If Obama takes us to War with Iran, What Do We Do???

Remember, Nicolas Sarkozy was the first world leader saying that Iran may eventually need to be bombed, and he sure as Hell ain't a neocon! Neither is Obama. And, unlike Dubya, the President is too smart to get taken in by any neocon bullshit, even if one assumes that there are neocons in the Administration!

If the C-in-C makes that call, how shall we react? Iran has high gasoline prices because of insufficient refining capacity, so "America's Lust fo Oil" is a non-starter, and, given recent events, we sure as FUCK won't be able to cite our "special relationship" with Israel! LOL!

For the record, I don't think that Obama will pull the trigger, but, were he to do so, would it not be incumbent upon us to consider the possibility that maybe--just maybe--there might be a legimate reason behind his decision?

Isn't it interesting? The last election was a referendum on the Iraq War. PERIOD!! All other BS not withstanding. We have been subjected to untold hours or spin suggesting otherwise but it is ALL BS!!

Now, while the Iraq occupation continues, and the War in Afghanistan grows, we are supposed to accept the possiblity that we should attack Iran? WTF??

Until we come to an honest understanding of the true nature of the media, we will continue to be lied to and mislead.

But don't state it too explicitly!

Nothing has so far.

I guess we buy the memorial t-shirt (it comes in blue!) and congratulate ourselves on another "victory"--all the while keeping our powder dry for when it really counts.

It wouldn''t make sense. According to the CIA, "Iran continues to develop a range of capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so..." So the CIA still believes Iran is not developing a nuclear weapon, just a range of capabilities that could be applied to such an endeavor. And Obama on Monday indicated that's what he believes also. Would he attack a country just for having a range of capabilities, as opposed to actually working on a nuke? I doubt it, especially given the risks involved, like the cutoff of the oil supply. I can't see any sensible reason why he would order an attack.

I'd like to see him engage Iran in serious discussions. So far, all he has done is to threaten and to sanction. That's contrary to the approach he indicated he would take during the campaign.

There wasn't a legitimate reason to attack Iraq (either time), Afghanistan, Vietnam, or Korea either. There has not been ANY legitimate war (i.e. one where an ACTUAL threat to the United States of America exists) since August 1945.

I don't consider that rescue attempt an attack.

So, what would Iran have done to warrant actual attack from the U.S.?

Now, Israel on the other hand, really doesn't need much of a reason to attack Iran. They are the ones you have to worry about.

That is the main issue here.

:sarcasm:

Because President Barack Obama is a constitutional scholar. He'd go to Congress for authorization. Count on it. He's way too smart to take the complete load of responsibility alone. I don't know if he'd ask for an actual declaration of war, but he'd get Congressional backing no matter what. Even Bush didn't go it alone, without Congressional sanction.

So you need to ask if Congress takes us into war with Iran, what we would do. And the answer, I would imagine, would not be pretty for Iran.

:eyes:

:tinfoilhat:

:hi:

:hi:

:hi:

:shrug:

Rah Rah Rah! Siss Boom Bah! GoooooObama!

Then we pat each other on the back, call his action against Iran a Grand Master Jedi level 3D chess move, and accuse anyone who disagrees with the policy of secretly wishing McCain and Palin had won the election.

or attacks us in some way.

...inform ourselves on the issues, using all of the sources at our disposal. Almost certainly this would result in our discovering no real "causus belli" for going to war, and if that did turn out to be the case, then again we should use all means at our disposal to oppose such an action.

On the off chance that the information we had backed up the reasons for attacking, then it would be a matter of individual conscience. Some are opposed to war in general, so would oppose such an action in any case. I tend towards that position, while acknowledging there may be exceptions.

What I'm seeing is the usual startup of the drumbeat. The politicians and so-called "news people" are already drooling at the prospect, and they just love to intone serious-sounding phrases whose only claim to credibility is that "everyone knows"...

Bah.

Obama would be the last person to take us to war on Iran without first getting all the
facts, then collating those facts with different agencies until there is tantamount
amount of proof that Iran is moving toward using nuclear weapons.

One thing people have to remember, President Obama is NOT President George Bush II.

So to all those warmongers and war hawks, you can rest assured that your war profiteering
that you are so desperately looking forward to in Iran is not going to happen under his watch.

:patriot:

It's about as likely as going to war with Iran. Talk about a monumental clusterf*ck.

:rofl:

watch American Idol

wait for football season

blame the left.

...Paying off a lot of bets. :D

The script has already been written here at DU.

Obama is not responsible for anything.

it would be a war crime, just as Bush's attacking of Iraq was a war crime.

Iran would have no reason to develop nukes if it weren't surrounded by U.S. military forces on three sides.*

Think about it. What if a hostile country had combat troops in Canada and Mexico and consistently had naval vessels off our shores. Wouldn't we be edgy?

*For the geographically challenged, the U.S. is occupying Iraq to the west, has troops in Afghanistan and "advises" Pakistan to the east, and has a constant naval presence in the Persian Gulf.

have some semi-reasonable excuse for taking us to war. Even the pinhead George W Bush used WMDs as an excuse. Iran would be quite a stretch.

But if we did attack Iran it would finally be the first support Obama would see from the GOP. And that says more about the GOP than it does about Obama.

Sane people shouldn't even discuss the possibility of war with Iran. I'm voting an Un-recommendation on this thread.

Speculate much?

There isn't a paranoid lunatic obsessed with China who is prime minister of one of our so called "allies".

I do not see him 'attacking' Iran.

Because Iran has just as much of a right to have nuclear power as all their neighbors and everyone else in the world; after all, who has exploded more nukes than anyone else??? The US has exploded 300+ nukes since its invention and 2 of them were dropped on Japan.

Pakistan is very unstable and they have nukes, but no one seems concerned about that. Israel seems far more trigger happy then Iran does, and they have nukes...which WE sold them.