When will/Will the United States formally declare war on Iran?

a reply to: CriticalStinker

You keep framing question to get me to say I am defending Iran

How the hell do you frame a yes or no question ?

Each time I've said I don't support Iran.

Let’s see about that

As I've said many times before, I've never defended Iran. If Saudi Arabia and Israel decide to nullify their nuclear program,

You are defending Iran in that statement by bringing in outside factors . My question was about Iran not Iran Saudi Arabia and Israel . That’s why I called it a song and dance .

I couldn't agree with it, I'm not Iranian,

That one I called evasive which it was .

My question is a simple yes or no question. Why don’t you want to give an answer?

Are you afraid I’ll go back in your history and find something ?

a reply to: Fallingdown

You are defending Iran in that statement by bringing in outside factors . My question was about Iran not Iran Saudi Arabia and Israel . That’s why I called it a song and dance .

Your logic seems to be that if someone does not support US intervention on Iran, than they are defending Iran. That is logical fallacy. I'm saying Iran isn't our problem, so we should refrain from getting in another military conflict, that if reached full scale, would force us to get a multi trillion dollar loan again.

If Israel and Saudi Arabia want to take care of it, that's their call... I wouldn't defend Iran in that scenario.

So again, I don't defend Iran. It's the same kind of language used to keep people silent about being against the war in Iraq... If you're against it than you're an "apologist or defender". If Israel and Saudi Arabia take care of the threat, cool, I don't care.

Are you afraid I’ll go back in your history and find something ?

I wouldn't care. My self esteem isn't fueled by whether or not people on the internet agree with me. I have unpopular opinions often, but I'm consistent. I don't like the two parties, they both spend too much on foreign policy, and we give to many handouts to other countries. We would do better if we worried about our countries rather than have select outrage over some while supporting others who are just as bad.

a reply to: AnakinWayneII

Probably not this time around.

This topic always comes up when there is a presidential election, especially if there is a Republican incumbent the media hates. See GW.

a reply to: ketsuko

Probably not this time around.

I agree and hope the same. I don't think the tankers were enough to get the American public behind this.

This topic always comes up when there is a presidential election, especially if there is a Republican incumbent the media hates. See GW.

It get's them ratings and $$$ whenever war can appear to be on the horizon, they're also going to do no favors for those on the right. Pompeo and Bolton do make me nervous though if anything else happens between us and Iran. Pompeo was quoted saying that they could circumvent congress if they decided to engage in a conflict.

The Trump administration does not want war, according to Pompeo, but them and their allies will not hesitate to deal with any threat to the people, the sovereignty, the territorial integrity and vital interests. Bribing the fire-breathing mullahs isn’t going to cut it.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: AnakinWayneII

The United states hasn't declared war since 1942.

And yet we're always at war.

Unless you're saying that Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and others, ASKED to be invaded.

Declare war or not, it's our bread and butter.

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf
The Trump administration does not want war, according to Pompeo, but them and their allies will not hesitate to deal with any threat to the people, the sovereignty, the territorial integrity and vital interests. Bribing the fire-breathing mullahs isn’t going to cut it.

I don't think Trump himself wants war, but I think Bolton has been clear that he sees it as inevitable and needed. John Bolton's NYT oped - To stop Iran/bomb Iran - from 2015

Pompeo himself said that the admin could circumvent congress in a conflict with Iran-

They were responding to comments Secretary of State Mike Pompeo made in a May 21 classified briefing for members of Congress that suggested that the Authorization for Use of Military Force, or AUMF, passed by Congress three days after 9/11 could provide a legal basis for a war with Iran.

The Intercept

So I hope that war isn't on the table, but certain elements of the admin aren't making it easy to hold that position.

a reply to: kwakakev

MSM - Main Stream Media

Who says our economy is based on war? You, the Australian?

Tell me, how many wars has Trump started again?

All war has done is cause an extreme amount of national debt, while only benefitting the MIC, foreign interests and our allies interests. Notice how US citizens weren't mentioned.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I imagine Bolton does. But I’m not sure the boss man just does anything his advisors says he should.

But Pompeo has softened his tone.

Pompeo reiterated that the US believes it was “unmistakable” that Iran was responsible for the attacks, in an interview with Fox News Sunday. He stressed a need for diplomacy and said American officials are reaching out to their foreign counterparts.

“President Trump has done everything he can to avoid war. We don’t want war,” he added.

“The United States is going make sure that we take all the actions necessary, diplomatic and otherwise that achieve that outcome,” Pompeo said.

www.theguardian.com...

Battered wife syndrome to a degree. Instead of getting the abusive husband arrested (dropping SA ties at minimum) it's pointing blame at the next nearest male relative and making crap more difficult for them instead. We KNOW who's bitch we really are, and who's no real threat to us, yet we live under this persistent delusion, being kept in line & not speaking up like a battered wife.

Besides, ultimately, it's not our place to "liberate" anywhere. We're not the global police, OR moral or ethical authority on enforcement unless someone wants to advocate for a global government.If you THINK that is a title we're owed -- being a singular global enforcement force -- and you eschew globalism, boy, do I have news for you, you poor confused little thing.

People keep saying the illegals fleeing our way need to go home, rise up, and fix their own s#, so why the hell is it such hypocrisy when it comes to the ME? "Naw man, we need to storm in and distribute some freedom bombs! They can't do it themselves, there's no hope! Hondurans and such should be able to overthrow and rebuilt to their specifications with no hope, but people in the ME, they need our "help". Because reasons."

a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

Hopefully Pompeo maintains that stance as he likely has more pull than Bolton.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

You basically said yeah but .

Have you ever in your life answered with a yes or no?

Or do you have to justify your position every time ?

Because justification of a answer shows it is a weak answer .

I left the other forums because of silly games like this.

I don’t want to play .

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: AnakinWayneII

The United states hasn't declared war since 1942.

What was it then? Or I should say is it since it was a declaration of never ending war since no one will ever stop terrorism.

The September 11 terrorist attacks occurred eight months into Bush's first term. Bush responded with what became known as the Bush Doctrine: launching a "War on Terror", an international military campaign that included the war in Afghanistan in 2001 and the Iraq War in 2003.

War Powers. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war. The President, meanwhile, derives the power to direct the military after a Congressional declaration of war from Article II, Section 2, which names the President Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.

a reply to: Fallingdown

Have you ever in your life answered with a yes or no?

On matters of thousands- hundreds of thousands of possible deaths and trillions of dollars, I like to add a little bit of explanation than a yes or a no.

I get it, you don't like my answers, and that's OK, to each their own.

You never answered my question though, and you don't have to since you said you're dipping out, and I'll respect that. But I asked since we're trillions of dollars in debt and rising, why do we need to serve the interest of Israel and Saudi Arabia when they're capable of dealing with it on their own.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I’ll answer your question. You didn’t ask it in the form of a yes or no question by the way .

Who say’s we are serving Saudi Arabia and Israel’s interest ?

We are serving our own interest .

a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

Thanks to domestic oil production, we don't need war over Iran blowing up tankers in the Gulf.

Now, if nuclear weapons come out, things would change. Iran lobbing nukes serves no one's national security interests.

a reply to: Fallingdown

I’ll answer your question. You didn’t ask it in the form of a yes or no question by the way .

It's OK, we're breaking some of the rules of the board , Just this once though since it has such implications, lol.

Who say’s we are serving Saudi Arabia and Israel’s interest ?

We are serving our own interest .

Iran has a GDP half that of Texas. They possess no ICBM's at the moment, and are years away from getting to that point, they are also years away from getting their hands on a nuke. They are a regional threat, and a regional threat alone.

Our interests are fixing stuff at home, something that has been neglected for decades now.

If we go to war with Iran, we will have to borrow tens of billions at best with a strategical strike, and trillions at worse if it manifests into a full scale war, which it likely would after they attack our assets in Iraq where they have a heavy foothold.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Iran has a GDP half that of Texas.

I don’t care about their GDP. I know what could happen. If nukes pop off in the Middle East oil supplies would be virtually shut down.

During the Arab oil embargo a 3.3% change in oil production caused a 231% price rise World wide . What do you think going to happen with the 25% or 40% reduction in oil ?

Going to disrupt the global economy and kill millions if not tens of millions of people .

But that seems to be OK with many people because of their personal animosity and refusal to look at the big picture.

They possess no ICBM's at the moment, and are years away from getting to that point, they are also years away from getting their hands on a nuke.

Iran announced a test in 2017 of a missile capable of caring nuclear weapons. Independent sources verified another one in 2018 with a 1200 mile range .

How do you know they’re years away from a nuke. That doesn’t matter anyway then you’re just kicking the can down the road to the next generation . I can hear your kin right now “ thanks grandpa “.

we go to war with Iran, we will have to borrow tens of billions at best with a strategical strike, and trillions at worse if it manifests into a full scale war, which it likely would after they attack our assets in Iraq where they have a heavy foothold.

Do you embrace the worst case scenario because it fits your narrative ?

Who says we have to go to war ?

Blockade
Embargo
Sanctions

I think we should work our way up the ladder on that strategy .

a reply to: Fallingdown

You had fair points, I shouldn't have implied conflict. I think those measures would likely lead to conflict, but that's an opinion not based on facts.

Personally I think that China is more of a threat than Iran, though with them I don't see a military outcome, more of an economic confrontation.

We'd leave ourselves wide open to much bigger players if Iran doesn't pan out as planned.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Why do you keep thinking this will be a unilateral action by the USA ?