Bush to Declare Iran's Army Terrorists

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Thanatoast, Aug 15, 2007.

  1. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #1
    link by way of al-Jazeera
    There was also a story on NYT earlier but it seems to have been pushed off the front page by a story on cockpit simulators. :rolleyes:

    It's really a rather ingenious plan, I think. Simply declare the opposing force a "terrorist", seize his assets, do whatever you want to his people in the name of "freedom" and grab more power at home when security has to be tightened to protect us from our newly liberated supplicants.

    Taking bets on the timing of the first air strike...
     
  2. MACDRIVE macrumors 68000

    MACDRIVE

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Location:
    Clovis, California
    #2
    There was a story in the local front page section that quoted General George Casey as saying: "I don't see going beyond the 15 months." He was referring to the current 3 month extension on top of the normal 12 month combat rotation.

    I'm thinking the Iranians would love to have an excuse to officially go into Iraq and start fighting the American soldiers. What I'm wondering is what would al Qaeda do if the Iranian military started flooding into Iraq; would they side with the Iranians? :confused:
     
  3. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #3
    Members of the National Guard, who refused to report for duty, should be declared 'terrorists' retroactively.
     
  4. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #4
    We couldn't do anything about Iran if they were a threat. Which I'm not so sure of now. The same people who screwed up with Iraq are the ones calling for us to do the same with Iran, for the same reasons. This is just more huffing and puffing, and they know it.

    If they weren't a threat before though, this may make them more so, and worse, they know we're bluffing.
     
  5. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #5
    So if they are terrorists, does that mean Bush can use the existing AUMF to expand the war into Iran?

    Not that they feel they need a legal justification for anything, but this could easily be used as a legal justification for an attack on Iran.
     
  6. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #6
    Do you ever feel like the inmates have taken over? WTF is wrong with Bush/Cheney? Is it Alzheimer's like Reagan, maybe? Honestly, it's beginning to make me wonder.
     
  7. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
  8. Cursor macrumors 6502

    Cursor

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    #8
    With the economy slowing to a halt from the mortgage failures, Iraq being a total mess, Iran quickly becoming our next target, the government taking away our freedoms left and right, and hurricane season ramping up, I am beginning to think that Bush just might enable that State of Emergency bill he created a little while ago. There seems to be so much going wrong with the country and society in general these days. It's beginning to be scary. Does anyone think that it wasn't a coincedence he signed that directive when he did?
     
  9. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #9
    Of course we don't. A lot of us have been saying for a while that we suspect this crew won't give up power willingly. Hmm...if Chavez can do it, why not Uncurious George?
     
  10. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #10
    Last May, after I read the the NSPD 51/HSPD 51, I was disturbed (like so many others of you). To me it makes no sense to increase the President's power, by diminishing the roles of the Legislative, and Judiciary branches of government. He already had more than enough power at his/her disposal. It makes even less sense, knowing the probable successor will not be another neocon, probably a democrat. No, the only way it makes sense is when one does not foresee that as a probability. Then the question would be; "How could you be so sure"?

    If you were planning to once again trample the Constitution, and indefinitely postpone the election in 2008, that would certainly do it.

    It is a known fact that Nixon, Reagan, and Bush have studied this issue in great detail. The Nixon study was a part of the infamous ‘Huston Plan’. The Brookings Institute was commissioned to evaluate what the public would do in a case where an unpopular Administration cancelled a Presidential election, based on a real, or potential threat to America. Little has been published about the conclusions contained in their final draft. What is known is that it pissed the WH off. By the time the final known draft of the Huston Plan was completed, there was no mention of the election section, The Brookings Institute was added to the WH 'enemies list', and the final Huston Plan had a tactical section to firebomb the Institute itself. Nice guys.

    I do believe this feeling of disquiet is growing within many mainstream Americans. I actually started a thread about this ~1 month back. I was curious about how many people thought the current administration would be capable of staging a 9/11 type of national emergency to remain in power.

    It was definitely not capable of producing any valid conclusions. I got a clear impression:

    1) Many people already think this exists
    2) Many see it as a 'conspiracy theory'
    3) Some do not accept it as even a possibility
    4) Most do not want to have to accept it - it would totally shake their fundamental perceptions of their Country

    My conclusion is that, if there is irrefutable proof, most Americans will believe this, and they are really going to be pissed. Someone will have to be held accountable.
     
  11. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #11
  12. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #12
    Does Bush know this? Because I don't think he does. Or he's just pretending not to.
     
  13. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #13
    I don't follow. The premise of the thread was that Bush was about to declare "Iran's Army" a terrorist organization. A lot of people seemed to accept that premise, but it is not accurate. Agree with this move or not, the organization being targeted is not the Iranian Army. It's a group within Iran that is highly militarized, but which I don't think any of us would recognize as a conventional national military service, based on the way it operates and reports.
     
  14. gauchogolfer macrumors 603

    gauchogolfer

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Location:
    American Riviera
    #14
    Just to emphasize this further, this is taken from the OP's linked article:

    Calling this "Iran's Army" is off-target. More like a militia group with very powerful supporters in the country.
     
  15. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #15
    Exactly. They also apparently have control over Iran's nuclear program, which should raise concerns. The article I cited from the Washington Post details some of the Revolutionary Guard's history, their political and economic roles within Iran, and their involvements abroad.
     
  16. Thanatoast thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #16
    I chose the term "Iran's Army" because they are a uniformed military force sanctioned by the Iranian government, and because of the neocon argument that terrorists aren't soldiers entitled to geneva protections becuse they're not a standing, uniformend force - which the Guard is. If Bush can now declare armed forces of other countries terrorists because they oppose us then the rules of international warfare (what little there were) have officially been tossed and we shouldn't be surprised by anything that comes our way.
     
  17. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #17
    My point is that they are not a regular military force by any normally accepted definition of the term, uniforms or no. A government could sanction the operation of private militias (as has occurred in Sudan, for instance), but that does not mean they are automatically assigned the status of a standing armed force which must be respected abroad. The Revolutionary Guard is a pretty weird bird. They are far, far more than an armed force. They're a freestanding military industrial complex outside of civilian control. They run Iran's nuclear program and support Islamic revolutionaries abroad. Still not concerned?
     
  18. Thanatoast thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #18
    What concerns me is that Bush is once again doing his best to circumvent the rule of law and the Geneva Conventions. He's delcaring a whole swath of people outside the bounds of oversight, where he has proved again and again not to be trustworthy.

    On the matter of whether the Guards are an army or not, you're saying they're outside civilian command. Are they privately run, alà KBR? Are they a religious military force, like the Swiss Guard? They would defend the country if it was invaded, right?
     
  19. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #19
    I'm not sure I entirely understand your distinctions. The Revolutionary Guard is apparently under the authority of the mullahs in Iran, as distinct from the other armed forces, which ostensibly at least are controlled by the civilian government. It's a little like if Pat Robertson raised a militia in the US of a couple hundred thousand soldiers, operated his own military industries, controlled the nation's nuclear programs, and armed and trained militants abroad. Sure, his army would defend the US if it was invaded, but how does that change what it is?

    To be clear, I'm not defending Bush, but simply attempting to clarify that he hasn't moved to criminalize the Iranian Army. It isn't quite so simple.
     
  20. gauchogolfer macrumors 603

    gauchogolfer

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Location:
    American Riviera
    #20
    It certainly isn't simple at all. In fact, I'm not sure which would be worse, declaring the Revolutionary Guard terrorists, or the actual Iranian Army. I think the RG may be the more powerful of the two...
     
  21. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #21
    Ultimately the distinction matters very little if what Bush is after is legal cover for an invasion or military strike on Iran.

    The rumors are that Cheney is pushing hard to override or even undercut the State Dept. and force Bush into a situation where he has to attack Iran.

    But I have a hard time believing that even Cheney is so out of touch with reality that he would think such a course was a good idea.
     
  22. MACDRIVE macrumors 68000

    MACDRIVE

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Location:
    Clovis, California
    #22
    Okay this is what I'm wondering about after reading this thread: when al-Maliki went over to Iran to visit Ahmadinejad, who were those uniformed soldiers lined up in the background to welcome al-Maliki, were they the Iranian Army or the Revolutionary Guard?
     

Share This Page