Iran Situation

[Belsnickel]

(01-09-2020, 11:40 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: That's not true.

Trump has stated multiple reasons for killing Soleimani.

1. An American contractor was killed on December 27th from a rocket attack.

Let's pause here and talk about how on 29 Dec, we made a retaliatory air strike killing 25 and wounding 55. At this point we had fulfilled the proportional response to the airstrike that killed the contractor, even upping the ante.

(01-09-2020, 11:40 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: 2. Solemani was responsible for many other deaths.

3. Solemani was planning to blow up the US embassy or aka "Imminent threat"

The first two are undoubtedly true. The 3rd reason? Who knows. But given that two out of the three are true and our embassy did in fact come under attack, I'm not so sure we can write off Trump's claim of an imminent threat.

Regardless, it's clear the killing of the American contractor factored into the decision as it's been brought up multiple times already, and it makes sense.

On December 27th the American contractor is killed.

On December 31st, four days later our embassy is attacked.

On January 3rd, three days after the embassy attack we kill Solemani.

So within a span 7 days an American died, our embassy was then attacked and then we killed Soleimani.  There doesnt need to be "one specific reason"  for why he killed Soleimani. It could have been a factor of all these things put together and then a decision was made.

The embassy was "attacked" following the funeral of those we killed int he retaliatory strike. The people that carried out the action did not fire a shot, there were not even any serious injuries. On top of that, no evidence has been provided by the administration that shows there was an imminent threat and they have not convinced those in Congress of this beyond their boot licking sycophants.

The reason that an imminent threat is required is because of the law. Assassinating a high ranking official of another country is prohibited under the law without such a justification.

[GMDino]

Undercutting their own justifications for the assassination, the Gang That Couldn't Lie Straight admits they had and have no idea if another attack was imminent.

Pompeo: “there were a series of imminent attacks, we don’t know when, we don’t know where.

???? pic.twitter.com/ig6dluI63C

— Jason Sparks (@sparksjls) January 10, 2020

That they have no regard for the law should come as no surprise to anyone not in the Trump Cult.

[GMDino]

Press conference right now announces new sanctions on Iran and Pompeo continuing to say "something" would happen "eventually" so Trump was justified.

For a the experience they have as crooks and liars they aren't very good when it comes right down to it.

[GMDino]

REPORTER: Secretary Pompeo, what is your definition of "imminent"?

POMPEO: "This was gonna happen. And American lives were at risk, and we would be culpably negligent if we did not recommend to the president he take this action against Soleimani." pic.twitter.com/QdHzg9cVim

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 10, 2020

[*bfine32*]

(01-09-2020, 05:03 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Wow, lol. I only have myself to blame for engaging you in good faith.

Now that's another Logical fallacy know as ad hominem

[fredtoast]

(01-09-2020, 11:02 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Yeah, who cares about the American contractor that was killed days before Trump retaliated and killed Soleimani.. The imminent threat for that guy had already passed and he's dead, just move on Trump.

So your position is that the President is authorized to take action like this even if there is no imminent threat?

Why is that?

You think the Constitution is wrong?

[GMDino]

[jj22]

So I'm the only Neocon around here?!

[Dill]

(01-09-2020, 11:40 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Trump has stated multiple reasons for killing Soleimani.

1. An American contractor was killed on December 27th from a rocket attack.

2. Solemani was responsible for many other deaths.

3. Solemani was planning to blow up the US embassy or aka "Imminent threat"

Just a quick question, Matt.

The US demands everyone else follow international law. But should there there be an exception for the US? 

I see two possibilities here--1) fudge: keep holding others to international law, and follow it ourselves most of the time, but except the US  from it when it gets in our way,

or 2) just ignore it altogether. Fine if others violate international laws and norms if it does not harm us directly (go for it, India and Pakistan; Ukraine and Russia!), and we do pretty much what we want when we want, without having to "apologize" to anyone. 

"Globalists" might argue that option 2 just turns the world into an anarchy of gang style "turf" to be defended tit for tat, exactly the way gangs deal with other gangs, with force rather than law determining the outcome of conflicts.

But an Anti-Globalist might respond that we are more powerful than anyone so why should we care whether force determines such outcomes? if you are leading a gang in South LA you would be stupid to obey the law when the other gangs aren't. They get to beat, cut and shoot your guys and you can't fight back?  Hell no! When they take out one of your guys you hit back twice as hard. International law should be like that.

I didn't see any question of law factored into your assessment of Trump's actions above, and he'd already killed 25 or so guys before he killed the "gang leader" on sovereign foreign territory, so I was wondering. 

[Dill]

(01-10-2020, 04:30 PM)jj22 Wrote: So I'm the only Neocon around here?!

Their numbers dropped rather dramatically after the 4th year of the Iraq War. 

A few diehards still wanted to expand the war to Iran even then, but no one was listening.

[jj22]

Well good. At least I can provide an alternative view (and gain some credibility as an Independent).

Anyway. Big news of failed strike in Yemen the same day.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/10/world/middleeast/trump-iran-yemen.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes

[*bfine32*]

The worst kept secret is admitted to:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/iran-says-unintentionally-shot-down-034030154.html

Quote:Iran announced Saturday that its military “unintentionally” shot down the Ukrainian jetliner that crashed earlier this week, killing all 176 aboard, after the government had repeatedly denied Western accusations that it was responsible.

[BmorePat87]

It's concerning that the narrative this weekend seems to be that Trump just assumed there were attack plans without any real evidence.

[Belsnickel]

(01-13-2020, 04:46 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It's concerning that the narrative this weekend seems to be that Trump just assumed there were attack plans without any real evidence.

The whole attack plans thing is bullshit, anyway. There was another assassination attempt the same day on another official that failed. It's an administration of criminality.

[GMDino]

(01-13-2020, 04:46 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It's concerning that the narrative this weekend seems to be that Trump just assumed there were attack plans without any real evidence.

He provided no evidence to anyone...not even Esper

Mark Esper on CBS: I didn't see the intelligence about Iran posing an imminent threat to 4 US embassies, but I believe President Trump when he says there was one pic.twitter.com/pAaMVXGAde

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 12, 2020

...but told guests at Mar A Lago that something was going to happen.

Unreal.

So there is no evidence...just more Trump lies.

[fredtoast]

(01-13-2020, 04:46 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It's concerning that the narrative this weekend seems to be that Trump just assumed there were attack plans without any real evidence.

The problem is that he only talks to reporters from FOX, and they never do any follow up questions while fellating, er, I mean "interviewing" him.

He told Laura Ingram that he "felt" or "thought" there were plans to attack 4 embassies, but she never asked the important follow up questions about how he knew, when the attacks were planned, or even which 4 embassies he was talking about.  Instead it was just reported as unquestionable fact that Solemani was planning these attacks.

[GMDino]

(01-13-2020, 04:57 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The whole attack plans thing is bullshit, anyway. There was another assassination attempt the same day on another official that failed. It's an administration of criminality.

Wow.

If only there was a way to hold him responsible and people with the guts to do it.

[fredtoast]

Some people act like it s no big deal that Trump has a long history of just making up lies. It is times like this when a President needs some credibility.

The funniest part was that in the same int6erview here he made up the story about the embassy he accused CNN of making up lies in their stories.

[Belsnickel]

Let's not forget that according to the WSJ, whose editorial board is conservative and is one of Rupert Murdoch's shit stains on our world, Trump conducted this assassination at least in part for personal political gain.

Quote:Mr. Trump, after the strike, told associates he was under pressure to deal with Gen. Soleimani from GOP senators he views as important supporters in his coming impeachment trial in the Senate, associates said.

[Dill]

(01-13-2020, 05:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Some people act like it s no big deal that Trump has a long history of just making up lies.  It is times like this when a President needs some credibility.

The funniest part was that in the same int6erview here he made up the story about the embassy he accused CNN of making up lies in their stories.

Trump HAS credibility though, with his base and a super majority of the GOP, who trust him over the NYT and "fake news."

To them he is NOT "making up lies" but telling us what the MSM won't, telling it like it is and letting the chips fall where they may.  Not PC.  His six bankruptcies don't mean chronic failure but knowledge of how to work the system from all the angles to remain on top. An "unconventional" thinker so cut him slack when it looks like he is oblique to the law or contradicting the experts (they're the ones who got us into this mess (i.e., whatever mess you are talking about at the moment)).  So many reasons to trust HIM and not the media or the experts who will do anything to protect the status quo.

All that makes him a fount of truth in a world where domestic policy is overloaded with unnecessary regulations enforced by unelected bureaucrats who will do anything to protect their private fiefdoms; and foreign policy is overloaded with unnecessary international laws and agreements and treaties that nobody understands but prevent us from "taking out terrorists" and keeping the oil whenever we want.  So of course people are going to be mad when Trump puts America first. Screw Iraqi sovereignty. What about ours?

Rule of law applies to the border--We are a nation of laws or we are not--but outside of that it should not interfere with what the president wants to do. Let Trump be Trump--no apologies and no doing what other countries tell us to do.

Don't think there is a mass of GOP voters who really see through the lies, but stick with him for judges and de-regulation. The mass are true believers.  They're fine not seeing his tax returns, or with an impeachment without documents and witnesses. Taking out Solemeini on Iraqi soil was a "good decision" whether he posed an imminent threat or not.Read the transcript. Read the Constitution like you read the transcript. Article II says he can do what he wants.