Bush Budget Plans for Iran Attack

[no name 1]

"The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th." -GWB, Washington, D.C., July 12, 2007

"You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror." -GWB interview with Katie Couric, Sept. 6, 2006

"I'm the decider, and I decide what is best" -GWB in Washington, D.C. April 18, 2006

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." -GWB in Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

Edited November 1, 2007 by devilette

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I would say that attacking Iran because they "could pose a threat" is completely unconstitutional, but since our federal government no longer stays within its consitutional granted powers, it is a moot point. But I would like to point out that it is this very sort of reasoning that is driving countries like Iran to develope nukes. If Iran can gain a nuke, then it will deter the US from attacking them just as N Korea has.

I agree. Which is why we have to take out their nuclear capability NOW - in one shot,

with minimal collateral damage, while we still can.

We have already missed that chance with China, and possibly N. Korea.

We need unimpeded access to the Middle East's natural resources, and Iran stands in

the way of that goal. With Iraq's Saddam Hussein gone, Iran is the last man standing

and they have to go.

You're very much on the amoral side of the argument then

[mawilson 2,133]

I would say that attacking Iran because they "could pose a threat" is completely unconstitutional, but since our federal government no longer stays within its consitutional granted powers, it is a moot point. But I would like to point out that it is this very sort of reasoning that is driving countries like Iran to develope nukes. If Iran can gain a nuke, then it will deter the US from attacking them just as N Korea has.

I agree. Which is why we have to take out their nuclear capability NOW - in one shot,

with minimal collateral damage, while we still can.

We have already missed that chance with China, and possibly N. Korea.

We need unimpeded access to the Middle East's natural resources, and Iran stands in

the way of that goal. With Iraq's Saddam Hussein gone, Iran is the last man standing

and they have to go.

You're very much on the amoral side of the argument then

Unlike many people here, I have no illusions about our sanctity or goodness.

We all do what we have to do to get more out of life.

[Ban Hammer 13,465]

The civilian government controls the military, charles, you know that. It's in the Constitution an' everything. Either that or you're saying it's the boys in uniform who screwed up Iraq, which is unfair to them. If Bush says he wants to drop bombs on Iran, the AUMF (sort of) gives him the ability to do so.

i'm well aware of that, tyvm. however, the ones who plan the air missions down to the last detail are not found in the white house.

Merely pointing out the obvious that the armed forces are not the ones who make the decision to go to war. So reading conspiracy theories? No.

Have you been reading at all?

yes, we know the armed forces don't make that decision. next inane remark?

They plan the air missions but if the intel is forged or just false, they'll bomb the wrong thing having planned it down to the last detail. (cf. factories, Sudan.)

i'm still baffled how intel can be forged. it can be interpreted wrong, yes. it buy the deception operation by the other guys hook line and sinker, yes. but falsified without a lengthy list of people voicing their concerns is beyond me.

Well there was a lengthy list of peopel who voiced their concerns about the quality of intelligence used to justify Iraq - including the then head of MI6.

now for the million dollar question - how often does it happen that intel is interpreted and there is someone with a dissenting view?

Probably quite often - but surely something depends on the number and quality of the people holding the dissenting view.

you're on the right track. pretty much every time. in my experience there's always been a dissenting opinion. it's kinda like economists, if you put a bunch of intel people in the same room they'd all reach a different conclusion. and yes, it's due to experience, training, instinct, personal interpretation, and other factors.

That won't fly, charles. Disagreements is the nature of the game, but that's not enough to justify saying 'well, everyone disagrees with my assessment of the intel, including the head of intelligence of our closest ally, but everyone disagrees all the time, so we can do what we want.' To believe that would be to make intel just worthless pageantry.

it won't eh? funny how i have 20 years experience in that field and you don't.

[Ban Hammer 13,465]

I don't think it's lunacy to bomb nuclear facilities in Iran, they are a really ###### up nation and could pose a threat.

I would say that attacking Iran because they "could pose a threat" is completely unconstitutional, but since our federal government no longer stays within its consitutional granted powers, it is a moot point. But I would like to point out that it is this very sort of reasoning that is driving countries like Iran to develope nukes. If Iran can gain a nuke, then it will deter the US from attacking them just as N Korea has.

explain please.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/co...n.overview.html

a link like that isn't what i had in mind. again, explain why it's unconstitutional.

Well, the constitution is what I had in mind when I make assertions concerning the constitution. I am not going to do your homework for you. Go read it, arm yourself with the knowledge, then come back and explain your position if you think otherwise.

why did i expect anything different?

[mawilson 2,133]

Well, the constitution is what I had in mind when I make assertions concerning the constitution. I am not going to do your homework for you. Go read it, arm yourself with the knowledge, then come back and explain your position if you think otherwise.

why did i expect anything different?

Because what he/she said is BS?

How is attacking Iran unconstitutional, of all things?

In violation of international laws, maybe, but unconstitutional.........

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I would say that attacking Iran because they "could pose a threat" is completely unconstitutional, but since our federal government no longer stays within its consitutional granted powers, it is a moot point. But I would like to point out that it is this very sort of reasoning that is driving countries like Iran to develope nukes. If Iran can gain a nuke, then it will deter the US from attacking them just as N Korea has.

I agree. Which is why we have to take out their nuclear capability NOW - in one shot,

with minimal collateral damage, while we still can.

We have already missed that chance with China, and possibly N. Korea.

We need unimpeded access to the Middle East's natural resources, and Iran stands in

the way of that goal. With Iraq's Saddam Hussein gone, Iran is the last man standing

and they have to go.

You're very much on the amoral side of the argument then

Unlike many people here, I have no illusions about our sanctity or goodness.

We all do what we have to do to get more out of life.

I'm not really knocking you for it - just seems to me that if you're content to be the bad guy, you have to expect and pay for the consequences of that world view. Specifically that a insular imperialist outlook doesn't really allow for a conventional or indeed valid moral/ethical argument regarding particular tactics (i.e. terrorism).

At least you're aware of that - rather than other people here who deceive themselves by dressing up the same argument with simplistic, moral platitudes.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

[quote name='charlesandnessa' post='1296549'

That won't fly, charles. Disagreements is the nature of the game, but that's not enough to justify saying 'well, everyone disagrees with my assessment of the intel, including the head of intelligence of our closest ally, but everyone disagrees all the time, so we can do what we want.' To believe that would be to make intel just worthless pageantry.

it won't eh? funny how i have 20 years experience in that field and you don't.

I don't think you need 20 years of experience to understand the point - that regardless of divergent opinion there's usually a consensus (in most things), and sooner or later someone has to make a decision and take direct responsibility for doing so.

[Ban Hammer 13,465]

I don't think you need 20 years of experience to understand the point - that regardless of divergent opinion there's usually a consensus (in most things), and sooner or later someone has to make a decision and take direct responsibility for doing so.

and usually the person doing that is quite senior. and even then, that person may disregard the conclusions of the ones doing the real analysis.

[AmericanGentleman 0]

I would say that attacking Iran because they "could pose a threat" is completely unconstitutional, but since our federal government no longer stays within its consitutional granted powers, it is a moot point. But I would like to point out that it is this very sort of reasoning that is driving countries like Iran to develope nukes. If Iran can gain a nuke, then it will deter the US from attacking them just as N Korea has.

I agree. Which is why we have to take out their nuclear capability NOW - in one shot,

with minimal collateral damage, while we still can.

We have already missed that chance with China, and possibly N. Korea.

We need unimpeded access to the Middle East's natural resources, and Iran stands in

the way of that goal. With Iraq's Saddam Hussein gone, Iran is the last man standing

and they have to go.

The framers of our constitution and international laws would not agree with your proposal.

Unlike many people here, I have no illusions about our sanctity or goodness.

We all do what we have to do to get more out of life.

You would have made a good Nazi.

[SMOKE 1,426]

*** mawilson beating war drums ***

just found that title funny

[AmericanGentleman 0]

I don't think it's lunacy to bomb nuclear facilities in Iran, they are a really ###### up nation and could pose a threat.

I would say that attacking Iran because they "could pose a threat" is completely unconstitutional, but since our federal government no longer stays within its consitutional granted powers, it is a moot point. But I would like to point out that it is this very sort of reasoning that is driving countries like Iran to develope nukes. If Iran can gain a nuke, then it will deter the US from attacking them just as N Korea has.

explain please.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/co...n.overview.html

a link like that isn't what i had in mind. again, explain why it's unconstitutional.

Well, the constitution is what I had in mind when I make assertions concerning the constitution. I am not going to do your homework for you. Go read it, arm yourself with the knowledge, then come back and explain your position if you think otherwise.

why did i expect anything different?

How is that reading going? Let me know if you get stuck on any parts of it.

[Mags 112]

You would have made a good Nazi.

Any more comments like that will result in a locked thread.

[Ban Hammer 13,465]

I don't think it's lunacy to bomb nuclear facilities in Iran, they are a really ###### up nation and could pose a threat.

I would say that attacking Iran because they "could pose a threat" is completely unconstitutional, but since our federal government no longer stays within its consitutional granted powers, it is a moot point. But I would like to point out that it is this very sort of reasoning that is driving countries like Iran to develope nukes. If Iran can gain a nuke, then it will deter the US from attacking them just as N Korea has.

explain please.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/co...n.overview.html

a link like that isn't what i had in mind. again, explain why it's unconstitutional.

Well, the constitution is what I had in mind when I make assertions concerning the constitution. I am not going to do your homework for you. Go read it, arm yourself with the knowledge, then come back and explain your position if you think otherwise.

why did i expect anything different?

How is that reading going? Let me know if you get stuck on any parts of it.

as you made the statement and can't back it up with anything, i'm not paying any further attention to it. you on the other hand can feel free to make more outlandish statements and avoid backing them up with any definitive proof if you please

[Sinergy 3]

wow, rude and disrespectful again shame