The War Drums Are Getting Louder - Public Willing to Consider Force to Thwart Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions (enemies, legal)

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by HappyTexan

What a change..Dems supporting an invasion of an ME country.

We just might be invading Syria before we march off to Iran though.

According to Public Law 107-40 both Syria and Iran are legitimate military targets. The "War Against Terrorism", that was officially declared September 18, 2001, is still in effect. As Congress reaffirmed in the National Defense Appropriations Act of 2011, Section 1021.

At the time the law was enacted four nations fit the bill as having terrorist sponsoring governments: Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. While I do not support nation building (particularly while the war is still going on), but I do support eliminating terrorist sponsoring governments. I do not care who is President, and I am not going to quibble about the order in which the terrorist sponsoring governments are eliminated, as long as they are all eliminated in the end.

I would only suggest that the President remind the American people why we are fighting this war, because many seem to have forgotten the 3,000+ Americans killed in a coordinated terrorist attack on 09/11/2001. It is not about WMDs, it is not even about nuclear weapons. It is because we cannot afford to allow terrorist sponsoring nations to develop WMDs or nuclear weapons.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks

Now we have social media and the Internet to shame those public offices and remove them from public office. They might try to do that, but we can remove them from office.

By the same token I'd think most politicians today would consider the mere mention of reinstituting the draft to be political suicide. And what percentage of politicians actually put the country's interests ahead of their own?

[Winter_Sucks]

Originally Posted by burdell

By the same token I'd think most politicians today would consider the mere mention of reinstituting the draft to be political suicide. And what percentage of politicians actually put the country's interests ahead of their own?

Good point.

[Old Gringo]

Wars are much easier to get into than out of. Iraq and Afghanistan should have ended long before Dubya left office. Instead, they drag on for year after year, with no perceptible progress after the initial "mission accomplished" hype.

My bet is that if we take armed action against Iran, it will be a focused airstrike aimed at their nuclear facilities. An act of war, no doubt. But not one that will necessitate a ground campaign and the inevitable quagmire in its wake.

[jmqueen]

Originally Posted by Dockside

Obama and company and his minions in the press have been beating on the war drums about Iran for the last two months, and this poll shows his efforts have borne fruit. 62% of Democrats support this nonsense.

Well, I haven't complained because I seem to have missed the Obama war drums and the 62% of Democrats who support it.

Citations, please?

[legalsea]

Originally Posted by Dockside

This is a discouraging Pew Poll - Public Remains Supportive of Israel, Wary of Iran | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

Obama and company and his minions in the press have been beating on the war drums about Iran for the last two months, and this poll shows his efforts have borne fruit. 62% of Democrats support this nonsense. Don't you libs remember the lead up to the second invasion of Iraq? This is the same rhetoric and the same bs that you all complained about afterwards...you know, Bush lied and Americans died.

And here we go again. And nary a complaint from you hypocrites on the left because it's Obama.

I admit, I am a little confused. You note that due to the 'war drums' being beaten by President and minions some 62 percent of Democrats support 'this' (i.e., action against Iran).

Yet, your link shows that 80 percent of Republicans support this action (and 59 percent of Independents). I guess said 80 percent support President Obama in this issue?

So, 80 percent of Republicans polled agree with the statement that action, including the military option, should be taken against Iran to prevent their develpment of a nuclear weapon. In other words, Obama is heading where Republicans wish him to go, along with 62 percent of polled Democrats and 59 percent of Independents.

Isn't that what the Republicans want? To stop Iran? Yet, when the President and Democrats agree with the Republican objective, you call them hypocrites?

Anyway, I reject the notion that the second invasion of Iraq and the present situation are the same. I was against said invasion (I did support Mr. Bush in Afganistan). Even if there were WMD, they were not directed at the US. Indeed, I am also against US military action against Iran. However, maybe the threat of US action will help bring the leaders of Iran to the table (although I doubt it).

If the pollsters had asked me, I would say "Let the other Middle East countries handle Iran".

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Old Gringo

My bet is that if we take armed action against Iran, it will be a focused airstrike aimed at their nuclear facilities. An act of war, no doubt. But not one that will necessitate a ground campaign and the inevitable quagmire in its wake.

The problem seems to be, at least from what I've read, that their facilities may be hardened beyond what any conventional weapon is capable of penetrating. Do we resort to a preemptive nuclear strike and become no different than the war mongers we're allegedly trying to subdue?

[burdell]

Originally Posted by legalsea

If the pollsters had asked me, I would say "Let the other Middle East countries handle Iran".

DING! DING! DING!

We have a winner!

There will NEVER be peace in the ME until all those who live there want it, NOT because a country founded long after many of the grudges that fuel the conflicts in the ME came into being.

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by Old Gringo

Wars are much easier to get into than out of. Iraq and Afghanistan should have ended long before Dubya left office. Instead, they drag on for year after year, with no perceptible progress after the initial "mission accomplished" hype.

My bet is that if we take armed action against Iran, it will be a focused airstrike aimed at their nuclear facilities. An act of war, no doubt. But not one that will necessitate a ground campaign and the inevitable quagmire in its wake.

I agree that both Afghanistan and Iraq should have ended long before Bush 43 left office. However, getting out can be just as easy as getting into a war. It depends on the President. For example, Bush 41 got into and out of the first Gulf War in 1991 in 96 days. Which also happens to be the same amount of time (96 days) the Spanish American War lasted in 1899 under President McKinley. Ironically, McKinley was praised and reelected for achieving a victory in so short a period, while Bush 41 ended up losing the 1992 election the following year.

Even WW II lasted only half as long as the war in Iraq, and during WW II not only did we liberate northern Africa, and all of western Europe, we also fought an island-hopping campaign in the Pacific against the Japanese.

The problem stemmed from Nation Building, and was compounded further because it was started before the war as actually won.

After WW II ended, not during, Congress created the Marshall Plan for rebuilding war-torn Europe. Win the damn war first, THEN consider what can be done to help rebuild.

[2e1m5a]

Americans seem to be too busy calling eachother hypocrites to realize that our own elected politicians are the only hypocrites.
They do it for a living, a fat guaranteed salary for life living too.

Wake up people, stop blindly following these failed representatives because they have a certain letter next to their name.