# War with Iran and sneaky Senate Bills **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 28, 2012, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-with-iran-and-sneaky-senate-bills/617084 "2012-03-28T20:27:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2012, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-with-iran-and-sneaky-senate-bills/617084/61 "2012-03-30T17:29:29Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > May I inquire as to the nature of your mind-reading abilities by which you can so accurately understand Khamenei’s views on the benefits of acquiring a nuclear weapon as opposed to the risk of social and political distress caused by economic distress? > > I don’t pretend to know what he’s thinking, but you seem to imply that the situation in Iran today is comparable to the situation in Iraq years ago. Iraq did not have chemical weapons. Why? As the post-war commission reported, Saddam’s primary goal was to get UN sanctions lifted and Iraq’s economy back on its feet, and the pursuit of WMD was an obstacle to that goal. That is a concrete example of sanctions stopping a WMD program in its tracks. > > But somehow, you seem to know that the Supreme Leader of Iran cares more about nuclear weapons than he does about Iran’s economy. That’s an interesting insight, and I’d like to know how you came to that conclusion. Does North Korea have nuclear weapons despite sanctions? Yes? Is North Korea under a variety of US sanctions? Yes? Do American politicians get points for discussing bombing of NK? No? Did Saddam’s Iraq have nuclear weapons despite sanctions? No? Was Iraq under a variety of US sanctions? Yes? Did American politicians get points for military action against Iraq (I can think of 3 Presidents that did)? Yes? Does Iran have nuclear weapons despite sanctions? No? Is Iran under a variety of of Us sanctions? Yes? Do American politicians get points for discussing bombing Iran? Yes? So the only variable associated with openly threatening a nation with military action seems to be the nukes. And sanctions causing unrest that Iran is incapable of brutally oppressing is a joke. The Syrian opposition can’t get decent weapons with two nations sympathetic to their cause bordering it. None of the nations bordering Iran are sympathetic to Iranian opposition. Lastly, whether sanctions on Iraq actually worked to prevent them from restoring their WMD program is irrelevant. It didn’t stop the war. I’m all for clear statements that we have no intention of engaging in military action against Iran to prevent the suspicions, selective intelligence, and arrogance of politicians leading to the kind of drive to war I saw in 2002. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2012, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-with-iran-and-sneaky-senate-bills/617084/62 "2012-03-30T17:30:54Z")
Nope, sorry. Still not scared. Maybe you need to use the money phrase: “mushroom clouds!” ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2012, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-with-iran-and-sneaky-senate-bills/617084/63 "2012-03-30T17:32:53Z")
> [@Spoke](#): > > Nope, sorry. Still not scared. I’m attempting to rationally discuss the issue with you. I don’t give a crap whether you’re scared or not. Do you have a rational response to any of these issues, or just the sarcasm? ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2012, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-with-iran-and-sneaky-senate-bills/617084/64 "2012-03-30T17:38:33Z")
You can have my sarcasm when you pry it from my cold dead hands. After the mushroom clouds, presumably. Look, Pakistan has been a nuclear nation for years, and has been sponsoring terrorists for years. And yet, we still don’t see those terrorists setting off nukes. The prospect of Iran getting nukes just doesn’t especially worry me. I am quite confident that the reason they want them is to deter _us_ from invading _them_. I think all the panicked talk about the prospect of Iranian nukes only enables the warmongers. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2012, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-with-iran-and-sneaky-senate-bills/617084/65 "2012-03-30T17:42:08Z")
Of course, that standard narrative rather deliberately ignores the fact that absent nukes and support of terrorism, the US would have no need or desire, at all, to invade Iran. Claiming that Iran’s provocations require Iran to defend itself from the consequences of its provocations is, shall we say, not exactly compelling as an argument for most folks who aren’t already a partisans. Can you, for instance, point to how many times in the modern era America has invaded Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Qatar… Are we talking hundreds, or just dozens, Spoke? As for fallaciously acting as if Pakistan and Iran are fungible, that’s a trick that I doubt will work with many people who aren’t already your fellow travelers. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2012, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-with-iran-and-sneaky-senate-bills/617084/66 "2012-03-30T17:48:33Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > Does North Korea have nuclear weapons despite sanctions? Yes? Is North Korea under a variety of US sanctions? Yes? Do American politicians get points for discussing bombing of NK? No? > > Did Saddam’s Iraq have nuclear weapons despite sanctions? No? Was Iraq under a variety of US sanctions? Yes? Did American politicians get points for military action against Iraq (I can think of 3 Presidents that did)? Yes? > > Does Iran have nuclear weapons despite sanctions? No? Is Iran under a variety of of Us sanctions? Yes? Do American politicians get points for discussing bombing Iran? Yes? > > So the only variable associated with openly threatening a nation with military action seems to be the nukes. You set aside the rather obvious fact that North Korea is under a self-imposed embargo in which it wants almost no contact with the rest of the world. I’d say your calculation doesn’t add up. I am willing to say that I don’t know if sanctions will work with Iran. You, however, seem to have complete confidence that they will not, and the only evidence you offer to support your case is facile comparisons to other countries. > [@](#): > > And sanctions causing unrest that Iran is incapable of brutally oppressing is a joke. The Syrian opposition can’t get decent weapons with two nations sympathetic to their cause bordering it. None of the nations bordering Iran are sympathetic to Iranian opposition. Nobody is suggesting that sanctions are going to cause the fall of the Iranian regime, so you can stop that straw man right there in his tracks. But the current leaders of Iran certainly know that the poor economy in the late 1970s was one of the key reasons that non-fundamentalist Iranians threw in their lot with the religious whackadoodles: they were tired of being ruled by an iron-fisted tyrant that was making their lives worse. Your uninformed assertion that the Iranian government can simply oppress its way to domestic support belies another fact that a prior Iranian regime fell because people got sick of it was making the people miserable because of religious, political, and economic reasons. If Iranians see little benefit to being a country with nuclear weapons but no jobs, then the leaders might have to listen to them. I don’t know if Iranians will think that, but it is worth a shot. So, let’s back up to the rather obvious questions: are you okay with Iran having a nuclear weapon? Are you okay with other countries in the region developing nuclear weapons in response to Iran? Do you oppose sanctions on Iran? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2012, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-with-iran-and-sneaky-senate-bills/617084/67 "2012-03-30T17:51:11Z")
> [@Spoke](#): > > Look, Pakistan has been a nuclear nation for years, and has been sponsoring terrorists for years. And yet, we still don’t see those terrorists setting off nukes. So does that mean that the possibility doesn’t exist and doesn’t need to be evaluated at all, or that it just shouldn’t be discussed for fear it emboldends the wrong people? (Ugh. Remember how often that word was being tossed around a decade ago?) I think that unfortunately, the more countries develop this technology, more likely the terrorist thing becomes- however unlikely it remains. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2012, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-with-iran-and-sneaky-senate-bills/617084/68 "2012-03-30T18:21:54Z")
I just don’t think we need to go to war to stop Iran from getting nukes. The costs outweigh the benefits. And I don’t see how Rand Paul’s amendment to the bill is particularly objectionable… unless the bill really is going to be used to justify war down the road. All the amendment does is clarify that war is not authorized. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2012, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-with-iran-and-sneaky-senate-bills/617084/69 "2012-03-30T18:35:12Z")
… when nobody at all could have possibly thought it was. One wonders then what the actual point of the addition was since it was addressing an imaginary dynamic of the actual bill. Couldn’t be political pandering, of course. And, ya know, AIPAC! Iraq! The Shah! Scary! I trust I’ve covered the full range of counter arguments to the facts. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2012, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-with-iran-and-sneaky-senate-bills/617084/70 "2012-03-30T18:36:41Z")
> [@Spoke](#): > > I just don’t think we need to go to war to stop Iran from getting nukes. The costs outweigh the benefits. I’ve said a couple of times that I agree with this. > [@](#): > > And I don’t see how Rand Paul’s amendment to the bill is particularly objectionable… unless the bill really is going to be used to justify war down the road. All the amendment does is clarify that war is not authorized. It’s objectionable in that it’s arrant nonsense and that it derailed the actual bill, which supported (deserved) sanctions on Iran and Syria. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2012, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-with-iran-and-sneaky-senate-bills/617084/71 "2012-03-30T19:17:59Z")
If nobody thinks the bill authorizes war, then how could an amendment simply confirming that fact possibly derail the bill? ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2012, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-with-iran-and-sneaky-senate-bills/617084/72 "2012-03-30T19:21:08Z")
> [@Spoke](#): > > And I don’t see how Rand Paul’s amendment to the bill is particularly objectionable… unless the bill really is going to be used to justify war down the road. All the amendment does is clarify that war is not authorized. I think you’re exactly right. What happened during Vietnam, when lots of people/Congress kept suing to end the war, was the courts kept finding inferences of Congress’s intent that they (must have) wanted the war to continue. So, the amendment is not so much that this sanction could be used to start a war, but that it could be construed later as justification to continue one. It’s easy to start a war, it’s hard to end one. The War Powers Resolution actually addresses what Paul is trying to accomplish (but you should still do it anyways b/c the effectiveness of the WPR itself is questionable): > [@](#): > > SEC. 8. (a) Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred– > (1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution; I don’t see a big deal with including the clause. I can’t imagine why it would actually derail a bill to sanction a country for trying to acquire nukes when we have said war is also an option (at some unknown point) to stop them from getting nukes. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2012, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-with-iran-and-sneaky-senate-bills/617084/73 "2012-03-30T19:28:21Z")
> [@Spoke](#): > > If nobody thinks the bill authorizes war, then how could an amendment simply confirming that fact possibly derail the bill? “Have you stopped beating your wife?” I hope that Senators _usually_ refuse to vote for bills that have this kind of crap tacked onto them. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2012, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-with-iran-and-sneaky-senate-bills/617084/74 "2012-03-30T19:36:18Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > In context, the claim that the US would attack Iran, for nothing, is an absurdity of truly Jabberwockian proportions. We’ve had valid casus belli multiple times in the past, and done nothing. We overthrew their previous elected government to install the Shah, and backed Saddam’s war against them. We’ve helped kill far, far more Iranians than they’ve killed Americans. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Of course, that standard narrative rather deliberately ignores the fact that absent nukes and support of terrorism, the US would have no need or desire, at all, to invade Iran. Since when have either of those been requirements to make America invade a country? Did a lack of nukes keep us from invading Panama? And Saddam had no nukes and went out of his way to avoid terrorism against America; did that save Iraq? We’ve been their enemies for longer than the present government of Iran has existed; their nuclear program is just the latest excuse. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2012, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-with-iran-and-sneaky-senate-bills/617084/75 "2012-03-30T19:47:50Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I hope that Senators _usually_ refuse to vote for bills that have this kind of crap tacked onto them. As always, one has to wonder at the partisan content of some arguments… Would people. for example, be lionizing a senator who added an amendment to a welfare bill that said “Any of the money thus disbursed shall not considered to be involved in a legal transaction should its recipient buy crack-cocaine with said funds.” Maybe an addendum to healthcare reform which stated “This bill is not intended to enable lazy slacking parasites to sit around all day and mooch off the federal government by pretending to be sick.” Those would be fine and rational, right? ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2012, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-with-iran-and-sneaky-senate-bills/617084/76 "2012-03-30T20:28:58Z")
> [@Spoke](#): > > If nobody thinks the bill authorizes war, then how could an amendment simply confirming that fact possibly derail the bill? If no one thinks the bill authorizes Obama to begin the NWO takeover of the US, then how could an amendment simply confirming that the FEMA concentration camps won’t be activated possibly derail the bill? > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > and backed Saddam’s war against them. How? By not supplying Saddam with weapons? By not being the reason Saddam invaded Iran? The only real support the US gave Iraq came at the very tail end of an eight year long war when the Iraqis were provided with satellite imagery of Iranian positions on the Fao peninsula and advice for attacking them. This whole meme of the US backing Saddam during the Gulf War is almost entirely made up of whole cloth and lives on through brute repetition. ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2012, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-with-iran-and-sneaky-senate-bills/617084/77 "2012-03-30T20:39:26Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > You set aside the rather obvious fact that North Korea is under a self-imposed embargo in which it wants almost no contact with the rest of the world. I’d say your calculation doesn’t add up. They do trade with China, S. Korea, India and other countries, as well as their illegal activities. It sustains the regime. > [@Ravenman](#): > > I am willing to say that I don’t know if sanctions will work with Iran. You, however, seem to have complete confidence that they will not, and the only evidence you offer to support your case is facile comparisons to other countries. Iran will still be able to trade with relatively large economies throughout the world, including China, Russia, India, Turkey, and pretty much any country that isn’t in the EU, isn’t the USA or Canada, or Israel. I don’t think sanctions will work. > [@Ravenman](#): > > Nobody is suggesting that sanctions are going to cause the fall of the Iranian regime, so you can stop that straw man right there in his tracks. Nobody includes me, what’s the word unrest mean to you? I made the comparison to Syria to demonstrate how ineffectual unrest can be as a motivator to authoritarian regimes even under very favorable circumstances. > [@Ravenman](#): > > But the current leaders of Iran certainly know that the poor economy in the late 1970s was one of the key reasons that non-fundamentalist Iranians threw in their lot with the religious whackadoodles: they were tired of being ruled by an iron-fisted tyrant that was making their lives worse. Your uninformed assertion that the Iranian government can simply oppress its way to domestic support belies another fact that a prior Iranian regime fell because people got sick of it was making the people miserable because of religious, political, and economic reasons. I’d be more convinced if those problems in the 70s were due to outside sanctions. If they’re due to the regime’s incompetence then the Arab Spring has taught me I should not be surprised. > [@Ravenman](#): > > If Iranians see little benefit to being a country with nuclear weapons but no jobs, then the leaders might have to listen to them. I don’t know if Iranians will think that, but it is worth a shot. Iranians are very proud of their nuclear program and technological advances. In other words, the sanctions attack the people’s pride and their income. I don’t give the sanctions good odds under those circumstances. > [@Ravenman](#): > > So, let’s back up to the rather obvious questions: are you okay with Iran having a nuclear weapon? Are you okay with other countries in the region developing nuclear weapons in response to Iran? Do you oppose sanctions on Iran? Am I okay with Iran having a nuclear weapon? Not really, but I do not see Iranian nukes as a legitimate threat to the USA so can live with it. Am I okay with other nations developing nuclear weapons? Not really, but I am not convinced that this scenario is a definite consequence of Iran developing one. Do I oppose sanctions against Iran? Yes, I almost always oppose sanctions because, as I learned in the 90s with Iraq, it just punishes normal everyday people like myself and does little to nothing to the assholes causing problems for normal everyday people like myself. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2012, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-with-iran-and-sneaky-senate-bills/617084/78 "2012-03-30T20:43:02Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > Am I okay with other nations developing nuclear weapons? > Not really, but I am not convinced that this scenario is a definite consequence of Iran developing one. Odd, seeing as how it’s been in the news for years now. [ > [@](#): > > In the capitals of Western nations, Abdul Qadeer Khan, the man regarded as the father of the Pakistani atom bomb, is regarded as a maverick with a criminal past. In addition to his well-documented role in developing a nuclear device for Pakistan, he helped Iran and North Korea with their nuclear programs. > > But since his release from house arrest a month ago, Mr. Khan has entertained a string of official visitors from across the Middle East. All come with messages of sympathy; and some governments in that region are looking to him for the knowledge and advice they need to fast track their own illicit nuclear projects. > > Make no mistake: The Middle East may be on the verge of a nuclear arms race triggered by the inability of the West to stop Iran’s quest for a bomb. Since Tehran’s nuclear ambitions hit the headlines five years ago, 25 countries – 10 of them in the greater Middle East – have announced plans to build nuclear power plants for the first time. ]([http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123776572203009141.html](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123776572203009141.html)) ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2012, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-with-iran-and-sneaky-senate-bills/617084/79 "2012-03-30T21:00:44Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Odd, seeing as how it’s been in the news for years now. Right. Iran and North Korea’s potential development of nuclear weapons are both consequences of Pakistan’s development of the same weapons, so it’s very hard to look at this situation and say it’s unlikely this would lead to any further proliferation. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2012, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-with-iran-and-sneaky-senate-bills/617084/80 "2012-03-30T21:02:13Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Would people. for example, be lionizing a senator who added an amendment to a welfare bill that said “Any of the money thus disbursed shall not considered to be involved in a legal transaction should its recipient buy crack-cocaine with said funds.” > [@Dissonance](#): > > If no one thinks the bill authorizes Obama to begin the NWO takeover of the US, then how could an amendment simply confirming that the FEMA concentration camps won’t be activated possibly derail the bill? Oh yeah, those are perfect analogies, fellas. Very tight. :rolleyes: (Sarcasm. Cold dead hands.) Thing is, the bill actually under consideration “Declares US policy to be to prevent Iran from acquiring or developing nuclear weapons, continuing its support for international terrorism, and engaging in other activities designed to destabilize its neighbors in the region.” [Cite](http://banking.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Newsroom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=3ecf9a86-fb47-f18a-ee14-1aa86d4a8b07). Now I’m pretty sure I can count on Obama not to look at that language and say “Cool! Blank check for a bombing mission!” I am not at all confident that I can count on a hypothetical Republican administration to exercise similar restraint. Therefore, I see no problem with Rand Paul’s proposed clarification on that point. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-with-iran-and-sneaky-senate-bills/617084.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-with-iran-and-sneaky-senate-bills/617084.md?page=5)