Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Is designating the IRG a "terrorist org" something * can use to start a war?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
cuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 04:17 PM
Original message
Is designating the IRG a "terrorist org" something * can use to start a war?
Fact 1) Obama is criticizing Clinton for voting for Kyle/Lieberman because he believes that * can use that as a pretext to leave troops in Iraq (as if * was going to withdraw if K/L didn't pass) as well as to attack Iran

Fact 2) Obama co-sponsored S970 which designates the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a "terrorist organization"

Question - Could be use this terrorist designation as a pretext to attack Iran?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 04:18 PM
Response to Original message
1. No.
We have designated dozens of groups as terrorist orgs. That doesn't authorize military action against them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. I didn't ask if it "authorized" military action against them
I asked if * could use it as a pretext to attack Iran

Another Obama supporter dodging the obvious
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. So Obama's wrong to attack Clinton claiming her vote will give Bush a reason?
Edited on Fri Oct-26-07 04:52 PM by MethuenProgressive
Was Obama wrong back in April, when he co-sponsored a bill that, just like the K/L bill, designated the IRG as a terrorist organization?

edit removed a stray i
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. I'd like to see them support S970 on it's own (de)merits
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Do you ever tell the truth about anything?
Read the first 15 or so paragraphs of K-L. That's his objection.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. So designating the IRG a terrorist org could not be used by * to start a war?
Yes, or no?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. No. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Thanks
Very naive to think * couldnt say "Iran is harboring a terrorist group. Even Obama agrees"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #8
21. Connecting them to Iraq could be
and that is what Kyl-Lieberman does that S970 does not, among many other things. They have completely different purposes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. Please answer my question
I said nothing about K/L. I asked about designating the IRG a terrorist org. Can * use that to start a war?

It's simple question that no Obama supporter is able to answer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. because legislation isn't that simple
And neither is foreign policy or war. This isn't a game. People are going to die. Why don't you grow the fuck up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. I didn't ask about legislation. Please answer the question
Can * use the designation to claim he can attack Iran because it is harboring terrorists?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. That's a completely different question
Do you know the difference?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. It's the question I asked in the OP and throughout the thread
Another Obama supporter desperately trying to avoid the question
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. No it isn't
Designating the IRG as a terrorist group - and Iran harboring a terrorist group - two totally different things. You don't know what you're talking about, and what's worse, you don't even care. I don't know the purpose of your game playing - but real people's lives are on the line. Why don't you think about your entire family being blown to bits, or permanently crippled, or starving, before you post again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. Pretty stupid
Al Queda is a terrorist group - IRG is a terrorist group

AL Queda is in Afganistan- IRG is in Iran

The Afghani govt protected Al Queda - The Iranian govt protects the IRG

We invaded Afghanistan because they harbored terrorists. * can do it again
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. IRG is part of Iran's military
Not the same thing as designating Hezbollah a terrorist group in Iran.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. And Al Queda fought with the Taliban
Some members of Al Queda fought with and led Taliban military units

And no one said it was the same. However, * can use S970 as a pretext to attack Iran. The only people who don't see that are obama supporters
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. But you didn't ask about legislation
Isn't that what you said?

S970 has an array of requirements that would serve to prevent war as opposed to Kyl-Lieberman where every step takes us closer to war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. I asked about designating the IRG as terrorists
Edited on Fri Oct-26-07 05:56 PM by cuke
which is in S970

You don't want to address the issue, so you focus on words and definitions.

Keep supporting your war mongere
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. You've said a whole bunch of things and then denied you said them
because you don't know what you're talking about and don't know how to do anything except repeat what others have said, even when you don't understand the details of what they're saying. Good bye.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. And you still havent answered the question
Instead, you want to distract over some petty and irrelevant word games
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. "Connecting them to Iraq could be"
I answered your question in my first post. You're the one who has no more respect for matters of life and death but to turn it all into a big political game.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. I didn't ask about that
You can only answer the question you want to answer, and not the one I asked
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunnies Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 04:22 PM
Response to Original message
2. Why would he need to start a new war?
We already have the "War on Terror". Id say it wouldnt be to much of a stretch to go after the IRG.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. That sounds like a YES
Am I right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunnies Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #5
17. Yes.
I would say Yes. I certainly wouldnt put it past him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 04:24 PM
Response to Original message
9. NO
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYCGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 04:32 PM
Response to Original message
11. No, it's more like this shit in the K/L bill that could be used:
(2) Ambassador Ryan Crocker, United States Ambassador to Iraq, stated in testimony before a joint session of the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives on September 10, 2007, that ``Iran plays a harmful role in Iraq. While claiming to support Iraq in its transition, Iran has actively undermined it by providing lethal capabilities to the enemies of the Iraqi state''.

(4) The Report of the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq, released on September 6, 2007, states that ``he Commission concludes that the evidence of Iran's increasing activism in the southeastern part of the country, including Basra and Diyala provinces, is compelling. . . It is an accepted fact that most of the sophisticated weapons being used to `defeat' our armor protection comes across the border from Iran with relative impunity''.

(5) General (Ret.) James Jones, chairman of the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq, stated in testimony before the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate on September 6, 2007, that ``e judge that the goings-on across the Iranian border in particular are of extreme severity and have the potential of at least delaying our efforts inside the country. Many of the arms and weapons that kill and maim our soldiers are coming from across the Iranian border''.

(6) General Petraeus said of Iranian support for extremist activity in Iraq on April 26, 2007, that ``e know that it goes as high as Suleimani, who is the head of the Qods Force. . . We believe that he works directly for the supreme leader of the country''.

(8) Ambassador Crocker testified to Congress, with respect to President Ahmedinejad's statement, on September 11, 2007, that ``he Iranian involvement in Iraq--its support for extremist militias, training, connections to Lebanese Hezbollah, provision of munitions that are used against our force as well as the Iraqis--are all, in my view, a pretty clear demonstration that Ahmedinejad means what he says, and is already trying to implement it to the best of his ability''.

(9) General Petraeus stated on September 12, 2007, with respect to evidence of the complicity of Iran in the murder of members of the Armed Forces of the United States in Iraq, that ``e evidence is very, very clear. We captured it when we captured Qais Khazali, the Lebanese Hezbollah deputy commander, and others, and it's in black and white. . . We interrogated these individuals. We have on tape. . . Qais Khazali himself. When asked, could you have done what you have done without Iranian support, he literally throws up his hands and laughs and says, of course not. . . So they told us about the amounts of money that they have received. They told us about the training that they received. They told us about the ammunition and sophisticated weaponry and all of that that they received''.

(10) General Petraeus further stated on September 14, 2007, that ``hat we have got is evidence. This is not intelligence. This is evidence, off computers that we captured, documents and so forth. . . In one case, a 22-page document that lays out the planning, reconnaissance, rehearsal, conduct, and aftermath of the operation conducted that resulted in the death of five of our soldiers in Karbala back in January''.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Very naive to think * couldnt say "Iran is harboring a terrorist group. Even Obama agrees"
followed by "WE have to attack them before they attack us"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYCGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. But the K/L bill has MUCH stronger language. Why bother when you have the
above paragraphs right from the bill?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. So what?
Do you think * cares? Do you think he couldn't say "Iran harbors terrorists, we have to attack them"?

The end result is the same - * has a pretext to attack Iran
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYCGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. The K/L bill already laid out the "crimes" of Iran right there.
It is a slam dunk. The Kyl-Lieberman bill is a piece of shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. So "harboring terrorists" isn't a crime?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYCGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Supporting a "pre-emptive" war? No. But that's just my opinion. You can believe
Edited on Fri Oct-26-07 04:45 PM by NYCGirl
Petraeus and his friends all you want.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Harboring terrorists is NOT a crime?
Is that Obama's position?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYCGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. No, it's my opinion that harboring terrorists does not give one permission to start
a war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. I didn't ask what YOU think or what constitutes "permission"
I asked if * could use the designation to attack Iran

Remember, * has already said he could attack any nation that harbors terrorists
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYCGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. And I said NO. But OTHER parts of the K/L bill can be used as a justification
to attack Iran.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. Why couldnt * say "Iran is harboring terrorist. We have to attack them"?
You keep saying why K/L is, but you don't explain why "harboring terrorists" is not. After all, we attacked Afghanistan because they harbored terrorists
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 05:07 PM
Response to Original message
33. So you start a new thread since your misstatements were exposed in the other one?
Edited on Fri Oct-26-07 05:13 PM by jefferson_dem
Make up your mind. You said before that Obama was a hypocrite because he sponsored a bill designating the IRG a terrorist organization and then criticized Hillary on that basis. We showed you how you were wrong - he never criticized Hillary for that designation.

Yet you are still promoting the illusion that the two pieces of legislation (Obama's Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007 and Hillary's Kyl-Lieberman Amendment) are the same.

That misstatement has also been debunked.

Here -- http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3649834&mesg_id=3649836

EDIT: Cleaned it up a little.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #33
37. Why can't you defend Obama's blank check for war?
Fact 1) Obama is criticizing Clinton for voting for Kyle/Lieberman because he believes that * can use that as a pretext to leave troops in Iraq (as if * was going to withdraw if K/L didn't pass) as well as to attack Iran

Fact 2) Obama co-sponsored S970 which designates the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a "terrorist organization"

Question - Could bush* use this terrorist designation as a pretext to attack Iran?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jillian Donating Member (577 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 05:33 PM
Response to Original message
35. Since we have a war on Terror going on and we just labelled them terrorists
I would have to answer DUH!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 04:08 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC