Originally posted by etshrtslr
I think we have all the makings of a constitutional showdown between the president and congress.
If bush is really intent on going into Iran I think now would be the time... at least half our navy is in Persian gulf and he just sent 20,000 plus
more troops to Iraq (maybe for Iran?) and time is running out on him.
Now we will find out if congress means what it says and says what it means.
Can they really do anything to stop bush short of impeachment if he does go into Iran? Or will this be like the secret war in Cambodia? Where every
knows were fighting a war there but no one will admit it.
20,000 more troops is not enough to invade Iran.
We would need another 150,000+ troops to invade. (current troops in Iraq cannot leave if we go to war with Iran as Iraq would further collapse)
However, 20,000 troops ontop of the current number in Iraq and combined with Iraqi units would be enough to supress the majority of an attack by Iran
or Syria or both. That is, we fly in, take out what we need to or want to, continue the bombings. Meanwhile the army and Marines stand ground simply
to prevent troops and supplies from going either way.
This would be the most logical plan. The idea would be to destroy the military, send leaders into hiding, distress the populace. The people are
already evenly split in support or not of the current government, if it where to collapse civil war would ensue in both Syria and Iran.
Of course the radicals could win in both cases, and no matter the out come no side will like America or any Western state..
I am no military stratigist though, and our current ones are not very logical so who knows what the hell will happen.. In any case furthering this
war is a mistake.. The money, the cassualties.. the fact that this war is lasting a long time as far as wars go (averaging around 4-5 years and this
one shows no sign of ending..)
As far as "stoping" the war and Bush short of impeachment would be to cut off funding. Democrats and a few Republicans have said they will support
those actions, the American people might be less forgiving to any politician who does such a thing.. it would be like making the troops pay for
And as far as the current provisions not legally allowing Bush to cross borders..
As far as I personally understand it, any where the threat on American's be it troops or civilian or intrest he has the athority to attack. Hence
samollia.. If in the name of thworting a terrorist attack or some bs he could cross the borders with the current troops at his command. He also has
the right to deploy troops any where in the world for (90 days?) which he did at the begining of Iraq .. We never gave a "declaration of war" to
Iraq or Afgahnistan either, they are currently ongoing opperations..