And this.
That does not change the simple and straightforward fact that he has nothing with which to invade Iran. Drunk drivers are dangerous, too, but not if they don’t have a car.
I realize you’re not to be swayed by evidence in this regard, but he can’t just do that. It’s not the way it works. Even Bush’s powers are limited.
I’ll bet you a hundred dollars there’s no ground invasion of Iran and no nuclear war during Bush’s remaining term. Wanna take me up on it?
He has soldiers, right next door.
Not very limited. Not with a spineless Congress and a military full of thugs, yes men and religious loons.
I never gamble, on anything; I regard gambling as the act of a fool, or an addict. And I never said it was certain anyway; why risk money when there’s a possibility I might lose ? On a matter I have zero control over ?
Actually, I think he can. Interpretation of the War Powers Resolution is rather murky – but if the CinC orders the troops to cross the border, they will cross the border, and wait for the legalities to be ironed out later. But he won’t.
WE have garrison troops right next door. You don’t invade another country with garrison troops who are already engaged where they are at. We don’t have all of the necessary equipment or supplies to invade another country. Look at the laundry list of things we had for the invasion of Iraq…then notice that much of the heavy equipment doesn’t exist anymore. Look at how the US ramped up for invasion the last two times…then note that we haven’t begun forward deploying stockpiles of supplies and equipment. Notice that during the lead up to both gulf wars we were in programs of extensive training until the balloon went up…we are in no such intensive training program right now (the troops in Iraq are training in counter terrorism and such, not full blown invasion tactics).
This point (brought up in so many previous threads on this silly subject) shows more than anything the fact that the posters making it don’t understand how the military (especially OUR military) works. The soldiers in Iraq wouldn’t even form a core of an invasion force…they are ALREADY engaged. You would need to stage supplies and logistics, bring in heavy weapons, move attack and air superiority aircraft into theater, move the carriers closer and begin intensive training in preparation for an invasion, bring in and stage up ground forces in various areas to threaten and confuse the enemy as to our intended axis of advance…etc etc.
We have done NONE of those things and it would take literally months to set something like this up. The way the US wages war there is no way to do this without everyone knowing what’s coming (if not where exactly the final blow will land). You don’t stealth an invasion of that magnitude…it’s impossible, and the US doesn’t work that way in any case. We WANT potential advisories to see it coming, to have time to think about it and let is psych them out, to wear on their moral and to constantly shift their forces about trying to figure out where and when we’ll finally hit them.
If that is the case why hasn’t he done it yet? If you really believe that (which you don’t) then why hasn’t he done more than invade Afghanistan and Iraq with congressional permission? If congress will just roll over to his every request, why isn’t he making more and more outrageous requests? If the military is fulll of thugs, yes men and religious loons why hasn’t he expanded the role of the military, ramped it up and REALLY used it as an instrument of conquest? There is a lot out there for the taking if one were bent solely on conquest…and not a hell of a lot anyone could do about it if the US took it in it’s head to take whatever we wanted. Especially if we were willing to pull out all the stops…which you indicated Bush is willing to do so.
So…why haven’t we done any of those things Der? Why haven’t we dropped a single bomb, launched a single raid, or simply invaded Iran and taken them over the way we did Iraq?
-XT
Only 1 country in the last 100 years has started a war with the US, and they were allied with Germany, who had the best military machine the world at the time. Iran is not going to be #2.
Besides, Bush is doing surprising well (for him) in terms of working with the Europeans on the issue of Iran and nuclear weapons. Remember, it took us about 6 months to gear up for war in Iraq-- a much smaller country with a weakened military. The invading force was something on the order of 400k troops. There simply isn’t the time for such an action to take place against a country that would be much, much more difficult to subdue.
Anyone, including Der Trihs, who would like to make a non-monetary bet with me on this subject should step up to the plate. The wager will be for posting privileges on this MB. If you lose the bet, you stop posting here for 2 months. You can’t hide behind the facade of not wanting to lose money.
Yes, that would be stupid. Which means it can’t happen. How very reassuring.
I prefer to gloat when I win bets, John. What joy could there be in winning such a bet?
Man, it seems hard to keep the story straight. Even for fiction, the narrative is rather thin.
Iran isn’t a threat, and Bush is an evil warmonger for treating them as a threat.
But Iran is such a serious threat that without Bush taking specific steps to neutralize the possibility, they might attack us.
Iran isn’t a threat and they’ve only been reacting defensively to Bush’s saber rattling.
But Iran is such a serious threat that they might launch a first strike without any direct military provocation.
And we should have diplomatic meetings with Iran in order to avoid violence.
Just like the meetings we’ve been having, but those don’t count.
Not stupid, suicidal. And other than the dumb “axis of evil” comment Bush made 5 or 6 years ago, we have not provoked Iran in any significant way. As I said, we are diligently working with the Europeans, who seem to be right in line with us.
You can always gloat when you win a bet, no matter what the wager.
If we define “warmonger” as one who starts a war for no good reason, then GW is a warmonger regardless of whether or not Iran is a “threat”.
Who is saying this, outside of you claiming that someone is? Cite?
Wouldn’t you? Wouldn’t anyone who was responsible for their country’s defense? And doesn’t this lead to a potentially explosive situation, wherein mutual suspicions are exaggerated beyond reason? Do you imagine that such sabre rattling actually decreases the likelihood of war?
Again, outside of your claim, who is saying this?
Well, certainly Iraq has established a rather cordial relationship with Iran, in comparison to the last two decades. Are these the meetings you are referring to? A cite or two might clarify your position.
Or, alternatively, they are trying to keep the peace long enough for GW to be gone. Appeasement, of a sort. Run out the Doomsday Clock.
No.
Not to the United States, Ahmadinejad’s bluster notwithstanding. WRT Iraq, Iran seems poised to play a much-needed stabilizing role. Well, so what? Better for the Iraqis to be within Iran’s sphere-of-influence than ours. At least their cultures are similar enough for some mutual understanding.
When was the last time the U.S. had any discussions with Iran that could fairly be described as “diplomatic”?
What happens if Israel launches a solo strike against Iran, timed to happen before the U.S. elections? If this report is correct, it’s being given serious consideration right now:
Probably during the multiple rounds of diplomatic negotiations Ryan Crocker has been involved with, talking with his Iranian mirror? Including negotiations which Hassan Kazemi-Qomi described as successful? Including talks that the US arranged by sending more than 40 messages to Tehran in order to set them up? Maybe the three rounds of negotiations which did take place and the planned fourth round, a round which Tehran withdrew from?
Perhaps the informal meetings that went on at Sharm El-Sheikh and Baghdad between members of the Iranian Foreign Ministry and the US State Department, before official diplomatic contacts?
Possibly 2003’s secret negotiations in Switzerland between Zalmay Khalilzad and elected members of Iran’s government, meeting and negotiating with us with their clerics’ explicit approval?
Maybe the rounds of negotiations on their nuclear program that have been ongoing for years, including France, Germany, England, Russia, China, the US and the UK? Proposals which Iran both received and responded to with counter proposals?
Could it be the continuing efforts of the "Iran Six’, of which the US is a key player, to negotiate with Iran on the nuclear issue? Including a major meeting between Saeed Jalili and Javier Solana that happened, what, in the ancient history of roughly 48 hours ago? A major meeting in which Solana presented an offer that was presented on behalf of all of the “Iran Six”, including the United States, despite the US’ role as ‘bad cop’, and not the “Iran Five”?
But this is GD and not CS and I’m weary of rebutting fiction, even contradictory and poorly constructed fiction, in a factual debate.
Keep the peace by going along with a warmonger. Yeah, that makes sense.
Doomsday clock? Puh-lease.
IOW, you insist on sticking to a position, but refuse to back it up with even a gentleman’s bet. You clearly aren’t very confident with that position.
You are modfiying my position slightly. I would be more pleased if you would leave that to me, being as it is my rubber ducky. The part you leave off is that part about waiting him out. “Yes, Mr President, by all means we should form an exploratory committee to examine potential avenues of response, giving those potential avenues a thorough discussion and debate, with an eye to a preliminary report which may lead to further vigorous discussion…”
Didn’t work with Iraq, to be sure, but just as you so determinedly point out, the situation is different now, the military options even less attractive. I suggest to you that the EU may be employing a bit of diplomatic* jiu-jitsu*, going along but slowly. And, of course, they would be tickled half to death to have Iran comply wholely and completely, a potential for huge gain at minimal investment. There is even small hope that a peace scare may break out, if the Goddess shall cease to avert Her eyes…
I shall try to keep in mind your reflexive aversion to illustrative hyperbole, keeping your example ever before me.
You are, of course, free to interpret my reluctance any way you wish. You are equally free to confront me with that interpretation, if you think that needful. For whatever reason.
Eh. You’re simply hand-waving away the fact that it is practically impossible for Bush to invade Iran between now and the end of his presidency, then conjuring up some wild scenario about the Europeans for which there is not a shred of evidence. I honestly don’t see any reason to carry on that debate any further. It’s not really even a debate.
ETF, you may not like the link I’m about to give you, but I think it’s pertinent to the questions you pose. I’ll just add that while Israel’s undue influence on the US of A remains as is, it’ll be almost impossible for your country to have a fair and impartial foreign policy in the MENA region. You’ve most likely thought about this before but just how ridiculous is it for Israel to speak of “prevention” with regards to Iran’s plans when they are the current (and confirmed, secretive as they’ve been this isn’t even debatable as the non-existent Iraqi WMDs) holders of a more than considerable nuclear arsenal? Beyond that, the more Iranians listen to all the saber-rattling going on around them, their only responsible course would be, as any other nation under such threats, to arm themselves to the best of their abilities. I would certainly expect the Government of my nation to do likewise if placed in such a position.
Read away: You Want Change? Me too – but don’t hold your breath…
Yes, I know. Depressing stuff. But such is the state of affairs.
Yes… Israel sets our ME policy. Determines it, even. Yep. Sure does.
Damn our Zionist Occupied Government!
And you insist on defining the terms to your maximum advantage, as, for instance, your insistence that only invasion qualifies as war. America was at war when the first bomb dropped at Pearl Harbor, Japanese footprints on American soil not being the defining issue.
As well, you seem bent to speak my mind for me, and to do it poorly. It is not my position that there will be a war with Iran. More precisely, it is my position that belligerant and threatening rhetoric increases the likelihood of a war, especially a war by misstep, “some damn fool thing in the Balkans”, as Bismarck put it.
I do not believe that the Bushiviks are unaware of this. Hence, I must conclude that they are sanguine about the prospect. This leads me to suspect that their optimum scenario is to keep up the pressure in hopes that the Iranians will do something stupid, something actionable. something that allows them to gravely conclude that war, alas, has been forced upon them, damn shame about that.
Either that, or they are lazy and/or stupid, and find that path of peace too arduous, and prefer to beat thier chests and hoot.