Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Iran


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> Iran Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Iran - 2/19/2007 11:12:54 PM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline 		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/

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Iran - 2/19/2007 11:43:34 PM   
Sternhand4


Posts: 422
Joined: 3/6/2005
Status: offline
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/

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Iran - 2/20/2007 1:07:21 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline 		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.

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 2/20/2007 1:09:09 AM >

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to Sternhand4)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Iran - 2/20/2007 5:37:53 AM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline 		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.



_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Iran - 2/20/2007 6:08:10 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline


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   

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Iran - 2/20/2007 6:13:51 AM   
Devilslilsister


Posts: 1262
Joined: 8/3/2006
Status: offline 		soon as Rome falls - better things can take its place

_____________________________

My ability to cope with BS is at an all time low - me

i may look like i'm doing nothing, but i'm very busy at a cellular level

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Iran - 2/20/2007 6:19:05 AM   
subrob1967


Posts: 4591
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline 		Um, we also have plans to strike Beijing, Moscow, Damascus, Tripoli, and 90% of the other cities in the world... Whats your point?

(in reply to Devilslilsister)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Iran - 2/20/2007 7:43:06 AM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline 		Since standing armies are prohibited by the Constitution, why are we wasting money keeping people around to play wargames?



_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to subrob1967)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Iran - 2/20/2007 9:04:10 AM   
Sternhand4


Posts: 422
Joined: 3/6/2005
Status: offline 		3
quote:

ORIGINAL: Devilslilsister

soon as Rome falls - better things can take its place


Maybe you'll enjoy a dictatorship.

(in reply to Devilslilsister)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Iran - 2/20/2007 9:05:56 AM   
Sternhand4


Posts: 422
Joined: 3/6/2005
Status: offline
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

(in reply to subrob1967)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: Iran - 2/20/2007 9:27:45 AM   
Sternhand4


Posts: 422
Joined: 3/6/2005
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: Iran - 2/20/2007 9:44:41 AM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline 		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;



_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to Sternhand4)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: Iran - 2/20/2007 9:56:42 AM   
luckydog1


Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline 		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

< Message edited by luckydog1 -- 2/20/2007 10:17:16 AM >

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: Iran - 2/20/2007 10:03:27 AM   
Sternhand4


Posts: 422
Joined: 3/6/2005
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: Iran - 2/20/2007 10:28:26 AM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline 		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.



_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to Sternhand4)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: Iran - 2/20/2007 12:22:54 PM   
Stephann


Posts: 4214
Joined: 12/27/2006
From: Portland, OR
Status: offline 		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


_____________________________

Nosce Te Ipsum

"The blade itself incites to violence" - Homer

Men: Find a Woman here

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: Iran - 2/20/2007 3:38:08 PM   
cyberdude611


Posts: 2596
Joined: 5/7/2006
Status: offline
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?

(in reply to Devilslilsister)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: Iran - 2/20/2007 3:43:40 PM   
Stephann


Posts: 4214
Joined: 12/27/2006
From: Portland, OR
Status: offline 		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


_____________________________

Nosce Te Ipsum

"The blade itself incites to violence" - Homer

Men: Find a Woman here

(in reply to cyberdude611)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: Iran - 2/20/2007 4:03:19 PM   
cyberdude611


Posts: 2596
Joined: 5/7/2006
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: Iran - 2/20/2007 4:31:01 PM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline
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.




_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to cyberdude611)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> Iran Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




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

0.094