Possible war with Iran

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Politics ▸ Possible war with Iran
dwccrew's avatar

dwccrew

Not Banned

7,817 posts
Oct 25, 2011 1:31 AM
majorspark;944415 wrote:The Mexican American war was an officially declared war as laid out by the constitution. Arguably with in the context of "common defense" as hostile forces were operating in mass on and with in our borders. We admitted a state that had a known border conflict with Mexico. Texas needed the Union to secure their defense. A free sovereign state joining with a Union of other free sovereign states. All states knew the baggage Texas would bring when they chose to admit them to the Union. By contract all states in the Union would have to join in their defense if congress called them to war. And so congress declared it. And the states stood by the contract.

Securing the continuity of the continent has kept it at relative peace as compared to other fractious continents over similar periods of history. We had our war between the states that sought divison. The sovereign states that wanted to force the Union contract won. Since then from the Atlantic to the Pacific this continent has not known war within its borders (except for mop up Indian operations). Had the southern states won that would likely not be the case. Especially with the disputed western territories and the gold rush.

That said I see the mutual defense benefits of the Union. But if the federal government wants to operate outside the constitution as it has for decades and wants to micromanage my state and my locality. And I see my president saying things like, "If they (congress) will not act, I will", then I want no part of that. We can go our separate ways.
I Wear Pants;944446 wrote:I don't see why you brought up the Civil War.

And would you be okay if say California started to rebel and China annexed it? Because that's what started the hostilities with Mexico. We annexed what was part of their country. Then we invaded them because we had some God given right to after they got pissed about it. Lincoln didn't approve of it. Neither did Thoreau or John Quincy.
Mexico gets the last laugh. We were once invading them with illegal immigrants until we just annexed their land, now it is the other way around.
Oct 25, 2011 1:31am
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Oct 25, 2011 1:43 AM
I doubt them trying to annex anything of ours would be very successful though.
Oct 25, 2011 1:43am
dwccrew's avatar

dwccrew

Not Banned

7,817 posts
Oct 25, 2011 1:50 AM
I Wear Pants;944468 wrote:I doubt them trying to annex anything of ours would be very successful though.
They can have Michigan.
Oct 25, 2011 1:50am
majorspark's avatar

majorspark

Senior Member

5,122 posts
Oct 25, 2011 1:54 AM
I Wear Pants;944446 wrote:I don't see why you brought up the Civil War.
I brought up the Civil War (more aptly called the war between the states) because it was the only major war fought on the continent after the Mexican American war that would have had a significant affect on continental continuity.
I Wear Pants;944446 wrote:And would you be okay if say California started to rebel and China annexed it? Because that's what started the hostilities with Mexico. We annexed what was part of their country. Then we invaded them because we had some God given right to after they got pissed about it.
Texas fought a war with Mexico. They won their independence. Mexico signed the Treaties of Velasco. Texas was a sovereign independent state. Texas did not just start a rebellion then ask the USA to annex them. They finished it first. The United States did not annex them by force. Texas had been petitioning the United States for admission into the Union for years. Texas's admission to the Union was done peacefully through the constitutional process with congressional approval. Of Course Mexico was sore about loosing Texas. I can understand that.
I Wear Pants;944446 wrote:Lincoln didn't approve of it. Neither did Thoreau or John Quincy.
True the Whig party was opposed. Many Whigs morphed into the newly formed Republican party. Lincoln at the time did not approve of the Mexican war. But when Lincoln was president he sure as hell made sure the Union contract would be upheld. By the force of arms. Texas included. When the war between the states over the terms of the Union contract was ended Lincoln had no intention of releasing Texas from the Union. That would have shorted his argument for preservation of the Union.
Oct 25, 2011 1:54am
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Oct 25, 2011 2:17 AM
Because that would have been ridiculous to do so for Lincoln. It's not like he flip flopped or anything. You can be oppossed to the Mexican-American War and then years later after that has transpired not be for the release of Texas as a state.
Oct 25, 2011 2:17am
majorspark's avatar

majorspark

Senior Member

5,122 posts
Oct 25, 2011 2:21 AM
dwccrew;944462 wrote:Mexico gets the last laugh. We were once invading them with illegal immigrants until we just annexed their land, now it is the other way around.
It is true that there was a lot of illegal immigration into Mexico. Politically they tried at times to control it. We did not just annex their land. They signed it over by treaty to us because they lost a war and it would have been too costly for them to maintain it with all the "gringos" infesting it. I agree the shoe is going to the other foot now. In the near future a state in the American Southwest will secede and win its independence. The US will be pissed and fight a war with Mexico. The US will loose that war and cede the American Southwest back to the Mexicans. I Wear Pants will be dancing in the streets. The US finally got its comupins.

I am not sure anyone wants the Mexicans to have the last laugh considering what is going on south of the border.
Oct 25, 2011 2:21am
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Oct 25, 2011 2:50 AM
Yeah, I'm less of an American because I think we have and are making some bad/immoral choices as a nation. Because I don't see everything we do as a Jesus given gift to the world I'm somehow rooting for America to fail. Comeuppance.
Oct 25, 2011 2:50am
majorspark's avatar

majorspark

Senior Member

5,122 posts
Oct 25, 2011 3:27 AM
I Wear Pants;944485 wrote:Because that would have been ridiculous to do so for Lincoln. It's not like he flip flopped or anything. You can be oppossed to the Mexican-American War and then years later after that has transpired not be for the release of Texas as a state.
I am not saying Lincoln flip flopped. I am sure there were factions that would have expected Lincoln to act differently. There are a lot of decisions being made today by the current US president that in times past he would have opposed the circumstances leading up to it. But today operates with the hand he was dealt nearly a decade later. I have given him some shit but not much because Obama has been making the choices he has to make.

Some of my friends on the right say the US leaving Iraq hands them to Iran. Remote chance but possible. We offered substantial troops to be deployed in country to address any immediate situation. We had one condition. Judicial immunity. Our troops would be judged by our military. Not a foreign court and Iraq said no. We could have forced the issue. But Obama said pound your sand. Maybe he is just playing politics in an election year. I don't know. If Iran makes trouble we have ample assets to deal with them outside of Iraq. There are a lot of nations we need to tell to pony up or they can kiss our ass goodbye. We can no longer subsidize their social experiments.
Oct 25, 2011 3:27am
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Oct 25, 2011 3:32 AM
The sooner we're back to using our military solely for the defense of our sovereignty the better.
Oct 25, 2011 3:32am
majorspark's avatar

majorspark

Senior Member

5,122 posts
Oct 25, 2011 4:03 AM
I Wear Pants;944496 wrote:Yeah, I'm less of an American because I think we have and are making some bad/immoral choices as a nation. Because I don't see everything we do as a Jesus given gift to the world I'm somehow rooting for America to fail. Comeuppance.
Never said you were less of an American. Your words. You did say the acquisition of the American Southwest by war was one of the worst things we have done. Born of bad/immoral decisions as a nation. So one could only assume that the natural circle of things in the world (the chickens coming home to roost) would bring you some sense of satisfaction.

I ask you this. If the Southwestern states one day chose to secede from the Union because they no longer culturally identified with the USA. The majority spoke a different language and had different customs. Say the feds ordered the citizens of the other states to take up arms against them to enforce the Union contract, would you join?
Oct 25, 2011 4:03am
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Oct 25, 2011 4:29 AM
majorspark;944503 wrote:Never said you were less of an American. Your words. You did say the acquisition of the American Southwest by war was one of the worst things we have done. Born of bad/immoral decisions as a nation. So one could only assume that the natural circle of things in the world (the chickens coming home to roost) would bring you some sense of satisfaction.

I ask you this. If the Southwestern states one day chose to secede from the Union because they no longer culturally identified with the USA. The majority spoke a different language and had different customs. Say the feds ordered the citizens of the other states to take up arms against them to enforce the Union contract, would you join?
I don't believe in such a cycle. And I was calling upon my inner Ty Webb for that post. Hence the ridiculous correction of your spelling of an uncommon word. I feel some of what I said but obviously recognize that you didn't call me unamerican. Sometimes I respond to the caricatures I assign to people. In this case you were the overzealous patriot. Hopefully I explained that so it makes sense.

And no, I wouldn't join. Because fuck you (not you, the government) for telling my I have to go murder people.

And I meant worst as in, it was a war (the worst of things) that we started so we could expand our empire. I feel like that's an immoral excuse for an already immoral act. If I go murder some of my neighbors because I want some of their land I'm an evil bastard. That's what we did. Yes there were other considerations like their hostility towards us but as both a nation and in my neighbor example we have the duty and right to defend ourselves if attacked. Not take other things. My neighbor comes into my yard and hurts my dog I don't get to take some of his land.
Oct 25, 2011 4:29am
S

stlouiedipalma

Senior Member

1,797 posts
Oct 25, 2011 5:30 PM
majorspark;943178 wrote:You might want to review your history. Democrat presidents have started and engaged in foreign wars as well. If you want to count dead sons and daughters in foreign lands democrat presidents got that hands down. Both parties have blood on their hands.
dwccrew;943217 wrote:LOL at the revisionist's history.

I guess Wilson, FDR, Truman and LBJ were all Republicans.
believer;943281 wrote:Don't forget JFK and Clinton.

I always chuckle when the kool-aid drinking Dems pretend that only Repub presidents get us into wars. As Major pointed out BOTH parties have blood on their hands.

No revisions necessary. I'm speaking about Iraq and two of the more plausible reasons why we went to war there and whether those possibilities exist with Iran. I just can't understand why virtually all of the Republican Presidential candidates are upset that this war has wound down to a conclusion. Perhaps they just love war.
Oct 25, 2011 5:30pm
majorspark's avatar

majorspark

Senior Member

5,122 posts
Oct 25, 2011 7:34 PM
I Wear Pants;944504 wrote:I don't believe in such a cycle. And I was calling upon my inner Ty Webb for that post. Hence the ridiculous correction of your spelling of an uncommon word. I feel some of what I said but obviously recognize that you didn't call me unamerican. Sometimes I respond to the caricatures I assign to people. In this case you were the overzealous patriot. Hopefully I explained that so it makes sense.
I have spell check. Cumupins is the slang spelling as how it is pronounced by many. Like "aks", "goin", "brotha", "yall", etc..
I Wear Pants;944504 wrote:And no, I wouldn't join. Because fuck you (not you, the government) for telling my I have to go murder people.
Four states felt the same way prior to the Civil War. Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee.[/QUOTE]
Oct 25, 2011 7:34pm
F

Footwedge

Senior Member

9,265 posts
Oct 25, 2011 8:07 PM
BGFalcons82;937599 wrote:Not to worry. The assassinator-in-chief has already laid the groundwork for a drone assault on Tehran and their nuke facilities in the deserts by announcing and politicizing the plans for Iran to murder the Saudi ambassador here in the States. For the, "Bush Lied People Died" crowd, I wonder how radically different this scenario is from the Iraq War pre-conflict days? It will be interesting to see if the hardcore Left turns as viciously on their annointed one as hard as they went after GWB.
It was wayyy more than the "hard core left" that went after Pinnochio and his growing nose. There are tens of millions of astute Americans that don't give a shlt about party politics. These same people are just as unhappy with the new guy as they were with the last guy in power. In makes no difference whether there's a D or an R behind his name.

When it comes to war, statism, world hegemony, anti constitutionalism, American exceptionalism, expanding the Empire, there was Bush 43, and now there is Bush Lite....the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. LOLOL.
Oct 25, 2011 8:07pm
dwccrew's avatar

dwccrew

Not Banned

7,817 posts
Oct 26, 2011 1:29 AM
stlouiedipalma;943107 wrote:I know it really hurts all of you righties out there that we will soon be without any wars to fight. It could mean that the time is right for another Republican in the White House. I can just see the slogans..."Vote for me...I'll see to it that your sons and daughters die overseas for absolutely no good reason."
stlouiedipalma;945122 wrote:No revisions necessary. I'm speaking about Iraq and two of the more plausible reasons why we went to war there and whether those possibilities exist with Iran. I just can't understand why virtually all of the Republican Presidential candidates are upset that this war has wound down to a conclusion. Perhaps they just love war.
So you speak of only wars started by Republicans? Why not bring up how Democrats have started wars as well (that had much more loss of life and less results, cough Vietnam.). Why must it be about the party? Both parties have started needless wars. Don't be a hypocrite and call one party out and not the other.
Oct 26, 2011 1:29am
S

stlouiedipalma

Senior Member

1,797 posts
Oct 26, 2011 2:52 PM
Once again, I only brought up Iraq, and only because the Republican candidates are united in their thinking that leaving Iraq would be a mistake.

I agree with you completely about wars being started by Democratic administrations, though. Vietnam is an excellent example of a President (Johnson) who escalated for no good reason other than to benefit the military industrial complex.
Oct 26, 2011 2:52pm