Next stop Iran

Well, it looks like the grand crusaders have found another soveign nation to attack. As of Right Now, the Bush administration has signed off on letting the CIA to covertly destabilize and take down the Iranian government. :whip: The only good thing seems to be that the CIA is not allowed to use lethal force. So why is the navy in the process of a built up off the iranian coast? :inquisitive:

However, the only real surprise comes from the money-grubbing oil tycoon/ puppet master Dick Cheney,

Quote:

---

"Vice President Cheney helped to lead the side favoring a military strike," said former CIA official Riedel, "but I think they have come to the conclusion that a military strike has more downsides than upsides."

---

:wall:

well he's the article http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/...uthorizes.html

god I hope we are not in store for another Preemptive War, because i have had enough spreading democracy to last me another administration. And I pray that Bush and Company do not start WWIII. :thumbsdown:


ps- the above post may contain slight sarcasm and bias, and i thought it would worthy to mention that. :2thumbsup:

they'll never learn it seems.. who ARE these people? how can they be so crazy??

YaY - another leftist!!!1 :2thumbsup:

If this is true, which it probably isnt (real covert ops are..well.. covert), then more good news!

This is how to take people down, its a lot more cost effective and just as powerful if done right.

The only reasons I dont want war with them is

-it could be never ending

-I learned from Iranians on the ORG that most also dislike the muslim extremists, then we can put our difference aside and have peace.

Other than that lets pwn 'em

It would be a mistake without precedent in history to militarily attack Iran. It would very likely lead to a nuclear exchange, of what scale, I don't know.

If anybody out there really believes the CIA hasn't been trying to destabilize the Islamic Republic since 1979, I've got a check I'd like you to cash for me... you can deposit it with the Easter Bunny. What's news is that they've announced it. Seems odd.

Easter Bunny? - I thought that was a lie to give children candy :book: , it almost sounds like:

WMD- the reason it was ok to invade iraq (the candy is the cheap gas we're getting). :idea2:

see little white lies never hurt anybody :beam: :yes:

yeah, it worked real well with Mossadegh when we took him down. Yep, real well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

It would be a mistake without precedent in history to militarily attack Iran. It would very likely lead to a nuclear exchange, of what scale, I don't know.

---

Starting a war with China would probably be even worse, but short of that I can't think of many stupider things we could do right now than attack Iran. I'm just hoping against hope that the Iranian people sort out their own government before things get too bad. They're really the only ones with the power to effect real change there and I think they have the education, intelligence, and potential to do it.

Ajax

Or, America could follow its Constitution and quit interfering in the affairs of countries that have nothing to do with it.

How is that an 'or'? I don't hear anyone here advocating an invasion of Iran. Do you?

Ajax

All I hear is that it's a very bad idea, that the Iranians need to ensure that they don't get tangled up in a war with the U.S., or any other nation.

Where in the Constitution does it say that we can't interfere with another country?

The Corporotacracy sure seems to want war with Iran--more contracts, more rebuilding money, more exlpoitation. We've been on this military footing for decades, its high past time we removed all the occupational bases in foreign countries and quit meddling with the world like it was there to serve us.

and by the way, the Constitution states that the army is for the defense of the republic and nothing else. We all know about the 'entangling alliances' too. We've been interfering for decades in things that don't concern us, which is the primary reason most of the world hates american policy.

So anyone care to guess the real reason why it was announced that we are doing sneaksie things in Iran? Just to scare Mr. Aminajad?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

The Corporotacracy sure seems to want war with Iran--more contracts, more rebuilding money, more exlpoitation. We've been on this military footing for decades, its high past time we removed all the occupational bases in foreign countries and quit meddling with the world like it was there to serve us.

---

LOL continue on with such thoughts, eventually you might even stumble across one that is correct.

Quote:

---

and by the way, the Constitution states that the army is for the defense of the republic and nothing else. We all know about the 'entangling alliances' too. We've been interfering for decades in things that don't concern us, which is the primary reason most of the world hates american policy.

---

Actually the Constitution does not state that, it is an interpatation of the wording but no such explicit statement exists that I know of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Constitution Legislative powers

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

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

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

---

Now congress has given up or ignored several aspects of these key powers that were granted to the body by the Constitution and its subsequent ratification by the people, but the military is only to defend the United States is not a stated power.

well launching an aggressive, offensive, illegal war on either Iraq or Iran isnt part of 'repelling invasions' or suppressing any insurrection either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

well launching an aggressive, offensive, illegal war on either Iraq or Iran isnt part of 'repelling invasions' or suppressing any insurrection either.

---

For the militias...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

well launching an aggressive, offensive, illegal war on either Iraq or Iran isnt part of 'repelling invasions' or suppressing any insurrection either.

---

If you look carefully, you'll note those were listed as duties of the militia, not the army.

Ajax

last time i checked the national guard was a militia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

well launching an aggressive, offensive, illegal war on either Iraq or Iran isnt part of 'repelling invasions' or suppressing any insurrection either.

---

You did notice this little line in the Constitution now didn't you, especially since you did use part of the sentence in your response.

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions


The laws of the Union are those legislative measures passed by the Congress.

This is rather elementary constitional law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

last time i checked the national guard was a militia.

---

So would you like to reword your position to 'It's okay for our army to interfere in things that don't concern us, as long as the national guard isn't used'?

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

last time i checked the national guard was a militia.

---

The part of the constitution you should complain about rightly is that the constitution does not give authority to a standing army, only a standing navy.

And the National Guard has its foundation in the militia concept but its no longer a militia per say -

how would U.S. "Law" have any relevance whatsoever in any other country, Iran in paticular?

I am confused by the previous statement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

how would U.S. "Law" have any relevance whatsoever in any other country, Iran in paticular?

---

Depends on if the US army is there. If it is, US law would certainly have relevance, as it would have sent the army there and would govern its actions while there. Otherwise, not so much relevance.

Ajax

the US Legislative branch has no authority to impose laws upon other countries, obviously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

how would U.S. "Law" have any relevance whatsoever in any other country, Iran in paticular?

---

Ah now your getting somewhere. What is the main issue that is currently being batted around by the two nations? What foundation in law does this issue have?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

the US Legislative branch has no authority to impose laws upon other countries, obviously.

---

And they wouldn't be. They'd be imposing laws on our army.

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

the US Legislative branch has no authority to impose laws upon other countries, obviously.

---

However the US Legislative branch has the authority to allow the military to act in accordance to its wishes by authorizing the commander in chief to use the military. Now one could argue there is only one instrument that Congress can use to authorize this by law, but history has shown and set presedence that the Congress has taken another method then what is spelled out in the Constitution.

So could Congress un-authorize the War in Iraq?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

So could Congress un-authorize the War in Iraq?

---

Yes in accordance with the War Powers Act of 1973 - congress can simply refuse to fund the military in regards to the actions in Iraq - and can even force the President to issue a withdraw order under that act.

However the Legislative body in question is a bunch of weak willed politians so I doubt any will attempt such a stanc. A minority will vocalize it - but from what I have seen from the body politic a majority will not attempt to force the Presidents hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by War Powers Act of 1973

(c) Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.

---

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/warpower.htm