Iran Situation

[jj22]

(01-09-2020, 04:25 PM)Au165 Wrote: This attitude is how political posturing evolves into people getting  killed. No "history book" will care about this because no American lives were lost over it. Why should it end on our terms? Because we are America? This way of thinking is narcissistic but yet many Americans still think this way. We are not rulers of the world, we are not above the law, and we are not the moral authority. We need to get over ourselves and understand we can turn the other cheek and walk away at times rather than throwing billions of dollars and countless lives at something for nothing more than a flex.

I understand. But that is where I disagree. People don't want us to police the world. And I get it. But I don't mind. If we can and have and done so so well to keep America homeland safe then we have to do what we have to do. Fight them there and not here. Keep your enemy's close. Never again can we not be involved overseas and a Hitler come to power. Isolating us doesn't make us safe. It makes us out of tough and unaware. Playing baseball and living the American dream while the rest of the world burns as we did leading up to WWII until Japan attacked and Americans finally got on board. Next time however the homeland may be hit and I'd rather police the world then live that moment.

[Matt_Crimson]

Iran has now invited the US to participate in the investigation of the Ukrainian plane crash. Wow, what a surprise (sarcasm).

[BmorePat87]

(01-09-2020, 05:54 PM)GMDino Wrote: Thinking about all this today and just had this thought:

My wife was pregnant with our second child when 9/11 happened.  I remember laying in bed talking with her as we watched the news and wondering what kind of world we were bringing another child into.  

He turned 18 today and not only are we STILL at war over 9/11 now we don't know if there will be an extension of that war in a third country.  One that he could conceivably have to fight in if they would be crazy enough to try and reinstitute the draft.

Crazy.

There won’t be a draft over Iran. The military doesn’t need a draft anyways.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(01-09-2020, 07:24 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: There won’t be a draft over Iran. The military doesn’t need a draft anyways.

Be prepared to get an emoji response.

The dish of the day isn't rationality, Bmore. It's hysterics.

[GMDino]

(01-09-2020, 07:24 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: There won’t be a draft over Iran. The military doesn’t need a draft anyways.

Which is why I said "if they were crazy enough" to try and start one again.

As long as we make 18 year olds sign up there is a list of fresh meat for old men to throw at a war if enough lunatics get that idea.

[GMDino]

(01-09-2020, 07:26 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Be prepared to get an emoji response.

The dish of the day isn't rationality, Bmore. It's hysterics.

Clearly I was "hysterical" when I spoke of an 18 year war and having to register for a draft that I said wouldn't exist unless people were crazy enough to do it. 

Clearly.

[BmorePat87]

Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in response to the Congressional push to limit Trump’s ability to go to war with Iran

“You know, I can’t think of anything dumber than allowing Congress to take over our foreign policy. They can’t seem to manage to get much of anything done. I think the last thing we want to do is push powers into Congress’ hands and take them away from the president.”

Of course, Congress has the power to declare war, along with other military and foreign policy related powers and roles.

Justin Amash said:

Sarah Sanders can’t think of anything dumber than the Constitution.

[BmorePat87]

Doug Collins, who may be the biggest ******* in Congress, said:

They’re in love with terrorists. We see that. They mourn Soleimani more than they mourn our Gold Star families who are the ones who suffered under Soleimani.”

When asked about his comments, Tammy Duckworth responded:

“I'm not going to dignify that with a response. I left parts of my body in Iraq fighting terrorists. I don't need to justify myself to anyone,”

[hollodero]

(01-09-2020, 08:01 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Doug Collins, who may be the biggest ******* in Congress, said:

They’re in love with terrorists. We see that. They mourn Soleimani more than they mourn our Gold Star families who are the ones who suffered under Soleimani.”

Yeah but enough people buy that.

And enough others think it's just the same amount of wrong as AOC using the term "concentration camp".

Those folks can say anything these days.

[GMDino]

I don't know if this means he is drink or sober.

I represent more troops than any other member of this body. I buried one of them earlier today at Arlington.

If our servicemembers have the courage to fight and die in these wars, Congress ought to have the courage to vote for or against them.

I’m voting for this resolution. pic.twitter.com/cSCBG7CmIm

— Rep. Matt Gaetz (@RepMattGaetz) January 9, 2020

 

[GMDino]

Welp.

Pence begins Trump's rally in Toledo by giving up the game about Soleimani strike: "When 1 American life was lost at the hands of Iranian-backed militias just a few short weeks ago, POTUS launched the first airstrikes against them in 10 years." (So long "imminent threat." pic.twitter.com/a1E2IzVpyh

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 10, 2020

 

[*bfine32*]

House Democrats don't feel Trump's war powers should be limited.

[GMDino]

(01-09-2020, 10:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: House Democrats don't feel Trump's war powers should be limited.

Quote:Meet the lawmakers who bucked their parties on vote to limit Trump’s war powers
Eight Democrats opposed the resolution, while three Republicans supported it


The House voted largely along party lines Thursday to adopt a resolution directing President Donald Trump to not use military force against Iran without congressional approval unless it was necessary to defend Americans.


But 11 lawmakers, mostly Democrats, bucked their parties on the vote. Most of those Democrats face competitive reelections this year.

Michigan Democrat Elissa Slotkin, a former CIA analyst and Shia militia expert facing reelection in a swing district, sponsored the resolution amid a tense faceoff between Iran and the United States. Iran responded to the U.S. killing of its military commander Qassem Soleimani by firing missile strikes on two American bases in Iraq. While Trump announced Wednesday that the situation was deescalating, the House moved to reassert its power to declare war. Democrats largely supported the resolution, while Republicans mostly opposed it.

Eight Democrats broke with their party and voted against the resolution. Seven of them represent districts Trump won in 2016. Three Republicans voted for it, as did Michigan independent Justin Amash, a former Republican.


The resolution was similar to an amendment from California Democrat Ro Khanna that was attached to the National Defense Authorization Act when it passed the House in July. That language was stripped from the bill when it was reconciled with the Senate version. Khanna’s amendment barred federal funds from being used for the use of military force against Iran without congressional approval. Seven Democrats voted against Khanna’s amendment, while 27 Republicans supported it, so some defections were expected Thursday night.

"hyperbole" 

[Matt_Crimson]

(01-09-2020, 10:39 PM)GMDino Wrote: Welp.

Pence begins Trump's rally in Toledo by giving up the game about Soleimani strike: "When 1 American life was lost at the hands of Iranian-backed militias just a few short weeks ago, POTUS launched the first airstrikes against them in 10 years." (So long "imminent threat." pic.twitter.com/a1E2IzVpyh

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 10, 2020

 

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.

[GMDino]

(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.

Nope.  Didn't say anything like that.

Merely pointing out that the "reasoning" of the "imminent threat" isn't being used any more by the same people who claimed it and defended it.

[Matt_Crimson]

(01-09-2020, 11:05 PM)GMDino Wrote: Merely pointing out that the "reasoning" of the "imminent threat" isn't being used any more by the same people who claimed it and defended it.

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.

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.

[BmorePat87]

(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.

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.

His legal justification for the attack without Congressional notification hinges on the imminent threat. That was the point of the briefing from last night, the one where two Republicans walked away and said that no real evidence was shown of a specific threat and that it was poorly run. 

[GMDino]

(01-09-2020, 11:46 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: His legal justification for the attack without Congressional notification hinges on the imminent threat. That was the point of the briefing from last night, the one where two Republicans walked away and said that no real evidence was shown of a specific threat and that it was poorly run. 

Exactly.  But to be fair by this weekend DJT will do something else that will cover up this and the news cycle will move on so I don't expect anyone to care about it now either.

[*bfine32*]

(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.

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.

This is most likely why Dems voted not to restrict his war powers. 

[Benton]

(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.

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 first two put the power and responsibility on Congress, who, judging by the past, most likely wouldn't have used any power and wouldn't have addressed their responsibility. That's opinion on my part based off their inability to deal with responsibilities for decades now, outside of lowering their own taxes. That's mostly unanimous, and I guess they at least are effective at that.

The third one is the issue that's being debated in Congress. From the briefing, two Republicans and several Democrats said the administration didn't show evidence of an imminent threat; some Republicans said the administration made a lengthy case for why a foreign official deserved to have military action taken against him (without addressing the imminence issue); and some Republicans said the administration made them feel the threat was imminent.

The POTUS's ability to do what he did is regulated by Congress, both by the War Powers Act and the Constitution. It's a check and balance. Generally, he can act as he did if there's an imminent threat because running it through Congress would most likely take too long to prevent a loss of life. 

If Trump's strike was retaliation for the killing of the contractor, that's outside the scope of powers he's been given. If it was to prevent the killing of another contractor (or solider, embassy worker, whoever) and it was reasonably the only way make sure of that person's safety, then it was inside.

The majority of comments from the briefing seem to be indicating it was a decision based off previous attacks combined with the likelihood there could be future attacks, and not a specific planned one. Which is a very dangerous authority to grant any POTUS.