At what point does a state of war exist with Iran?

[OklahomaTuba]

First their President and Ayotollah outright threaten to wipe the US off the fact of the map with their nukes.

And now this.


MUNICH, Germany (AP) -- U.S. military commanders in Iraq have shown members of Congress explosive devices that bear Iranian markings as evidence Tehran is supplying Iraqi militants with bombs, a senior U.S. government official said Saturday.

One of the lawmakers, independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, said he has seen some of the evidence, though he would not be specific. "I'm convinced from what I've seen that the Iranians are supplying and are giving assistance to the people in Iraq who are killing American soldiers," said Lieberman, who was attending an international security conference in Munich.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/02/10/D8N6TE880.html

[Vaevictis]

A state of war exists when Congress declares it. Duh. ;)

[Desert Sapper]

It would be nice if congress would declare war this time. At least then we won't have a confused public. Most of America thinks there is a war in Iraq, but it only involves the 'professional military'. We won't be able to effectively wage war until the entire nation is involved in the way that it has been for previous 'declared' wars. This power of the POTUS to wage war thing is getting old. It was stupid with regard to Korea, and it's been stupid for everything since.

In short, we are already at war with Iran (which I suspect from the tone of your post, you recognize). We won't be able to truly hold an advantage in that war until we declare it and mobilize the nation. We need to do so, but most Americans are too fat and happy to realize what Iran represents and the extent of the forces Iran supports. Americans, as Osama once put it, 'are too weak and selfish to sacrifice comfort for victory. Most will give up within a few years. The rest will be forced to give up for lack of support.' Smart guy.

[OklahomaTuba]

Better we do the job NOW, then wait for those *******s to get nukes.

I fear if they don't use them, one of their terrorist organziations like Hezbollah will.

Then we might be forced to react the same way.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

We prefer to just bury our heads in the sand, and not look at what's festering over in the Middle East. Nobody, myself included, wants to think of the prospects of ACTUAL hardships we will have to face when this thing happens.(in addition, the dims don't want to focus on anything but being in power in govt.)

[Okla-homey]

As you all know, Congress hasn't declared war since December 1941. My own theory for this apparent reluctance is such declarations tend to expand presidential authority even more broadly than the broad powers the president already wields in the areas of foreign policy and national security under the Constitution. In short, war is pretty much a blank check for the Prez. That's scary for the Congress.

[OklahomaTuba]

Regardless of the internal legal issues regarding declarations of war, I think if Iran is proven to be assisting in the murder of our men and women uniform (which they are), threatening our allies (which they are), and trying to destablize its neighbors (Iraq) and supporting terrorism (Hezbollah), then a state of war exists, and we should strive to end it before they develop the advantage of nukes.

At this point, I am beginning to think we need to start looking at preparing for a much larger conflict that could spread from Israel to Afganistan.

[royalfan5]

Okay, let's say we go after Iran right now. Do we have the resources to effectively occupy and administrate three neighboring countries full of people who don't like each other, without significant international help? I'm more worried about Islamists getting the bomb because Musharaf's regime collaspes in Pakistan than Iran developing it.

[OklahomaTuba]

Okay, let's say we go after Iran right now. Do we have the resources to effectively occupy and administrate three neighboring countries full of people who don't like each other, without significant international help? I'm more worried about Islamists getting the bomb because Musharaf's regime collaspes in Pakistan than Iran developing it.

I don't have the answer for that, but something will have to be done IMO.

And don't forget, Iran does have oil they could use as a weapon against us, bring our economy and our lives to a sudden halt.

[royalfan5]

I don't have the answer for that, but something will have to be done IMO.

And don't forget, Iran does have oil they could use as a weapon against us, bring our economy and our lives to a sudden halt.
Only for about 10 more years though. Bribing your people with a huge public sector economy isn't a good way to maintain production. I've seen a lot of stuff that indicates by the mid-2010 Iran will be insignifcant as an oil exporter. Perhaps we should be dropping the tariffs on imported ethanol to get more efficient ethanol from Brazil.

[Vaevictis]

Perhaps we should be dropping the tariffs on imported ethanol to get more efficient ethanol from Brazil.

Step 1: Get the first Presidential primary the **** out of Iowa.

[sooner_born_1960]

War doesn't necessarily mean we have to occupy and administer a country.

[OklahomaTuba]

Only for about 10 more years though. Bribing your people with a huge public sector economy isn't a good way to maintain production. I've seen a lot of stuff that indicates by the mid-2010 Iran will be insignifcant as an oil exporter. Perhaps we should be dropping the tariffs on imported ethanol to get more efficient ethanol from Brazil.

Yeah, that will never happen.

[royalfan5]

Yeah, that will never happen.
Which part? Iran being able to maintain production over the long term, or the United States finally doing something rational in regards to ethanol production?

[royalfan5]

War doesn't necessarily mean we have to occupy and administer a country.
What are we going to do after we win then? Leave a large area filled with people that aren't big USA fans in a state of anarchy? That would end well.

[Desert Sapper]

Okay, let's say we go after Iran right now. Do we have the resources to effectively occupy and administrate three neighboring countries full of people who don't like each other, without significant international help?

The answer is yes. We did so in Germany AND France after WWII. The problem is that we need the whole of the nation's resources to do so. That means the D word and it means gearing our economy to support a real war (not the limited one that we are currently engaged in). Right now, we don't. If we take this as seriously as we should, we would have the resources. Limited war is flawed in theory and execution. The brits tried to wage limited war here about 230 years ago. It didn't work then and it doesn't work now. Without the right resources, war is a wasted effort. We are beginning to see that now in Iraq (although several in the military community pointed it out prior to engaging). The answer is TOTAL war. I just don't see anyone (in the legislative or executive branches) having the chutzpah to admit it, let alone make it happen.

[Vaevictis]

It's hard to sell a war that appears pre-emptive (whether really it is or not) to a democratic nation.

[OklahomaTuba]

It's hard to sell a war that appears pre-emptive (whether really it is or not) to a democratic nation.

Wasn't all that hard in 2003. Hell, most of the donks supported it before they got all weak in the knees and started advocating retreat and defeat.

And it would hardly be pre-emptive with Iran already killing our soldiers in Iraq now.

The President just needs to lay out the case. Hopefully by releasing this information that is what they are doing.

[OklahomaTuba]

Which part? Iran being able to maintain production over the long term, or the United States finally doing something rational in regards to ethanol production?

ETH production.

I don't buy that Iran is running out of oil for one second. Its smoke and mirrors so they can justify their manhatten project.

[royalfan5]

ETH production.

I don't buy that Iran is running out of oil for one second. Its smoke and mirrors so they can justify their manhatten project.
Not so much running out of oil as out of infrastructure. They haven't been reinvesting like they should. You can only do that for so long before you are insignificant. Just think where Venezula and Mexico would be if they properly invested in their oil production, same thing is starting to unfold in Iran.

As for the Ethanol bit, if we continue on the path we are on now, we will be importing corn in a few years. The Gov'ts corn ethanol mandate is going to seriously **** up the system in the next few years, and then the gov't will likely **** away more money on a bailout.

[OklahomaTuba]

Not so much running out of oil as out of infrastructure. They haven't been reinvesting like they should. You can only do that for so long before you are insignificant. Just think where Venezula and Mexico would be if they properly invested in their oil production, same thing is starting to unfold in Iran.
Thats a huge problem for them. They are using processes that are over 50 years old probably. That place must be one huge environmental disaster over there.

If only they had access to the country that provides the world's best oil infastructure and engineering expertise, the good ol US of A.

I get inquires almost daily from someone in Iran at work. They even call me. It sucks cause i have to log it and report it so I don't get in trouble.


As for the Ethanol bit, if we continue on the path we are on now, we will be importing corn in a few years. The Gov'ts corn ethanol mandate is going to seriously **** up the system in the next few years, and then the gov't will likely **** away more money on a bailout.

I am more worried about rail capacity for ETH than corn availability. I think the feedstock issue will workitself out as technology comes on board. I do a lot of work with Verasun in Brookings, and some big stuff is on the way. Also in Biodiesel.

[royalfan5]

I share an office with the guy that builds the main corn use model for the United States. Corn prices are spiking, and bring up the other commodities with them. Corn can only buy so many acres in the United States. Ethanol isn't going to be that profitable by the end of this year and over the next. It's also going to chew up livestock producers which means food prices are going to start inflating signifcantly. Eventually the bubble will burst because of high corn prices, and land price deflation will cause significant problems. Then were will have a real mess. Neither of the cellulostic options are very good from an agronomic or infrastructure perspective. We would be much better of getting Brazil to displace their corn and soybean acres for sugar ethanol, and absorbing that production in commodities with our technology.

[Jerk]

Who wants to bet that the shoulder-fired SAM's taking down our helicopters (5 in 2 weeks) are coming from Persia?

[Ike]

So going back to the effects of running a war with no congressional declaration...Here is one nice article that details just one of the side effects of this....and a few people, that for the time being anyway, seemed to circumvent some of these problems.


http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/dhenninger/?id=110009638


Take it for whatever it's worth. I tend to agree with Sapper on in this thread, although I still question whether we have the resources to occupy and restore three coniguous nations full of people that absolutely hate our guts. I don't think it's impossible, but very difficult, and very necessary as well should we go to war with Iran. The effects of not running an occupation may well lead to regimes that are worse than the ones we oust, due to the fact that in the presence of a power vacuum, those that rise to the top tend to be those who are willing to ignore their conscience.

[85Sooner]

Okay, let's say we go after Iran right now. Do we have the resources to effectively occupy and administrate three neighboring countries full of people who don't like each other, without significant international help? I'm more worried about Islamists getting the bomb because Musharaf's regime collaspes in Pakistan than Iran developing it.


I say one very large nuke would send the message.

[Okieflyer]

I say one very large nuke would send the message.

We can't do that, a civilian might get killed!:rolleyes:



We're at war now, it's just the American paople haven't figured that out yet!

[SoonerGirl06]

At this point, I am beginning to think we need to start looking at preparing for a much larger conflict that could spread from Israel to Afganistan.


That's going to be pretty hard to do if Congress has their way and pull the troops out soon and/or not allow POTUS to have his surge in troops.

Irans threat is one reason why I think we need to leave a large military influence in the region. A war with Iran is not a matter of IF, it's a matter of WHEN.

[Okieflyer]

I'm really starting to like you SoonerGirl06! ;)

[Octavian]

YAY!


More War!



...and more success no doubt

[Octavian]

The President just needs to lay out the case.



Uh...'member what I said last time? Well....this time it's really true

[SoonerGirl06]

War doesn't necessarily mean we have to occupy and administer a country.


I'm not sure if you're referring to Iran or not, but....

Our objective for going to war with Iran would not be to occupy and administer the country... it would be to protect us from having nuclear weapons being sent over and deposited onto our soil, not to mention the prevention of Israel being completely annihilated.

[Octavian]

I'm not sure if you're referring to Iran or not, but....

Our objective for going to war with Iran would not be to occupy and administer the country... it would be to protect us from having nuclear weapons being sent over and deposited onto our soil, not to mention the prevention of Israel being completely annihilated.


that's what we were told w/ Iraq

[royalfan5]

I'm not sure if you're referring to Iran or not, but....

Our objective for going to war with Iran would not be to occupy and administer the country... it would be to protect us from having nuclear weapons being sent over and deposited onto our soil, not to mention the prevention of Israel being completely annihilated.
But you can't just leave a power vacuum when you are done. What would be accomplished if that happened?

[Octavian]

But you can't just leave a power vacuum when you are done. What would be accomplished if that happened?


We'd be spreading Freedom!

[Okieflyer]

that's what we were told w/ Iraq


Oh yea! It's such a happy world and if we would just lay down our weapons everyone would love us.:rolleyes:

[SoonerGirl06]

The answer is yes. We did so in Germany AND France after WWII. The problem is that we need the whole of the nation's resources to do so. That means the D word and it means gearing our economy to support a real war (not the limited one that we are currently engaged in). Right now, we don't. If we take this as seriously as we should, we would have the resources. Limited war is flawed in theory and execution. The brits tried to wage limited war here about 230 years ago. It didn't work then and it doesn't work now. Without the right resources, war is a wasted effort. We are beginning to see that now in Iraq (although several in the military community pointed it out prior to engaging). The answer is TOTAL war. I just don't see anyone (in the legislative or executive branches) having the chutspa to admit it, let alone make it happen.

I agree with what you're saying, but I honestly don't see a majority of Americans making the necessary sacrifices like our grandparents did in WWII in order to wage a war the way it needs to be waged.

Plus... the S-P's are gonna do their best to make the US the bad guys and try to limit our abilities to fight in the manner in which we need to. Look at what they're trying to do regarding the way we interrogate terrorists or how we prosecute them, not to mention the fact that we're holding them as war criminals at GITMO. And the idea that there would potentially be a large number of casualties... they're complaining about the 3000 soldiers we lost over a 4 year period... can you imagine if we were involved in a "real" war?

[SoonerGirl06]

that's what we were told w/ Iraq


We're not occupying Iraq. We're engaged in a war there.

[Okieflyer]

I agree with what you're saying, but I honestly don't see a majority of Americans making the necessary sacrifices like our grandparents did in WWII in order to wage a war the way it needs to be waged.

Your right about that. No one wants to make any sacrifice.

[Octavian]

Oh yea! It's such a happy world and if we would just lay down our weapons everyone would love us.:rolleyes:


:rolleyes:


:rolleyes:


:rolleyes:



yep....that icon works

[Octavian]

We're not occupying Iraq.


:D


I'd buy ya a beer if I could....thanks for the laugh

[royalfan5]

We're not occupying Iraq. We're engaged in a war there.
We're occupying, don't you remember the mission accomplished on the war. Our actions in Iraq right now have all the hallmarks of being in an occupying power.

[Okieflyer]

We're occupying, don't you remember the mission accomplished on the war. Our actions in Iraq right now have all the hallmarks of being in an occupying power.


Yup! We are, just no one has the guts to say it. We must be PC.

[SoonerGirl06]

But you can't just leave a power vacuum when you are done. What would be accomplished if that happened?


Most Iranians don't support the current leadership. They feel he's (I'm not going to attempt to spell his name) too radical and goes against what most of them want for the country which for the most part is democracy. So it's my opinion that when all is said and done a new non-radical, pro-democracy leadership will be brought into place by the Iranian citizens.

[royalfan5]

Most Iranians don't support the current leadership. They feel he's (I'm not going to attempt to spell his name) too radical and goes against what most of them want for the country which for the most part is democracy. So it's my opinion that when all is said and done a new non-radical, pro-democracy leadership will be brought into place by the Iranian citizens.
Do you really believe that? When has that ever happened outside of Japan and Germany? Do you really think that a war wouldn't radicalize them more? You don't think terrorists from Iraq and Afghanistan and other parts wouldn't pour into Iran?

[SoonerGirl06]

Oh yea! It's such a happy world and if we would just lay down our weapons everyone would love us.:rolleyes:


That's the S-P way of thinking and their agenda.

[Okieflyer]

That's the S-P way of thinking and their agenda.


Darn, I thought that was the Jimmy Carter doctrine.;)

[SoonerGirl06]

We're occupying, don't you remember the mission accomplished on the war. Our actions in Iraq right now have all the hallmarks of being in an occupying power.


I look beyond the smoke and mirrors and see our presence there for more reasons than just trying to maintain stability in Iraq... I see it as maintaining the ability to go after Iran when the need arises and keeping the fighting over there instead of over here.

[SoonerGirl06]

Do you really believe that? When has that ever happened outside of Japan and Germany? Do you really think that a war wouldn't radicalize them more? You don't think terrorists from Iraq and Afghanistan and other parts wouldn't pour into Iran?


Not if we bombed the **** out of them. I'm not talking about lobbing missles here and there, I'm referring to a full scale war.

And it is true about Iranian citizens not agreeing with the current leadership.

[royalfan5]

I look beyond the smoke and mirrors and see our presence there for more reasons than just trying to maintain stability in Iraq... I see it as maintaining the ability to go after Iran when the need arises and keeping the fighting over there instead of over here.
Do you really think the current Iraqi gov't could stand on it's own right now, and the Kurds wouldn't immediately secede if we up and left? If we are they're to be ready to take Iran, why the hell haven't we secured the Iran/Iraq border yet?

[royalfan5]

Not if we bombed the **** out of them. I'm not talking about lobbing missles here and there, I'm referring to a full scale war.

And it is true about Iranian citizens not agreeing with the current leadership.
So a brutal full-scale war wouldn't radicalize them? So if we launch a full scale invasion of Iran using Iraq as a base, how is that going to work without having our base of operations fully secured? Seems like poor strategy to me. It would take awhile to get the addition troops needed up to speed, and you know no other countries would be helping us out on this, plus the economic effects of knocking a major oil producer offline.

[SoonerGirl06]

Do you really think the current Iraqi gov't could stand on it's own right now, and the Kurds wouldn't immediately secede if we up and left? If we are they're to be ready to take Iran, why the hell haven't we secured the Iran/Iraq border yet?


No I don't think the current Iraqi govt could stand on it's own right now. I didn't say that we weren't there to help maintain stability there... we're also there to maintain the ability to go after Iran when the need arises.

As far as the inability to secure the Iran/Iraq border... if the powers that be quit playing a ****ing contest with each other we might just be able to accomplish that goal... not to mention being prepared to take Iran.

[royalfan5]

No I don't think the current Iraqi govt could stand on it's own right now. I didn't say that we weren't there to help maintain stability there... we're also there to maintain the ability to go after Iran when the need arises.

As far as the inability to secure the Iran/Iraq border... if the powers that be quit playing a ****ing contest with each other we might just be able to accomplish that goal... not to mention being prepared to take Iran.
And that's going happen anytime soon without an external incident.

[SoonerGirl06]

So a brutal full-scale war wouldn't radicalize them? So if we launch a full scale invasion of Iran using Iraq as a base, how is that going to work without having our base of operations fully secured? Seems like poor strategy to me. It would take awhile to get the addition troops needed up to speed, and you know no other countries would be helping us out on this, plus the economic effects of knocking a major oil producer offline.


It's not going to work without having our base of operations fully secured. That's why I think it's important to leave our troops there and support the surge that POTUS recommended.

If it's a matter of pre-empting a nuclear attack on American soil then I think we should take all measures to protect ourselves... with or without other countries help.

[royalfan5]

It's not going to work without having our base of operations fully secured. That's why I think it's important to leave our troops there and support the surge that POTUS recommended.

If it's a matter of pre-empting a nuclear attack on American soil then I think we should take all measures to protect ourselves... with or without other countries help.
The POTUS doesn't want near a big enough troop surge to properly do the job. America does not have the willpower for a war in Iran right now, and unless that changes drastically, another war of half-measures won't end well.

[SoonerGirl06]

And that's going happen anytime soon without an external incident.


I didn't say that. Listen, either America is worth fighting for or it's not. If it is... and I think it is... there are sacrifices and risks that are going to need to made in order for us to survive the harsh realites that face us... which are the radical jihadists that are trying to wipe us off the face of the earth and are willing to do anything and everything to make sure that happens.

[royalfan5]

I didn't say that. Listen, either America is worth fighting for or it's not. If it is... and I think it is... there are sacrifices and risks that are going to need to made in order for us to survive the harsh realites that face us... which are the radical jihadists that are trying to wipe us off the face of the earth and are willing to do anything and everything to make sure that happens.
Do you really think America is ready to do that right now? Do you really think the general public and congress has the trust in the President to do that right now? You can't fight a winning war without the people solidly behind it. I don't see that right now.

[SoonerGirl06]

The POTUS doesn't want near a big enough troop surge to properly do the job. America does not have the willpower for a war in Iran right now, and unless that changes drastically, another war of half-measures won't end well.


I agree.

Bush needs to grow some balls and stand up to those who do not serve the best interests of America. I think it's important for Americans to be educated about the dangers of Iran and the radicals that are out for our blood. The Bush Administration IMO has failed drastically in that area.

[SoonerGirl06]

Do you really think America is ready to do that right now? Do you really think the general public and congress has the trust in the President to do that right now? You can't fight a winning war without the people solidly behind it. I don't see that right now.


I don't think most Americans are aware of the true dangers that face us if we pull out of Iraq and the true dangers that face us regarding Iran. I think the Bush Admin has definitely failed in that area. If they were more vocal about it, don't think there would be an issue regarding America's readiness and being behind a war with Iran. Congress is a joke... everyone is looking out for themselves and don't have the nads to do what it takes.

I agree... you can't fight any war without the people solidly behind it. That's why it's so damn important for Bush to make the threats known to the American people and the implications if we don't do something.

[Scott D]

Regardless of the internal legal issues regarding declarations of war, I think if Iran is proven to be assisting in the murder of our men and women uniform (which they are), threatening our allies (which they are), and trying to destablize its neighbors (Iraq) and supporting terrorism (Hezbollah), then a state of war exists, and we should strive to end it before they develop the advantage of nukes.

At this point, I am beginning to think we need to start looking at preparing for a much larger conflict that could spread from Israel to Afganistan.

With Iraq they aren't trying to destabilize that which is already unstable. They are trying to consolidate a power base in which they can expand with minimal resistance.

[OklahomaTuba]

The real question is, what would a President Obama Hussein Barack do??

Muahahahahaha.

[Scott D]

he'd send the army of Nigeria to invade obviously.

[leavingthezoo]

I agree with what you're saying, but I honestly don't see a majority of Americans making the necessary sacrifices like our grandparents did in WWII in order to wage a war the way it needs to be waged.

out of curiosity, and because i agree, i'd like to know what you would have to see before believing the majority of Americans are making necessary sacrifices. what does that mean to you?

[Desert Sapper]

I'm not going to speak for SoonerGirl06, but with regard to the commentary I provided earlier, I'd offer that sacrifice means precisely what Kennedy said, 'Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.' The 'democrats' (deliberately lower-case) in congress have forgotten what that means to such a degree that they are practically p!$$ing on JFK's grave on a daily basis. For the average American it means wondering what you can do to support the war effort rather than worrying what color SUV to buy next.

The majority of the people we have the likelihood of engaging in war with have nothing, next-to-nothing at best. They have nothing to lose, and will hold a substantial advantage over us until we recognize how best to sacrifice for the greater good of our nation.

I don't expect it to happen for the very reason SoonerGirl suggested: Americans have no desire to spurn their creature comforts to protect their future. They would much rather leave the suffering to their children. Precisely the opposite viewpoint of 'the Greatest Generation' (which is aging to the point of being irrelevant). Our leadership, unfortunately, is of the 'Turn on, Tune in, Drop out' generation, and cannot see the difference between reality and the fantasy they have created.

[SoonerGirl06]

out of curiosity, and because i agree, i'd like to know what you would have to see before believing the majority of Americans are making necessary sacrifices. what does that mean to you?


Making the necessary sacrifices means giving up the luxuries and comforts that we've all been accustomed to having for the greater good of our country.

If we were involved in an all out war this day and age like we were in WWII, I just don't see Americans willing to ration goods, conserve on gasoline or energy or give up making luxury purchases like a second vehicle, various electronic devices, etc. in the manner in which our Grandparents or parents did.

The only way that might happen is if there was a war waged on American soil and we experienced it firsthand. Otherwise it's too easy to turn off the evening news, forget about what happens in war and go about our lives buying the latest CD or DVD and deciding which flatscreen TV to purchase.

[SoonerGirl06]

Our leadership, unfortunately, is of the 'Turn on, Tune in, Drop out' generation, and cannot see the difference between reality and the fantasy they have created.


Yesterdays Flower Children are todays leaders....

[AlbqSooner]

out of curiosity, and because i agree, i'd like to know what you would have to see before believing the majority of Americans are making necessary sacrifices. what does that mean to you?
In 1941 my father was doing his medical internship and was looking at what to do about residency training. Two neurosurgeons in OKC told him that if he would agree to accept residency training in neurosurgery they could keep him out of the military. He thanked them but went into the Army, eventually making a beach landing in North Africa, another in Sicily and another in Italy before fighting his way up the boot of Italy at places like Anzio and Monte Cassino. He said that turning down the neurosurgery residency was never a question in his mind. We had a war to fight and he was going. That was a very common mindset at that time. I suggest that mindset is very rare today.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Making the necessary sacrifices means giving up the luxuries and comforts that we've all been accustomed to having for the greater good of our country.

If we were involved in an all out war this day and age like we were in WWII, I just don't see Americans willing to ration goods, conserve on gasoline or energy or give up making luxury purchases like a second vehicle, various electronic devices, etc. in the manner in which our Grandparents or parents did.

The only way that might happen is if there was a war waged on American soil and we experienced it firsthand. Otherwise it's too easy to turn off the evening news, forget about what happens in war and go about our lives buying the latest CD or DVD and deciding which flatscreen TV to purchase.When an event or series of events happen that send the economy into the dumper, THEN AND ONLY THEN, will most of the people be ready to take the war seriously, to sacrifice and fight.

[leavingthezoo]

i think there is a glaring area where everyone's tune changes when it comes to feeling the impact of war. because i'm not up for the fight, i'm going to drop my own thoughts on this. i do appreciate the comments though.

[OUinFLA]

In 1941 my father was doing his medical internship and was looking at what to do about residency training. Two neurosurgeons in OKC told him that if he would agree to accept residency training in neurosurgery they could keep him out of the military. He thanked them but went into the Army, eventually making a beach landing in North Africa, another in Sicily and another in Italy before fighting his way up the boot of Italy at places like Anzio and Monte Cassino. He said that turning down the neurosurgery residency was never a question in his mind. We had a war to fight and he was going. That was a very common mindset at that time. I suggest that mindset is very rare today.

Same with my Dad. He was 1.5 years into his PhD, 35 yrs old, and didnt have to join up. He did anyway, taking a commission in the USN where he taught math and navigation to the flyboys. He didnt go overseas, but would have if that was the way the ball bounced. He felt it was his duty to contribute to the war effort in any way he was needed.

At the end of the war he turned down a promotion to Commander and left the service to continue his efforts to a higher education. What did it cost him? 4 years of his life and he had to start from the begining on his PhD work. He said.....Of course I joined, it was the right thing to do.

A great generation to be sure.

[Ike]

Making the necessary sacrifices means giving up the luxuries and comforts that we've all been accustomed to having for the greater good of our country.

If we were involved in an all out war this day and age like we were in WWII, I just don't see Americans willing to ration goods, conserve on gasoline or energy or give up making luxury purchases like a second vehicle, various electronic devices, etc. in the manner in which our Grandparents or parents did.

The only way that might happen is if there was a war waged on American soil and we experienced it firsthand. Otherwise it's too easy to turn off the evening news, forget about what happens in war and go about our lives buying the latest CD or DVD and deciding which flatscreen TV to purchase.


I think you would find Americans much more willing to do this than you percieve. Certainly this liberal would (among many others that I know)...if only we were asked. Of the suggestions you made above, the only ones that would seem to have an immediate effect would be the conservation of gasoline. Rationing food, forgoing luxury purchaces, etc only have an effect if that money is re-directed elsewhere. Most likely, that would mean accepting a tax increase. I think people would be willing to accept this, but instead, our leaders have punted when it comes to asking the american people to sacrifice. In fact, they tell us to do the exact opposite. Don't save money...spend it...go to the mall! Make the tax cuts permanent! No more taxes!

While it may be true that the general population may not have the stomach for this, this is not the perception I get from those that I know personally. But why sacrifice when a) that extra money has nowhere to go and b) our leaders have encouraged us to do the exact opposite of this? So in my mind, it's hard to separate whether this is a failure of the American spirit, or simply a failure of leadership. Or some combination of the two.

[Desert Sapper]

So in my mind, it's hard to separate whether this is a failure of the American spirit, or simply a failure of leadership. Or some combination of the two.

I think this is the most accurate estimation. It isn't simply that Americans are weak. Nor is the onus solely to be placed on the leadership. The people reflect their leadership and vice versa. Our leadership is still quibbling over whether this is an important fight or not. The blame game is more important to them than the solution. As a people, we seem to believe whatever we are told (I speak more of the masses than the individual). The politicians say 'Iraq is a threat'. We support invasion. The politicians say 'Iraq was a mistake'. We all complain about being conned into supporting the invasion. At some point, we will be forced to face our enemy in total (probably on his terms). At that point, it may be too late. Unless we recognize the significant threat our enemy poses right now and put our whole nation behind destroying that enemy, the efforts we are exhausting in Iraq and Afghanistan are in vain.

Again, we seem to feel that placing this burden on the shoulders of our children is the answer. It is the response of a largely irresponsible collective, both as a population and as leadership in the highest offices of our government. I fear for our children and for our future as a nation.

[85Sooner]

I think you would find Americans much more willing to do this than you percieve. Certainly this liberal would (among many others that I know)...if only we were asked. Of the suggestions you made above, the only ones that would seem to have an immediate effect would be the conservation of gasoline. Rationing food, forgoing luxury purchaces, etc only have an effect if that money is re-directed elsewhere. Most likely, that would mean accepting a tax increase. I think people would be willing to accept this, but instead, our leaders have punted when it comes to asking the american people to sacrifice. In fact, they tell us to do the exact opposite. Don't save money...spend it...go to the mall! Make the tax cuts permanent! No more taxes!

While it may be true that the general population may not have the stomach for this, this is not the perception I get from those that I know personally. But why sacrifice when a) that extra money has nowhere to go and b) our leaders have encouraged us to do the exact opposite of this? So in my mind, it's hard to separate whether this is a failure of the American spirit, or simply a failure of leadership. Or some combination of the two.


referring to the taxation in this country , I am just sick of the re-distribution of wealth to others. I used to have compassion for people in hard times but the more and more I looked, those always seem to be the same people and that doesn't even touch the illegal criminals coming over the border and the money that goes to pay for their services.
Pretty much the way I feel about alot of the folks on the left,, well,maybe the far left is that I would not serve with them period. There will be a day in time when we do have a major conflict because of the in actions of many spineless americans of the Baby Boomer generation. That generation has been the source of most of todays problems. They have been the ones that have created and perpetuated the problems. JMHO

[Ike]

referring to the taxation in this country , I am just sick of the re-distribution of wealth to others. I used to have compassion for people in hard times but the more and more I looked, those always seem to be the same people and that doesn't even touch the illegal criminals coming over the border and the money that goes to pay for their services.
Pretty much the way I feel about alot of the folks on the left,, well,maybe the far left is that I would not serve with them period. There will be a day in time when we do have a major conflict because of the in actions of many spineless americans of the Baby Boomer generation. That generation has been the source of most of todays problems. They have been the ones that have created and perpetuated the problems. JMHO


I'm not entirely sure that I follow you here. I was referring to increased taxation to, oh, I don't know, pay for things like more tanks, armor, bullets, etc...ya know..the things it takes to fight a war. I'm not sure where you get all of this wealth re-distribution crap. Maybe you just saw me call myself a dirty liberal along with the mention of higher taxes and that got your blood boiling. It's not an uncommon reaction I suppose. Knee jerks are, after all, all the rage these days.

[TUSooner]

Sadly (because I have Iranian kin-folk), I think we are headed for a war with Iran, declared or otherwise, due to the anti-West obsessions of the regime.
I'd like to hope that there is enough grass-roots dissatisfaction with the Iranian regime to cause a revolution. But that's dreamy. There is unrest and disatisfaction, and many pro-Western Persians, but I doubt if there is a critical mass of them. A wise and clever President could probably exploit the situation diplomatically and with PR.... but that's another dream!

And the more warlike we get, the more likely it is to unify the populace behnd the regime, at least temporarily. They will get dragged into whatever destruction is in store for the regime.
A concern is that voiced by royalfan5 - we're "encumbered" with Iraq, so it's easier to say we'll kick Iran's butt than to do it right now.

[Scott D]

Sadly (because I have Iranian kin-folk), I think we are headed for a war with Iran, declared or otherwise, due to the anti-West obsessions of the regime.
I'd like to hope that there is enough grass-roots dissatisfaction with the Iranian regime to cause a revolution. But that's dreamy. There is unrest and disatisfaction, and many pro-Western Persians, but I doubt if there is a critical mass of them. A wise and clever President could probably exploit the situation diplomatically and with PR.... but that's another dream!

And the more warlike we get, the more likely it is to unify the populace behnd the regime, at least temporarily. They will get dragged into whatever destruction is in store for the regime.
A concern is that voiced by royalfan5 - we're "encumbered" with Iraq, so it's easier to say we'll kick Iran's butt than to do it right now.

It would take a lot for any sort of revolution to overturn the current Iranian regime. The Iranian regime is everything that the Taliban wished they had been prior to being toppled at least as the primary power in Afghanistan.

We'll definitely end up in direct confrontation with Iran...but it will be in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

[OklahomaTuba]

Any conflict with Iran will start with Hezbollah first I think.

And any conflict with Iran will surely include not only Hezbollah controlled Lebanon, but also Syria.

It will be the beginning of a conflict that will inflame the middle-east like nothing before IMO.

And the direct result of that will be the mass killing of Jews in Jerusalem, terrorist attacks across the globe against America, intifada in Europe and southeast Asia (such as France and Thailand).

Just imagine trying to fight this battle with a Nuclear Iran?

Bye-bye Israel, the Jewish Race, and you and your families way of life.

But then again, maybe this is just part of the plan. If so, I already know the outcome.

[Scott D]

One could argue conflict with Iran has already started via the Taliban in Afghanistan and Al Quada/Insurgency in Iraq.

The question is whether or not they can manage to alienate enough of the non Islamic world that they'd have more resistance to their attempts to consolidate and grow their international power.

[Pricetag]

But then again, maybe this is just part of the plan. If so, I already know the outcome.
Unfortunately, so do they.

[Vaevictis]

Wasn't all that hard in 2003. Hell, most of the donks supported it before they got all weak in the knees and started advocating retreat and defeat.

The President and crew did their damned best to tie Al-Qaeda to Iraq, and if you go back and look at the polls, they had a goodly chunk (60%+) convinced that there were strong ties. That's not pre-emptive at all, that's reactive.


And it would hardly be pre-emptive with Iran already killing our soldiers in Iraq now.

The President just needs to lay out the case. Hopefully by releasing this information that is what they are doing.

The President is going to have a tough row to hoe on that one. One of the problems with pounding the drums on WMD in Iraq is that if you don't find smoking-gun open and shut evidence proving you right, AND/OR convince the public at large that you have found such evidence, then the next time some bad guy pops up, you're not going to receive the benefit of the doubt.

[Harry Beanbag]

I'm not entirely sure that I follow you here. I was referring to increased taxation to, oh, I don't know, pay for things like more tanks, armor, bullets, etc...ya know..the things it takes to fight a war. I'm not sure where you get all of this wealth re-distribution crap. Maybe you just saw me call myself a dirty liberal along with the mention of higher taxes and that got your blood boiling. It's not an uncommon reaction I suppose. Knee jerks are, after all, all the rage these days.


I'm not speaking for 85Sooner, but I don't trust anybody in Congress to raise our taxes and spend it wisely. And other than a couple of people on this board, I doubt anybody else in the country does either. I've been saying for a few years now on this board that our military is not ready for what is coming. When we have to use our National Guard to occupy foreign countries that we've invaded, we're in trouble. Our active duty military, namely Army and Marines are woefully small to fight the global war that is looming on the horizon.

We used to disband most of the military after our wars were over then ramp up again when threatened or attacked. Of course that process takes a few years. The Soviets kept us alert after WW2, but the fall of the Iron Curtain led us to once again gut our military in the '90s. The time is now (or has already passed) to get ready. With nuclear weapons in our enemies hands, we won't have 3 or 4 years to get our **** together once it starts hitting the fan. This will be exacerbated to disaster when one of those nukes gets deployed in say Baghdad and takes out 1/2 of our active duty forces in one day. We will be screwed.

And I think the fault falls directly on our leadership or lack there of. Those ****ers in Washington are too worried about carrying out there own personal vendettas on each other to do their ****ing jobs. Their only goal is power for themselves.

[Scott D]

And I think the fault falls directly on our leadership or lack there of. Those ****ers in Washington are too worried about carrying out there own personal vendettas on each other to do their ****ing jobs. Their only goal is power for themselves.

careful, to someone here that may make you considered either a lib or a blind believer of the msm.