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.