[Winstonm]

It would be good to give pros and cons regardless of vote.

[kenrexford]

Um.

This is quite the question. I suppose I could answer it this way:

I would support military action against Iowa, if there was a good reason for it.

[hrothgar]

I think that US military action against Iran would be counter productive in the extreme.

[helene_t]

I think that US military action against Iran would be stupid in the extreme.

What matters in Iran is that progressive politicians get more influence. Good relations between Iran and the West is in their interest.

[P_Marlowe]

Just a simple question: Was the Military Action in Iraq any good?

More precise: Do you believe that Military Action can be good for
anything? My answer to the last question is no.
In most cases, there are other possible options, which are more
effective.

Sanctions work.
They will tell you, that the sanctions against Iraq did not work.
And they are right. But only because they did not support Iraq
neighbours, who suffered the lose of the trading income with Iraq, e.g. Jordan.
Those countries did not have resources to offset those loses.
Would supporting Jordan have come cheaper than the war against Iraq,
sure - just do the math, and you may even assume a short succesful war.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[kenrexford]

If you use military action because another country raises the tariff by 5% on quinoa, that's a bit extreme and likely to result in bad things.

If another country sends nuclear weapons into San Francisco, levels San Francisco, and then threatens to pick off one city after another until your country executes all of its fighting-age males, and you raise the tariff on their quinoa by 5%, that's a bit understated and likely to result in bad things.

There are a lot of scenarios somewhere in the middle.

[pbleighton]

Quote

If you use military action because another country raises the tariff by 5% on quinoa, that's a bit extreme and likely to result in bad things.

If another country sends nuclear weapons into San Francisco, levels San Francisco, and then threatens to pick off one city after another until your country executes all of its fighting-age males, and you raise the tariff on their quinoa by 5%, that's a bit understated and likely to result in bad things.

There are a lot of scenarios somewhere in the middle.

If you attack another country which has not committed an act of war against you, it is a war crime. It's pretty simple.

Attacking Iran would be even dumber and more self destructive than invading Iraq.

Iranian exiles, who are very much opposed to the present regime, have begged the Bush admiistration not to bomb. They say it would entrench the present regime for fifty years. There's noting a dictatorship loves better than a foreign threat to distract the populace from its actions - see Castro.

It would be seen in the Muslim world as one more convincing piece of evidence that the U.S. has declared war on Islam. It would be another *bring it on*. It increase the number and intensity of our enemies, and therefore would increase the chances of a nuclear attack on the U.S.

It is possible that we will do this thing, and that we then will reap what we sow.

Peter

[Winstonm]

Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy:

Quote

The study concludes that the US has made military preparations to destroy Iran’s WMD, nuclear energy, regime, armed forces, state apparatus and economic infrastructure within days if not hours of President George W. Bush giving the order. The US is not publicising the scale of these preparations to deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely. The US retains the option of avoiding war, but using its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping Iran’s actions.

[kenrexford]

pbleighton, on Aug 30 2007, 07:00 AM, said:

If you attack another country which has not committed an act of war against you, it is a war crime. It's pretty simple.

Attacking Iran would be even dumber and more self destructive than invading Iraq.

Iranian exiles, who are very much opposed to the present regime, have begged the Bush admiistration not to bomb. They say it would entrench the present regime for fifty years. There's noting a dictatorship loves better than a foreign threat to distract the populace from its actions - see Castro.

It would be seen in the Muslim world as one more convincing piece of evidence that the U.S. has declared war on Islam. It would be another *bring it on*. It increase the number and intensity of our enemies, and therefore would increase the chances of a nuclear attack on the U.S.

It is possible that we will do this thing, and that we then will reap what we sow.

Peter

The question was not whether you use military force against Iran under a specific set of parameters. The question was whether you use military force against Iran.

If Iran does commit an act of war, then military action would not be a war crime and may be appropriate, right?

The question seems to be what an "act of war" means.

Without taking a position, I'll suggest a fact pattern. You are at home, watching T.V. Outside your house is a man with a gun. Obviously, you cannot shoot him in the head simply because he possesses a gun.

If the man is in your house and has your wife held at gunpoint and is threatening to shoot her, having already shot your child, you would be justified in shooting him, right?

Well, suppose that man is outside, again. He walks up to your door. He peers in the window with the gun. When you see him, he smashes the window and reaches in for the lock. He unlocks the door. He then enters the house. You show him your gun and demand that he leave, and he does not. He approaches your child and points the gun at him. Your point your gun at the man. The man then shoots your child. You demand that he leave, but he does not. He then approaches your wife with the gun, grabs her, and puts the gun against her head.

When during this story is shooting the man OK?

[Winstonm]

Ken,

I'm not sure when but I'm pretty sure of when not to - it's not when the man buys the parts to make what could turn out to be gun.

[pbleighton]

Quote

I'm not sure when but I'm pretty sure of when not to - it's not when the man buys the parts to make what could turn out to be gun.

LOL.

Ken, the question is obviously about the U.S. attacking Iran NOW, under the present set of circumstances. What *act of war* has Iran committed, in your opinion?

And please answer the question directly, without any weenie lawyering

Peter

[pbleighton]

Interesting article:

http://rawstory.com//news/2007/Study_US_pr...ttack_0828.html

Peter

[kenrexford]

pbleighton, on Aug 30 2007, 07:43 AM, said:

Ken, the question is obviously about the U.S. attacking Iran NOW, under the present set of circumstances. What *act of war* has Iran committed, in your opinion?

And please answer the question directly, without any weenie lawyering

Peter

Yeah, but a big weenie!

OK. As we never know what really is behind anything any more, it's hard to say. Everything is a secret war with secret missions and secret reasons, but stated bullshit and ruse. So, I have NO idea.

On general principles, military action probably is a bad idea at this present time, with the information I have to date. However, I'm not so positive that we have all the information or that we actually intend any military action, let alone what the military action might be.

It would be nice, in theory, to have the information necessary to make that decision. However, I understand that some of this information might be secret for good reason.

This creates a problem, of course. Damned faith without reason? Spooky.

I'm just glad that my vote never counts anyway. If the country f's me and mine, at least there was nothing I could really have done about it.

[pbleighton]

Quote

However, I understand that some of this information might be secret for good reason.

An act of war kept secret for good reason?

LOL.

Peter

[Al_U_Card]

kenrexford, on Aug 29 2007, 08:58 PM, said:

Um.

This is quite the question. I suppose I could answer it this way:

I would support military action against Iowa, if there was a good reason for it.

They won't get to Iowa until they have subdued New York, California and Louisiana first.....(Louisiana is almost done)

It probably won't be long.

Do not support further militarization of your country. Iran is no threat to anyone but themselves. Stop sending your tax dollars to Halliberton and The Carlyle Group (THe Bushs and the Bin Ladens are already rich enough) and the rest of the defense/security contractors. Fear is not a reason....you have only to fear what rights and freedoms they will take from you next....and they will.

[luke warm]

pbleighton, on Aug 30 2007, 07:00 AM, said:

If you attack another country which has not committed an act of war against you, it is a war crime. It's pretty simple.

this is obviously false

[Al_U_Card]

"W" declared war on your Bill of Rights and the Constitution from day one. They used and allowed the "terrorist" presence to grease the machine with the lives of 3,000 innocents. Like Pearl Harbor, a means to their stated end. Try this link to see with historical perspective what those in power are capable of sacrificing....and FDR should have had the political guts to say we must attack them now and not wait until it is too late. No need for secrecy when you consider that your people are not brainless sheep....oh I forgot, that IS what they think....

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/pearl/ww...6315/pearl.html

[helene_t]

luke warm, on Aug 30 2007, 05:49 PM, said:

pbleighton, on Aug 30 2007, 07:00 AM, said:

If you attack another country which has not committed an act of war against you, it is a war crime. It's pretty simple.

this is obviously false

Wikipedia has this to say:

The prosecutor of the international criminal court said:

the International Criminal Court has a mandate to examine the conduct during the conflict, but not whether the decision to engage in armed conflict was legal.

[BebopKid]

If Iran starts the aggression or Iran defies U.N. resolutions, then I would support Military Action.

I would not support occupation afterwards.

[keylime]

I'd authorize military action against Iran; they are clearly fighting a proxy war against us through other nations and groups.

There is no rational reason NOT to get in there and make an emphatic statement to the world that the United States is no pushover. If you do not reduce Iran's capability, you'll have a stepping stone effect that will head in all directions (Turkey, the Kurds, Israel, Armenia, Georgia just to list a few). The consequences would be horrific.