that the President be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States."
The only recourse is a first strike that
1. takes out their ability to retaliate
2. takes out their nuclear facilities
3. takes out their oil resources
4. takes out their leadership\
The strike needs to be massive (maybe to include tactical nukes), fast and decisive.
It’s of no use being a superpower if we can’t act like one.
As for world opinion, the attack should make the world gasp and thank god it was them on the receiving end.
Whatever the world thinks, they will forget in 18 months, so who cares what they think.
It’s taking over six months to get five combat ready brigades into Iraq for the magic “surge,” where in the hell are we going to get the ground forces to take on Iran?
No, I was referring to our successful denazification of Germany. ...no Nazis allowed in media work, schools, government or business.
And our President has the constitutional power to wage war. Congress only has the choice as to whether or not to fund it.
Any evidence? The Germans weren't even hostile towards us. I'll bet that radical Shias will fire EFPs at us -- just a hunch.
exactly.
I don’t know where to begin with your ridiculous claims; First, the Iraqi shia would flip out and launch a full-scale attack on our troops there. Second, we will forever ensure hatred for the US for the bulk of the Iranian population that actually likes the United States. Third, there will be all of the repercussions from “carpet bombing”.
After they surrendered dummy. There was no resistance, as we expected.
What claims? I have given no claims only my opinion.
If I were in charge I bomb Iran massively.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.