Some push to get US into a war with Iran 24 replies

Please wait...

Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,872 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,183 Posts

6 Threads

#11 7 years ago
Ḷëģöläš;5618280The major flaw in our government system, politicians only do things to get re-elected, not what is always right for the country.

I think that's a problem common to any country with an executive appointed by a popular vote. Though, first past the post systems do seem to lend themselves awfully well to simple dichotomies and the consequent corruption of having to one-up the other guy.




Schofield VIP Member

om :A

319,570 XP

24th October 2007

1 Uploads

30,540 Posts

0 Threads

#12 7 years ago
Ḷëģöläš;5618280The major flaw in our government system, politicians only do things to get re-elected, not what is always right for the country.

That's a flaw not exclusive to America, it's a flaw in any democracy.




Adrian Tepes Forum Mod

King Jellyfish

262,475 XP

10th September 2007

4 Uploads

21,791 Posts

1,760 Threads

#13 7 years ago

Democracy is in and of itself flawed. See tyranny by majority.


"I'd shush her zephyr." ~ Zephyr.



Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#14 7 years ago

Was it John Adams who said there's yet to be a democracy that hasn't murdered itself.




Destroyer25

Overuses :cort:

50,545 XP

23rd March 2008

0 Uploads

4,732 Posts

0 Threads

#15 7 years ago

Schofield;5618276wat[/QUOTE]

Evidently someone was sleeping during history class. Iran invaded US soil in 1979, which technically means that they would be at war. Unfortunately a bumbling idiot and spineless coward named Jimmy Carter was POTUS at the time, and so Iran was not dealt with as they should have been.

[QUOTE=Schofield;5618276]Why do Americans always seem to have an exist strategy but never a strategy for victory?

The military always has a strategy for victory, but the politicians seldom choose to implement it. USA could have won Korea, Vietnam, and concluded operations in Iran and Afghanistan long ago had the military been listened to. It wasn't.




Commissar MercZ

Notable Loser

300,005 XP

29th January 2005

0 Uploads

27,113 Posts

0 Threads

#16 7 years ago

Ḷëģöläš;5618264I heard from a marine being deployed next week that Obama went to congress and they approved of declaring war on Iran, has anyone else heard of this? The guy I talked to was being deployed to Iran...so...[/QUOTE]

That would be news to me, I haven't heard such a thing. No declaration of a war from Congress or executive decision from the White House to that end. Only thing recently is that President Obama has emphasized that they will continue putting pressure on Iran through sanctions and political pressure, but pointed out that no options are off the table- which usually means that military plans are a possibility.

They haven't escalated it to this point though, not yet. Recently President Netanyahu of Israel came to visit, along with the AIPAC conference, which has mostly been along the lines of Israel's right to 'self-defense' and the need for America to be there for it, which the sitting president and Congress always acknowledges.

There's definitely been a flare up, lot of talk about plans being made on both ends of the table (Israel and Iran), lot of Mexican standoffs in that regard. We'll see where that goes.

So to sum up your question- no, I've not heard of any 'declaration of war'. and I find it highly doubtful. If this is somehow 'real', your Marine shouldn't be telling other people about it.

[QUOTE=Destroyer25;5618330]Evidently someone was sleeping during history class. Iran invaded US soil in 1979, which technically means that they would be at war. Unfortunately a bumbling idiot and spineless coward named Jimmy Carter was POTUS at the time, and so Iran was not dealt with as they should have been.

Lol, that's generally shit I hear from neo-con idiots in the states, not in Canada. Seriously, really? You think the United States would have risked a war over just that? Invading a highly unstable county in the midst of revolution and political upheaval has never, and will never be, a solid plan of action. I mean yes, the embassy hostage situation was tragic and should've been handled better, but a call to war? Get a grip man. If anything, considering Iran's history with the Mossadeq coup and the later Iran-Iraq War, I think they got shafted enough by the States and others.

The US did what it wanted with respect to Iran via the Iran-Iraq War- a war mind you that many innocent people got killed in, including the Anfal Campaign in Iraq carried out under the pretext of preventing an Iranian breakthrough from the north, and in the process some 100,000 Kurds are killed. Ironically, the same event was used to later attack Iraq for humanitarian injustice- Americans viewed it at first as a necessary containment against Iran one minute, and a humanitarian crisis the next?

The military always has a strategy for victory, but the politicians seldom choose to implement it. USA could have won Korea, Vietnam, and concluded operations in Iran and Afghanistan long ago had the military been listened to. It wasn't.

Yes, in a world with infinite resources and no war exhaustion. In real life, where countries have to deal with budgets (particularity in the US now where it's deeply in the red), logistics, war exhaustion, the impact of trade and economic disruption in the event of a war, and more importantly (to the regular person, at least), the personal effects of war, it is not that simple. Every action a country does, people die. Someone's father, mother, son, or daughter might never come back and that's going to mess up someone's family. Multiply that by many times over. Never mind the country that typically gets the shaft from the United States is going to suffer probably 10-20x that much in deaths and destruction. Iraq's current generation is probably so deeply scarred and screwed up from the events of this war, it might take generations for it to ever go back to normalcy.

War isn't a 'humanitarian endeavor' nor should it be seen as such, so no illusions about that. But it shouldn't be taken lightly either.




Schofield VIP Member

om :A

319,570 XP

24th October 2007

1 Uploads

30,540 Posts

0 Threads

#17 7 years ago

Destroyer25;5618330Evidently someone was sleeping during history class. Iran invaded US soil in 1979, which technically means that they would be at war. Unfortunately a bumbling idiot and spineless coward named Jimmy Carter was POTUS at the time, and so Iran was not dealt with as they should have been.[/QUOTE]

Actually I skipped history class and lost the credit, but it was to focus on subjects I found to be more important.

[QUOTE=Destroyer25;5618330]The military always has a strategy for victory, but the politicians seldom choose to implement it. USA could have won Korea, Vietnam, and concluded operations in Iran and Afghanistan long ago had the military been listened to. It wasn't.

Concluding operations and victory are very different things.

Winning a war isn't easy, there's a reason it took several countries and then the help of the Russians to bring the Nazi regime to an end. It isn't as simple as you make it out to be. Having smart politicians who listen to their military doesn't guarantee success.

Also, I was joking when I said the thing about a strategy for victory. I was looking at their recent conflicts when I said that.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#18 7 years ago
Destroyer25;5618330Evidently someone was sleeping during history class. Iran invaded US soil in 1979, which technically means that they would be at war. Unfortunately a bumbling idiot and spineless coward named Jimmy Carter was POTUS at the time, and so Iran was not dealt with as they should have been.

...wasn't that an embassy? Doesn't excuse it, but your post makes it sound like they showed up in Virginia with AK's.




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

217,762 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,029 Posts

9 Threads

#19 7 years ago
Commissar MercZ;5618334 Lol, that's generally shit I hear from neo-con idiots in the states, not in Canada. Seriously, really? You think the United States would have risked a war over just that? Invading a highly unstable county in the midst of revolution and political upheaval has never, and will never be, a solid plan of action. I mean yes, the embassy hostage situation was tragic and should've been handled better, but a call to war?

The whole context with the revolution and the Cold War aside the attack on the embassy itself doesn't seem like such a bad excuse for a war.

Many wars have been triggered by incidents of similar scale. The explosion of the USS Maine, assassination attempts on Israeli ambassadors etc.

If you look at the attempt to resolve the situation (sending helicopters with soldiers into the Iranian capital to rescue hostages and shoot anyone who resists) you are dealing with warlike actions anyway.

The rescue attempt, btw, also shows that Carter was in no way a pussy as Destroyer claims. The plan, even though it was poorly executed and unreasonably risky, was extremely ballsy.




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,872 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,183 Posts

6 Threads

#20 7 years ago

If you go around making war with people because of things that happened twenty, forty, or a hundred years ago, without requiring authorisation from Congress, then you'll lose a fairly major part of the civilian control of the military. You have to have a cut off date - where you just sit down and say, 'Look this is silly now, nothing's changed in this regard for years and if the president wants to prosecute a war here, he'll need a new mandate to do so.'