 Will the Democrats SAVE Iran!!!!! Will Democrats stop war on Iran?
When I saw this title first thought was pitiful their last hope is the Dems then second thought was of anger and shame in the fact that this is not just a fringe freeko party they one of the two major parties. And people wonder why our enemy thinks we are weak and ripe for the plucking.
| I don't have much good to say about the Dems, but I think the Medes and the Persians are putting too many eggs in the antiwar basket, just like Sammy did. Events in Iran are coming to a head quicker than I thought they would, and the Dems may very well see the train rushing down on them when it's too late to get on board. There will always be an antiwar wing within the party, opposed to military action of all kinds to include repelling invasions, but it's becoming increasingly hard to pass off Iran as anything other than a bloodthirsty regime headed by nutcases. I believe the Dems who count will come around, and they may do so abruptly... |
| I'm afraid I don't have that much faith in the Dhimmicrats. I don't see the moderate, sensible Dhimmis as people willing to take a stand this election year, especially as long as Howlin' Howie holds out the slimmest possibility that the Dems could re-take the House and commence impeachment proceedings. I think the Mad Mullahs see that too -- in fact, they're counting on it. |
"Recently, it has been reported that U.S. troops are conducting military operations in Iran," wrote Dennis Kucinich (D-OH),
Admitted Communist and this guy actually ran for Democratic President WTF is wrong with that picture
| Al Sharpton ran for president, too. In fact, I think he outpolled Kucinich. That hardly makes either of them an epicenter of political thought... |
| ... close to the epicenter of political shame, however, if only they could nudge Cynthia McKinney out of the way ... |
Ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations, last Friday. "If true, it appears that you have already made the decision to commit U.S. military forces to a unilateral conflict with Iran, even before direct or indirect negotiations with the government of Iran had been attempted, without UN support and without authorization from the U.S. Congress".
| Given Iranian involvement in the internal politix in Iraq and the shrieking hysteria and venomous threats of their president, I'd call most things we do to Iran short of nuking Teheran reasonable and prudent. There's nothing in our constitution that says anything about UN support, and responding to Iranian bad boyz in defense of U.S. forces falls well within the CinC's responsibilities... |
Facing pressure at home and abroad over the possibility of initiating another devastating war in the region, President Bush claimed yesterday that recent reports, all revealing plans by Washington involving a military strike against the Islamic Republic are just "wild speculation".
BushÂ’s weakness is he can't talk worth anything. He couldnÂ’t sell a gold bar if it was priced FREE.
| Regardless of Bush's shortcomings, the "possibility of initiating another devastating war in the region" says nothing about who's going to get devastated, does it? |
| It's all going to be 'wild speculation' until the day it happens. |
Last week, a report by Seymour Hersh
Another well known traitor Seditionist can someone tell me why these guys are not in prison somewhere?
| They don't have to be jailed. This is the U.S.A. where anyone has the right to be as stoopid as he/she/it pleases, with very few exceptions — even fewer of which involve politix. Nobody but writers for al Jizz and Iranian politicians takes Seymour seriously. He's as consistently out in left field as anyone writing today, which is probably why the warning shot was leaked through him. |
in the New Yorker, stated that, "one of the militaryÂ’s initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon,
I can't imagine a scenario were a US pres would OK nukes short a WMD strike on the States. Bush damm sure donÂ’t have the sack to do it. Now if he was talking about Israel thatÂ’s another story.
| I don't idealize Israel any more than I do any other country. They've got their own internal constraints and they're not cowboys or heroes or even he-men, any more than Bush is. I doubt that when the balloon does go up with Iran we'll use tactical nukes — but I don't know for sure anymore and I thought I did a month or two ago. More importantly, neither do the Medes and the Persians know for sure, which is the whole object of the exercise, isn't it? |
such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites. One target is IranÂ’s main centrifuge plant, at Natanz, nearly two hundred miles south of Tehran. Natanz, which is no longer under IAEA safeguards, reportedly has underground floor space to hold fifty thousand centrifuges, and laboratories and workspaces buried approximately seventy-five feet beneath the surface. That number of centrifuges could provide enough enriched uranium for about twenty nuclear warheads a year."
| Such things are of small concern to the Dems. What's important is that there's an election coming up. They've been lining up on the side of winning elections rather than on the side of national interest since Kerry got trounced, usually without even bothering to hide the fact. They're being stoopid as a party, but that still leaves the real world problem of Iran, which isn't a matter of local or even national politix. |
| They're jonesing for impeachment proceedings, as if they're going to get rid of Bush, Cheney, Rice et al before 2008. |
Also Congressman Peter DeFazio
Havent heard of this traitor yet new name to me wonder what party he is in anyone wanna bet Democrat of course
| I don't think DeFazio's a traitor, just another middle-of-the-herd politician about to do something stoopid... |
(D-OR) plans to submit a resolution "expressing the sense of the Congress that the President cannot initiate military action against Iran without congressional authorization" soon. He also plans to send his letter to other House members to get their signatures.
| Good idea. Then everyone will be on record, won't they? |
| GWB should offer to sign it, even though it's a non-binding resolution. That way he'll acknowledge not only that Congress has the power to initiate hostilities, but also the responsibility. |
Citing Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution ("The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into actual Service of the United States..."), DeFazio wrote, "We are writing to remind you that you are constitutionally bound to seek congressional authorization before launching any preventive military strikes against Iran."
That way we can debate until hell freezes over and at the same time tell the Iranians in detail what we are planning so they can get well prepared like the Iraqis in 03Â’. ThatÂ’s right the insurgency wasnÂ’t planned ahead of time or weapons hid all over or anything and ohh yeah those WMD were not moved RIGHT
| There were similar moves in the run-up to GWI, as well as to GWII. They pretty much forgotten now. One reason for that is that the people who were pushing them want them forgotten. |
DeFazio condemned the repetitive intentional misinterpretation of the clause with the aim of using it to justify “unilateral military actions” by U.S. presidents without authorization of Congress. "Contrary to your Administration's broad reading, nothing in the history of the "Commander-in-Chief" clause suggests that the authors of the provision intended it to grant the Executive Branch the authority to engage U.S. forces in military action whenever and wherever it sees fit without any prior authorization from Congress," writes DeFazio. "The founders of our country intended this power to allow the President to repel sudden attacks and immediate threats, not to unilaterally launch, without congressional approval, large-scale preventive military actions against foreign threats that are likely years away from materializing," DeFazio adds.
| Of course, he could also use the authority to respond to the extant Iranian incursions into Iran, both through proxies like Tater and the presence of Hezbollah and the Basij within Iraq. |
Liberal Democrats strongly opposed the Bush administrationÂ’s decision to go to war in Iraq, and now theyÂ’re trying to stop the government from committing the same offense, but, according to analysts, thereÂ’s a fat chance President Bush would listen.
for our childrenÂ’s sake I pray he donÂ’t listen.
| I think military action will come, and I think it'll come in response to an overt Iranian military action against us or against Israel, possibly against the Brits despite the fact that Tony's determined to stay out of it. The ayatollahs are working themselves up to something big, and they think they have the resources to carry it off. |
Political experts suggest that a war on Iran is imminent, given the U.S. deteriorating situation in Iraq, which would allow Iran intervene to support the country Shias ...
What they arenÂ’t doing that NOW. More like it would divert those supplies to homeland defense. Kind of like the whole fight em over their so we donÂ’t have to fight em over here strategy but localized to the theater.
| We wouldn't put up with Iranian troops in Iraq. That'd be the trigger to throw them out, and then to destroy their home bases — but not necessarily with ground forces. They're either forgetting about the air war, or they've got a lot of misplaced faith in Russian antiaircraft systems that didn't work for Sammy. |
| And I take exception to the remark, 'deteriorating situation'. It's deteriorating for the jihadis and the Sunni hard boyz, and it's going to deteriorate in the near future for Tatar, but for us? |
... also with the near launch of Iran's Bourse that threatens the U.S. hegemony and the once strong American economy.
Back to the old its all about OIL conspiracies
| That's not an "all about oil" cliche. That's a delusion of adequacy, thinking that Iran's stock market is going to topple "U.S. hegemony." |
| Wonder if the Iranian Bourse is priced in Euros? |
The war in Iraq is viewed by most of the U.S. Democrats as the governmentÂ’s biggest mistake. The U.S. launched Iraq war on the incorrect false pretext that the toppled leader of the country possessed weapons of Mass Destruction and had ties to Al Qaeda network, which they U.S. blames for September 11 attacks.
Maybe those Dems should spend some time reading the translated documents that is showing just how tied Saddam was to AQ down to financing AQ allies (Abu Sayaf) and meeting with ranking AQ months before 9-11
| The antiwar wing of the Dems regards the Iraq war as their big opportunity. But they've consistently been fighting Vietnam over and over again, as though there's never been another war, anywhere or at any time. |
Now the U.S. government is using the same scenario, to launch a military strike against Iran, claiming that the Islamic Republic is developing a nuclear weapons program.
I guess they thought we were kidding when we said the that Afghanistan and Iraq were but some of many phases in the WOT.
| I don't think they thought we were kidding. We're fighting against an enemy, and there are strategists and tacticians on each side. We're witnessing move and countermove. If Iran falls, it will take out the center of Shiite terrorism. Syria falls, Hezbollah's left naked, Paleo Islamic Jihad falls, and all the regional Hezbollahs evaporate. There's no more funding for them because there's not a comparable Shiite state until the southern part of Iraq is back on its feet. That's why they're fighting the proxy war in Iraq so hard, because they're caught between Iraq and Afghanistan. If both states were to become stable democracies Iran would be physically as well as ideologically isolated. |
|