US slaps broad new sanctions on Iran
Seriously, what the Hell is this administration hoping to accomplish with this action, other than provocation?
Can someone please point me to the nearest cryogenics lab so I can sleep away the next 15 months. I can’t take much more of this crap.
Here’s how: We ain’t got the troops to got to war if we wanted to. And as worthless as Congress is on having gotten us into Iraq and not getting us out, they aren’t going to approve another AUMF war with Iran.
Or, you could read any of the countless other threads we’ve had on going to war with Iran. Of course if you’d like to bet, I’m game!
BTW: Is there a debate here, or was this supposed to go in the Pit?
Assuming that’s true - and I could see Bush doing something crazy like sending the forces we have in Iraq into Iran - there are always bombs and missles and nukes. You don’t need to invade for there to be a war; you don’t even need to have the available force to win to start a war. Assuming Bush even intends to win; he could decide to start a war that we don’t have the available forces to deal with, in order to keep us mired in the region after he’s gone. In order to make sure that we stay in Iraq long enough for him to be vindicated.
I see no reason to believe that, given how relentlessly they’ve caved in to Bush. Nor do I see any reason to think that a lack of permission from Congress will stop Bush.
John, six months ago I would have believed you, but there’s been so much ratcheting up of the rhetoric lately it smacks of nothing but blood lust. This administration is goading Iran. Also, who said anything about troops? Why do you need troops to lob a few missiles? Yes, yes, of course that’s not how it’d play out, but it sure seems like something this administration is open to/planning, what with talk of surgical strikes and all.
How about 5 bucks? It’s 5 bucks I would be happy to lose.
Seems so
Nope.
If you’re gonna make a bet, Ono, make sure you spell out the terms clearly with no wiggle-room. I would suggest: Any hostile U.S. military action on Iranian soil, before January 2009, counts as “war” for purposes of the bet; but another ship-to-ship confrontation in the Persian Gulf does not, even if it involves one side or the other taking prisoners/hostages.
I would just like to point out that there is a difference between “war” and “surgical attacks”.
I don’t think we’ll be going to war with Iran at any time in the foreseeable future. I don’t think it’s possible politically (barring something really stupid on the part of Iran), and I doubt that we possess the manpower and resources at this time to successfully prosecute a ground war there. I do think surgical attacks (missles, conventional bombs), etc. are a possibility at some time in the future if Iran continues to play chicken with the West.
And on preview, BrainGlutton, I think that war should mean war, such as this from M-W:
1 a (1): a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2): a period of such armed conflict.
In other words, “war” constitutes mutual armed conflict. I think that to classify a one-sided attack as all out war is both inaccurate and an attempt to move the goal posts in order to support the fears of the OP.
Well, you’re title says “going to war”. Lobbing a few missiles might be an act of war, but I don’t think most people would call it “going to war”. I can’t think of any time we’ve done that sort of thing* and called it “going to war”. To most people, I think, it means sending in ground troops-- ie, an invasion.
*Libya, Iraq in '98, Sudan and Afghanistan after the embassy bombings. Did we call it “going to war” when NATO bombed the shit out of Serbia for over 2 months? If we did, then I’ll use that as the threshold for a non-invasion attack.
Hey – don’t steal my thunder! Or at least, I want part of the action, too.
This seems like a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t affair. I think diplomacy is the right way to deal with Iran. Diplomacy isn’t only sitting down for a formal exchange of views by the people in striped pants. Carrots and sticks are part of diplomacy, and when the stakes involve nuclear weapons, applying some sanctions to a remarkably repressive government doesn’t strike me as unreasonable, and applying sanctions to a country doesn’t mean war.
Look at North Korea: just months ago we applied sanctions to try to keep Cohibas and VSOP out of Kim’s hands. We’re not marching to Pyongyang quite yet. New sanctions on Iran doesn’t mean we’re headed to war.
I think you’ll find that I tried to get someone to bet on that subject long before you did. 
But if you want in, that’s fine with me.
Exactly. If we go to war, we’re criticized for not utilizing sanctions ad infinitum…and then when we do employ sanctions we’re criticized for that as being open hostility and a provocation.
Why do you guys hate America?
I seriously doubt that Iran would allow an attack to remain one-sided though. They pretty much have to respond to in some way to an attack from us, and with a sizable chunk of our military sitting on their border (or two of their borders, even), they presumably would have plenty of options for some limited attacks of their own. Given this, I doubt the US will chance an attack on Iran while we’re still engaged in Iraq (in other words: until the end of time).
Also, do these sanctions really mean anything. I can’t imagine that the Revolutionary Guard had a ton of money sitting in US banks even before these sanctions.
How many US carrier groups are in or near the Persian Gulf right now? How many tanks are mobilized along the Iranian border? It’s true that we’ve got a lot of troops and aircraft and armor already in Iraq, but we’ll have to reposition them before we can use them to attack Iran.
The trouble is that the US can’t invade Iran without telegraphing that it’s about to invade Iran. Oh, we can drop a few surprise bombs on them, but then what?
Are you worried we’ll bomb Iran, or that we’ll invade Iran? We’re not mobilizing to invade Iran, there’s no possible way that can be done in secret. So that leaves only bombing.
Of course, the trouble with bombing Iran is that Iran is gonna be pissed off, and who knows what response they’ll have. But I guess I simply can’t see even Bush and Cheney imagining that they can bomb Iranian bases and the Iranians will simply suck it up and pretend it never happened. Of course, the Syrians did just that with last month’s bombing…the Israelis bombed them, and they pretended it never happened.
If the Bush administration was looking to go to war (on the time table you guys seem to be talking about) why for gods sake would they impose more sanctions? I mean…that’s a DIPLOMATIC approach (which, I thought, was what folks around here, including me, favored). 
Let me put it a different way…do you realize it’s now nearly November? And that, afaik, we have no current efforts to stage up any kind of, you know, invasion force thingy? Like heavy equipment, tanks, artillery…bullets…beans…etc etc? Did you actually watch how we got ready to invade Iraq a few years ago…or got them out of Kuwait a few years before that? If we started tomorrow (since we ain’t doing it today) we’d be ready to roll the heavy stuff in there, oh, sometime in the late spring. Think Bush will have that all wrapped up by the election at this rate (this is ignoring the fact that Congress ain’t going to approve any of this shit of course)?
We are not going to war with Iran. We might do a Clinton and toss some tomahawks…be we are not going to war. Period. Ramping up sanctions against Iran at this time is probably a SMART thing for Bush et al too be doing. Though its moot…because it’s the only thing besides tossing those tomahawks we CAN do at this time. The cupboard is bare otherwise.
And I want some of the bet action…what odds are you giving here?
-XT
So long as you get to define war at your convenience? Pass.
For my two bits, if soldier A kills Soldier B at the orders of his commanders, this is an act of war. If soldier A kills civilian B, this is an act of barbarism.
A “surgical strike” (oh, the euphemistic heights!) is at the very least an act of war.
In order to pretend that they don’t want a war, but Iran “forced” them into it. And in the hopes of provoking Iran. And to hurt Iran for the fun of it.
Congress’s opinion doesn’t matter; they’ve demonstrated that the most they’ll do is complain, and then vote for whatever Bush demands. As for preparations; Bush has until he’s out of office for that, and I wouldn’t be at all surprised for him to order an attack just before he’s out of office. And modern wars do not require ground invasions. Although I’d expect him to send at least an inadequate force, to bog us down that much more.
Bush might use nukes; that’s more than a few Tomahawks. Justified by the “fact” that they were just preventing those evil Iranians from getting nukes themselves and starting World War Three, the way they say Iran will.
Well, if we are going to define war that way then we were at war with Iraq long before Bush propped his dusty boots on the desk in the Oval Office.
Then we are at war with Iran right now (and North Korea is at war with us and South Korea as well…and, and, and…). Unless you really don’t believe that the Iranian’s are sending special ops guys into Iraq I guess. And we were at war with Iraq all through the 90’s…so the invasion by the US was just a logical step. And we were at war with Libya in the 80’s. And the Soviets were at war with the US during Vietnam and Korea. And the US was at war with the Soviets during the 80’s (unless you really don’t think the US was sending special ops folks into Afghanistan during the Soviets little dust up there).
Seriously, if you are going to take this line then pretty much the US (and just about every other country) on earth has been continuously at war for…well, ever.
Then Clinton took us to war with Iraq in the 90’s…long before Bush rolled into the White House.
-XT
:dubious: What’s the point of that? You say Congress and the Dems are already rolling over for the 'Pubs and our great leader, right? So…why fuck around? Not a lot of time left in case you haven’t noticed. Unless you figure Bush is going to toss out the elections and declare himself king or something (which, I wouldn’t put it past you to claim).
If Congress’s opinion doesn’t matter, if they are ready to roll over and show their bellies for anything Bush et al does, what’s the point of all this fucking around with sanctions and such? You are inconsistent (big surprise). If Bush can do what he wants why aren’t the troops rolling into the staging points NOW (or, better yet, months ago)? You realize how long it takes to stage up our army to do anything major? Were you paying attention when we got ready to invade Iraq or when we got ready to kick Iraq out of Kuwait? It takes months and months of preparation…and Iran is a lot bigger than Iraq was.
Seriously…your logic here is dizzying.
Sure…Bush might use nukes. He MIGHT use a 1920’s style death ray, or he MIGHT parachute himself into downtown Tehran wearing his tight flight suit, armed only with a bible and his Rambo knife to take out the Iranian’s in a clever but bold one president attack that will leave them reeling. He MIGHT drop a very large wooden rabbit outside of the gates of Tehran hoping that the French manning said gates would be fooled and bring the giant wooden rabbit inside…
But, probably not.
-XT
You talkin’ to me? If so, I set it at a bombing strike as long as what NATO did to Serbia. That was about 2 1/2 months. But you don’t bet anyway, so a pass doesn’t mean much, does it?
Agreed. I think I already said that.
Depends. I doubt there was ever a war in which civilians weren’t killed. War is hell, after all. It’s a dirty calculus which has to made to determine who many of “them” it’s worth killing to save “us”. But if some people didn’t make that calculus over the years, none of us would likely be here.
I don’t think anyone is disagreeing with that.
'Scuse? I defined it the same way as Merriam-Webster defines it. But then, me being a conservative and all, words have meaning; to the ilk, I realize, this is not necessarily the case. 
Indeed. (One wonders, however, what it would be at the most.) However, the OP didn’t ask to be persuaded that we were not going to commit an “act of war” against Iran, he wanted to know if we were going to “go to war” with Iran. The two are considerably different, not only in scope but in collateral damage and death count…as I’m sure you know.