Iran (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

NorthernGent -> Iran (2/19/2007 11:12:54 PM)

Air strike plans extend beyond nuclear sites.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6376639.stm

The catalyst for more of the same?

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/



Sternhand4 -> RE: Iran (2/19/2007 11:43:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Air strike plans extend beyond nuclear sites.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6376639.stm

The catalyst for more of the same?

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/


Even the leftwing rag "Slate" laughs at the Downing street memo
http://www.slate.com/id/2121212/



meatcleaver -> RE: Iran (2/20/2007 1:07:21 AM)

Christopher Hitchens is a conservative reporter and supporter of the British establishment. His criticism of Blair has nothing to do with his being leftwing as he is most certainly not leftwing. He depises Blair and not because Blair is leftwing, Blair is most certainly not leftwing, he depises Blair because of his weak, wet, social work approach to politics which is hypocritical and corrupting.

Bush ordering an attack on Iran has to be 50/50. The new Democratic majority doesn't seem to know what it wants or to be able to assert itself and Bush keeps on with the anti-Iran rhetoric.



farglebargle -> RE: Iran (2/20/2007 5:37:53 AM)

Last time I checked, Bush hasn't gone to Congress asking for money to conduct operations against Iran.

That means whatever he's doing, he's paying for it with funds appropriated for other purposes.

We call that fraud.




mnottertail -> RE: Iran (2/20/2007 6:08:10 AM)




http://www.scottmcleod.org/didyouknow.wmv   
 
Wars will ultimately be won by checkbook, it has the effect of law, this permitting of the slow undoing of America is something that JFK warned against.
 
Ron   



Devilslilsister -> RE: Iran (2/20/2007 6:13:51 AM)

soon as Rome falls - better things can take its place



subrob1967 -> RE: Iran (2/20/2007 6:19:05 AM)

Um, we also have plans to strike Beijing, Moscow, Damascus, Tripoli, and 90% of the other cities in the world... Whats your point?



farglebargle -> RE: Iran (2/20/2007 7:43:06 AM)

Since standing armies are prohibited by the Constitution, why are we wasting money keeping people around to play wargames?




Sternhand4 -> RE: Iran (2/20/2007 9:04:10 AM)

3
quote:

ORIGINAL: Devilslilsister

soon as Rome falls - better things can take its place


Maybe you'll enjoy a dictatorship.



Sternhand4 -> RE: Iran (2/20/2007 9:05:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

Um, we also have plans to strike Beijing, Moscow, Damascus, Tripoli, and 90% of the other cities in the world... Whats your point?


Its always the ones you leave out that cause a problem, Grenada springs to mind lol



Sternhand4 -> RE: Iran (2/20/2007 9:27:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Since standing armies are prohibited by the Constitution, why are we wasting money keeping people around to play wargames?




Could you point out where this is, I searched and found the opposite.



farglebargle -> RE: Iran (2/20/2007 9:44:41 AM)

Article I Section 8:

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;




luckydog1 -> RE: Iran (2/20/2007 9:56:42 AM)

Farg, so why are you pretending a standing army is prohibited?   The point of that clause is to prevent an independant millitary from forming.  Control of the millitary by the elected gov was very important to the founders for a good reason.


edited because I spelled founders as funders



Sternhand4 -> RE: Iran (2/20/2007 10:03:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Article I Section 8:

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;



Exactly it doesn't say you disband the army it just says you need to appropriate money within the 2 year time frame..  In the same section it says..

To provide and maintain a Navy;

It does not specify when to fund it, nor does it say to disband it.

Obviously the airforce wasn't an issue at the time.



farglebargle -> RE: Iran (2/20/2007 10:28:26 AM)

So, you see the essential difference between the intention of a PERMANENT Navy, and an Army which only exists for a limited period, as needed per a Congressional Declaration of War.




Stephann -> RE: Iran (2/20/2007 12:22:54 PM)

I don't believe the US has the capital (political, or financial) to sustain a solo war against Iran.  This means it will require a combined agreement with NATO or the UN if it wishes to impose an assault on Iran.  Should the US go the attack route anyway, it will be against the general wishes of the American people, and a political disaster for the sitting president.  The effects will be devastating to Iran and it's people, turning any moderates in the region firmly against the US, and ultimately give birth to war after war.  As a nation, the US simply does not have the stomach to be conquerers.

Fargle,

that section of the constitution means any bill funding the standing army may only receive funding for up to two years, per bill, ensures that for the army to continue to function, it must consistently meet the approval of the congress.  If there were ten or twenty year appropriations bills, the standing army would be created and enabled (financially) to act as it wished, without any control by the legislature.  The results would be armies similar to what you would have seen in Rome; private armies, funded by their own success.

The constitution provides, in the very beginning, for the Common Defense.  That common defense is best ensured, when there are people skilled in the practice of war, at all times.  Without a standing army, what might have prevented Mexico or Canada from invading?

Stephan



cyberdude611 -> RE: Iran (2/20/2007 3:38:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Devilslilsister

soon as Rome falls - better things can take its place


Um...what exactly was better after Rome fell? It was the dark ages. Practically nothing good came out of that era. It was ruled by kings and Popes. You want to go back to that?



Stephann -> RE: Iran (2/20/2007 3:43:40 PM)

My fear, is if 'Rome' falls, it'll be because nuclear weapons dropped it.  No thousand legions of Roman soldiers had the power to kill all life on this planet.  We simply do not have the luxury of 'falling.'

Stephan



cyberdude611 -> RE: Iran (2/20/2007 4:03:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

So, you see the essential difference between the intention of a PERMANENT Navy, and an Army which only exists for a limited period, as needed per a Congressional Declaration of War.



Constitutional scholars are in debate over this. Some say that the President does not need Congressional approval to launch a war. Many presidents have launched attacks without any notification or approval of congress. This goes over over 100 years.
The ONLY law on the books is the War Powers Act of 1973 which states that the President must recieve approval of Congress within 60 days after hostilities begin.

Keep in mind that President Clinton DID NOT seek any approval of congress when he went to war with Yugoslavia in 1999. So there is nothing that congress can do to Bush if he decides to go to war with Iran.
In 1995, the Republican-controlled congress attempted to repeal the War Powers Act and make it mandatory for Presidents to seek congress's approval before going to war...that measure failed in the House by a vote of 217-201.

Under the Constitution, the war powers are divided among the legislative and executive branches. The Congress has the power to declare war and raise armies. The President is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces.

Is there an answer internationally? Kind of but ends up playing into Bush's hands. According to the UN Charter, a nation has the right to self-defense. If Iran is truely involved in the insurgency in Iraq and this is killing American and Iraqi forces, this would be an act of war against the US and Iraq. Therefore the US would have the legal ground to attack Iran in self-defense.
Iraq I remind you is legal because the 1992 Gulf War never officially ended. It was paused because Saddam signed a Cease-Fire which he broke multiple times. This is why the Iraq war today is legal.



farglebargle -> RE: Iran (2/20/2007 4:31:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

So, you see the essential difference between the intention of a PERMANENT Navy, and an Army which only exists for a limited period, as needed per a Congressional Declaration of War.



Constitutional scholars are in debate over this.


Not really. Constitutional Scholars are pretty much in agreement it says what it says. The authors took their time and wrote exactly what they meant.

WEASELS who don't like what the Constitution clearly says pretend there is any debate.





Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125