Monroe Doctrine Revised....

[PoliticalChic]

Iran is planning to place medium-range missiles on Venezuelan soil, based on western information sources[1], according to an article in the German daily, Die Welt, of November 25, 2010. According to the article, an agreement between the two countries was signed during the last visit o Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to Tehran on October19, 2010. The previously undisclosed contract provides for the establishment of a jointly operated military base in Venezuela, and the joint development of ground-to-ground missiles.

According to Die Welt, Venezuela has agreed to allow Iran to establish a military base manned by Iranian missile officers, soldiers of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Venezuelan missile officers. In addition, Iran has given permission for the missiles to be used in case of an "emergency". In return, the agreement states that Venezuela can use these facilities for "national needs" – radically increasing the threat to neighbors like Colombia. The German daily claims that according to the agreement, Iranian Shahab 3 (range 1300-1500 km), Scud-B (285-330 km) and Scud-C (300, 500 and 700 km) will be deployed in the proposed base. It says that Iran also pledged to help Venezuela in rocket technology expertise, including intensive training of officers
Iran Placing Medium-Range Missiles in Venezuela; Can Reach the U.S. :: Hudson New York

Where is JFK when we need him????

Interesting to see what the current inhabitant of 1600 Pennsylvania does....

 

[iamwhatiseem]

This of course cannot be allowed.
If it means bombing the facility once started - then so be it.
There cannot be one U.S. city that has a missile threat controlled by any such nation.
Anything but utter destruction of a facility is completely unacceptable.

 

[Dr.Drock]

This of course cannot be allowed.
If it means bombing the facility once started - then so be it.
There cannot be one U.S. city that has a missile threat controlled by any such nation.
Anything but utter destruction of a facility is completely unacceptable.

How about just having defense that blows up the missiles once launched?

Seems pretty easy to me, have a satelite on the area, if a missile gets launched, launch one of our own far more advanced missiles at the Iranian missile.

Dust off your hands, and move along.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

This of course cannot be allowed.
If it means bombing the facility once started - then so be it.
There cannot be one U.S. city that has a missile threat controlled by any such nation.
Anything but utter destruction of a facility is completely unacceptable.

How about just having defense that blows up the missiles once launched?

Seems pretty easy to me, have a satelite on the area, if a missile gets launched, launch one of our own far more advanced missiles at the Iranian missile.

Dust off your hands, and move along.

Nope. I would go with the 100% route - no missile in the first place.

 

[Dr.Drock]

This of course cannot be allowed.
If it means bombing the facility once started - then so be it.
There cannot be one U.S. city that has a missile threat controlled by any such nation.
Anything but utter destruction of a facility is completely unacceptable.

How about just having defense that blows up the missiles once launched?

Seems pretty easy to me, have a satelite on the area, if a missile gets launched, launch one of our own far more advanced missiles at the Iranian missile.

Dust off your hands, and move along.

Nope. I would go with the 100% route - no missile in the first place.

My route is 100%, it's also cheaper and no dead americans.

 

[ABikerSailor]

This of course cannot be allowed.
If it means bombing the facility once started - then so be it.
There cannot be one U.S. city that has a missile threat controlled by any such nation.
Anything but utter destruction of a facility is completely unacceptable.

How about just having defense that blows up the missiles once launched?

Seems pretty easy to me, have a satelite on the area, if a missile gets launched, launch one of our own far more advanced missiles at the Iranian missile.

Dust off your hands, and move along.

Actually, we already have those systems, and they're based on destroyers, and oh yeah......they are capable of shooting down ICBM's.

They put 'em up, we'll be able to shoot 'em down. I like your idea Dr. Drock.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Fuck Chavez and fuck that little Iranian midget. Don't allow them to be there period. Chavez and mini-me both need a good bitch slap, this would be a great time.

 

[Ernie S.]

This of course cannot be allowed.
If it means bombing the facility once started - then so be it.
There cannot be one U.S. city that has a missile threat controlled by any such nation.
Anything but utter destruction of a facility is completely unacceptable.

How about just having defense that blows up the missiles once launched?

Seems pretty easy to me, have a satelite on the area, if a missile gets launched, launch one of our own far more advanced missiles at the Iranian missile.

Dust off your hands, and move along.

Actually, we already have those systems, and they're based on destroyers, and oh yeah......they are capable of shooting down ICBM's.

They put 'em up, we'll be able to shoot 'em down. I like your idea Dr. Drock.

Seeing the missiles can not reach the US, How about in stead of shooting down a rocket aimed at Columbia, we drop a cruise through Hugo's bedroom window.

 

[ABikerSailor]

How about just having defense that blows up the missiles once launched?

Seems pretty easy to me, have a satelite on the area, if a missile gets launched, launch one of our own far more advanced missiles at the Iranian missile.

Dust off your hands, and move along.

Actually, we already have those systems, and they're based on destroyers, and oh yeah......they are capable of shooting down ICBM's.

They put 'em up, we'll be able to shoot 'em down. I like your idea Dr. Drock.

Seeing the missiles can not reach the US, How about in stead of shooting down a rocket aimed at Columbia, we drop a cruise through Hugo's bedroom window.

We can't do that until after a move is made against us militarily.

 

[Meister]

How about just having defense that blows up the missiles once launched?

Seems pretty easy to me, have a satelite on the area, if a missile gets launched, launch one of our own far more advanced missiles at the Iranian missile.

Dust off your hands, and move along.

Nope. I would go with the 100% route - no missile in the first place.

My route is 100%, it's also cheaper and no dead americans.

I'm not too sure about the 100% accuracy. I know when they used to do tests over the Pacific and it wasn't 100%. Just takes one to make a mess out of things.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Nope. I would go with the 100% route - no missile in the first place.

My route is 100%, it's also cheaper and no dead americans.

I'm not too sure about the 100% accuracy. I know when they used to do tests over the Pacific and it wasn't 100%. Just takes one to make a mess out of things.

Precisley.
If I lived in one of those cities and one day a "missile alert" went off...I would be pretty f*cking nervous while waiting to see if my family and I die a painful death.
Screw that.
This is America, we have the means to turn their little project into a gaping hole - zero tolerance for anyone even thinking of erecting an offensive weapon within range of our soil.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Lets see if obamaturd has the balls to actually do something that has direct national security implications. I doubt it.

 

[AmericanFirst]

This of course cannot be allowed.
If it means bombing the facility once started - then so be it.
There cannot be one U.S. city that has a missile threat controlled by any such nation.
Anything but utter destruction of a facility is completely unacceptable.

How about just having defense that blows up the missiles once launched?

Seems pretty easy to me, have a satelite on the area, if a missile gets launched, launch one of our own far more advanced missiles at the Iranian missile.

Dust off your hands, and move along.

Wrong. The best defense is a strong offense. Unless you are a ball less dimwit.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Actually, we already have those systems, and they're based on destroyers, and oh yeah......they are capable of shooting down ICBM's.

They put 'em up, we'll be able to shoot 'em down. I like your idea Dr. Drock.

Seeing the missiles can not reach the US, How about in stead of shooting down a rocket aimed at Columbia, we drop a cruise through Hugo's bedroom window.

We can't do that until after a move is made against us militarily.

Not so.

1. As one President demanded that silos be removed from Cuba...

2. Another President ordered Operation Urgent Fury to remove Soviet air bases from Granada

 

[ABikerSailor]

Lets see if obamaturd has the balls to actually do something that has direct national security implications. I doubt it.

Like getting OBL?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Lets see if obamaturd has the balls to actually do something that has direct national security implications. I doubt it.

Like getting OBL?

Wanna bet he does nothing about this?

 

[AmericanFirst]

Lets see if obamaturd has the balls to actually do something that has direct national security implications. I doubt it.

Like getting OBL?

Wanna bet he does nothing about this?

He had no choice but go after OBL. He does one thing right and all of a sudden he is the great defender, bullshit.

 

[Toronado3800]

If Obama liberally believes the President has the power to declare war on Grenada he just might declare war on Venezuela.

Sorry, just had to get in my liberal crack. When conservatively reading the Constitution I just did not find the part where Presidents can declare war. Guess that liberal Reagan found something.

Darn, can not stop.

Back to the point....

Lord, want to go after another country? You know there is coming a time where every country on any corner of the globe can fire a missile which can reach any other. May as well level this base I suppose. I am no fan of Venezuela. Yea, here come more taxes to pay for a larger military.

 

[zzzz]

A president has no Constitutional power to declare war. He does however have the power to wage war as Commander in Chief and inherent in that power is the freedom to strike against any foreign object when he deems it necessary.

 

[Toronado3800]

A president has no Constitutional power to declare war. He does however have the power to wage war as Commander in Chief and inherent in that power is the freedom to strike against any foreign object when he deems it necessary.

Thank you, that is the liberal reading I have heard.

So in effect, the President can not declare war on Canada but he can tell our troops to cross the border and blow things up.

Effectively how is that different from a declaration on war?

Why do you think the "declare war" part was not included in the President's powers then?