New House resolution could potentially lead to war between the U.S. and Iran?

[Valvalis]

So I was reading some world news today, and apparently there's a new House of Representatives resolution (H. Res. 1553) that, if passed, would issue a formal statement that the U.S. supports Israel taking military action against Iran "if no other peaceful solution can be found within a reasonable time." While it is not directly stated, it is possible that on the international stage, this wording could potentially be interpreted by some countries as an indirect declaration by the U.S. of war against Iran. There are a bunch of biased articles (in both directions) on the subject which I came across, so here is the actual text of the resolution, ideally though it's on the Internet it's not been altered by anyone:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...553.pdf+h.+res.+1553&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

What is the best answer in this kind of situation? For an uninvolved country to enter into a conflict to help its ally can often save many lives in the troubled country, but it can also lead that previously-uninvolved country to have new problems of its own. Which leads to my thread question: Should a country that has the power to help another country in trouble try to get involved, or should they stay out of it? Is the "ally" system in general between countries beneficial or detrimental? What are your views? You may discuss this example of the U.S., Israel, and Iran in particular, or the concept in general, either one is fine. No spam though please

 

[ANGRYWOLF]

won't happen due to a mere resolution...

If Palin becomes President then you can worry...

 

[Ipsen]

I think it's too early to tell but it will most probably be interpreted like that because it almost always is. I think there's just too much shit going on that none of us really know about to express a valid opinion about it.

In all honesty though? I could see there eventually being problems, if there isn't already. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad certainly doesn't make himself any friends at these summits and what not so it wouldn't surprise me.

Also I don't know why my writing is underlining now and it wont fuck off.

 

[Dee]

I think an all-out war, sending in more men after finally bringing some home and getting involved in yet another conflict would be a really, really bad move on our part regardless of whether we would be helping an ally. We are in so much shit here already that we don't need to be pouring money into a war that most likely will not help us financially; at least not enough in the short term to help kick-start the economy.

The last thing we need to do is jump in on someone else's problem. I mean, lending some men to help train and providing some support because they're our allies wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, but pouring our all into it, especially if we were not attacked on our soil (and even then) is just ridiculous at this point in time. I have to agree with the concept that "some people just need to die", but there are ways of avoiding conflict that will ultimately shed more than deserving folk. And while it's a shame that things have to come down to this, to nearly declaring war, we are simply human.

 

[Shu]

Firstly I don't see it ever happening due to it hindering our foreign diplomacy even more. Right now the US is looked on as a world police, which should be good, but in turn folks put a negative spin on it claiming that it's to re-insure our oil doesn't go to the wrong hands.

Now with Isreal, that's been a never ending battle, and to be honest I don't know why? If Isreal keeps trying to fire rogue missles in on Iran, it's like asking to have their ass torn up. I understand that they are supported by the UN and that it is a major concern to protect them, but if we backed them firing missles whenever they felt like, I would definitely not support it as an American. If others did, I question their intention.

 

[Sepalcure]

Well let's take it a part here, the U.S. from my understanding supplied Israel and continue to supply them with ammunition and state of the art in military technology as part of a pledge of sorts. America's been a long standing supporter of the Israeli government, helping them fend off Palestine and now Israel in this multiple decade long conflict. As to why Israel and the people of Iran are fighting . . . well who knows? Some people say it's because Iran funds and supports major terrorist groups, others say it's because of the fact that Iran is pretty loud mouthed about the whole Giza Strip confrontation which un to itself is a messy work of he said she said and 'this land is mine'. Regardless of the 'why', we need to look at the 'how'.

If the U.S. were to enter into another conflict and send out even more troops then pull out say another couple thousand, it would be turbulent hell in the Middle East for us. We're already in a tight spot, where we can't leave before we right the tension between the civilians and the terrorist groups skulking around in Iraq and Saudi Arabia. I mean, going to war would just be unquestionably bad, it would put such a stigma on our foreign policy. Imagine how the rest of the civilians in the Middle East we view us, taking sides, and helping fuel a pretty unstable fire, so to speak. Should we just keep policing that area and keep our hand in everything slight? Well, do we have a choice with the way everything is in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Iran? I don't think so and I'm sure a few people would agree.

We don't need to go meddling in their affairs or to play the 'great sidekick', Israel can certainly handle themselves with the sheer power of their militia.