If President Obama goes to war with Iran, would you be open to listening to the case for it?

[BrentWil]

If President Obama goes to war with Iran, would you be open to listening to the case for it? Or is it a non-starter, unless Iran directly attacks the United States?

SImple Question. Just curious if anyone thinks that after Iraq there could be a case that anyone would listen to? Anyone of the left, that is.

[northoftheborder]

1. Non-starter.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. Not just NO, but hell NO.n/t

[TheWraith]

3. If President Obama rapes a goat on the White House lawn...

Why are we asking silly hypothetical questions about things which it is painfully obvious are not going to happen?

[arely staircase]

8. indeed. you beat me too it. though i hadn't thought of the goat thing. nt nt

[jody]

15. Do you have proof the act was not consensual? nt

[PurityOfEssence]

102. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the possible

Obviously, he would have preferred it to be consensual, but sometimes you have to compromise...

[wakemewhenitsover]

22. A staffer testing the waters?

[Cali_Democrat]

27. Given Obama's intervention in Libya and his expansion of the war in Afghanistan...

as well as the increased drone strikes, I'd say it's more likely that he would attack Iran than rape a goat. Also consider the fact the he never ruled out military intervention in Iran.

Nice try though.

[TheWraith]

40. Given your distortion of the facts, I would rule out your opinion as being very valid.

Equating a handful of airstrikes on a dying regime, to prevent a genocide, with going to war against Iran is at best deceptive, at worst absurd.

[Cali_Democrat]

51. My distortion of facts?

Did Obama intervene in Libya? Yes.

Did Obama expand the war in Afghanistan? Yes.

Did Obama increase drone strikes since he became President? Yes.


Like I said...nice try though.

[Neue Regel]

64. "...a handful of airstrikes on a dying regime..."

That's some hardcore spin right there!

[fascisthunter]

92. and yours is a poor attempt

Maybe you can convince a couple knuckle headed readers, but those of us following issues to foreign policy see you as just another example of true distortion to the truth.

You are the one "spinning"

[PurityOfEssence]

103. Talk about distortion!

There were far more than "a handful" of air strikes, and U.S. planes were still flying manned attack missions at least until June 18th.

Qaddafi was winning when we chose to intervene; even many of the most blinkered cheerleaders of this war admit that: he was stopped in front of Benghazi after a quick and successful counterattack.

There was no "genocide", except that practiced by certain rebels against black-skinned Africans in places like Benghazi and later Tawerga. "Genocide" is the systematic extermination of people based on race, religion or tribe, not just a bunch of people in open revolt; to use such a term shows either extreme ignorance of the concept or deliberate rabble-rousing borne out of some kind of personal absolution due to being morally correct.

[BrentWil]

75. Yeah, thats why I asked. I think war is possible whoever is elected in 2012

If you look at the signals coming out of the administration, I think it is possible.

[PurityOfEssence]

100. And his most ardent fans would support it.

The goat had it coming. Other goats had called for the President to do it because of the goat's known villainy. It had nothing to do with taking control of the goat's meadow, and as Commander-in-Chief, he had the clear constitutional authority to boff Billy as he saw fit.

In fact, those who question this clear act of responsibility-to-plook are goat-loving apologists so consumed with hating the President that they shouldn't be tolerated in the public forum.

[dogknob]

101. "Plook?" Joe's Garage, right? n/t

[PurityOfEssence]

111. Yes

Frank would have had lots to say about what's going on now...

[JoePhilly]

88. +1

[morningfog]

119. A more nuanced and more likely question would be " If Israel or Iran strike the other,

would you support Obama if the US joins?"

[gateley]

4. Always. They know far more than we do. I probably wouldn't agree and would

be absolutely furious, but I always try to listen before making up my mind. On most things, anyway.

[dionysus]

5. DU has been claiming imminent war with iran for 6 years running. it isn't going to happen.

[tammywammy]

12. +1 n/t

[think]

23. There is nothing wrong with being proactively antiwar in this day and age

With every Repug beating the drums of war incessantly may the drums of peace activists be all the louder.

The MIC hates peace as it's bad for profits. And the one thing still stopping them from creating another war is public opinion.

[jody]

29. "nothing wrong with being proactively antiwar"! That's the ONLY moral position . nt

[dionysus]

50. being anti-war and crying wolf about war are two seperate things.

[think]

66. The best wars never happen. When Seymour Hersh

wrote in 2008 about the potential for war I believed him. I respect you may not have believed his warnings helped keep the US from acting on it's desires for war but I do:

PREPARING THE BATTLEFIELD
The Bush Administration steps up its secret moves against Iran.
by Seymour M. Hersh JULY 7, 2008

Late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership. The covert activities involve support of the minority Ahwazi Arab and Baluchi groups and other dissident organizations. They also include gathering intelligence about Iran’s suspected nuclear-weapons program.....


....The most outspoken of those officers is Admiral William Fallon, who until recently was the head of U.S. Central Command, and thus in charge of American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. In March, Fallon resigned under pressure, after giving a series of interviews stating his reservations about an armed attack on Iran. For example, late last year he told the Financial Times that the “real objective” of U.S. policy was to change the Iranians’ behavior, and that “attacking them as a means to get to that spot strikes me as being not the first choice.”...

....

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh#ixzz1kiiLGtWg

Basically it comes down to a matter of opinion as to whether Hersh's actions had any relevance to whether the Bush Administration would have decided to attack or not.

After watching Bush drag us into Iraq in a preemptive war based on lies it would be difficult to judge what Bush and company was actually capable of.

[BrentWil]

77. What about a preemptive war based on the truth? Possible? NT

[think]

82. Possible but unlikely. More likely another Gulf of Tonkin incident:

[TheWraith]

24. Closer to 8 now, actually.

I remember the constant buzz of expectation that Bush was going to attack Iran before the 2004 election. Then 2006, then 2008...

[BlueIris]

45. The neocons have been trying to invade Iran for forty years. It remains a strong possibility.

Your post makes it seem as if there is no risk for this, when, in fact, the war mongers have a long, extensively documented history of attempting invasion. Sometimes, even I wonder how we've avoided it. Global citizens are right to be afraid.

[dionysus]

47. i understand that. but here we used to have Sy Hersch saying all the time that he had the inside

scoop, and we were going to war with iran on such and such a date, a few times a year, for years. it didn't happen with * in office, do you really think we're going to do it now, when every political junkie knows our military is too depleted to do this?

[BrentWil]

76. Not so sure

Take a look at what the Defense Secretary is saying in public.

[Ilsa]

6. I wouldn't be happy, I'd be suspicious,

But I'd listen to what he has to say, just as listened to President #43, the warmonger.

[jody]

7. Only if he and his wife lead the assault troops. nt

[Starry Messenger]

9. No.

[Bonobo]

10. Nope. The excuse would be bullshit and dry ice.

They would come up with the best they can and then run it brought some focus groups before foisting it on the public.

[teddy51]

11. I would always be open to hear his logic, but it would be absolutely insane no matter what

reason that he comes up with. The only reason that I can see, would be to appease Israel and that is just wrong.

[nanabugg]

13. H... NO!!!! That is all.

[Old and In the Way]

14. No more unilateral Bush Doctrines in the ME.

I see no compelling reason to initiate any attacks. If Iran attacks, we need to be measured in our response.

[SidDithers]

16. pfffftttt...nt

Sid

[quinnox]

17. No, and that includes if Iran does something that seems fishy

I'm half expecting a false flag operation, where some big incident happens and they blame Iran, and then use that as an excuse to go to war.
I will be very sceptical of anything that looks like Iran provoking a war.

Regardless, I'm already against the next war, as the bumper stickers say, and would not vote for any Democrat that either went to war with Iran or voted to go to a war by such as a congressional resolution and that includes Pres. Obama.

[NCTraveler]

18. No.

We give Israel enough to take care of this one themselves.

[Muskypundit]

19. I guess I would have to. Seeing as I would be deployed.

[Lil Missy]

20. Of course I'd listen to the case for it. I may not agree, ....

but I'd listen. Frankly, I don't think Obama would take such an action without a damned good reason.

[BrentWil]

78. I tend to agree

And if you look at what the Defense Secretary is saying... I just think the argument is starting.

[PDJane]

21. No. Absolutely not.

Harper is harping on this, too. He's 'scared' of Iran.

Iran has far more reason, historically, to distrust the West.

[The Second Stone]

25. The President doesn't have the authority to go to war

The President may ask Congress to declare war. The Libya adventure, while it turned out well in the short term, was unconstitutional and unwise.

[RebelOne]

26. No, no, no, a thousand times no! I am sick of war!!! n/t

[PragmaticLiberal]

28. Yes, I'm willing to listen.

Doesn't mean I'll agree with his rationale but I'm more than willing to listen.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

30. Only if he has his cowboy boots on and Colin Powell to back him up and flags..lots of flags.

[Zorra]

31. Are you a republican? nt

[bigwillq]

32. No

But I don't Obama open would do that, and I don't think Congress would vote for it unless there was a direct attack.

[boxman15]

33. I'd listen of course, that's a key to our democracy.

Understanding all points of view is important. That being said, unless there was some extreme sort of circumstance in which we were truly provoked, I doubt I'd be very happy.

[Honeycombe8]

34. I am open to LISTENING to any case for something. But unless Iran attacks us....

I don't see me going along with that AT ALL!

[rusty fender]

110. How would Iran attack us?

Really, what could they throw at us? Goats, donkeys? What?

[Honeycombe8]

112. Gee, I don't know. Those sill Taliban didn't have much, eithr. Gee, I just can't guess. nt

[morningfog]

116. The Taliban never attcked the US on our soil.

They have carried out short range attacks when we put US troops within their range.

[MichiganVote]

35. Oh HELL NO

[RKP5637]

36. The whole Iran thing smells bad, like something we've been through before ... it would take

us down the rabbit hole. We, as a country, have too much 'might makes right,' anymore, IMO.

[ZombieHorde]

37. If I was bored, I might listen.

Frankly, I doubt I would believe a word of it.

Hopefully, Iran will get some nukes very quickly, then we won't have worry about it. I am extremely doubtful we would go after Iran if they had nukes in place.

[madrchsod]

38. he`s not going to go to war with iran

[TBF]

39. Iran would have to directly attack Houston, TX before I'm interested in discussing your "war". nt

[superpatriotman]

41. Not a fucking chance

in hell

[BlueIris]

42. Insane question. NO. MORE. WAR.

The last two bankrupted this country, alienated our allies, and destroyed the U.S. military. There is no justification for any more of it.

[toddwv]

43. Nope.

I would denounce such a "war" and any President who orders it.

[Warren Stupidity]

44. Fuck no.

[Iggo]

46. Fucks to the No.

[unkachuck]

48. No....we've had enough corporate war for a while, give it a rest....n/t

[Hatchling]

49. Non starter without a direct attack.

And the attack can't be something like 911. We went to war with the wrong country for that.

Plus I'm fairly certain that China would have some choice words about it. I'm not willing to start World War III over some nuclear reactors.

[bemildred]

52. No. nt

[raouldukelives]

53. Sure

I'd want to hear a damn good reason as well. I really can't see us ever getting involved though unless as you say, it's a direct attack.
The USA has never gotten involved in a "war" with someone who could fight back in my lifetime. Just based on that I wouldn't place odds on it happening anytime soon.

[newspeak]

114. you mean a good reason like Iraq has the capacity to hit the US within so many minutes?

and when there was no WMD-well, Saddam is an evil man, we must free the people. And in some cases freeing meant killing them. Nothing like destabilizing ones whole infrastructure, but just think of those corporate lucrative deals.

I see the PNAC plan is still going according to plan. OUR country's infrastructure is hurting, some of our people are hurting; but it's still the MIC that counts over people over country. Gen. Smedley Butler was right, it's nothing but a protectionist racket for the elite.

[raouldukelives]

120. That's why we only fight poor people whose land has resources

That the greed mongers can exploit to enrich themselves even more. Then they dress it up in patriotism and freedom. As Gen. Butler would agree.
When I say a good reason I mean a direct attack. The Iranian Navy has crossed the Atlantic and is now bombarding Long Island with artillery. The last thing anyone in the military wants to do is fight someone with the capability of fighting back. They prefer to blow up people on camels with multi-million dollar drones from a climate controlled cubicle in Arizona. Then they get a Medal for bravery in action and college education. All it cost them in return was a sense of humanity.

[rudycantfail]

54. I would be willing to listen to the case

for his impeachment.

[riverwalker]

55. need critical thinking here

"war with Iran". The Iranian PEOPLE like the west, like us, remember the squashed democracy movement? So when you say "go to war with Iran". You mean an invasion? That would be nutz. You mean attack some ships? Or what? The leader is a moron, but the population is very young and leans to the west, and want democracy. Why the hell would we "go to war" with "Iran" who is Iran? The people or the leader? Because there may be a handful of Iranian extremists?
jeeezus.

[BrentWil]

79. I disagree...

Some young people in Tehran protested the election of a meaningless office. That is different from liking the west.

And Iranian supreme leader, Khamenei, is no fool or no friend of the West.

[riverwalker]

56. remember Nada?

back in 2009 the Iranian girl was shot and died on video during the pro democracy protests. We all talked about for days.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2009-06-21/news/17925204_1_supreme-leader-ayatollah-ali-khamenei-facebook

All middle east cultures and countries can't all be lumped together. All situations are unique, and to assume war with Iran because we went to war with Iraq is...nonsense. Libya and Syria, again two different countries and two different situations.

[BrentWil]

80. Iran is extremely unique...

Not sure the protest can been seen in the same light as the protests in Arab countries.

[mmonk]

57. Nope. Next question.

[fujiyama]

58. No

It would be a worse move than invading iraq. It would the biggest foreign policy disaster to date.

[coalition_unwilling]

63. I think it would rival Hitler's invasion of the USSR in its insanity. Exactly how

would we maintain supply lines for our forces? Supplies would either have to come in from the east (through Afghanistan) or from the west (through Iraq). We would run the very real risk of another Stalingrad or Dien Bien Phu for our forces, as partisan attacks on those supply lines in largely Shi'ia Iraq and Taliban-controlled Afghanistan could effectively stave our forces.

[BrentWil]

81. would we maintain supply lines for our forces?

With their big ass coast and ports up and down it.

[Douglas Carpenter]

59. it would break my heart and I would fear for the future

[Bluenorthwest]

60. There is no such thing as a righteous case for war that needs explaining.

So why listen?

[T S Justly]

61. In what venue? An Impeachment hearing? The Hague? (nt)

[cherokeeprogressive]

65. Pshaww.... If President Obama wants to go to war with Iran, it's in our best interest.

He'd NEVER steer us wrong.

[MrSlayer]

67. Sure, I'll listen.

But I doubt anything would get me to go along with it.

[isuphighyeah]

68. He needs to make a case before he starts any war. n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

69. Not only is there no case for it--it would be one of the stupidest acts in Am. history

Unlike Iraq, Iran could actually fight back.

The pro-Western young people who want more freedom from the mullahs? They'd turn into Iranian patriots as soon as the first bomb dropped.

Iran isn't some piece of territory cobbled together by colonialists (as Iraq was). It has a 3,000-year-old continuous history that its people are very proud of.

Trying to conquer Iran would make the Iraq War look like a picnic.

[metalbot]

70. War is relative

You can't let Iran simply close off the Straits of Hormuz. There's a wide range of military actions that might be reasonable should the Iranians do that, and many of them are well below "war". Is sinking a few ships and shooting down a couple planes war? We could be in that situation even before the president were informed. All it would take would be a few Iranian boats or planes coming too close to the 5th fleet...

The case for waging a full out war on Iran involving ground troops? That's a much harder sell.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

71. Would Iran close off the Straits of Hormuz if

it weren't surrounded by U.S. military forces on all sides? (Afghanistan, Pakistan, still some residual forces in Iraq, the Central Asian 'Stans, Naval vessels in the Persian Gulf)

Wouldn't the U.S. be nervous if there were Chinese troops in Canada and Mexico and Chinese naval vessels offshore in both the Atlantic and the Pacific?

That's the position Iran is in right now.

Why does the U.S. keep poking that hornets' nest?

Are the neocons trying to start a war, and is Obama, God forbid, listening to them?

All the hawks are acting as if Iran is setting out to conquer the world with nukes. Frankly, if I were Iran, I'd develop nukes, too, having seen what happened to Iraq.

[Hippo_Tron]

85. Nukes are not useful as a deterrent against the US (or Israel) without second-strike capability

And Iran will get to the point it can test a bomb long before it gets to the point where it can launch one after a first strike by the US and or Israel.

It's a misnomer that North Korea's nuclear arsenal has deterred the US from invading them. What has really deterred them is that they have missiles capable of reaching Seoul and Tokyo and facilities to protect those missiles from a first strike. The prospect of conventional warheads being attached to those missiles is more than enough to make an invasion of North Korea untenable.

What Iran's nuclear arsenal could do, however, is deter invasion from a state with a less powerful military. Don't forget that not only are Israel and the US hostile to Iran, but so are most of its Arab neighbors.

[sabrina 1]

74. Do you know WHY they might do that? Iran is being threatened with deadly sanctions

the same kind of sanctions that killed half a million Iraqi children and who knows how many adults. There would be no talk of closing off the Straits of Hormuz if the warmongers would stop their threats.

Why is US sending our troops to every damn country in the world that has oil or something else we want??

I know for a fact that many democrats across the country will never support this war. I hope the administration realizes it could mean Obama's presidency.

[slay]

72. No, not at all

the only case will be Israel and I am no fan of that hellhole. NO MORE WARS!

[sabrina 1]

73. No, there is about the same reason for a war with Iran as there was for the Iraq War.

I can't imagine anyone who opposed that tragic disaster and stain on this country's history, would even think about supporting another one, and this would be so much worse.

That would be my line in the sand. I am hoping they are not insane enough to even think about it.

[Tumbulu]

83. NO (nt)

[Hippo_Tron]

84. If Iran invades another country, then yes

But if it's simply regarding the nuclear program, then no.

The fact is, though, that Iran is probably not going to test a nuclear weapon. Once a state crosses the nuclear threshold, it is seldom able to go back. The only nation to do so is South Africa and that occurred because of a regime change. While Iran would like to become India, Pakistan, or Israel where the world officially doesn't like that they're a nuclear state but does business with them anyway, they know that this won't happen. If they test a bomb, they will wind up isolated like North Korea and face enormous economic pressure to give up their weapons.

What will happen is that the US and Israel (very begrudgingly) will accept that Iran can develop its nuclear program to the point that it could assemble nuclear weapons if they wanted to, but have inspectors to verify that they are not doing so. This allows them to save face with their domestic audience and deter their Arab neighbors from attacking them.

[think]

86. +1 Very logical response. I like your outlook and hope you are correct.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

87. Does He Have A Casus Belli?

You could ask that about any nation.

[sarcasmo]

89. NO!

[area51]

90. No. n/t

[Proud Liberal Dem]

91. I'd be willing to listen to it

if he were inclined to actually for whatever reason suggest war with Iran and hear what his rationale is for it. Thankfully, I don't believe he is interested in doing so now or in the future. The only people really pushing for war are (surprise, surprise) the same damned people whom told us repeatedly that it was essential to invade/occupy Iraq to eliminate WMDs and that picking up the pieces from the invasion and leaving would be simple. Thankfully, Obama simply doesn't belong to their cabal nor interested in membership therein. The only reason that I would ever actually support going to war with Iran or anybody else would be if they actually initiated an attack on us and/or one of our allies (i.e. Israel). Building nuclear weapons (which is unquestionably questionable in the case of Iran) is NOT (or should not be) prima facie justification for going to war with ANY country IMHO.

[fascisthunter]

93. no!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

94. Unless Cheney and Bush Sr make him do a false flag?

I only hope Obama doesn't cave into them. No doubt they will offer the advice for him do a false flag like blow up a US war ship or something like that. No, Obama don't do it.

[DCBob]

95. We are not "going to war" with Iran.

good grief.

[madokie]

96. President Obama is not and I repeat is not going to got to war with Iran

thats trash talking if ever there was any. Don't believe me, hide and watch and we'll see who is right.

[jwirr]

97. I don't know - I am a firm believer that overstretch is what brings empires down. I also will say

that I wondered if Iran war might be the reason he invited poppy bush to the WH. Presidents usually do talk to ex-presidents about really serious issues.

[BrentWil]

98. I guess I should answer...

I would listen. Iran is a unique in that a nuclear armed Iran would mean a hugely different security environment for our Arab friends and Us. Iran is a difficult problem and the administration is right to try to figure out how to deal with it. Rather war is a good idea or not, clearly not right now. But I am open to listening.

[Rex]

99. If? He won't. Period.

Iran will have to throw the first punch.

[barbtries]

104. no.

NO nononononononononnono

[cantbeserious]

105. No - I Am Tired Of War And The Excuses For War!

eom

[Citizen Worker]

106. Not no but hell no! Alot will depend on how Obama is doing in the lead up to election in November.

[Galle]

107. An embargo is an act of war. So technically, we're already in war with Iran.

[Bucky]

108. I don't think it's our place to question our leaders.

[unapatriciated]

109. No. I'm tired of death and destruction

Not to mention the cost that leads to more death and destruction of our citizens and infrastructure.

[pecwae]

113. Non starter. nt

[mdmc]

115. Non Starter

unless there is an Iranian attack..

[morningfog]

117. I agree, but then the question becomes what qualifies as an Iranian attack.

Would an Iranian attack on US positioned in the region meet that test? Would a terrorist attack in the US from an organization operating out of Iran without direct Iranian involvement meet the standard?

My worry is that many attacks could be credited to Iran as a justification for strikes.

Although, I don't think the US or Obama have stomach for any kind of ground war in Iran. At most, I could see targeted strikes. Even that would be very serious though, considering Iran and Israel are itching for a real war.

[mdmc]

121. non starter

we are already at economic war..

[sendero]

118. Iran is no threat..

.. to us. If they are a threat to Israel, let them deal with it. I'm tired of our country doing their dirty work.