Dropping a few bombs may or may not be an act of war. Its certainly a hostile act. And it certainly depends…mainly on who is dropping the bombs, how they are being dropped, the reasons they are being dropped and most importantly the relative strengths of the countries involved (well, and whether or not the country is in the UNSC of course)
If Iran dropped a few bombs on the US (or more likely on US targets in Iraq) then it would most certainly be an act of war. I don’t think many countries would not think it was an act of war.
If after months (years?) of attempted negotiations with Iran to open up their nuclear program the US decides to do a surgical strike at that nuclear program then its…a grey area. I don’t think the majority of the world would see it as an act of war…the Iranian’s might do so however.
They we get into the true grey area…when a country like Israel does a raid like the one they did against an Iraqi nuclear reactor. Was this an act of war? I don’t think most of the world saw it that way. The Iraqi’s themselves didn’t declare war on Israel, nor did they ramp up (open) hostilities with Israel.
Well, if you can get the partisan chip off your shoulder, why not actually answer this question instead of trying to poison the well with it? Clinton certainly did bomb several countries infrastructure and military facilities during his presidency. Did that make us at war? Were we at war with Iraq at the time? Did the world consider us at war? After we dropped some bombs on them? How about Bosnia?
Why don’t you actually engage here and answer the question…instead of hand wave. If you really think that its different between what Clinton did and what Bush (might) do in Iran then explain the difference. If you feel they were both wrong and both acts of war then explain that.
I don’t think there’s any difference. I think when Clinton bombed Sudan and Iraq it was an act of war. I just think the countries we dropped the bombs on were too weak to fight back. But what Clinton did or did not do is totally, 100% irrelevant to whether or not we bomb Iran and whether or not it will be the right thing when we do. But I fully expect to see you, xtisme right here in GD defending Bush’s right to kill whoever he wants. And your last post did not disappoint!
To say that dropping bombs on someone is not an act of war is total, 100% horseshit.
Some people also think that the world is flat or only 6000 years old. They are nice thoughts…but they aren’t grounded in that reality stuff. When Clinton ordered bombings in Iraq (the other bombings were in Bosnia btw which is a diffent case) they weren’t considered acts of war by any of the effected parties. The Iraqi’s didn’t consider them acts of war…at least they didn’t pursue or seek to escalate the conflict. The US certainly didn’t consider it an act of war…we also didn’t seek to escalate the conflict. No outside government (afaik) considered it an act of war either.
So…you seem to be pretty much alone in your statement that it was an act of war.
Well, that’s most likely because you didn’t actually read what I wrote. Perhaps you are unable too read and comprehend it, perhaps you are unwilling to do so. I’m unsure which it is.
I’ll give you a hint though…I didn’t mention Bush in my last post…we were discussing Clinton, no? Nor did I defend Bush (or Clinton’s, though I think Clinton did the right thing at the time and certainly am willing to defend his actions in this regard) right to kill whoever he/they want. I’ll go further since you are obviously confused…I think even air strikes on Iran would be an incredibly bad idea at this time. And here is another revelation…I can’t stand Bush. I didn’t vote for the man. I think he’s a total idiot and can’t wait until he’s not in power anymore. Finally, the most shocking revelation for you yet…I’m not even a Republican!
You are making assumptions from data that you are essentially pulling right out of your ass. It has no basis in what I’ve written or my own thoughts or feelings on this subject. You just ASSUME you know…and you attack a strawman of your own creation.
Yeah, silly me. Dropping bombs is clearly a friendly act. Love taps. Bombs are never dropped in war. In fact, thinking back now, I remember that time the Japanese dropped bombs of lovingkindness on Pearl Harbor, and we all danced around the maypole in celebration. Their thoughtful surgical strike (and really, isn’t surgery a good thing, since it is intended to make the patient better?) relieved us of the burden of all of those weapons we had pointed at them, so it was completely justified. Thank you for putting me back on the right track, Comrade x! Long live the Neocon Revolution!
Irrelevant, because I am distinguishing between “dropping a few bombs” and the thesis of “going to war” as put forth in the OP’s link. That link clearly was talking about an Iraq style invasion, not some kind of so-called surgical strike. Go back and read it again. If you don’t think so, then we have nothing to debate.
Not quite fair, Vib. XT has some unfortunate regressive tendencies, but we of the SDMB Revolutionary Cadre (Trotskyist) have great hopes that he may yet be gently guided from the paths of political error. But a Neo-Con? Only if Hillary is a Maoist.
You are making a distinction without a difference, John Mace. If we bomb Iran, even just a teensy little bit, they’re not going to roll over and take it lightly. They’re going to prosecute a war against us with whatever means they have available. If you think we can bomb them and get away with it, you’re living in a fantasy world. And when you say “Oh, it won’t be war. You’re silly to even think that! Maybe a few bombs, but that’s OK. It won’t really be war. Not a real war, anyway,” it says to me that either you’re engaging in the kind of thinking that got us into the current mess in Iraq or that you’re perfectly aware of the consequences of bombing Iran but you wish to play them down.
So, when we commit this act of war that isn’t really an act of war, what happens next? Our bombs will be greeted as liberators?
It is about a “campaign for war with Iran” without further definition. In the course of a propaganda campaign, the nature or, for that matter, the grounds and aims of the war, can be left unspecified, and if specified can be redefined many times as you go along; as I hope we all learned back in 2002-2003.
A so-called surgical strike doesn’t need to be “maintained” and I don’t see the US supporting “reconstruction” in Iran afterwards. He’s talking about an invasion.
You should look up the term ‘strawman’ sometime. It might help you understand your posting style a bit more. Here is what I ACTUALLY said:
"Dropping a few bombs may or may not be an act of war. Its certainly a hostile act. "
Lets parse this in light of your ranting statement above: I didn’t say dropping bombs was a friendly act. Didn’t call them love taps. Didn’t dispute whether bombs were or were not dropped in war. So…essentially your entire statement there was a completely fabricated strawman…classic example in fact.
Do you think that this ranting, fact free screed here makes your argument look good? Or you for that matter? I’m genuinely curious as to what effect you feel this will have on your argument. Derision and scorn would be my first thought…obviously though you feel it will have some different impact.
What I’m getting out of this is that you aren’t bothering to read what I’m writing but have some kind of tape recorder of rants directed at some ficticious ‘neo-con’ that you simply spew out on this board. Sort of an all purpose spew I’m thinking.
Well…a couple of parting things here. First off you are mixing metaphors here. If I’m Comrade X I can hardly ALSO be part of the Neocon Revolution™…can I? I mean which is it…am I a communist or a neocon?
That brings me to the second thing. In order to help your poor confused brain sort it out I’m going to tell you…I’m neither. I’m a libertarian. Look it up some time if you are curious. I know that libertarians are a lot like both communists and neocon, but there are some key differences an observant reader might be able to pick out. I have faith in you…
Being a Libertarian means never having to say you’re sorry.
And John, since you seem intent on defining your way to rhetorical victory, just how many bombs does it take before you have reached the Mace Threshold? If simply lobbing a few bombs isn’t war, is lobbing 100 bombs war? I mean, you know, a bomb here, a bomb there, after awhile you’re talking about something pretty close to war. Of course, we still have no invasion, so its not really war, we all agree with that… Well, some of us do. You, pretty much.
It’s not my definition that’s up for scrutiny, it’s the definition the guy in BG’s blog is giving us. So far, it’s something that must be “maintained” and that will result in a reconstruction effort on the size of what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan. That isn’t going to happen, no matter what anyone wants to call it. That would necessitate some sort of ground invasion and regime change, presumably with a government controlled by or at least friendly towards the US. Else “reconstruction” on that order isn’t even going to be permitted, much less be needed.
… Let me just add, this whole thing started because I just want other people to define what they’re talking about instead of using terms like “it”, when discussing anything from a 2 day bombing campaign to a 5 year all-out war. Otherwise, it’s hard to talk about the probability of “it” happening.
So no, there isn’t any kind of “rhetorical” victory being sought. Just clarify of intent.
Well, that’s good to know 'luci. I’ll keep that in mind the next time I get all hot headed and put my foot in my mouth with you. Or the next time a MOD spanks me…I’ll just say ‘Hey, I’m a libertarian!’ and the MOD will go ‘Ah…right gov. Off you go…’.
John took this one already and answered it in terms of his own view of the OP. From my perspective I’ll say (again) that it depends. Usually the threshold is when there are continuing operations and hostilities escelate. Also, one or both countries declaring war is usually a good indication to the keen observer (to get back to the Japan bombing Pearl Harbor example used previously). When the US used limited surgical strikes in the past in, say, Libya, there was no further ramping up of hostilities. No war. When Israel raided Iraq’s nuclear power/weapons program there was no further ramping up of hostilities. No war. On the other hand when Hezbolla raided Israel recently (well, last year) this DID provoke a rather heated little war.
This is why I don’t think the US should initiate any military actions in Iran at this time…unless the situation changes. In the current circumstance it COULD provoke further hostilities, at least with our forces in Iraq. Also, I think at this time its a needless action on our part. Our best course is to continue to try and pressure Iran through diplomatic channels, to continue to play good cop bad cop with the European’s and simply observe and monitor the situation.
It seems to me that the Administration, in its current lame duck and fucked position isn’t all that eager to jump into Iran either. As someone asked up thread what’s stopping Bush from those air strikes NOW? If he wanted to strike at Iran he certainly has the power to do so…any time he wants. The rhetoric levels have actually eased off, Iran has actually done quite a bit to mend its fences lately wrt its nuclear program…why would we strike now? I’m not seeing it. I’m certainly not seeing a full scale invasion as I also interpereted the OP to mean…the cupboard is bare.
Well, IANAL, and although my views are libertarianish (small “l”), that is one thing you and I have in common-- people who hold views similar to either of us will not be running things in this country anytime soon.
xtisme, I’m sorry that you are unable to comprehend my posts. I thought since you had almost 8,800 posts that you had decent reading comprehension. Oh wait…
By golly, you do understand! Next time, just go with your first instincts.
My derision and scorn is directed at you because I think most of the statements you are making in this thread are dangerously ludicrous, delusional, and out of touch with reality. You say there’s no way Bush will go to war with Iran, and then say “Well, just a little bombing isn’t really war.” If they bombed us, you say, it would be an act of war, but if we bomb them, it’s not. And yet, when the tables were turned—when the US was the subject of a “surgical strike” designed to destroy weapons that our attackers believed posed a threat to them and their allies—what was our response? All-out war. Why do you think the Iranians would act any differently than we did?
And all of that is ignoring the elephant in the room. What we’re contemplating here is an unprovoked attack on a sovereign country. Bomb, invasion, doesn’t matter. Iran hasn’t done anything to us, and the people who are claiming that Iran has done something to provoke us are proven liars who have gotten us into a heap of trouble with their lies. And the way they got us into our current heap of trouble looks a lot like what’s going on right now. Only you, xtimse, don’t seem to see that, and when it’s pointed out to you, you’re downplaying it, spinning it, making excuses for it, and calling me names. Kind of like you did the last time.
So yeah, forgive me if my tone is a little sarcastic, because I’ve seen this little song and dance routine before, and it doesn’t end well.
I agree with this, but I suspect when “the situation changes” with some kind of Gulf of Tonkin incident, you’ll come around to war pretty quick. And then, once we’re in the thick of things, we’ll find out that the Gulf of Tonkin didn’t really happen. That’s this administration’s standard operating procedure.
The Senate passed a resolution today condemning Iran and declaring their revolutionary guard a terrorist organization. What makes you think the rhetoric has eased? Bush will wait until he can get maximum political advantage out of it before he attacks, just like he did last time.
Well, you know, a careful reading of what I was saying would point the derision and scorn at…
Oh nevermind.
I find the irony of you, who is going along with this conspiricy theory on such flimsy evidence, telling me I’m ‘dangerously ludicrous, delusional, and out of touch with reality’…well, its pretty much off the scale. It gets better though…
I’m sorry. I should have been clearer about the whole Japan/Pearl Harbor thing. Instead of trying to be subtle and make you look like an idiot I should have come right out and said what I mean. Japan declared war on the US just after its attack. The US declared war on Japan also. Japan wasn’t attempting to preform a ‘surgical strike’ on the fleet…it was mounting a crippling attack before going to full scale war with the US. There was never any expectation of attacking our fleet and then negotiating a settlement. Your analogy, in short, is ridiculous and makes you look the same.
As to a surgical strike on Iran by the US, as I’ve said and you’ve thus far failed to comprehend, I don’t know what the result would be. Listen closely: That’s why I think its a BAD IDEA. Get it? It MIGHT simply be a repeat of surgical strikes the US has carried out in the past. Or it MIGHT mean further incursions by Iran (maybe openly) into Iran. Its hard to tell…but its certainly not a foregone conclusion either way. Iran has limited options in dealing with the US on a purely military level…they know it and we do. The caviot being…we are currently committed in Iraq and to a lesser extent in Afghanistan. Both countries are teetering on the brink (IMHO), and a more concerted effort by Iran may push it over the top. Again, we know that and so do they.
And you are supposedly grounded in reality and you have to ask this question? Why are we contemplating an ‘unprovoked attack’? Perhaps it has to do with their nuclear program? Its not in the US (or many other countries) best interest for Iran to get a nuclear weapon…for a whole host of reasons. Whether YOU believe that is true or not the people who are in charge of the country (and several other countries) disagree…and their say means more than your’s (or mine) when it comes to making and implimenting policy.
The rest of your rant is again you spewing out from your tape recorder about this ficticious ‘neocon’ you think I am, so I won’t bother addressing it. I’ve said what I’ve said…if you want to quote specific things I’ve said and discuss them I’m at your disposal. If you want to keep building strawmen about me then I’ll just keep bringing the matches.
You are quite right…I thought those strikes into the Sudan were during the Bush I administration. I stand corrected.
I don’t suppose you see the irony in providing a cite for US surgical strikes that didn’t escelate into all out war…or into anything else for that matter? Probably not.
You really love building these strawmen, don’t you?
The Sentate controlled by the Democrat’s? Regardless, I actually meant from Iran’s side the rhetoric has come down quite a bit. And they have done a lot (though not nearly enough IMHO) to open up their nuclear program to inspection.
Here is the thing. The US isn’t going to attack Iran if they are looking meek and pathetic…especially if they are not just going through the motions of being open and helpful.
YMMV…but I think I’m pretty well grounded in reality here when I say the US will definitely not invade Iran and that we probably won’t be bombing them or doing surgical strikes either. And that there is a distinct difference between those two levels of violence. Something you don’t seem to have a good grasp on.
I’m glad that you currently claim to believe that an attack on Iran is a bad idea. I also believe that very strongly. If an attack comes to pass, and I believe it will, I hope that you will continue to oppose it. But since you have repeatedly played down the severity of “just bombing” the Iranians and the morality and consequences thereof, I have my doubts about your sincerity in this matter. And you continue to make statements such as this:
Which is how we got off on this little tangent in the first place, isn’t it? Why should they go out of their way to open their program up for inspection after what we did to the Iraqis? Nothing they do will ever be enough. The goalposts will keep moving until the bombs start falling. Just like last time.
I am aware of the claims made by the current administration about Iran’s nuclear policies. I believe they are mostly lies, as were their claims about Iraq. And even if they aren’t lies, even if Iran is building an atomic bomb, that still isn’t any reason to attack them. We have a whole heaping pile of nuclear weapons ourselves that were very effective at deterring the Soviet Union. I see no reason to believe that they won’t deter an Iranian nuclear attack as well. Unless they attack us first, any attack on our part will be unprovoked aggression. I will also be extremely skeptical about any alleged Iranian attack that will be used as a justification for an attack, because the Bush administration has proven that they will lie about matters of war without hesitation or remorse.
None of this is insane. None of it is irrational. It is not a strawman argument. All of it is based on the past behavior of the players in this game. Since Bush took office, I have learned to listen to my worst fears, because they always come true.
