• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A US war with Iran looms. Don’t for one second think that it is justified

Last edited:
First, given Trump's personality (bluster with minimal bite) along with the current situation there is a very remote possibility of war with Iran.

Second, such a war would likely be the replay of the Reagan-Iran 'war' in gulf waters, one that would not expand into general warfare.

Third, the "war" would not likely result in any US ground troops deployed to Iran. Punishment of the Iranian regime would be its main goal, and stand-off action in the substantial annihilation of Iranian military sites would take no more than several weeks.

And yes, it could be justified. If Iran continues to attack US aircraft (including Drones) in international airspace or mine US flagged ships then retribution is justified. There is no need for a declaration of war for short, brutal military actions. If the provocation is sufficient, or the concern over nuclear development sufficient, the widespread destruction of military and nuclear sites, along with the power grid and transport infrastructure is warranted.

Naturally a decapitation of the ultimate leader of Iran might be necessary.
 
maxparrish said:
First, given Trump's personality (bluster with minimal bite) along with the current situation there is a very remote possibility of war with Iran.

Second, such a war would likely be the replay of the Reagan-Iran 'war' in gulf waters, one that would not expand into general warfare.

Third, the "war" would not likely result in any US ground troops deployed to Iran. Punishment of the Iranian regime would be its main goal, and stand-off action in the substantial annihilation of Iranian military sites would take no more than several weeks.

And yes, it could be justified. If Iran continues to attack US aircraft (including Drones) in international airspace or mine US flagged ships then retribution is justified. There is no need for a declaration of war for short, brutal military actions. If the provocation is sufficient, or the concern over nuclear development sufficient, the widespread destruction of military and nuclear sites, along with the power grid and transport infrastructure is warranted.

Naturally a decapitation of the ultimate leader of Iran might be necessary.
Click to expand...

You know, if there was something in there about "proof" as opposed to "assertions without evidence", I might even be prepared to consider agreeing with you.

That is I might IF the actions which you describe WERE NOT contrary to the laws of the United States of America.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
You know, if there was something in there about "proof" as opposed to "assertions without evidence", I might even be prepared to consider agreeing with you.

That is I might IF the actions which you describe WERE NOT contrary to the laws of the United States of America.
Click to expand...

Unless as commander in chief the Presidents constitutional power exceeds that of the ankle biters of Congress.
 
maxparrish said:
Unless as commander in chief the Presidents constitutional power exceeds that of the ankle biters of Congress.
Click to expand...

I get the feeling that you're somewhat of a monarchist.
 
Hamish Howl said:
I get the feeling that you're somewhat of a monarchist.
Click to expand...

I recognize that the executive branch was created under undisputed assumptions, that his greatest authority was over foreign policy and that he was the commander of US military forces...not Congress.

War exists, as a military conflict, often only then followed by declarations of war (the public act). Presidents have the power to conduct war, subject (arguably) to the war powers act, and its notification and time limit requirements. The President has the right and the duty to immediately initiate or respond to acts of war in order to defend US property or persons. (Such as Jefferson's hostilities against the Barbary Coast pirate states, which were satraps of the Ottoman Empire).

If Iran continues to make war against US persons or property, Presidents have the right to defend and respond to such actions. They had it in WWII without waiting for Congress, they have it today.
 
maxparrish said:
I recognize that the executive branch was created under undisputed assumptions, that his greatest authority was over foreign policy and that he was the commander of US military forces...not Congress.

War exists, as a military conflict, often only then followed by declarations of war (the public act). Presidents have the power to conduct war, subject (arguably) to the war powers act, and its notification and time limit requirements. The President has the right and the duty to immediately initiate or respond to acts of war in order to defend US property or persons. (Such as Jefferson's hostilities against the Barbary Coast pirate states, which were satraps of the Ottoman Empire).

If Iran continues to make war against US persons or property, Presidents have the right to defend and respond to such actions. They had it in WWII without waiting for Congress, they have it today.
Click to expand...

Hmm. The Afghanistan conflict has been going on for 18 years, give or take.

You'd think there would have been time to formalize it.
 
Hamish Howl said:
Hmm. The Afghanistan conflict has been going on for 18 years, give or take.

You'd think there would have been time to formalize it.
Click to expand...

It was formalized the day Afghanistan was found to supporting "pirates" in their hostilities against the US. A state of war existed, the US responded. Formal enough for legal purposes.
 
maxparrish said:
It was formalized the day Afghanistan was found to supporting "pirates" in their hostilities against the US. A state of war existed, the US responded. Formal enough for legal purposes.
Click to expand...

So much for the time limitations, then.
 
Hamish Howl said:
So much for the time limitations, then.
Click to expand...

Look, you've just made three sequential blunders in three messages to me in this thread. Apparently you thought you were clever in suggesting I was a Monarchist (shot down), that the Afgan war was not "formalized" (a vague term, as well as shot down), and now some babble about time limitations in the War Powers ACT you know nothing about.

Benighted leading questions always lead nowhere, except to my circular file. I have neither the time nor the inclination to entertain your ignorance of the red herring subjects you bring up, especially when they have noting to do with the topic of "US war looming in Iraq" and Trump's options.

Still before I part, some learnings on your straw man:

The Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) passed by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001, authorizes the president “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons”— in other words, al Qaeda and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

Here's why authorization to use military force is so important | TheHill
 
maxparrish said:
Look, you've just made three sequential blunders in three messages to me in this thread.
Click to expand...

Okay. I hope you didn't put too much effort into whatever it was you wrote after that.
 
maxparrish said:
I recognize that the executive branch was created under undisputed assumptions, that his greatest authority was over foreign policy and that he was the commander of US military forces...not Congress.

War exists, as a military conflict, often only then followed by declarations of war (the public act). Presidents have the power to conduct war, subject (arguably) to the war powers act, and its notification and time limit requirements. The President has the right and the duty to immediately initiate or respond to acts of war in order to defend US property or persons. (Such as Jefferson's hostilities against the Barbary Coast pirate states, which were satraps of the Ottoman Empire).

If Iran continues to make war against US persons or property, Presidents have the right to defend and respond to such actions. They had it in WWII without waiting for Congress, they have it today.
Click to expand...

Would that also mean that any other sovereign state has the "right to defend and respond to such actions" if carried out by the government of the United States of America or is that a power that ONLY the United States of America has?

Would that also mean that any other sovereign state has the "right to defend and respond to such actions" if carried out FROM the United States of America regardless of whether those actions were officially sanctioned by the government of the United States of America, or is that a power that ONLY the United States of America has?

Would an "act of war" be limited to military actions, or could it also include "non-military activities intended to cause the downfall of a government (or to inflict suffering on the people) of another country"?

If it would include "non-military activities intended to cause the downfall of a government (or to inflict suffering on the people) of another country" would the right to defend and respond to such actions include the use of military power against the country whence such actions originated?

Who knew that international affairs could be so complicated?
 
maxparrish said:
Look, you've just made three sequential blunders in three messages to me in this thread. Apparently you thought you were clever in suggesting I was a Monarchist (shot down), that the Afgan war was not "formalized" (a vague term, as well as shot down), and now some babble about time limitations in the War Powers ACT you know nothing about.

Benighted leading questions always lead nowhere, except to my circular file. I have neither the time nor the inclination to entertain your ignorance of the red herring subjects you bring up, especially when they have noting to do with the topic of "US war looming in Iraq" and Trump's options.

Still before I part, some learnings on your straw man:



Here's why authorization to use military force is so important | TheHill
Click to expand...

So, since the AUMF dealt SOLELY with Afghanistan, exactly how does its mandate extend to Iran?

Of is it your position that the Iranians were fully involved in the acts of al-Qa'eda and the 17 (of 19) Saudis who carried out the WTC/Pentagon mass murders (which position would be based on absolutely ZERO evidence other than a "Presidential Finding" wherein Mr. Trump "determines [that they] planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons")?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Would that also mean that any other sovereign state has the "right to defend and respond to such actions" if carried out by the government of the United States of America or is that a power that ONLY the United States of America has?

Would that also mean that any other sovereign state has the "right to defend and respond to such actions" if carried out FROM the United States of America regardless of whether those actions were officially sanctioned by the government of the United States of America, or is that a power that ONLY the United States of America has?
Click to expand...

First, I am not speaking of the 'right of nations', even if there is such a thing. I'm speaking the right, within the US sovereign nation, of executive authority to act on behalf of the country in particular ways and circumstances. Some other nation may also have war-making powers granted to their special offices, be they democratic or not.

Second, as a general proposition it is my view that there is not a universal right of nation-states or nation state actions BEYOND that of which granted to each of us as individuals. As individuals we have a right to defend our security, our property, to obtain justice when defrauded or attacked. The actions of the nation state on their behalf is sum of those individual rights. The moral "rightness" of their acts should be measured against the same individual rights we believe it. Nation states that do not act on behalf of the individual rights of their citizens, but to (for example) build an empire don't have a right to make war.

Third, the primary or exclusive of our nation state is to protect the people and their liberty. It is NOT to protect the another people or their liberty. And as the world is a lawless place which does not play by our rules (so-called international laws to the contrary) other means must be employed beyond that of policeman and courts. Sometimes that includes military force.

An "act of war" has no inherent meaning beyond that of which is customarily agreed to between nations. Anything can be an act of war in the minds of the rulers of a nation, but the legitimacy of an act of war is purely dependent upon its purpose in protecting the individual liberty and safety of those doing so.

So while an act of war may be limited to military actions (and generally is), typically actions that don't include violence are not. None the less, an act of war is not a discrete thing with a universal definition.
 
Last edited:
maxparrish said:
First, I am not speaking of the 'right of nations', even if there is such a thing. I'm speaking the right, within the US sovereign nation, of executive authority to act on behalf of the country in particular ways and circumstances. Some other nation may also have war-making powers granted to their special offices, be they democratic or not.

Second, as a general proposition it is my view that there is not a universal right of nation-states or nation state actions BEYOND that of which granted to each of us as individuals. As individuals we have a right to defend our security, our property, to obtain justice when defrauded or attacked. The actions of the nation state on their behalf is sum of those individual rights. The moral "rightness" of their acts should be measured against the same individual rights we believe it. Nation states that do not act on behalf of the individual rights of their citizens, but to (for example) build an empire don't have a right to make war.

Third, the primary or exclusive of our nation state is to protect the people and their liberty. It is NOT to protect the another people or their liberty. And as the world is a lawless place which does not play by our rules (so-called international laws to the contrary) other means must be employed beyond that of policeman and courts. Sometimes that includes military force.

An "act of war" has no inherent meaning beyond that of which is customarily agreed to between nations. Anything can be an act of war in the minds of the rulers of a nation, but the legitimacy of an act of war is purely dependent upon its purpose in protecting the individual liberty and safety of those doing so.

So while an act of war may be limited to military actions (and generally is), typically actions that don't include violence are not. None the less, an act of war is not a discrete thing with a universal definition.
Click to expand...

Do I take it, then, that your position is that it is NOT something that a nation has the legitimate power to do to impose conditions on another country that is NOT actively threatening it, and is NOT likely to be actively threatening it, in order to compel the government of that other country to do what the first country tells it to do?

As for your "Nation states that do not act on behalf of the individual rights of their citizens, but to (for example) build an empire don't have a right to make war." does that mean that the United States of America is going to be returning "The Indian Territories", or "The Former Mexican Territories" or "Hawai'i" to their "legitimate owners" in the near future, or is the prohibition on building an empire something that only applies to countries other than the United States of America?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom