Congress gave Bush authority to bomb Iran today?

[Decker]

Yes Decker...but the alot of these issues arose long before Bush was in power...he may have pissed some folks off..ripped off some scabs etc but these folks have had problems with us for along time. As for Russia..they are caught as they have always been...gate way to the East and all that.  I think they want to have access to the EU and become more euro centric....but at the same time they have lost an empire and prominance. I think we underestimate the pride factor in all of this..much like I think ur doing in regards Iran and ur line about rational behavior. I don't find Iran's remarks about Israel very rational based on the fact that the Israeli's love to bomb arabs...really love to bomb arabs and love first strikes etc. Maybe its my Western view, but with all that money they're siting on, I'd be very content if I were Iran. No Saddam, no other regional threats.

I'm just pointing out that even when an opponent of ours (Soviets) had an official policy to destroy our capitalist way of life, we still routinely engaged in diplomatic relations with them.  The Soviets were crazy but not insane and they still came to the negotiation table.

I don't think Iran is complaining now that the invasion of Iraq has turned Iraq into a defacto Shia satellite of Iran.  I think the Saudis will become spooked now that the Iraqi buffer zone btn SA and Iran is now gone.

[headhuntersix]

The Soviets wanted to win any war with us, they had a country and a way of life that they sought to preserve. I don't think the Soviets were crazy, they were shrewd at times but they were also very paranoid, internally and externally. Read The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the K G B....great read. Anyway Iran and Saudi Arabia...exactly. They, Jordan and a ton of other countries are not thrilled with a nuclear Iran. We've been working with various arab states for the last few months, coordinating Air Forces, flight plans etc, in case we strike.

[Dos Equis]

They have all exploration rights, independent of the iraqi govt.  In other word, no future iraqi govt can kick us out.  They are building complete nat'l infrastructure, and the kurds were not allowed to take bids from any firms not from the USA. 


Us firms that make profits worldwide pay taxes to Uncle Sam.  When exxon mobil made $10B in one quarter, the US govt received a nice piece of that in tax dollars.  Just like the rest of us.  They pay their taxes.

BB, we can spend hours doing that, but it's pointless.  Just quote me, call me crazy, and in 6 months when more info comes out, I can say I told you so.  If you believe that a TX oil company is going ot put the oil into Russian, chinese, or venezuela reserves, well, you can believe that.  THe rest of us know it's coming to the US, as they're a US firm.

Remember, guys.  We had this argument 18 months ago, and many of you argued til you were blid in the face that "we're not there for the oil".  I admire people like I-one, who now admits that getting their oil was part of it.   BB, if you still believe that "it's about giving them freedom", then god bless ya.  I'm sure you sleep better supporting it.  But the facts are facts.  We invaded, then we took oil rights from the kurds.  Just like you said we wouldn't do.

Where exactly did I say "we" wouldn't take "oil rights from the kurds"?  You making stuff up again?

You are all over the place.  So, is the U.S. government in control of Iraq's oil or not?  Point me to the specific U.S. government entity that controls Iraq's oil. 

Your tax claim is way off base.  See Decker's comments. 

Any "rights" are held by private companies who answer to the Iraqi government.  Whatever contracts they have signed govern their relationships.  I haven't read those contracts and I doubt you have either. 

I'm sorry, but the argument that "we" (meaning the U.S. government) is in control of Iraq's oil has no factual basis.  "We" are paying for whatever oil we get from Iraq. 

[240 is Back]

  "We" are paying for whatever oil we get from Iraq. 

*AT* market value?



therein lies the theft.  When you tell someone you will pay $X for the oil, and they can only sell to you, it's strongarming.  I'm okay with it.  Just be honest.

[Dos Equis]

*AT* market value?



therein lies the theft.  When you tell someone you will pay $X for the oil, and they can only sell to you, it's strongarming.  I'm okay with it.  Just be honest.

I see.  So now "we" aren't stealing their oil because "we" aren't managing a pipeline, drilling, etc., but "we" are stealing their oil because "we" purchase at less than market value?  Proof? 

You also ignored the rest of my post, including the part about you making up a comment about me making a statement about the Kurds.  What is your response to this:

Where exactly did I say "we" wouldn't take "oil rights from the kurds"?  You making stuff up again?

You are all over the place.  So, is the U.S. government in control of Iraq's oil or not?  Point me to the specific U.S. government entity that controls Iraq's oil. 

[militarymuscle69]

I'm just pointing out that even when an opponent of ours (Soviets) had an official policy to destroy our capitalist way of life, we still routinely engaged in diplomatic relations with them.  The Soviets were crazy but not insane and they still came to the negotiation table.

I don't think Iran is complaining now that the invasion of Iraq has turned it into a defacto Shia satellite of Iran.  I think the Saudis will become spooked now that the Iraqi buffer zone btn SA and Iran is now gone.

so lets start 24/7 B-52 sorties to the Iranian border.....because that, and not negotiations, is what kept Russia quiet. You for that? I'm sure the world would be much more accepting of nuclear laden planes flying 24/7 (this is for you 240)

[Decker]

I was just looking at the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, found here: http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/Iran%20amendment.pdf

And I have to say, I have not seen such a pile of BS in some time.

Talk about your conspiracy addle-minded nonsense. 

It defines the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as not being part of the Iranian military (although it is) b/c it is defined as a foreign terrorist organization part of a global conspiracy in league with Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and probably the League of Women Voters...if they oppose the Bush regime.

What this amendment is not: an authorization to use force against Iran.

There's a fella named Jim Webb who looks like a solid politician b/c he proposed Senate Bill 759 (found here:  http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.759: ) which explicitly prohibits the president from attacking Iran w/out Congressional consent.  We don't want a repeat of the Iraq illegality.

But this amendment is being held up in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Here's more on Webb http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Webb

If he were running for president, I'd give him consideration.

[Decker]

so lets start 24/7 B-52 sorties to the Iranian border.....because that, and not negotiations, is what kept Russia quiet. You for that? I'm sure the world would be much more accepting of nuclear laden planes flying 24/7 (this is for you 240)

I think our ICBMs are more than sufficient to keep Iran in check.  It worked against the Soviets.

[militarymuscle69]

I think our ICBMs are more than sufficient to keep Iran in check.  It worked against the Soviets.

If all we needed were ICBMs which were introduced in 1959, then why did we waste 40+ year of 24/7 flying? Maybe you should have been SecDef all this time. Imagine the money in jet fuel we could have saved.

[OzmO]

We spent 40+ years using a 3 pronged approach.

1.  ICBM's
2.  Submarines
3.  Strategic Bombers


We did this to counter Russia stock pile of nuclear weapons which were in those there categories also.

Decker is kind of right.

Iran doesn't have jack to counter ICBM's, hence, that's all we need until such time they develop a stockpile worthy of greater attention.  In the mean time we should keep our current set up of bombers, ICBM and subs.


Regarding Iran,

I think there is much more fear in Iran about what we can do to them then there is fear about what they can do to us at the moment.  Flying b-52's is already something they know we can do at a moments notice.

[Decker]

If all we needed were ICBMs which were introduced in 1959, then why did we waste 40+ year of 24/7 flying? Maybe you should have been SecDef all this time. Imagine the money in jet fuel we could have saved.

I wasn't aware that Iran has posed a "threat" to the US since 1959.  We also have submarines, trucks and missile silos w/ ICBM launch capability.

You're right.  Let's disarm the ICBMs b/c they are not necessary.  A few flybys with MM69 at the helm of B-29 is a sure reminder to our enemies that Mutual Assured Destruction is viable and ready to go at a moment's notice.

C'mon, you know the ICBMs are the bigboys for MAD, without them, we have conventional warfare or WWII style fighting...that's not MAD.

[Decker]

We spent 40+ years using a 3 pronged approach.

1.  ICBM's
2.  Submarines
3.  Strategic Bombers


We did this to counter Russia stock pile of nuclear weapons which were in those there categories also.

Decker is kind of right.

Iran doesn't have jack to counter ICBM's, hence, that's all we need until such time they develop a stockpile worthy of greater attention.  In the mean time we should keep our current set up of bombers, ICBM and subs.


Regarding Iran,

I think there is much more fear in Iran about what we can do to them then there is fear about what they can do to us at the moment.  Flying b-52's is already something they know we can do at a moments notice.

That's a great post.

[militarymuscle69]

I wasn't aware that Iran has posed a "threat" to the US since 1959.  We also have submarines, trucks and missile silos w/ ICBM launch capability.

You're right.  Let's disarm the ICBMs b/c they are not necessary.  A few flybys with MM69 at the helm of B-29 is a sure reminder to our enemies that Mutual Assured Destruction is viable and ready to go at a moment's notice.

C'mon, you know the ICBMs are the bigboys for MAD, without them, we have conventional warfare or WWII style fighting...that's not MAD.

1959 is in reference to Russia clown....

[Decker]

1959 is in reference to Russia clown....

I know, I'm just funning you.

[headhuntersix]

MM 69 is right. ICBM's are out of sight and out of mind..besides..there is no way in  hell that we'd ever launch an ICBM at Iran...none..no way ever. The Russians would freak and we'd all be glowing inside of 30 mins. ICBM's are for the Russians and China. As far as MAD goes. My dad was a BUFF pilot and flew those Fail Safe missions before he went to Vietnam. They were ready to go around the clock...once the nukes were launched...they could get up and begin to hit Russian cities. We were'nt convinced we'd be able to launch all our ICBM's before the silo's were hit. Subs were the other wild card...Besides if any of u guys have ever been on the ground when a fullly loaded B-52 flies over....its friggen awsome. If ur the bad guy...like Iran..a squadron doing race tracks on ur border will give u pause for sure.

[Decker]

MM 69 is right. ICBM's are out of sight and out of mind..besides..there is no way in  hell that we'd ever launch an ICBM at Iran...none..no way ever. The Russians would freak and we'd all be glowing inside of 30 mins. ICBM's are for the Russians and China. As far as MAD goes. My dad was a BUFF pilot and flew those Fail Safe missions before he went to Vietnam. They were ready to go around the clock...once the nukes were launched...they could get up and begin to hit Russian cities. We were'nt convinced we'd be able to launch all our ICBM's before the silo's were hit. Subs were the other wild card...Besides if any of u guys have ever been on the ground when a fullly loaded B-52 flies over....its friggen awsome. If ur the bad guy...like Iran..a squadron doing race tracks on ur border will give u pause for sure.

ICBMs are vehicles that deliver a nuclear payload.  That payload will be delivered in Iran if some of the strategizing by the Bush people comes to be.  It won't be delivered by ICBM but it will be delivered.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go2523/is_200303/ai_n7614702

[headhuntersix]

Again...we won't launch nuclear weapons from the US..as in from US soil via ICBM. Subs...bombers....ships. .sure as in the case of ur article. Launching from US soil would make the Russians and Chinese very very nervous. We have better options....alot closer to the problem.

[militarymuscle69]

either was you look at it, Diplomacy ALONE will not work..no way no how

[Decker]

either was you look at it, Diplomacy ALONE will not work..no way no how

You are right.

The US never had the intention to resolve problems diplomatically with Iran.

This will be another war of aggression on Bush's resume. 

[militarymuscle69]

You are right.

The US never had the intention to resolve problems diplomatically with Iran.

This will be another war of aggression on Bush's resume. 

Show me times in History that diplomacy ALONE, has been the deterent of conflict.

[Decker]

Show me times in History that diplomacy ALONE, has been the deterent of conflict.

I suggest you do a little research on the matter.  But here's an example from the Bush Administration (which loathes diplomacy):

Bush calls for diplomacy on N. Korea crisis http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13704198

Bush Defends North Korea Nuclear Deal http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2007-02/2007-02-14-voa57.cfm?CFID=139293975&CFTOKEN=92857421

Well look at that!  We have compliance with our demands and we didn't have to bomb Korea to hell.

[OzmO]

If diplomacy didn't work we'd have had WW3,WW4,WW5,WW6,WW7, AND WW8 by now.   We'd have been in a military conflict at least once every 3 or 4 years.

[militarymuscle69]

I suggest you do a little research on the matter.  But here's an example from the Bush Administration (which loathes diplomacy):

Bush calls for diplomacy on N. Korea crisis http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13704198

Bush Defends North Korea Nuclear Deal http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2007-02/2007-02-14-voa57.cfm?CFID=139293975&CFTOKEN=92857421

Well look at that!  We have compliance with our demands and we didn't have to bomb Korea to hell.

no no simpleton, diplomacy ALONE...you think the U-2, F-16 flights on/over the 38th parallel plus the 50,000+ troops in South Korea didn't play a role in keeping NK quiet?

You too OzmO, I'm talking diplomacy alone. We always show force (whether you realize it or not) when faced with crisis.

[OzmO]

no no simpleton, diplomacy ALONE...you think the U-2, F-16 flights on/over the 38th parallel plus the 50,000+ troops in South Korea didn't play a role in keeping NK quiet?

You too OzmO, I'm talking diplomacy alone. We always show force (whether you realize it or not) when faced with crisis.

Diplomacy involves negotiation, and Military might plays a BIG role in that......of course.

But there is a distinction between using military force to solve a problem by attacking or bombing or starting a war or just invading a country Versus showing military force in a negotiation for a diplomatic settlement.

[Dos Equis]

Diplomacy involves negotiation, and Military might plays a BIG role in that......of course.

But there is a distinction between using military force to solve a problem by attacking or bombing or starting a war or just invading a country Versus showing military force in a negotiation for a diplomatic settlement.

Sounds like you and MM are saying the same thing:  diplomacy without the very real threat of military force often isn't enough.