The Iran Thread

[The Senator]

Because of the President's Constitutional authority as Commander In Chief of the military, he does not need approval from Congress to declare war or to take whatever other military action he deems appropriate.

I'm not defending Bush's actions, because if he goes into Iran it will be a huge mistake and I would find that act appalling, but some of you people need a refresher course on our three branches of government and what they do and do not have the authority to do.

This President's mentality has long been "if I say it enough times, people will think it's true."

So, If he says "I have the exclusive power to declare war" enough times, people will automatically believe him. Sadly, this seems to have rubbed off on you.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution states that Congress has the authority to:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Next, the War Powers Resolution (or the War Powers Act of 1973) states that the President can send troops into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if America is already under attack or serious threat. The President has to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops, and forbids troops from remaining for more than 90 days without a declaration of war.

Congress has the ultimate authority when it comes to war. It's not only Bush's fault we're in this mess, but Congress's fault as well. Thankfully, most of the idiots who helped authorize this war are slowly being removed/ voluntarily leaving office...

 

[Matt]

Unfortunately though, if Bush topples a government in 90 days (hell, with the might of the US military they can topple a third world government in 7 days) as a "police action." Congress would be hard pressed to not declare war. If they do not, and the troops have to pull out after 90 days, then the Republicans can say "They don't support the troops and they don't support rebuilding the country we liberated! They want to cut and run and let the terrorists take over," (and it would still be the honeymoon period, of parades on the streets and statues of dictators being pulled down. So the media would portray it as a liberation as opposed to a forced occupation). And suddenly the Democrats have to approve the 'war' or at least an extended police action or risk losing big in November.

Y'know, if Bush pulls this off, it is a brilliant campaign strategy to win the White House for McCain, because it either makes Barack Obama look like a man who wants to let terrorists take over Iran after we overthrew their government or he votes to go ahead with the war and suddenly has the anti-war rhetoric he has based his entire campaign on swept out from under his feet.

 

[The Senator]

I don't know. This is one of those situations where Congress would have to really think about public approval. Two-thirds of Americans do not support going to war with Iran. I don't see how Bush, whose current approval rating is 23%, will be able to drum up public support for yet another war, while we're losing one in Iraq and barely have control over the other in Afghanistan. And if the public doesn't support the war, then I don't see why Congress would play along with him.

 

[Matt]

I don't know. This is one of those situations where Congress would have to really think about public approval. Two-thirds of Americans do not support going to war with Iran. I don't see how Bush, whose current approval rating is 23%, will be able to drum up public support for yet another war, while we're losing one in Iraq and barely have control over the other in Afghanistan. And if the public doesn't support the war, then I don't see why Congress would play along with him.

If Bush goes anyway and overthrows their government and in essence destroys their country it would take balls of steel for Congress to refuse to continue funding it, and even then it would be a gamble. The American people may not want to go to war, but they are a fickle bunch and I'm not sure how much they would want to lose a war we are already in (regardless of if they asked for it).

 

[The Senator]

If Bush goes anyway and overthrows their government and in essence destroys their country it would take balls of steel for Congress to refuse to continue funding it, and even then it would be a gamble. The American people may not want to go to war, but they are a fickle bunch and I'm not sure how much they would want to lose a war we are already in (regardless of if they asked for it).

Well Congress will have 90 days to decide whether to authorize it or not, so I'm sure a few opinion polls will be released in that time period. Then Congress can act accordingly.

 

[MaskedManJRK]

I agree. Regardless of what this President wants or believes, he will not get congressional authorization for something like this.

Considering Congress' previous record, I severely doubt that. Here's what will happen:

Congress will slam the administration for their plans and say they won't support them. The Administration will then start insulting them--calling them sissies and wimps. Congress, not wanting to be wimps and sissies, will go weak in the knees and give the administration whatever they want.

I wish I had your faith in this, but, y'know, fool me once...

 

[Matt]

Well Congress will have 90 days to decide whether to authorize it or not, so I'm sure a few opinion polls will be released in that time period. Then Congress can act accordingly.

Considering Congress' previous record, I severely doubt that. Here's what will happen:

Congress will slam the administration for their plans and say they won't support them. The Administration will then start insulting them--calling them sissies and wimps. Congress, not wanting to be wimps and sissies, will go weak in the knees and give the administration whatever they want.

I wish I had your faith in this, but, y'know, fool me once...

And that is really what makes Bush's move so brilliant from a campaign perspective. Either Obama says no to continuing the effort during the middle of a "police action" that has essentially toppled an entire country and doesn't "support the troops." Or Obama says yes and loses his moral high ground of "I didn't support Iraq," as he will have supported another unjustified war.

 

[moraldeficiency]

I'm not sure I believe this story to begin with. There's not much there other than what someone's said off the record to someone else, etc.

Now I know the US has plans to attack Iran, the US has plans to attack everyone, but that's just because you need to have a plan just in case. I'm not saying this would never happen, but something in this story just doesn't seem right, I could be wrong but other than speculation I don't see any evidence here.

 

[Symbiotic]

*reads article* Ugh. *headdesk* This is a bad idea.

 

[Raiden]

*reads article* Ugh. *headdesk* This is a bad idea.

But unfortunately, bad idea never stopped Bush before.

 

[Malice]

I dont believe this is true...

 

[EdRyder]

I'm sorry but I think its pretty easy to fight this if in fact they attempted it to begin with.
Dont forget that NIE of 07.
Dont forget that its comprised of 16 Intelligence agencies including every aspect of the DOD(Office of Naval Intelligence,Air Force Intelligence, Army Military Intelligence,Marine Corps Intelligence Activity and The National Security Agency)As well as Homeland Security ,The CIA ,FBI and DEA,..and many morrrrrrrrrrrrrrrre

 

[Marx]

Because of the President's Constitutional authority as Commander In Chief of the military, he does not need approval from Congress to declare war or to take whatever other military action he deems appropriate.

I'm not defending Bush's actions, because if he goes into Iran it will be a huge mistake and I would find that act appalling, but some of you people need a refresher course on our three branches of government and what they do and do not have the authority to do.

Please make sure that you know what you're talking about before you try to insult my intelligence.

You are the one who needs a refresher course Lazur.

 

[Marx]

Considering Congress' previous record, I severely doubt that. Here's what will happen:

Congress will slam the administration for their plans and say they won't support them. The Administration will then start insulting them--calling them sissies and wimps. Congress, not wanting to be wimps and sissies, will go weak in the knees and give the administration whatever they want.

I wish I had your faith in this, but, y'know, fool me once...

And who exactly would you choose to listen to - a corrupt administration who is nearing the end of their term? Or the voters who actually choose to keep you in office or give you the boot?

 

[lazur]

Actually it is you who needs the refresher. The President DOES need Congressional authority to declare war. Otherwise it is only a police action and I do believe there are some limitations for how long a police action can last (Though limitations such as the law has never stopped Bush before). He also would likely need funding for such an operation as to avoid having to divert it from other funds. And who has the power of the purse, my dear Lazur? Congress. Bush can't do this alone.

Hell, I don't even see how the generals will go along with this. This seems like something that Bush is planning that in all likelihood will not happen.

Great article here: http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa082702a.htm

Also, the entire debate leads to nothing but ambiguity. It wasn't until 1973 that the War Powers Resolution was passed, which required the President to obtain Congressional approval, but that Act has never been enforced, and many legal types believe it wouldn't stand up in court.

The President certainly can declare war on other countries without Congressional approval, particularly if the President doesn't call it 'war' or the declaration of such.

From Wikipedia: On at least 125 occasions, the President has acted without prior express military authorization from Congress.[4] These include instances in which the United States fought in Korea in 1950, the Philippine-American War from 1898-1903, and in Nicaragua in 1927.

And the link to Wikipedia on how the U.S. has historically 'Declared War' on other nations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

You are the one who needs a refresher course Lazur.

Read for yourself...

 

[The Senator]

Great article here: http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa082702a.htm

Also, the entire debate leads to nothing but ambiguity. It wasn't until 1973 that the War Powers Resolution was passed, which required the President to obtain Congressional approval, but that Act has never been enforced, and many legal types believe it wouldn't stand up in court.

The President certainly can declare war on other countries without Congressional approval, particularly if the President doesn't call it 'war' or the declaration of such.

From Wikipedia: On at least 125 occasions, the President has acted without prior express military authorization from Congress.[4] These include instances in which the United States fought in Korea in 1950, the Philippine-American War from 1898-1903, and in Nicaragua in 1927.

And the link to Wikipedia on how the U.S. has historically 'Declared War' on other nations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States



Read for yourself...

Great article, but according to the Constitution and the War Powers Act, Congress has the ability to declare war as well, and it also has to authorize any war within 90 days of its initiation. Congress has the final say on whether we go to war or not.

 

[Knives]

@ wars aint enough we need a third one. Fantastic.

 

[lazur]

Great article, but according to the Constitution and the War Powers Act, Congress has the ability to declare war as well, and it also has to authorize any war within 90 days of its initiation. Congress has the final say on whether we go to war or not.

I guess, but that doesn't ever seem to do a lot of good? Seems we're in a bit of a conundrum since, ideologically, our Congress disagrees with our President, yet both our ditzy President *and* Congress have like the lowest approval rating of all time...

We're screwed!

 

[Malice]

I dont think this is happening, I would NOT put it past those that want to make the president look even worse

Honestly, if he was going to attack them, do you think it would have leaked out?

 

[MaskedManJRK]

And who exactly would you choose to listen to - a corrupt administration who is nearing the end of their term? Or the voters who actually choose to keep you in office or give you the boot?

Who have they consistantly listened to?

Christ, times like this I wish I could go all V on their ass.

 

[Alex The Great]

Dear Stephen Harper: Invade the US

time to put those maggota out of there misery.

 

[zanos]

I agree. Regardless of what this President wants or believes, he will not get congressional authorization for something like this.

All he has to do is say Iran has WMDs. Then congress has to agree to go to war.

 

[Marx]

Who have they consistantly listened to?

Christ, times like this I wish I could go all V on their ass.

I would like to think that people can finally see through the scare tactics. This administration and their tactics have become quite transparent as of late. You know?

All he has to do is say Iran has WMDs. Then congress has to agree to go to war.

Congress will not agree to another war. There's just no way...not in the condition that our military is currently in.

 

[MaskedManJRK]

I would like to think that people can finally see through the scare tactics. This administration and their tactics have become quite transparent as of late. You know?

People? Sure. Congress? Considering their previous record, I highly doubt their common sense and their sense of decency.

I think it all comes to trust--you seem to trust that Congress will finally see the light and stand their ground while I wouldn't trust them or any other government sector to protect my goldfish.

 

[Spider-Bite]

This is appalling. What I want to know is why can't they develop nuclear energy like any other advanced country in the world when we have thousands and thousands of ICBM's ready to strike anywhere in the world at a moment's notice. Bush is just a war mongering pig, 4,000 dead men and women...for what? So that we pay $4 at the pump or that our world image is will be tainted for sometime now? If you do just a little background check on his reasons for going to war in the first place, you will too be pissed off and disgusted. Let's see...Saddam had WMD's? False. Iraq was in talks with Bin Laden before 9/11? False. Iraq was a sponsor of terrosim? False.

The simple fact is that Bush is a liar, and his cronies are some the most coniving, power hungry scumbags walking this earth. The Iraq War is a crime against humanity and our economy has been driven into the ground. Worst president ever? I think so.

I agree with Obama's position on the next move for dealing with Iran, however I feel your argument for why we shouldn't try to stop Iran from building nukes, is the equivalent of saying cops are hypocrites for not letting felons walk freely with guns. Just because we have em, doesn't mean they need em. Just cops, the military, the FBI, and the CIA, get big guns, doesn't mean you get to have an AK47. Controlling the spread of nuclear arms is no less moral than gun control really.

It's unrealistic to think the U.S. is just gonna get rid of our nukes. It's not gonna happen. That does not change the fact that allowing Iran to have them, will cause a nuclear arms race in an incredibly unstable region, where many of the madmen believe that the end of the world is coming.