Buckle up for war, fellas...what happens next?

Ad

  • Fri, Jan 3, 2020 10:33 PM
    posted by gut

    The only non-right wing source for that I could find was Wikipedia.  The guard he was in charge of was labeled a terrorist organization...by the Trump Admin this past April.

    Seems like the Obama designation may have had more to do with subjecting him to stronger sanctions, as the Wiki reference specifically mentions being listed as preventing people and companies from doing business with him or his affiliates.

    So that said, he's the #2 military guy in a foreign country and we just assassinated him.  That's ostensibly a declaration of war, and according to the Constitution that right-wingers love so much that requires Congressional approval.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/2805482001

     

    Jesus...took 30 seconds.  He was the leader of a "TERRORIST" group.  That makes him a terrorist.  

    Him being a Iranian government official is BS.  

    Fri, Jan 3, 2020 10:47 PM
    posted by Spock

    Jesus...took 30 seconds.  He was the leader of a "TERRORIST" group.  That makes him a terrorist.  

    Him being a Iranian government official is BS.  

    You REALLY need to start reading the links you post to make sure they actually say what you think they say.

    The Trump Admin - not Obama - named that group a terrorist organization last April.  Would you like to try again?  It might take you a little longer than 30 seconds this time...

     

    And does it make your brain hurt to consider the implications of naming foreign leaders a terrorist so you can assasinate them?

    Fri, Jan 3, 2020 11:05 PM
    posted by gut

    You REALLY need to start reading the links you post to make sure they actually say what you think they say.

    The Trump Admin - not Obama - named that group a terrorist organization last April.  Would you like to try again?  It might take you a little longer than 30 seconds this time...

     

    And does it make your brain hurt to consider the implications of naming foreign leaders a terrorist so you can assasinate them?

    Does it really matter who and when he was named a terrorist?

     

    And you cant just claim he was declared a terrorist so he could be taken out.  I dont think anyone in  our government would argue your point.

    Fri, Jan 3, 2020 11:29 PM
    posted by Spock

    Does it really matter who and when he was named a terrorist?

    Well, uh... you said it was Obama, so... Yes?

    Sat, Jan 4, 2020 12:11 AM
    posted by gut

    The only non-right wing source for that I could find was Wikipedia.  The guard he was in charge of was labeled a terrorist organization...by the Trump Admin this past April.

    Seems like the Obama designation may have had more to do with subjecting him to stronger sanctions, as the Wiki reference specifically mentions being listed as preventing people and companies from doing business with him or his affiliates.

    So that said, he's the #2 military guy in a foreign country and we just assassinated him.  That's ostensibly a declaration of war, and according to the Constitution that right-wingers love so much that requires Congressional approval.

    It's funny the reaction you get when you point out where Republicans skirt the Constitution.

    Also, fucking hell, Spock.  I've not seen logical gymnastics like this in awhile.

     

     

     

    Sat, Jan 4, 2020 12:41 AM
    posted by Spock

    Does it really matter who and when he was named a terrorist?

     

    And you cant just claim he was declared a terrorist so he could be taken out.  I dont think anyone in  our government would argue your point.

    Oh you can't?   How can you tell?

    I'm not saying the guy's not a 'bad guy', but taking out the #2 in a sovereign state's military outside active combat is about as close to the definition of an act of war as it gets.

    Sat, Jan 4, 2020 8:03 AM
    posted by O-Trap

    Oh you can't?   How can you tell?

    I'm not saying the guy's not a 'bad guy', but taking out the #2 in a sovereign state's military outside active combat is about as close to the definition of an act of war as it gets.

    I cant believe you or anyone else would post anything backing the Iranian government?

    Their whole country is basically a terrorist group.  THis guy is more terrorist then government official.  His job in the government is ground troop mobilization.  He basically takes his terror group minions around the middle east and orchestrates their actions.  

    To act like he is some legit military leader under the direct control of some elected official inside of Iran is a joke, he is a rogue military leader that spends his time directing terror, not Iranian military.

    Sat, Jan 4, 2020 12:54 PM
    posted by O-Trap

    It's funny the reaction you get when you point out where Republicans skirt the Constitution.

    Also, fucking hell, Spock.  I've not seen logical gymnastics like this in awhile.

     

    So, we have one opinion on this thread that basically says that because Trump and Congress aren't on the same page, he is in the right to completely ignore all that "checks and balances" protocol and just do what he wants on a military level without even consulting them. And we have another opinion that has provided an all-time great "move the goalposts" argument that, so far, has gone from:

    He'd been previously named a terrorist by Obama, so this is MY GUY finishing the job he couldn't do!

    No, dude, Trump was the one who named him the terrorist...

    DOES IT MATTER WHO SAID HE WAS A TERRORIST!?!??!

    Well, you're the one who brought it up to say that he's been long considered one...

    WHO CARES!!???!?! He's a bad person with power in a bad country!!!!!

     

    About on the same level as when the whole "where are the WMDs?" question concerning Iraq was going around, with how it also seemed that it was other countries and groups behind 9/11. I was kind of amused at how quickly the vibe went from "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!! Terror is one the run!!!!" to "Well...uh...look at all the happy faces of those people we freed from a dictator!!!" as if our actual goal in the whole proceedings was to blow off us getting attacked to simply help the common folk in an unrelated company.

    Always entertaining to watch the "look at these stupid progressives" people essentially self-owning themselves to illustrate they're no better when it comes to their own fabricated justifications.

    Sat, Jan 4, 2020 3:02 PM

    The President is free to defend the US/ retaliate against terrorists/ or prevent further attacks on our citizens or military without Congress. Trump wasn’t declaring war or making an act of war, therefore he has no reason to tell them. Please tell me how many times Obama got approval from Congress to drone people. Just bc some people on twitter think it was an act of war doesn’t make it so. 

    Sat, Jan 4, 2020 3:29 PM
    posted by Heretic

    So, we have one opinion on this thread that basically says that because Trump and Congress aren't on the same page, he is in the right to completely ignore all that "checks and balances" protocol and just do what he wants on a military level without even consulting them. And we have another opinion that has provided an all-time great "move the goalposts" argument that, so far, has gone from:

    He'd been previously named a terrorist by Obama, so this is MY GUY finishing the job he couldn't do!

    No, dude, Trump was the one who named him the terrorist...

    DOES IT MATTER WHO SAID HE WAS A TERRORIST!?!??!

    Well, you're the one who brought it up to say that he's been long considered one...

    WHO CARES!!???!?! He's a bad person with power in a bad country!!!!!

     

    About on the same level as when the whole "where are the WMDs?" question concerning Iraq was going around, with how it also seemed that it was other countries and groups behind 9/11. I was kind of amused at how quickly the vibe went from "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!! Terror is one the run!!!!" to "Well...uh...look at all the happy faces of those people we freed from a dictator!!!" as if our actual goal in the whole proceedings was to blow off us getting attacked to simply help the common folk in an unrelated company.

    Always entertaining to watch the "look at these stupid progressives" people essentially self-owning themselves to illustrate they're no better when it comes to their own fabricated justifications.

    THe US as part of the voting body of the UN established him, Iran and their paramilitary groups all terrorists during Obamas presidency.  

    Sat, Jan 4, 2020 5:11 PM
    posted by Spock

    THe US as part of the voting body of the UN established him, Iran and their paramilitary groups all terrorists during Obamas presidency.  

    Except the Iran deal took him off.  They ended the sanctions then, and it doesn't make sense to me that they remove sanctions but leave him on a terrorist list. 

    And probably why Trump put them back on the list, since he could do that after backing out of the Iran deal.  Had Obama actually done what you're claiming, then Trump wouldn't have needed to do it, right?

    Sat, Jan 4, 2020 9:17 PM
    posted by gut

    Except the Iran deal took him off.  They ended the sanctions then, and it doesn't make sense to me that they remove sanctions but leave him on a terrorist list. 

    And probably why Trump put them back on the list, since he could do that after backing out of the Iran deal.  Had Obama actually done what you're claiming, then Trump wouldn't have needed to do it, right?

    Good sounds like Trump did the right thing.  I mean after Clinton handed Putin 20% of our enriched uranium then gave Iran $150 billion to buy it from Russia....sounds like Trump needed to put them back on a list of some kind

    Sat, Jan 4, 2020 9:57 PM
    posted by Spock

    I cant believe you or anyone else would post anything backing the Iranian government?

    Their whole country is basically a terrorist group.  THis guy is more terrorist then government official.  His job in the government is ground troop mobilization.  He basically takes his terror group minions around the middle east and orchestrates their actions.  

    To act like he is some legit military leader under the direct control of some elected official inside of Iran is a joke, he is a rogue military leader that spends his time directing terror, not Iranian military.

    Okay, do I need to use smaller sentences?

    Claiming he was a ranking official in Iran and that killing a high-ranking official of any sovereign state would be considered an act of war is not "backing the Iranian government."  If your argument rests on an appeal to outrage revolving around that notion, you're going to have a bad time.

    Second, the fact that they are a sovereign state (an indisputable fact) makes this different than kicking off some Taliban or Al-Qaeda officer.  It means the actions weren't against some nation-less rogue terrorist organization.  It was, in the literalest of senses, the action of one sovereign state against another.  That is THE definition of an act of war.

    In addition, the fact that it is an act of war in every real sense means a formal declaration of war (from Congress, per the Constitution you love to wrap yourself in so much) is necessary.

    This was the same unilateral, unconstitutional military action bullshit that Obama pulled (and, awkwardly enough, identical to what Trump said Obama was going to do).

    I'm not saying you can't still cream your partisan pants each time he does anything, but trying to defend it by pegging Iran as equal to a terrorist group is geopolitical ignorance.

     

    Sat, Jan 4, 2020 10:06 PM
    posted by iclfan2

    The President is free to defend the US/ retaliate against terrorists/ or prevent further attacks on our citizens or military without Congress. Trump wasn’t declaring war or making an act of war, therefore he has no reason to tell them. Please tell me how many times Obama got approval from Congress to drone people. Just bc some people on twitter think it was an act of war doesn’t make it so. 

    I agree with everything you said except the bold.  It definitely is an act of war to intentionally blow up vehicles with high ranking foreign military or diplomatic officials in them.  Its also an act of war to intentionally take down a foreign military asset in international airspace. Its also an act of war to order local militias to fire rockets at foreign military/civilian personnel training the hosting state's security personnel.  Its also an act of war to order an attack on a foreign embassy in an attempt to harm or seize their personnel.

    Those that are clutching their pearls over a "terrorist" designation that is all political.  Its no different than John Kennedy during the Cuban missile crises calling the blockade of Cuba a "quarantine".  It was an act of war.  The Soviets nor the Cubans cared what he called it.  The terminology is meant for those who easily wet themselves over hard words.

    The POTUS has the authority under the constitution as CIC to order acts of war without the consent of Congress.  What the POTUS does not have the authority to do alone is commit the nation to a war footing.  It is always best though when possible to work with Congress.  If after the fact the POTUS would need to present Congress with a solid case.

     

     

     

    Sun, Jan 5, 2020 1:33 AM

    The fucker being in Baghdad is enough for me to say it was a good call to take him out.

    Sun, Jan 5, 2020 2:25 AM
    posted by Heretic

    No, dude, Trump was the one who named him the terrorist...

    DOES IT MATTER WHO SAID HE WAS A TERRORIST!?!??!

    Well, you're the one who brought it up to say that he's been long considered one...

    WHO CARES!!???!?! He's a bad person with power in a bad country!!!!!

     

    Gotta be careful with that justification.  What happens when nations decide we're a bad country?  Think Spock would say it would be justified for them to do the same to us without considering it an act of war?

     

     

    Sun, Jan 5, 2020 9:55 AM
    posted by Spock

    Good sounds like Trump did the right thing.  I mean after Clinton handed Putin 20% of our enriched uranium then gave Iran $150 billion to buy it from Russia....sounds like Trump needed to put them back on a list of some kind

    This is just parroting the Fox/right wing commentators. Do some research on this so you can see the reality. 

    Sun, Jan 5, 2020 1:04 PM
    posted by O-Trap

    Gotta be careful with that justification.  What happens when nations decide we're a bad country?  Think Spock would say it would be justified for them to do the same to us without considering it an act of war?

     

     

    Exactly. Iran is already calling the strike an act of terror. What if they determine to take out an American general in Iraq that they deem is a terrorist? 

    Again, this strike was different than any other strike because we took out someone that was acting under a state actor. That is very murky waters in international and national legal areas.

    Sun, Jan 5, 2020 1:12 PM
    posted by majorspark

    I agree with everything you said except the bold.  It definitely is an act of war to intentionally blow up vehicles with high ranking foreign military or diplomatic officials in them.  Its also an act of war to intentionally take down a foreign military asset in international airspace. Its also an act of war to order local militias to fire rockets at foreign military/civilian personnel training the hosting state's security personnel.  Its also an act of war to order an attack on a foreign embassy in an attempt to harm or seize their personnel.

    Those that are clutching their pearls over a "terrorist" designation that is all political.  Its no different than John Kennedy during the Cuban missile crises calling the blockade of Cuba a "quarantine".  It was an act of war.  The Soviets nor the Cubans cared what he called it.  The terminology is meant for those who easily wet themselves over hard words.

    The POTUS has the authority under the constitution as CIC to order acts of war without the consent of Congress.  What the POTUS does not have the authority to do alone is commit the nation to a war footing.  It is always best though when possible to work with Congress.  If after the fact the POTUS would need to present Congress with a solid case.

     

     

     

    All this is true. That is what makes the imperial Presidency that has grown since the Cold War a concern for those that want to establish balance between the branches. Congress should assert their authority from the President on all of these areas. 

    The conservatives and libertarians on here should be very concerned about the continued growth of power that Bush, Obama, and Trump has taken in terms of foreign policy and strikes. 

    The War Powers Act was supposed to check the President in some sense, but it has been totally ignored by both the President and Congress. 

    Sun, Jan 5, 2020 1:15 PM

    Also, I knew Trump would tweet something stupid, but really, we are going to attack their cultural sites? WTF man. I know he doesn't mean it, but come on. It does not help. 

    Ad