Iran Situation

[fredtoast]

(01-03-2020, 04:28 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote:  It just seems like it was done without thought for revenge or to start a conflict.

It was done to start and fight a proxy war for Israel.

[CJD]

Never heard of the guy before today. For that reason I really can't have an informed opinion on whether or not we should have killed him.

What I will say is that I am tired of international conflict in the middle east. I was in favor of going after Osama Bin Laden because he directly attacked America.

I was against invading Iraq. It felt personal to W, because of his father, and past conflicts in Iraq were not particularly helpful or successful. Also, they were not a direct attacker of America and the reasoning for the invasion was shaky at best (and, I believe, it turned out to not even be true...).

I was in favor of killing al-Baghdadi, because ISIS has committed terrorist acts in America.

I feel like I've been relatively consistent in my belief that we should hunt down those who are directly attacking or hurting us, but against any regime change wars against people who we've categorized as bad people, such as Hussein...

So, did this guy ever attack America directly?

[*bfine32*]

(01-03-2020, 04:42 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Do you agree it is an Act of War by the United States against another sovereign country?

Or do you think that has no meaning either?

If that government sanctioned the targeting of US civilians then yes; however, we do not classify them and the Iraqi Army as the same. If they do, like I said: that's their problem

[*bfine32*]

(01-03-2020, 04:24 PM)Au165 Wrote: We don't get to classify other governments however we want and blow them up without repercussions, as much as you may like to think so. We kill civilians every month all over the world, we just killed 30 pine nut farmers in Afghanistan in September. Classifying our military as a terrorist group really isn't far-fetched in fact the CIA funds plenty of terrorist groups all over the world, you remember the whole Contra issue? We funded terrorists in Afghanistan during the cold war, right? Syria we funded rebel forces (terrorists) fighting against an established government. So on and so forth we are as guilty of doing the same thing they do, again the difference is we are us and they are them and that's all that matters to most people.

What other countries consider us is pointing out that "terrorist" is relative and therefor shouldn't be any sort of cart blanche reasoning for doing whatever you want. When you kill a government official it is an act of war, we will see how they handle it but calling everything "terrorist" related as a reason to jump into military action is a very dangerous way of doing world politics. 

We didn't blow up a country; nor did we classify the Iraqi government as a terrorist organization. As to your trying to draw a correlation to what the IRGC does and the unfortunate event in Afghanistan; you're choosing to ignore the "targeting" aspect; yet you accuse he of "not knowing the difference".

We do not call everything "terrorist". that's just speaking in hyperbole to make a point that cannot be made without it.

[Belsnickel]

(01-03-2020, 04:41 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: Is there a US president that didn't declare a war or at least didn't bomb another country during his time ?

I have a hard remember one since I'm born.

I dislike Trump but he's just doing what every US president has done.

We kill millions people ? Not a big deal, they kill one of us, let's kill them by millions ...

Patriotic americans are the best but if another dude is patriotic to his own country then he becomes an evil guy ?

It's not going to end well.

I know this distinction will seem trivial, but it gets at the heart of why you see it this way. A US president can't actually declare war. The US has not declared war since WWII and declaring war requires an act of Congress. In 1973, the War Powers Act was entered into law. This stated that a president cannot commit troops to military action longer than 60 days (plus a 30 day withdrawal period) without authorization from Congress either in an Authorization of Use of Military Force (AUMF) or an official declaration of war. This was all done to prevent another Vietnam and to regain some Congressional authority in our military as they are the branch that is supposed to be declaring war.

The AUMF passed in 2001 against terrorism is what is being used currently to justify military actions all over the globe, really. Congress essentially gave Bush, Obama, and now Trump a blank check to start wars in the name of "fighting terrorism." This would be one of the main reasons that it was decided to name the IRGC as a terrorist organization.

[*bfine32*]

(01-03-2020, 04:28 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The world is better off without this person, but is he worth starting a war over? There's something to be said about holding Iran accountable for their proxy attacks, but does that mean assassinating a foreign leader in a likely illegal manner and then briefing Russia before Congress?

Obama and Bush pushed the limits of executive power with regards to drone strikes, including Obama killing an American citizen under the age of 18. I was really critical of their policies, but this act might just be plain dumb. What strategic gain was made? It just seems like it was done without thought for revenge or to start a conflict.

**** the hawks but also **** Rose McGowan for her dumb ass tweet.

This is a reasoned response. I disagree with the "illegal manner" aspect; however, your position remains constant.

[Arturo Bandini]

(01-03-2020, 05:23 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I know this distinction will seem trivial, but it gets at the heart of why you see it this way. A US president can't actually declare war. The US has not declared war since WWII and declaring war requires an act of Congress. In 1973, the War Powers Act was entered into law. This stated that a president cannot commit troops to military action longer than 60 days (plus a 30 day withdrawal period) without authorization from Congress either in an Authorization of Use of Military Force (AUMF) or an official declaration of war. This was all done to prevent another Vietnam and to regain some Congressional authority in our military as they are the branch that is supposed to be declaring war.

The AUMF passed in 2001 against terrorism is what is being used currently to justify military actions all over the globe, really. Congress essentially gave Bush, Obama, and now Trump a blank check to start wars in the name of "fighting terrorism." This would be one of the main reasons that it was decided to name the IRGC as a terrorist organization.

Well, "officially" not at war

China 1945-46

Korea 1950-53

China 1950-53

Guatemala 1954

Indonesia 1958

Cuba 1959-60

Guatemala 1960

Belgian Congo 1964

Guatemala 1964

Dominican Republic 1965-66

Peru 1965

Laos 1964-73

Vietnam 1961-73

Cambodia 1969-70

Guatemala 1967-69

Lebanon 1982-84

Grenada 1983-84

Libya 1986

El Salvador 1981-92

Nicaragua 1981-90

Iran 1987-88

Libya 1989

Panama 1989-90

Iraq 1991

Kuwait 1991

Somalia 1992-94

Bosnia 1995

Iran 1998

Sudan 1998

Afghanistan 1998

Yugoslavia – Serbia 1999

Afghanistan 2001

Libya 2011


That's many countries.

[fredtoast]

(01-03-2020, 05:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If that government sanctioned the targeting of US civilians then yes; 

Did they?

[Belsnickel]

(01-03-2020, 05:47 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: Well, "officially" not at war

China 1945-46

Korea 1950-53

China 1950-53

Guatemala 1954

Indonesia 1958

Cuba 1959-60

Guatemala 1960

Belgian Congo 1964

Guatemala 1964

Dominican Republic 1965-66

Peru 1965

Laos 1964-73

Vietnam 1961-73

Cambodia 1969-70

Guatemala 1967-69

Lebanon 1982-84

Grenada 1983-84

Libya 1986

El Salvador 1981-92

Nicaragua 1981-90

Iran 1987-88

Libya 1989

Panama 1989-90

Iraq 1991

Kuwait 1991

Somalia 1992-94

Bosnia 1995

Iran 1998

Sudan 1998

Afghanistan 1998

Yugoslavia – Serbia 1999

Afghanistan 2001

Libya 2011


That's many countries.

Oh, I know. I was just explaining these past 18 years of perpetual war.

[*bfine32*]

(01-03-2020, 06:15 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Did they?

It appears by their verbal response that they do. 

[fredtoast]

(01-03-2020, 06:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It appears by their verbal response that they do. 

Then this is where we differ.

I am okay with killing terrorists that have targeted Americans, but I am not okay with declaring war with Iran over this.

Do we have the proof to show the world to justify declaring war on Iran?  Your answer seems a little fuzzy, and I seem to recall Iran denying that they were supporting these terror organizations.

As I have said before, I do not support taking military action against another country that has not attacked us unless we are part of a broad coalition of countries.  After all that WMD bullshit in Iraq I think we will need some pretty clear evidence to form a coalition against Iran.

We had a broad coalition of countries on our side when we were negotiating the anti-nuclear treaty and that is the main reason it was successful.  But Trump threw all that out the window when he backed out of the agreement.

But what could possibly go wrong with the US going alone in starting a war in the middle east?  I can't think of us ever having any problems with stuff like that in the past.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Is this the same as Gavrilo Princip assassinating the Arch Duke?

[Arturo Bandini]

There are some truth in there.

[Benton]

Going after terrorists directly related to the 9-11 attacks was fine.

Occupying portions of the ME, getting into conflict with an ever changing dance card and spending trillions of dollars we don't have is not ok.

There's lots of crappy people in the world. It's not our job to decide which ones are bad enough to blow up and which ones are less bad and only require us withholding money we don't really have to spend, either.

America is a destination for people wanting to be more free, not a product we need to market through our military.

[jj22]

I'm here to vote present.

I can't say anything negative about the move. So I yield the thread.

[*bfine32*]

Who won the US v. Iran war that started over the Strait of Hormuz incidents?

[*bfine32*]

(01-03-2020, 09:22 PM)jj22 Wrote: I'm here to vote present.

I can't say anything negative about the move. So I yield the thread.

What a pleasant surprise. 

[Au165]

(01-03-2020, 09:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Who won the US v. Iran war that started over the Strait of Hormuz incidents?

Did we assassinate a high ranking general of a sovereign state during those incidents? If not, I can't say I see the similarities to the incidents. Also, did that incident get our troops thrown out of a country?

[Au165]

Side note: I really liked the part where Trump threatened to bomb cultural sites, which is a war crime. We literally changed which city we were going to nuke in WW2 as to avoid destroying many of Japanese important cultural sites.

[GMDino]

(01-06-2020, 09:33 AM)Au165 Wrote: Side note: I really liked the part where Trump threatened to bomb cultural sites, which is a war crime. We literally changed which city we were going to nuke in WW2 as to avoid destroying many of Japanese important cultural sites.

Indeed.  And his cult loves it.

And he's going to sanction our "ally" Iraq if they don't get in line.

Also there was some debate awhile back about if DJT's tweets count as official policy.

He seems to believe they do.