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.
The Constitution says “actual service”, so I take it at its word.
Accomplishments? The jury’s still out, and Patreaus is the jury foreman. Expect a verdict in September.
I do know, so far, it has helped to produce the highest number of US KIAs for any two month period of the war.
But my main point was not about the success or failure of the “surge.” It was about the ground forces we don’t have.
OK now I know you are a damn fool. The Iranian Freedom and Support Act explicitly prohibits military action, while the Iran Democracy Act mentions neither.
Leaders around the world on Thursday condemned a call by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that Israel be "wiped off the map,"
“Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation. The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm.”
Pat may call these statements "bellicose" - I call them out and out threats. Especially the bit about "by one storm". Just what do you thinks he means by a "storm"? Especially when Iran is racing to complete a nuclear bomb?
I call them threats from a man with absolutely ZERO power in Iran. The mullahs run everything, and the President is powerless.
The mullahs have also said that Israel needs to be "wiped from the pages of history." Is that threat enough?
The "actual service" refers to the militia of the several states, not to the Army and Navy, which are always in "actual service."
If the Army and Navy are not in the actual service of the United States except during a declared war, who are they in service to the rest of the time?
Uh, so your comment about it taking 6 months to get the troops there for the surge was nonsensical, because clearly you are now admitting the surge has occurred.
The “surge” has not been fully implemented. Are there more of my words you wish to twist?
I had an outstanding salami back in the summer of 1999. Oh the memories! My eyes mist over when I think about it.
Who wins if the USA pulls back and “redeploys”?
If this is the case (and I tend to agree with you), then what IS the solution for ending the "Iranian problem" [nuclear and otherwise]?
In my estimate, the only "solution" to defeat Iran is a full-scale military invasion and occupation - leading to the "de-Islamification" of Iran, at the very least, the removal of the mullahs from any position of power or influence. They must "disappear".
Actually, this is the only solution for the entire struggle with Islam. I think most folks actually realize this, but shove it under the rug as unworkable.
But when nothing else seems to be working, what is the answer?
We already know what _their_ "answer" is for _us_.
- John
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.
This point is terribly misguided. If Pat were awake, he'd know the history of the men leading Iraq today and their involvement with Iran (Sadr, DAWA and SCIRI among others). He'd know Iran has mounted numerous operations in its short history that were acts of war, but were ignored as such. Case in point: The Iranian Revolutionary Guards obviously wrote the script for the recent war between Hezbollah and Israel in southern Lebanon. Another Example: The blatant abduction of British Sailors serving under a UN Resolution in 2004 and again in 2007... It's one thing to come out and say, "The President has picked a fight too big win!" and another to fabricate a lie by saying, "The Iranians are not so bad, they don't deserve to be fought."
There is a large young population in Iran chafing under the oppressive mullah _uckers controlling the political situation.
The have been arming their police/military to prevent any thoughts of the kids getting jumpy and thinking about overthrowing the theocracy.
I’d like to try parachuting in arms for the citizens.
Sick of war, sick of the USA getting bashed for keeping the oil flowing to keep the global economy from collapsing. Fighting the urge to withdraw and let the world go to hell and fend for themselves. Realizing it would only last for a short while before the effects of withdrawing cause even bigger messes that NO ONE will clean up except the USA.
*****all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.”****
Unless the democrats are in power and decide to cut off funding...which could happen at any time.
If this is the case (and I tend to agree with you), then what IS the solution for ending the "Iranian problem" [nuclear and otherwise]? In my estimate, the only "solution" to defeat Iran is a full-scale military invasion and occupation - leading to the "de-Islamification" of Iran, at the very least, the removal of the mullahs from any position of power or influence. They must "disappear". Actually, this is the only solution for the entire struggle with Islam. I think most folks actually realize this, but shove it under the rug as unworkable.
SOLUTION: Empower the people of Iran, particularly indigenous secular democrats. At the same time, leave the door open to protect Americans and our allies from an Iranian bomb, Iranian terrorism and Iranian petro-politics... It's incredible how much ink in the MSM is given to people who advocate America drop its guard, offer more incentives, cool its rhetoric. Iran has not shown an ounce of reciprocation to American moderation. Instead, privatization (which equates to empowering the Iranian people) occurs more often when the Iranian Government feels threatened.
SOLUTION: Empower the people of Iran
Agreed.
It is wishful thinking to believe that President Bush will attack Iran. President Bush will not, because the Rats have chosen political expediency over national security.
Rather than stopping them now, the West will wait until Iran has attacked first with nuclear weapons and a ICBM capability. It will be much too late.
We should offer them a carrot and carrier strike. We can offer them assistence in upgrading oil and natural gas production and refining. We can open up some trade with them. For instance textiles and organically grown borage oil (great stuff by the way). The Europeans and Russians have offered to support a tightly monitored civilian nuclear program, where the uranium is refined in Russia. Finally, we publicize this deal. We don't just make it to the mullahs, we make it to the Iranian people through radio and internet. We take out ads in their media, if they accept it.
If the Iranians choose a military program over a civilian one and confrontation over trade, then they bring the second option on themselves.
We do not just hit the nuclear program. We hit the command and control centers of the military and the regime. We strike the secret police headquarters, and level Hizbullah there. Finally, we can suggest that the people of Iran take back their government, but make it clear that we do not wish to occupy them.
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.