tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1935761816370842584.post7295691669024384716..comments2023-10-23T12:04:11.674-07:00Comments on Today's Dangerous Truth: THE IRAN WAR(tm) brought to you by these sponsors:Barry Doneganhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07934909775627326318noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1935761816370842584.post-70350827549287409162007-12-08T23:37:00.000-08:002007-12-08T23:37:00.000-08:00damn it corker.damn it corker.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1935761816370842584.post-89684518150127143842007-09-30T16:52:00.000-07:002007-09-30T16:52:00.000-07:00If our government sends any troops or makes any at...If our government sends any troops or makes any attack on Iran, then I am promising reprocussions from this citizen..and I bet i can round up a few dozen others to show how we don't appreciate being endangered by our own goddamned government.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1935761816370842584.post-32837927090281500532007-09-30T13:13:00.000-07:002007-09-30T13:13:00.000-07:00If we do actually end up going to war with Iran, I...If we do actually end up going to war with Iran, I'm probably leaving the country.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1935761816370842584.post-90181332726945369002007-09-30T12:27:00.000-07:002007-09-30T12:27:00.000-07:00it is in combination with the "war on terror".the ...it is in combination with the "war on terror".<BR/><BR/>the president already has the authority to do something like a missle strike, congress or no congress, so long as the military budget is there, which it already is. the fact that we have a common law practice of attacking anyone considered a terrorist, and have defined iran's military as officially a terrorist organization, this authorizes us effectively to attack.<BR/><BR/>this was the leading argument in attacking iraq, as our common law precedent was to defend the democratic congress in iraq, despite the fact that they were not a popularly elected sovereign government.<BR/><BR/>this does not authorize a direct attack, but the direct attack is already authorized, it simply allows us to put them in the attackable category.<BR/><BR/>and if we're allowed to go and arrest their entire military without a trial, put them in gitmo and torture them, that allows us to use a military strike as a "police action".<BR/><BR/>essentially, lets say you go march in and try to arrest the general of the Iranian military, when they resist this act of war militarily, you use air strikes to get compliance.<BR/><BR/>while this is not technically an act of war in the legal documents behind it, it is to everyone looking on, and this resolution makes that approach to war totally legal(and thats just one example).<BR/><BR/>a similar resolution is what lead us to the "war" in iraq.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1935761816370842584.post-9655335887074822232007-09-30T09:01:00.000-07:002007-09-30T09:01:00.000-07:00"for those of you without a bullshit to English di..."for those of you without a bullshit to English dictionary, this allows the executive branch (i.e. president) to take military actions against Iran per the Patriot Act/Military Commissions act War on Terror legislation instead of the proper due-process of law that is required to declare war with the consent of congress when dealing with conflicts with other sovereign nations."<BR/><BR/>I have included links to the two bills you've mentioned. I couldn't find anything that allowed the President to bypass anyone if the organization attacked has been 'declared' terrorist.<BR/><BR/>http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:4:./temp/~c107ThLpul::<BR/><BR/>http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:3:./temp/~c109UHe81f::<BR/><BR/>However, the article you linked does suggest "The Senate resolution, which is not binding, also calls on the administration to impose economic sanctions on Iran. <BR/><BR/>Even if the White House took that step, policy experts said, it was unclear that it would be anything more than a symbolic gesture without the cooperation of nations that, unlike the United States, still had substantial business dealings with Iran."<BR/><BR/>And also says "In negotiations, two crucial paragraphs were deleted from the measure in an attempt to reassure critics who had said the proposal seemed to urge the Bush administration to deal with Iran on a war footing."<BR/><BR/>So, it doesn't seem that this is the beginning of another war, as you suggest.<BR/><BR/>Here's the entire Kyl-Liberman Iran Amendment. It's actually "To express the sense of the senate regarding Iran." It should also be noted that the final series of paragraphs on this version have since been altered to exclude page 8's paragraphs 3 and 4; Thus actually removing any language that could in any case be considered an approval of war against the government or Iran.<BR/><BR/>http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/Iran%20amendment.pdf<BR/><BR/>"In the political arena, most of the people who oppose this legislation oppose it because it essentially, in modern politics, amounts to a covert DECLARATION OF WAR WITH IRAN."<BR/><BR/>None of these bills actually do that from my reading. I've included them all so if I missed something you can correct me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com