America preparing legal work to invade Iran

[Shadowmelded]

None of that matters to this topic. Trump didn't introduce the bill so it has ZERO to do with him. You can't blame him for something he didn't do, at all.

The bill is irrelevant without someone to act on it and given how deferential the GOP seem to be towards Trump and their preexisting hatred of Iran, it's not entirely guaranteed to go nowhere.

[Gref]

if they had WMDs they wouldn't get attacked. I mean check North Korea, does anybody dare to attack them? no, because they have. iran, syria, iraq they all don't have so it is obvious they will get attacked.

[Shadee]

which is considered a war crime in this day and age

no but we would surly see the beginnings of the unraveling of american power in the world.

The Viet Cong would hide among the Vietnamese citizens to make it difficult for US soldiers to determine who the actual enemy was. US soldiers would burn down farms and kill livestock to weaken the enemies ability to fight. When enemy soldiers hide among their own citizens you have to do this. It's not like the farms are labeled which belong to soldiers and citizens.

[Orange Joe]

Whats fake? You can look it up on the congress website.

The Viet Cong would hide among the Vietnamese citizens to make it difficult for US soldiers to determine who the actual enemy was. US soldiers would burn down farms and kill livestock to weaken the enemies ability to fight. When enemy soldiers hide among their own citizens you have to do this. It's not like the farms are labeled which belong to soldiers and citizens.

So no source to back up your fake news claim?

[Shadee]

So no source to back up your fake news claim?

I thought OP was trying to say that Trump was trying to start the war. I'm wrong about that but half the people here are still blaming Trump.

[Fincayra]

Pretty much guaranteed the legal framework for invading every single country on this planet exists in the archives of the government.

[Sky High]

The Viet Cong would hide among the Vietnamese citizens to make it difficult for US soldiers to determine who the actual enemy was. US soldiers would burn down farms and kill livestock to weaken the enemies ability to fight. When enemy soldiers hide among their own citizens you have to do this. It's not like the farms are labeled which belong to soldiers and citizens.

Okay, and?

[Donimic]

You do realize that destroying power plants and food sources is very much a tactic in war? Citizens usually suffer the most in wars. While doing everything Berengil suggests wouldn't be necessary for the US to easily defeat Iran, no countries would start launching nukes over it.

Being a viable military tactic does not make it any less of a war crime. You can not specifically target civilian structures. If you blew up a decent sized dam you would kill hundreds of thousands of civilians and are you going to kill millions more when you wipe out their food supply? This isn't WWII, you are not going to keep domestic or international support with this style of warfare.

Would they launch nukes over that directly, probably not. But you are basically giving Russia/China the moral high ground when they try to stop you and you know Russia would like nothing more than the opportunity to make a statement and come to the aid of their oppressed neighbors and defend them from the big, bad, US-of-A. then what are you going to do? Are you going to try those tactics on Russia directly? If you do, then the big boys are going to fly.

Total war doesn't work on the global scale. Your allies are not going to back you up when you are the asshole in the room. Someone will put you back in your place.

[Breccia]

I thought OP was trying to say that Trump was trying to start the war.

Based on his recent comments, he very well could. If there's a bill that hits his desk, he can sign it. Again, cite his history, does this seem likely?

[Shadee]

Okay, and?

I'm just pointing out that is how war goes, destroying enemies food sources isn't considered a war crime but is a necessary sometimes. The US destroying enemies food sources and power plants won't cause a nuclear war and the end of the USA as a world power.

[Donimic]

The Viet Cong would hide among the Vietnamese citizens to make it difficult for US soldiers to determine who the actual enemy was. US soldiers would burn down farms and kill livestock to weaken the enemies ability to fight. When enemy soldiers hide among their own citizens you have to do this. It's not like the farms are labeled which belong to soldiers and citizens.

And we lost that war because we lost public support.

You are not going to starve 80 million people. Basic reporting and Americans being able to actually see video/pictures of what war does to civilians is what made us pull out of Vietnam in the first place. It is only going to be worse now that every single person can upload video of these atrocities to the internet.

[Deleted]

Iran is a huge threat to America, and if we let them continue development of ballistic missiles and Nuclear weapons the entire Middle East will weaponize. We're talking about one of the most unstable violent regions in the world having a nuclear arms race. We cannot allow that. If Iran continues to develop these technologies we will have no choice other than to go to war. Iran is an immediate threat to America, and the entire world.

I'm saying this as someone who would be fighting in this war as a soldier. We shouldn't recklessly wade into a war, but if Iran doesn't stop we have no choice. Peace for the sake of peace is worse than war for a just cause.

[Berengil]

Wars don't work like that any more, the rest of the world would unify, rise up, and obliterate you. America has a large military complex, but when you commit war crimes of that magnitude you are basically asking Russia/China to nuke you back to kingdom come. There is a reason we don't fight like the Huns any more, all it takes is a single nuclear armed country to think you have crossed the line and its game over. What you are talking about is mutually assured destruction.

Well, yeah, MAD would be in place. Which would mean that anyone who decided to act as you describe would themselves be destroyed. Lots of people wouldn't have the stones to even try.

[Theinquisition]

*looks at DD214*

Well, glad im out, ya'll have fun with that.

[Deleted]

They should keep it in their pants unless they want to to ensure that Iran hates the US for another 40 years. The younger generations in Iran are increasingly positive about the west. Destabilizing Iran was a bad move the first time, it's a bad move now.

It's not about liberating the Iranian people, it is about preventing nuclear arms race which would certainly lead to nuclear war

[Bathory]

Just a bill now. I hope I'm wrong, but this is all sounding similar to the lead up to the invasion of Iraq. The kindling is set, all they need is a spark....

It's not about liberating the Iranian people, it is about preventing nuclear arms race which would certainly lead to nuclear war

Ah yes, "liberating". The US is so good at that.

[Rennadrel]

Isn't it ironic that the Democrats wound up destabilizing Iran by unseating their government in the early 50's which ultimately lead to the theocratic rule that Iran has been under for a long time.

[Nihilist74]

Its a waste if money that will make a us a little more vulnerable to Russia and china.

[Donimic]

Well, yeah, MAD would be in place. Which would mean that anyone who decided to act as you describe would themselves be destroyed. Lots of people wouldn't have the stones to even try.

That's my exact point, I even pointed out that it would lead to MAD. But you would be silly to think that if you attempted complete and total war on Russian soil that they wouldn't retaliate in kind.

The world is too interconnected these for outdated strategies like this to be particularly effective. Even the slightest chance of the scenario below occurring means we should not do it.

1 - We attempt to wipe Iran off the face of the planet by enacting total war.
2 - Russia, Iran's ally, uses this new "humanitarian crisis' an excuse to get global brownie points and give the US a black eye.
3 - According to you the only way to fight a war is complete and total war, so now that we are at war with Russia we have to do the same to them, because as you said, we only fight a war to win.
4 - Russia is not the little kid on the playground who you tried to bully so it either A) fights back conventionally which still have the potential to kill millions of Americans, or B) it launches nukes because you have now done two things that are completely fucking moronic and its time for payback.

[Citizen T]

The war wouldn't be started by those who made a deal. No one forced Trump to put a travel ban on Iran, when they have not had a terrorist attack the US in modern history. You voted for Trump, if he approves the war, blaming those who preferred a deal instead, doesn't make sense.

I'm not sure of your definition of modern, but at a bare minimum my definition would include anytime within my lifetime. How about 1979 attack on the American Embassy and held all of the US citizens hostage for 444 days. I know this even off the top of my head and I'm sure there are other examples either US or US interests being attacked within my lifetime.