• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Iran here we come.......

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Eventhough the Admin. say NO to a possible attack on Iran...with the track record of being backasswards....I'd say strap up cause they'll be going in. :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

Each and every issue that Bush as had denied any plans for...has happened.



http://voanews.com/english/archive/2007-02/2007-02-18-voa16.cfm?CFID=140621836&CFTOKEN=56847664
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Constitution

War With Iran? Who Decides?

October 6, 2007

Anyone following the growing political debate about whether or not we should go to war against Iran knows that both pundits and politicians assume that the decision is the president’s to make.

But though this perception is fairly widespread, its not universal. In fact, a contrary point of view is occasionally aired by the mainstream media. Such was the case with the Fox News GOP presidential candidate debate in Durham, New Hampshire, on September 5. During the debate, moderator Brit Hume presented Congressman Ron Paul with a scenario that the next president may face regarding Iran. As described by Hume: “Its [Iran’s] nuclear program has continued to advance. UN weapons inspectors … are now saying that it appears that Iran is on the verge of being able to produce and may even be producing nuclear weapons…. Cross-border incidents in Iraq involving elements of the Revolutionary Guard … continue to increase and are a continuing problem for U.S. forces there. In addition, the threats by Iran’s leader against Israel have become more pronounced and more extreme.” Hume then asked Paul: “What do you do?”

Congressman Paul began his answer by pointing out: “For one thing, one thing I would remember very clearly is the president doesn’t have the authority to go to war — he goes to the Congress.”

But Brit Hume appeared a bit puzzled with Paul’s point that the president does not have the authority to go to war. “What do you do?” he asked the congressman. “So what do you do?” he repeated. Paul answered: “He goes to the Congress and finds out if there’s any threat to our national security.”

Under our system of government, Paul is correct. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution expressly states: “The Congress shall have power … to declare war.” This means, of course, that the president does not possess this power. But how many of our fellow citizens know this? And how many know why the Founding Fathers assigned this power to Congress and not the president?

Undoubtedly, many of our fellow citizens, including perhaps Brit Hume, do erroneously believe that the decision to go to war is the president’s to make. Many Americans, after all, have been misled by media reports that focus on whether the president will take the nation into another war, as opposed to whether the Congress will declare war. And of course, many have been misled by the fact that after World War II U.S. presidents have acted as if the decision to go to war is theirs to make, with Congress allowing this usurpation to take place.

George W. Bush is no exception. In March of 2003, he launched an offensive war against Iraq without a congressional declaration of war. The previous fall, Congress had passed a resolution that essentially authorized the president to make the decision, thereby shirking its own responsibility under the Constitution. When the president launched the invasion of Iraq the following spring, he said he was doing so to enforce UN resolutions requiring Iraq to get rid of its reputed weapons of mass destruction. But he did not cite any congressional requirement to justify his action because there was none.

Bush has even explicitly claimed that he decides when America goes to war. For instance, in his January 28, 2003 State of the Union address, less than two months before launching the war against Iraq, he claimed: “Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a President can make.” On December 18, 2005, in an address to the nation on Iraq, he said: “As your president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq.”

Obviously, much of the responsibility for going into Iraq does belong to the president. After all, he made the decision. But some of the responsibility for our Iraq debacle also falls on Congress for ignoring its congressional responsibility and bowing to presidential usurpation. But that aside, there is no question that the president not only does not possess the authority to go to war but should not possess that authority.

When the Founding Fathers formed our constitutional republic, they recognized the inherent danger in giving a single person — the president or anyone else — the awesome power to make war. As James Madison, the father of our Constitution, put it in a letter to Thomas Jefferson on April 2, 1798: “The constitution supposes, what the History of all governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has, accordingly, with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legislature.”

full article:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/5787
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Eventhough the Admin. say NO to a possible attack on Iran...with the track record of being backasswards....I'd say strap up cause they'll be going in. :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

Each and every issue that Bush as had denied any plans for...has happened.



http://voanews.com/english/archive/2007-02/2007-02-18-voa16.cfm?CFID=140621836&CFTOKEN=56847664

I hope you are correct! Its just about time for us to throw some bombs their way. :wink:

Probably no need for all out war though, just bomb the crap out of there Nuke sites and Military establishments and then let them rebuild themselves, with no helping hand from us.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
kolanuraven said:
Eventhough the Admin. say NO to a possible attack on Iran...with the track record of being backasswards....I'd say strap up cause they'll be going in. :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

Each and every issue that Bush as had denied any plans for...has happened.



http://voanews.com/english/archive/2007-02/2007-02-18-voa16.cfm?CFID=140621836&CFTOKEN=56847664

I hope you are correct! Its just about time for us to throw some bombs their way. :wink:

Probably no need for all out war though, just bomb the crap out of there Nuke sites and Military establishments and then let them rebuild themselves, with no helping hand from us.


Ok Mr. HeMan...who's gonna fight it?

We have stretched thin the present Armed Forces to the max. They are worn out and bone tired.

And the next 5 generations after you will be paying for it...no ,I take that back...they'll be re-paying China for paying for our wars!!


Helles Belles...we can't even control Baghdad...let alone a county of over 65 million!!!
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
aplusmnt said:
kolanuraven said:
Eventhough the Admin. say NO to a possible attack on Iran...with the track record of being backasswards....I'd say strap up cause they'll be going in. :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

Each and every issue that Bush as had denied any plans for...has happened.



http://voanews.com/english/archive/2007-02/2007-02-18-voa16.cfm?CFID=140621836&CFTOKEN=56847664

I hope you are correct! Its just about time for us to throw some bombs their way. :wink:

Probably no need for all out war though, just bomb the crap out of there Nuke sites and Military establishments and then let them rebuild themselves, with no helping hand from us.


Ok Mr. HeMan...who's gonna fight it?

We have stretched thin the present Armed Forces to the max. They are worn out and bone tired.

And the next 5 generations after you will be paying for it...no ,I take that back...they'll be re-paying China for paying for our wars!!


Helles Belles...we can't even control Baghdad...let alone a county of over 65 million!!!

You do not have much faith in your fellow Americans do you! You would have been one of those, NO Hitler is to strong! the Japanese have to much resolve!

You are one of those the sky is falling, the glass is half full, Americans are weak and to blame for everything people.

Only problem with Money is that Washington want their cake and eat it also. They want money for troops and bridges to nowhere at the same time.

Only problem with man power is Liberals and their Media Chicken Little's turn the soldiers into bad people instead of the Hero's they are. In History Americans have always came to fight when needed, only time that became a problem was Vietnam war.

And what does this war and Iraq have in common? Too many Jane Fonda's and Cindy Sheehan's.

As for controlling Baghdad, If you notice I said not to invade, just bomb their nuke sites. Let them deal with it after a few days of American and Israel bombs.

American UP and quit being such a negative Cry baby.

Otherwise start stock piling up food and money because once a suitcase Nuke goes off in LA, Chicago and NYC on the same day financing and Manpower of the Iraq war will be the least of your gripes.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
A+---I have a question tho....Kola does bring up a very pertinent fact-- we don't have the troops (we've had to hire 100,000 mercenaries to provide Iraqui security) to fight an expanded or long continuing war...All the Generals and the troops say they are stressed to the breaking point with expanded tour lengths, the number of repeat tours, political rules of engagement, etc. etc....

What if after we A Bomb the nuke sites-- Iran/Syria/Muslim world sends thousands of troops attacking into Iraq, Afghanistan, and Israel ? Do we just break and run until we can get a draft up and running, some cannon fodder thru basic training?

If we do it this time-- lets plan for the What Ifs that could occur-- something the Generals are now admitting that GW, Rummy and the neocons that wanted into Iraq so bad forgot to do......

Otherwise start stock piling up food and money because once a suitcase Nuke goes off in LA, Chicago and NYC on the same day financing and Manpower of the Iraq war will be the least of your gripes.

I don't buy that argument...If that is such a major concern why isn't GW and his neocon Administration securing our borders?-Why are they allowing anyone from anywhere who wants to walk in access sites to do it- and then to stay in and work in (and possibly plot terrorist activites) in this country almost unrestricted?--- and inspecting more than 1 in every 10, or 1 in every 100 containers that is imported into this country that could contain everything from terrorists to nukes as far as they know?...
You can't tell me every terrorist in the world is pinned down in Iraq or Afghanistan-- in fact Osama is believed to be in Pakistan...
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
A+---I have a question tho....Kola does bring up a very pertinent fact-- we don't have the troops (we've had to hire 100,000 mercenaries to provide Iraqui security) to fight an expanded or long continuing war...All the Generals and the troops say they are stressed to the breaking point with expanded tour lengths, the number of repeat tours, political rules of engagement, etc. etc....

What if after we A Bomb the nuke sites-- Iran/Syria/Muslim world sends thousands of troops attacking into Iraq, Afghanistan, and Israel ? Do we just break and run until we can get a draft up and running, some cannon fodder thru basic training?

If we do it this time-- lets plan for the What Ifs that could occur-- something the Generals are now admitting that GW, Rummy and the neocons that wanted into Iraq so bad forgot to do......

Otherwise start stock piling up food and money because once a suitcase Nuke goes off in LA, Chicago and NYC on the same day financing and Manpower of the Iraq war will be the least of your gripes.

I don't buy that argument...If that is such a major concern why isn't GW and his neocon Administration securing our borders?-Why are they allowing anyone from anywhere who wants to walk in access sites to do it- and then to stay in and work in (and possibly plot terrorist activites) in this country almost unrestricted?--- and inspecting more than 1 in every 10, or 1 in every 100 containers that is imported into this country that could contain everything from terrorists to nukes as far as they know?...
You can't tell me every terrorist in the world is pinned down in Iraq or Afghanistan-- in fact Osama is believed to be in Pakistan...

We do not have enough policeman. That is what the Libs and Washington idiots have turned our troops into. Going door to door policing in Iraq instead of fighting a war. If our bombs of nuke sites in Iran turn it into an all out war then we will go back to the shock and awe type war we first fought in Iraq.

Like I have said before we won the Iraq war in a few days when we were fighting like a country at war, it is the policing and trying to rebuild bridges, oil wells and hunting of terrorist that has been a challenge. We defeated the Iraq army and Saddam easily.

We could do the same with Iran and Syria, are only challenge would come if we tried to rebuild them.

If Iran, and Syria sends in troops to Iraq, then hopefully our guys can take their weapons off safety and single shot and start killing some bad guys. The ships and planes will send missiles.

Iran and Iraq fought each other for 8 years to end in a truce, we defeated the Iraq army in a few days. Iran could suffer the same consequences. Our only problem would be if we decided to occupy their country. Defeated them could be more civilized in a few weeks or mass destruction in a few hours.

As for the borders, many reasons we do not secure them, but in reality we could never secure them good enough to keep out suitcase nukes. Secure borders is not the answer to keep out suitcase nukes, because if we view that as our means of protection we will fail! No border could ever be so secure no one could come in.

So knowing this a smart leader would go after the source of the future threat. Iran getting a nuke is more of a threat than some Mexicans crossing the border.

I think you let your disgust for weak borders (which I agree with) cloud your views on other more pressing issues!

With Satellite imaging and detectors it is much easier to find a nuke facility than it is stopping someone from crossing onto American soil.

Securing the borders would be a band aid on the terrorist problem. Primarily advantage of more secure borders being economical not in regards National Security. Sure it will help some, but it will not be a stop all of terrorist determination.

We have to beat down those that wish to do the harm. We have to attack them and keep them running and on their heels. The longer we spend on offense and keep them on defense the better chance we have to wining.

Once we rely only on defense (of borders) then we will loose!

We can not sit back and allow the middle east to become stronger we have to take the fight to them!
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
All of you 10 cent heros talk of throwin' a nuke..here...a nuke there.

There are people in Japan to this day suffering the results of the radiation...babies being born deformed. Do you want that for your generations to come?

We know better now...we know the after effects/affects, we didn't then.

If we toss one...we'll get one tossed back in our lap now!!

Are you sure you are NOT Dubya???
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
To address the personnel problems more directly.

We have what., say 160,000 troops in Iraq? Maybe 10,000 or so in Afghanistan?

We have around 1.5 million active troops, another 800,000 reserve personnel. We have around 55 Million U.S. Citizens fit for Military service.

We have the largest Military budget of any country in the world. We have the most technologically advanced fighting force in the world.

To sit back and say we have to let Iran get a Nuke because our military is stretched is a lame excuse.

Our troops are similiar to our finances we want to have our cake and eat it also. Stop stupid spending and the money will be there, pull troops away from protecting so many other countries around the world like those in Korea, Germany, Japan etc......Isolate them into OUR threat in the middle east and take care of business.

The Liberal Cancer has crippled our Military Might, not a lack of Manpower or Money!

We need leaders that will make tough and strong decisions like Truman did not those that say do not fire until they shoot at your first!
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
All of you 10 cent heros talk of throwin' a nuke..here...a nuke there.

There are people in Japan to this day suffering the results of the radiation...babies being born deformed. Do you want that for your generations to come?

We know better now...we know the after effects/affects, we didn't then.

If we toss one...we'll get one tossed back in our lap now!!

Are you sure you are NOT Dubya???

I got to know my grandfather because Truman sent the bomb, I never knew my Uncle because one was not sent soon enough.

To bad, that there is people in Japan being born deformed today. That was collateral damage for THEIR ACTIONS!

Not because of actions by the U.S.

Japan has these deformed babies, because they bombed Pearl Harbour , not because Truman dropped the bomb.

If Muslim Nations around the world want to keep from having Deformed babies then they need to quit attacking America and its Interest.

Better there is deformed kids in Camel land, than in LA, NYC, etc.....

My concern is with my family and my Country, not collateral damage to others that are evil, violent nations.

You call me a 10 cent hero, I say your humanity concerns are worth 10 cents, if faced with the question of rather you and your family will be killed or some babies grow 12 toes in Iran you would choose your family. You are just not smart enough to realize that this question is really being asked RIGHT NOW! You view it as a hypothetical question, not a real threat.

That is why Liberalism is a mental disorder!
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
You still don't get my statement. Quit squealing a minute.

If we lob a bomb at ANYONE on the planet....we'll get one in return in OUR lap this day and time.

Are you willing to risk your future generations of little A minuses to come to the horrors that we NOW know from radiation? There are others ways to settle things than the GW way....look how good that's turned out!
 

MoGal

Well-known member
Aplus - if we went through and did just like you said, we could be in and out in less than 7 days (but you forget the central bankers and greedy businesses want it to last for years because they don't make enough money in 7 days --- wars used to increase the economy but we've outsourced all our mfg jobs so other countries are reaping the benefits and leaving we, the american people, with the debt.)

Also, Russia and China are not too happy about the US going into Iran. They would be more likely to send a nuke our way.

I got a really good CD from Perry Stone, "Satans Agenda to take down America" and in it he talks about Muslims being in Mexico learning spanish so they can come into the USA as illegals in hopes they can pass off as Mexicans.... we need secure borders. Also he talks about an IMD or MD some type bomb that goes off overhead and it melts the copper in everything........ all they have to do is send a few of those over here and we'd all be in the stone age...... no refrigerators, vehicles, stoves, computers, (anything with copper in it) and they say that would take six to twelve months to recover from..... (can you imagine how folks would be??? last years ice storms brought some of the lowlifes out in city streets ready to fight the electric companies because they weren't fast enough restoring their electric)......... would make Katrina seem like a piece of cake compared to this.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
You still don't get my statement. Quit squealing a minute.

If we lob a bomb at ANYONE on the planet....we'll get one in return in OUR lap this day and time.

Are you willing to risk your future generations of little A minuses to come to the horrors that we NOW know from radiation? There are others ways to settle things than the GW way....look how good that's turned out!

First off, I do not think a Nuke will be needed, just some shock and awe on Iran's military interest and Nuke production sites.

Small little Israel did it to Iraq and got away with it back in 1981 why can the U.S. not do it to Iran?

And even if we do bomb someone with a Nuke that does not mean we will get one back in our laps. China and Russia will rattle their sabers towards us, because they have economic interest in Iran, but no nation would retaliate with a nuke towards us for anything we do to Iran, because any nation that did would be annihilated, and an all out Nuke war would be on.

But like I said that is not needed, just do as Israel did in 1981, hit the threatening sites in Iran and be done with it. Sure their will be some back lash for it, but the world will be a safer place than if we let Iran have a nuke.

It is scary how afraid you Libs are of a country that does not even have the capacity to strike us in the U.S. How you would rather bury your heads in sand like Bill Clinton did than take the fight too our enemies.

This Muslim problem is Life or Death, they have been doing this stuff for a 1,000 years. We have allowed them to get strong enough that now people like you Libs are afraid of them. How dangerous will they be if we let them get any stronger over the next 100 years? They are evil, people with a resolve like very few people in America can even come close to understanding.

Most Americans do not even have the capacity to understand just how dangerous they are. Most people can not relate to a person that has such strong religious beliefs that they would let their sons and daughters die as suicide bombers and be proud of it. That is a dedication of hate that most can not even relate to.
 

Cal

Well-known member
Hey, I know! We can just drop some of MoGals "copper melting" bombs on Iraq! I'm gonna e-mail Bush and tell him to get right on it....ya know, if the greedy businessmen will let him.
 

Latest posts

Top