Would You Support Military Action?

[mikeh]

My main emotional reaction to the suggestion that the US might invade Iran (or otherwise attack it) is sadness... alloyed with muted outrage. Muted because I suspect I have become somewhat desensitized to the incredibly twisted spin put on foreign affairs by most media, which tamely repeat the government's message.

 

Even the opposition party(ies) in most democracies only speak against the government approach when they see it to be politically expedient, rather than morally correct... and, in fairness, it seems that most opposition politicians are no more told the truth than is the public. The government controls the information, and information is power.

 

So we have a view of Iran put together from a variety of sources.. which ones influence us the most depends upon our own biases and the media we 'trust'. But the vast majority of media lack access to the raw data, and thus must in turn incorporate a great deal of government-endorsed information.

 

This is particularly a problem when we, as a public, do not speak or read the language of the 'enemy'. Few of us ever have access to more than one or two versions of translations, and no media, to my knowledge, ever purports to translate an entire speech (for example), when quoting or misquoting a particularly inflammatory passage.

 

I read the Economist: now, I don't think it is perfect, but its views largely coincide with mine, in terms of 'values': fiscal conservatism, but not robber-baron-capitalism, and social liberalism. This is a combination almost unheard of in US political circles, where even the Democrats are, by comparison to many European politicians, socially conservative, and the Republicans rabidly (and often hypocritically) so.

 

What I like most about the Economist is that while it is clearly biased in favour of western rationalism, it does try, so it seems, to be objective in the discussion of the policies of other nations. Unlike, say, Time or Newsweek, which pander, quite blatantly, to the US government and that bane of US politics: 'patriotism'.

 

Even Orwell would have been hard-pressed to come up with the name The Patriot Act for a document intended to strip the world's greatest democracy of many of the safeguards that made it such a great democracy.

 

As it is, with the spin doctors in control, the American public is terrified that some Iranians will either directly or indirectly nuke some US city.

 

Why on earth would anyone do that? Does anyone think that a political/religious leader smart enough to manipulate his way to the top of the power struggle in Iran, or any other country, would initiate mass-suicide (including his own) in that way? Maybe if he feared that he was going down anyway... nothing left to lose... but why would any such leader get to that state unless the US drove him there?

 

Ask instead who gains from inculcating this fear.

 

While Roosevelt was himself a duplicitous leader (not a knock on him, per se... it is the nature of the beast), he had it right when he, or his speechwriter, said We have nothing to fear except fear itself. Edit: I idiotically attributed this to JFK when I first posted this, and have been set straight :)

 

So my take on 'should the US use military force on Iran' is to ask what is the true motive for (1) keeping the idea alive, (2) actually doing it.

 

Not: what are the justifications that the politicians and their tame commanders and intelligence specialists pronounce or 'leak', but what is really going on.

 

As an example, what did Cheney intend with Iraq, as opposed to what did George Bush want?

[BebopKid]

What I don't like is the seeming influence of the Zionist lobby that got Congress to remove the statement from one of the Iraq funding bills that Bush cannot attack Iran without express authorization from Congress.

Umm, this is misinformation.

 

The U.S. President must have authorization from Congress to go to war.

 

The U.S. President has the power to defend the U.S. in emergencies without authorization from Congress. A statement in a funding bill would not change this as the Constitution overrides.

 

I will also remind everyone that Congress authorized the invasion of Iraq, also. This was done to enforce U.N. resolutions that Iraq was not responding to.

[BebopKid]

While JFK was himself a duplicitous leader (not a knock on him, per se... it is the nature of the beast), he had it right when he, or his speechwriter, said We have nothing to fear except fear itself.

I love when people have no idea what they are talking about.

 

How are we supposed to believe these rants when you don't know who said, "We have nothing to fear except fear itself."

 

I'll give you a hint, it was said on December 8, 1941.

[hrothgar]

What I don't like is the seeming influence of the Zionist lobby that got Congress to remove the statement from one of the Iraq funding bills that Bush cannot attack Iran without express authorization from Congress.

Umm, this is misinformation.

Dr Todd's comments are quite accurate.

 

A few months ago, the congressional Democrats were considering attaching a ammendment to one of the supplemental budget authoritizations supporting the war in Iraq. The ammednment was intended to clarify that when COngress granted Bush the authority to go to war against Iraq they did not authorize any type of military action against Iran. (Simply put, the ammednment would require that Bush go back to congress and get approval to go to war with Iran).

 

The congressional demoncratic leadership caved and withdrew the ammendment after heavy lobbying by AIPAC. This incident was discussed here ont he BBO forums at the time that it happened.

[mikeh]

While JFK was himself a duplicitous leader (not a knock on him, per se... it is the nature of the beast), he had it right when he, or his speechwriter, said We have nothing to fear except fear itself.

I love when people have no idea what they are talking about.

 

How are we supposed to believe these rants when you don't know who said, "We have nothing to fear except fear itself."

 

I'll give you a hint, it was said on December 8, 1941.

ooops, again: oh well, so I shouldn't recite passages from faulty memory. However, your (valid) correction, (and I realized my error immediately on reading your post and am embarrassed to have made it) actually strengthens my point. Anyone who has read anything about the events preceding Pearl Harbour, including the correspondence between Churchill and Roosevelt knows that Roosevelt was trying very, very hard to find a way into the war... and there is at least a strong argument that he or people close to him chose to ignore warnings (East Wind Rain was one of the codes intercepted a couple of days before Pearl Harbour, when the US knew the code in use) so as to ensure that the attack wsa not headed off. So Roosevelt was a duplicitous leader... and as I said that is not necessarily a criticism of him in the circumstances. Your views may differ.

 

BTW, what (apart from a silly and embarrassing misattribution of a presidential quote) made what I said a 'rant'? Or is it your position that anything that questions the moral integrity of the leaders of the US is unacceptable and thus a 'rant'?

[hrothgar]

While JFK was himself a duplicitous leader (not a knock on him, per se... it is the nature of the beast), he had it right when he, or his speechwriter, said We have nothing to fear except fear itself.

I love when people have no idea what they are talking about.

 

How are we supposed to believe these rants when you don't know who said, "We have nothing to fear except fear itself."

 

I'll give you a hint, it was said on December 8, 1941.

Bebop, you might want to tread very carefully when you start talking about people who have no idea what they are talking about.

 

Roosevelt's statement "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself" is actually from his first inaugural address in 1933. He was talking about the Great Depression, not the attack on Pearl Harbor.

 

The reasonate phrase from the Pearl Harbor speach was "A date that will live on in infamy"

[Al_U_Card]

Or is it your position that anything that questions the moral integrity of the leaders of the US is unacceptable and thus a 'rant'?

Why would you question something that they don't have?

 

Infamy....like when they cancelled the bomber patrols out of the Aleutians on Dec. 6th 1942 because they didn't want the pilots to report on the known (by the US high command) location of the incoming Jap fleet.

[TimG]

I love when people have no idea what they are talking about.

 

How are we supposed to believe these rants when you don't know who said, "We have nothing to fear except fear itself."

 

I'll give you a hint, it was said on December 8, 1941.

Wasn't it actually: "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

 

And, I don't think it had anything to do with WWII.

[Al_U_Card]

The only thing they have to fear is being found out....

[pbleighton]

Wasn't it actually: "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

 

And, I don't think it had anything to do with WWII.

 

Correct. It was in reference to the Depression, and was in FDR's inaural address in 1933.

 

Thise who can, do.

 

Those who can't, teach.

 

Those who can't teach.....

 

Peter

[DrTodd13]

What I don't like is the seeming influence of the Zionist lobby that got Congress to remove the statement from one of the Iraq funding bills that Bush cannot attack Iran without express authorization from Congress.

Umm, this is misinformation.

 

The U.S. President must have authorization from Congress to go to war.

 

The U.S. President has the power to defend the U.S. in emergencies without authorization from Congress. A statement in a funding bill would not change this as the Constitution overrides.

 

I will also remind everyone that Congress authorized the invasion of Iraq, also. This was done to enforce U.N. resolutions that Iraq was not responding to.

No, you misunderstand. The Congress put something in a bill essentially reminding the President that the constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, not him. Due to pressure from Zionists, even this reminder of what the constitution says was removed from the bill.

[BebopKid]

Oops, sorry, I should have looked up the date. But I did say I love it when people don't know what they're talking about. I make myself happy all the time.

 

And Congress doesn't need to go around "reminding" the President what the Constitution says. They need to focus on their duties.

[hrothgar]

And Congress doesn't need to go around "reminding" the President what the Constitution says. They need to focus on their duties.

Funny that...

 

One of the duties of the legisilative branch is reminding the executive when it oversteps its bounds. In some cases, this reminders are very forceful (the term impeachment comes to mind). However, even if Congress doesn't decide to go this route, they are perfectly within their power to exercise due oversight.

 

Admittedly, the president got used to getting a free pass from legislative oversight back when the Republicans were dominating all three branches of government. However, the times they are a'changing.

[kenrexford]

Sadly, but realistically, the US is just following in the footsteps of its predecessors. The Maine, Pearl Harbor, The Gulf of Tonkin, 9-11. The powers that be exercise their control to further their ends and are very sanguine about it. The US was founded in an attempt to restore a certain measure of power to the people. Unfortunately, it was a noble experiment that appears to be in failing health.

Ah, but is it now? Are "the People" somehow not interested in real politik?

 

Omelas always will exist. However much we may want to deny reality, it exists. One comfort is that the child is not an innocent. The child wants us to carry the burden for it, and the child is an angry child. In fact, one could argue that the child already tried to force "us" into carrying the burden, but it lost. We can grieve for the child, but we cannot let the child be free so long as the child persists in its aspirations.

[Al_U_Card]

I wonder if a groundswell of support for an article V convention (already in progress) could be countered by seizure of possessions because it will have a negative impact on the "execution" of the plan for Iraq..... (which includes the presence of the army on US soil to protect you from "them dern terarists")

[pbleighton]

I'm not all that certain that I am misperceiving the big picture.

 

A lady at my bridge club is about to turn 100 years of age. So, she was alive before WWI. What has the big picture been in her lifetime?

 

When she was born, a few European nations were in control of almost everything. The colonial powers were largely places that wanted to be in control of almost everything, but they lost at some point.

 

The powers in Europe fought amongst each other and some power arrangements seemed to shift slightly. This allowed some new powers, old powers long forgotten but resurfacing, to gain new powers.

 

A generation later, this new power tilt boiled over, and millions died. Power shifted in a major way. Power vacuums developed, with sources for very old power having some breathing space.

 

The new powers pushed at each other while vacuums started to fill. One large area of relative power vacuum, at one time an area of extreme power, has tried a new tactic.

 

What I see in this story, so far, are a few things.

 

Power moves. It may seem to increase or decrease in specific areas, but it seems relatively assured to emerge.

 

Powers end up fighting, and lots of people die as a result.

 

All power is used to the benefit of those holding the power and to the detriment of those not having the power. That seems to be because power is the most important asset, one that cannot be shared effectively.

 

Within the range of power-holders, some are more troubling than others.

 

The effects of power concentration in an area seem to be most disturbing when the power must also be used internally.

 

Dogs fight over food. Most dogs are otherwise fairly nice pets, but they do fight over food. The nice dog that does not fight over food goes hungry.

 

Some dogs have fought too much, having been trained by their masters to kill senselessly. Those dogs are usually subject to extreme rules by the government and often must be put down. You just cannot trust a dog that bites for no reason.

 

Yet, dogs always have a reason. Ultimately, however, that does not matter.

 

Ken, following your logic:

 

Rape has always been with us, and will probably always will be with us.

 

Therefore, it's cool.

 

Do I understand you correctly?

 

Peter

[kenrexford]

Ken, following your logic:

 

Rape has always been with us, and will probably always will be with us.

 

Therefore, it's cool.

 

Do I understand you correctly?

 

Peter

In a manner of speaking, I suppose. As a big stretch metaphor.

 

The idea is not that "it's cool." The idea is that it's necessary. I'm not all that certain that rape can be categorized as necessary.

 

However, the logic extension, albeit flawed in your use, might be useful nonetheless.

 

You are in a room. There is a gun in the room, and a knife. You are a nice person, but the sole other person in the room is a rapist. He wants you bad. You are not all into him like that.

 

So, you run for the gun, and he grabs the knife.

 

Three things could happen, IMO.

 

1. You could shoot him senselessly between the eyes. That might be a tad extreme. When you have him, you have him. No need to be brutal.

 

2. You could suggest that everyone put down their weapons and talk. He would likely agree. He might even be very reasonable about it. Then, you get raped. If you want, you can take it and understand whatever suffering as a kid he must have experienced to justify this behavior.

 

3. You could point your gun and him and threaten him. If he approaches anyway, you could fire a warning shot (hopefully you have enough bullets). You might then, if necessary, shoot him in the leg and hope that works. If all fails, then you must resort to shooting him.

 

Ah! But is this not really unfair if your father raped him and made him the way he is? Sure. But, I ain't letting him rape me to make up for it.

 

What about the fact that he is so messed up that he cannot get any dates with real nice people? And, because you are not messed up, you get to date all the people he does not get to date. His pain lets you have more options. Does this mean that you'll let him rape you, just this once? I doubt it.

 

What if you yourself tormented him as a kid? What if you made fun of him for what your own father did? Let him rape you now? Probably not so much.

 

Now, once you have this guy in complete control, where he cannot rape you, might you try to do something to help him? Sure! Why not?

 

Thank God he did not get the gun and you the knife. He would rape you, of course. However, he would also beat you down for even thinking about resisting him, pistol-whip you, take your knife and cut you with it, find your family and do the same to them, and then perhaps eventually turn on himself and finally end the suffering by his own self-destruction.

 

Back way up. Suppose he held a knife to the throat of some third person in the room. Does that change the analysis? Would you try your damnedest to stop him, but not by dropping the gun, allowing him to do whatever he wants to both of you?

 

Oh -- wait! That's where Hollywood comes into play. Sure -- drop the gun. Somehow the hero wins when he drops the gun.

[DrTodd13]

And Congress doesn't need to go around "reminding" the President what the Constitution says.  They need to focus on their duties.

Funny that...

 

One of the duties of the legisilative branch is reminding the executive when it oversteps its bounds. In some cases, this reminders are very forceful (the term impeachment comes to mind). However, even if Congress doesn't decide to go this route, they are perfectly within their power to exercise due oversight.

 

Admittedly, the president got used to getting a free pass from legislative oversight back when the Republicans were dominating all three branches of government. However, the times they are a'changing.

Given that the reminder was removed, I'd have to say that times they-aren't-a-changin'. Surprise, surprise, if you look at all the candidates running for president, the only ones who get blessed with the "top tier" status by the media are the big corporatists. Who owns the media? Corporations. Everything now is about perpetuating the status quo and maximizing profits for business. Mussolini said that fascism is more properly called corporatism and this is what we have today. I don't have a problem with someone making billions from running a business ethically. My problem is where the system is rigged for the benefit of the elites. The top democrats are not anti-war, they are anti-THIS-war and that only for political expediency. Give them a chance and they'll attack Iran (and Pakistan if Obama gets his way) just like Bush wants to do.

[helene_t]

Ken, you've seen too many movies. Better go back to bidding system design.

[pbleighton]

Ken, you've seen too many movies. Better go back to bidding system design.

 

LOL.

 

Sure -- drop the gun.

 

No one is suggesting unilateral disarmament, Ken. What we're saying is don't blow his brains out because he's buying parts which he might use to build a gun.

 

You don't seem to be able to distinguish between offensive and defensive wars. They all blur into one continuous historical BOOM for you.

 

What's the diff, eh?

 

Peter

[mike777]

This is a really queasy difficult question.

 

IF someone does not have a "gun" "bomb" "plague" big enough to destroy the world in a matter of minutes or hours or days but assume you have proof they are buying the parts for one.

 

With India and Pakistan and China and others we did nothing.

Doing nothing with Iran may be the best result also, but I do not see Congress or the those running for President even debating that, too busy with Craig I guess. :)

 

Can anyone cite what those guys and gal positions are on this?

 

I just did a quick check of Mrs. Clinton's website but found no mention of Iran at all.

[pbleighton]

IF someone does not have a "gun" "bomb" "plague" big enough to destroy the world in a matter of minutes or hours or days but assume you have proof they are buying the parts for one.

 

Oh, you mean the kind of weapons WE have.

 

Peter

[pbleighton]

Can anyone cite what those guys and gal positions are on this?

 

I'm guessing none of the candidates from either party have a clear position on what they would do now. It would do them no political good, and could cause all of them some political harm.

 

Peter

[Winstonm]

MikeH brought up a good point: what leader in their right mind would use or deliver for use a nuclear weapon?

 

As with most things, the most eloquent of lies is the one which holds in its conceptualization a portion of truth - Islamic terrorists are the greatest threat to the U.S.

 

There are extreme elements of Islam who believe a Cailif should rule an all-Islam world. These are the extremists who suicide bomb in order to attempt to recreate the Ottoman Empire.

 

However, this is a minority of Islamics and there are conflicts even within Islam over this ideology. The danger is that this very small group could come to power in a country or be given weapons by a country. For them to come to power is about as likely as a third-pary candidate being elected President of the U.S. There simply isn't enough power base for them to win. As for nuclear weapons, it seems clear to me that although rogue states might hide, allow training, and even financially support terrorists - more for political than ideological reasons - that to actually provide a nuclear weapon is too insane to be considered.

 

The big lie is that all Islamic enemies of the U.S. are this insane.

We propogate misquotes and mis-translations to support this claim.

"We will wipe Israel from the face of the map" was never said.

 

We have also villified Osama bin Laden as our greatest enemey - The Great Satan, to steal a phrase. Yet Osama bin Laden originally led the insurgency against Russia's invasion of Afghanistan. The reason? To drive Russian infadels from Islamic lands. It wasn't about creating a Islamic Empire - it was about protecting Islamic land - the same basic problem Islam has with Israel.

 

Odd that once Russia withdrew, they were no longer the target of terroists plots.

 

What turned bin Laden against America was the U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia. Once again, bin Laden turned his forces against infadels on Islamic land.

 

Although small groups of extremists may believe in renewing the Ottoman Empire and establishing a Cailifet, the overriding concern of angered Islamics is the U.S. presence - again, infadels in Islamic lands.

 

All that is accomplished by warring actions against other Islamic nations is to further prove the "rightness" of the extremist while pushing more and more moderates into the extremist camps.

 

This global was on terror is an illusion to allow a secondary agenda - an agenda of a few men who we have allowed to hold positions of power.

 

There are certainly terrorists. They are of the same ilk as David Kuresh and Jim Jones, and about as powerful.

 

But these groups are not a threat to civilization - Islam is too divided into too many branches to be this kind of threat. Unless, of course, you provide all of Islam a common enemy by invading their land.

[kenrexford]

No one is suggesting unilateral disarmament, Ken. What we're saying is don't blow his brains out because he's buying parts which he might use to build a gun.

 

You don't seem to be able to distinguish between offensive and defensive wars. They all blur into one continuous historical BOOM for you.

 

What's the diff, eh?

 

Peter

Ah, but I have not said what position I would take, right? Find one place in any post that I have that suggests a position on Iran and the possibility of the invasion thereof.

 

You claim that I am unable to diistinguish between offensive and defensive wars. I'm not sure why. I don't think that was part of the discussion to date.

 

All that said, however, I find the juxtaposition of your two statements strange. I would imagine there being three types of war, perhaps.

 

Type One would be an "offensive" war, or perhaps more properly a war of conquest. Conquest does not require land as the asset sought, of course. Power, position, whatever. Attaining something not held.

 

Type Three would be a type of "defensive" war. I'd call it a reactionary war, reacting to a threat that is known and present.

 

Type Two would be something in the middle. You are not trying to attain something. Rather, you are attempting to stop someone from attaining something. One might say that this is an "offensive" war because you are trying to attain superiority, but that asset is already held. One might say it is a defensive war, because you are attempting to preempt a threat that is not yet known or present, in a sense.

 

The Iran question seems to involve a Type Two war, IMO. We are not talking of any asset grab, nor are we talking about repelling a known threat. We are talking of a suspected future threat.

 

Deciding what to do in such a scenario is not as easy as following some ridiculous notion of peace and love and fuzzy puppies. Maybe Troy would have been a friend, but maybe Carthage did need to be destroyed.