Thread: How Iran will fight back.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

You're a single voice and a single vote, not in a position of authority nor within a chain of command.

So does it or does it not constitute an act of war? That's all that matters.

Originally Posted by ZFBoxcar

I'm not saying we have no case to blow up their reactors, but I don't think its a good idea. War creates a certain mentality that prevents people from seeing objective reality. Right now the Iranian people are coming round (or have already come around) to our way of thinking (re: liberalization). A sudden war would bring back the patriotic/Islamofascistic sentiment of the late 70s.

So your saying that the United States should risk Iran getting an Atomic bomb because the Iranians might hate us more if we knock out a few reactors? Hell there's just as much chance as them loving us for it!

So taking out that reactor would do two things.
1.) It would remove a real nuclear threat against the United States.
2.) They might hate, they might love us, or they might not give a ****.

Now the same question, are you willing to risk the lives of MILLIONS of people because a few thousand Iranians might get pissed off about it?

Iran's evolution into a democracy will probably not come through war, or even internal revolution. It will probably come through reform. I am hopeful for this because Iran's leadership is either not competent enough to see the danger that allowing any sort of liberal disent poses to them, and some of them actually want democracy (not the Mullahs of course, but they do not control everything in Iran)

Any "Democracy" will come far after Iran has a bomb and could have used it or sold it to the highest Islamo-fascist bidder.

Originally Posted by Praxus

So does it or does it not constitute an act of war? That's all that matters.

I'm saying that you don't get to decide.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

I'm saying that you don't get to decide.

Of course I get to decide if it's an act of war. I just don't have the power to respond to it.

Originally Posted by Praxus

Of course I get to decide if it's an act of war. I just don't have the power to respond to it.

No, you don't. Acts of War are legal definitions and only those in legal authority can decide them as such. Even I as a soldier have no authority to declare as such.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

No, you don't. Acts of War are legal definitions and only those in legal authority can decide them as such. Even I as a soldier have no authority to declare as such.

I'm sorry but if the Government doesn't identify the slaughter of innocent Americans and our allies (Israelis) as an act of war, then they are ignoring the duty to protect their citizens.

Originally Posted by Praxus

I'm sorry but if the Government doesn't identify the slaughter of innocent Americans and our allies (Israelis) as an act of war, then they are ignoring the duty to protect their citizens.

consider the case of American citizens (primarily in and around Boston) financing the IRA through fundraising during the seventies. Was that an act of war against the British?

Originally Posted by Praxus

I'm sorry but if the Government doesn't identify the slaughter of innocent Americans and our allies (Israelis) as an act of war, then they are ignoring the duty to protect their citizens.

Your recourse is the vote. Or run for public office in order to get into legal position to define policy.

consider the case of American citizens (primarily in and around Boston) financing the IRA through fundraising during the seventies. Was that an act of war against the British?

Thoose individual Americans absolutely commited an act of war against the British. The United States to my knowledge did not sanction it and did in fact try and prevent the money from going to the IRA. Iran is different however because the STATE is funding a jihad against the United States and is responsible for the murder of Americans, Israelis, and now Iraqis.

Nice try, but the US and Iran are not moral equals.

Your recourse is the vote. Or run for public office in order to get into legal position to define policy.

Or convince enough people that it is an act of war, and then they go and elect people who feel as they do. Which in my opinion is the best way.

Originally Posted by Praxus

I'm sorry but if the Government doesn't identify the slaughter of innocent Americans and our allies (Israelis) as an act of war, then they are ignoring the duty to protect their citizens.

I've just tried to find an actual defence treaty with Israel. Could not find one. And I don't know of any law that obligates the US to come to the defence of Israel.

Unlike the North Atlantic Treaty, Articel V, An Attack on One is an Attack on All, I cannot find any legal justifications to come to the defence of Israel. Therefore, any act against Israel cannot be legally considered an Act of War against the US.

Does that mean a war against Iran would be illegal (according to US law) if it were in response to an attack on Iran? Or just that the US would not be OBLIGATED to declare war on Iran?

Originally Posted by ZFBoxcar

Does that mean a war against Iran would be illegal (according to US law) if it were in response to an attack on Iran? Or just that the US would not be OBLIGATED to declare war on Iran?

What Israel and Iran do to each other have no legal obligations in the US. The US is not obligagted to do anything. However, there are enough legal justifications (there always are) for the US to do something if the US so do wishes.

I think you understood despite my error, but I meant "in response to an attack on Israel"

I've just tried to find an actual defence treaty with Israel. Could not find one. And I don't know of any law that obligates the US to come to the defence of Israel.

Unlike the North Atlantic Treaty, Articel V, An Attack on One is an Attack on All, I cannot find any legal justifications to come to the defence of Israel. Therefore, any act against Israel cannot be legally considered an Act of War against the US.

Strawman. I am not arguing on legal grounds, I am arguing on moral grounds. Furthermore they are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans. On top of this they have threatened to wage further acts of war against the United States. Just because we don't have some formal treaty, doesn't mean we shouldn't defend Israel if she is attacked.

Originally Posted by Praxus

Strawman. I am not arguing on legal grounds, I am arguing on moral grounds.

The moral grounds is the strawman. The uniformed membership is subject to the Law Of Armed Conflict, the Geneva Conventions, the UCMJ (US), the QR&O (Canada). We obey the legal authority. Not our guts.

Originally Posted by Praxus

Furthermore they are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans.

Currently, both the US and Iran are defining those responsible for the actual crimes are Unlawful Combattants as defined under the LOAC. Until the US changes those responsible to Lawful Combattants under Iranian command, this currently not legal grounds to declare war.

Originally Posted by Praxus

On top of this they have threatened to wage further acts of war against the United States.

They've threatened self-defence retallitory measures which is completely within their rights.

Originally Posted by Praxus

Just because we don't have some formal treaty, doesn't mean we shouldn't defend Israel if she is attacked.

The US do have a memorendum of understanding with Israel in which she extended her nuclear umbrella. However, you will be hard pressed to find any justification that an Iranian counter-attack on Israel is an Act of War against the US.