100 Marines to Baghdad (Iran conflict discussion)(Reopened & Merged) (2 Viewers)

Archies Ghost said:

This is poor analysis based upon a flawed reading of the Trump voter.

Trump has to avoid starting a war, especially a war viewed as unnecessary, in order to hold on to his base.

A ground war with Iran is not in Trump's interest politically. It also happens to be in our national interest.

Iran is trying to provoke the United States into the sort of mess that will get Trump out of office. Iran cannot survive 5 more years of the present sanctions.

Click to expand...

I’m sorry but there is no internal logic to a trump voter - no overriding philosophy
They are like trump tweets, only beholden to the moment and likely to be contradictory in short order
Time and again they are shown to believe what they are told to believe- no verification needed or wanted

wardorican said:

Just hope we're prepared for the response. It won't be all out war. But expect massive cyber attacks, perhaps some terrorist attacks, potentially US service members ambushed.

as Yashar states in the tweet thread above, this is like killing a VP of a foreign country.

Click to expand...

superchuck500 said:

Click to expand...

I remember hearing a little of the controversy over targeted killing during the Obama Administration but did not pay close attention. Why would any extra authority be necessary for a targeted killing during a time of war? Assuming you can tie the killing to the purpose of the Congressional Authorization then what else is necessary according to those who see a problem?

This sort of, though far from exactly, ties into the question of why are congressional democrats saying that Trump needed to consult with Congress over this. Do they believe that the President has no authority to carry out such acts under the existing war on terror?

JimEverett said:

I remember hearing a little of the controversy over targeted killing during the Obama Administration but did not pay close attention. Why would any extra authority be necessary for a targeted killing during a time of war? Assuming you can tie the killing to the purpose of the Congressional Authorization then what else is necessary according to those who see a problem?

This sort of, though far from exactly, ties into the question of why are congressional democrats saying that Trump needed to consult with Congress over this. Do they really believe that the President has no authority to carry out such acts under the existing war on terror?

Click to expand...

The biggest uproar i recall about Obama's targeted killing involved the killing of a US citizen , Anwar Al Awlaki.

So it may have been a bit more complicated than our current situation.

So it begins again:






Get forked Ny Times

samiam5211 said:

The biggest uproar i recall about Obama's targeted killing involved the killing of a US citizen , Anwar Al Awlaki.

So it may have been a bit more complicated than our current situation.

Click to expand...

Yes, I think that is true. Although was there not more than one assassination? I just don't remember.

Anyway - I think we are seeing the consequences of Congress, A. - giving the President far too broad a power under the Authorization of the Use of Force for the war on terror, and B. - the open-ended nature of that power, and C. little-to-no political will to end the war.

Regardless of what you may think about targeting this Iranian and its consequences, I do think a President should have to formally justify such an act, but I am not sure anyone who argues such has much of an argument to force the issue. Congress has given him the power.

Archies Ghost said:

I stand by what I posted. Trump is going to avoid any sort of ground operation against Iran and Iran is going to continue to try to escalate and force his hand.

Click to expand...

This is farcical.

A ground invasion of Tehran ends in the overthrow of the Ayatollah and the rest of the current regime. They don’t want that.

You also seem to imply that Trump would avoid a ground war because he ran on getting out of unnecessary wars and his voters would hold him accountable for getting us into another one. But you know there’s no chance Trump voters will turn on him over anything, much less this. Quite the contrary, this move will solidify his base, even though he ran on getting out of the Middle East. Trump voters have been shown time and time again to be as hypocritical as their leader.

This was an entirely predictable response to impeachment.

When I first heard about this last night, my first thought was, "How does this benefit Putin?". If the Iraqi's follow through and expel American forces from Iraq, there is my answer.

Archies Ghost said:

I stand by what I posted. Trump is going to avoid any sort of ground operation against Iran and Iran is going to continue to try to escalate and force his hand.

Click to expand...

Then he will be perceived as soft and malleable. He is backing himself into a corner and will have only 2 options on the table.

Something many were concerned with 4 years ago.

As a veteran, the last thing any service member wants, is a CoC who cannot make a decision either way. That leads to chaos and loss.

JimEverett said:

Yes, I think that is true. Although was there not more than one assassination? I just don't remember.

Anyway - I think we are seeing the consequences of Congress, A. - giving the President far too broad a power under the Authorization of the Use of Force for the war on terror, and B. - the open-ended nature of that power, and C. little-to-no political will to end the war.

Regardless of what you may think about targeting this Iranian and its consequences, I do think a President should have to formally justify such an act, but I am not sure anyone who argues such has much of an argument to force the issue. Congress has given him the power.

Click to expand...

I'm sure Obama had more than one questionable targeted droning, but I specifically remember Anwar Al Awlaki, because a U.S. citizen was denied even the facade of due process and given the death penalty.

We need to reevaluate the entire Patroit Act. Terrorism has changed in the past 15 years, and now that we've seen the law in action for a while, we have a better idea of what the authority it grants looks like when it is used.

Here’s a reasoned response from a member of Congress with the experience to speak about the region. Read the whole thread.

brandon said:

This is farcical.

A ground invasion of Tehran ends in the overthrow of the Ayatollah and the rest of the current regime. They don’t want that.

You also seem to imply that Trump would avoid a ground war because he ran on getting out of unnecessary wars and his voters would hold him accountable for getting us into another one. But you know there’s no chance Trump voters will turn on him over anything, much less this. Quite the contrary, this move will solidify his base, even though he ran on getting out of the Middle East. Trump voters have been shown time and time again to be as hypocritical as their leader.

This was an entirely predictable response to impeachment.

Click to expand...

If Iran actually wanted this to get escalated into a ground war Iran would of declared this officially an act of war and had it by noon.

They don’t want that.

Problem is there is little wiggle room out of this escalatory situation the president has created unless Iran can manage to control a number of nearly autonomous proxies from escalation and decides to look weak to their people after declaring martyrdom and retaliation in the face of a nationalistic public galvanized by this event.

Which means we are basically hoping congress steps in or Iran unilaterally deescalates. Otherwise it is hard to see where the logical endgame is not close to, if not outright war as both sides continue to feel an obligation to retaliate against one another. Despite neither side longing for that end result.

And this is also why you don’t put a ignorant narcissist incapable of complex strategizing in charge of the most powerful machine of war the world has ever known.

samiam5211 said:

I'm sure Obama had more than one questionable targeted droning, but I specifically remember Anwar Al Awlaki, because a U.S. citizen was denied even the facade of due process and given the death penalty.

We need to reevaluate the entire Patroit Act. Terrorism has changed in the past 15 years, and now that we've seen the law in action for a while, we have a better idea of what the authority it grants looks like when it is used.

Click to expand...

Why the Patriot Act? Do some people claim support for targeted killings is found in the Patriot Act?

JimEverett said:

Why the Patriot Act? Do some people claim support for targeted killings is found in the Patriot Act?

Click to expand...

I've never heard anyone claim that. I wasn't saying that the Patroit act was responsible for granting the president the authority for targeted killings, but i see how the context could have led you to that conclusion. The Patriot act is another example of where we've given the government broad authority that could easily be abused, and we shouldn't wait for some terrible example of abuse to take a look at it.

MT15 said:

Here’s a reasoned response from a member of Congress with the experience to speak about the region. Read the whole thread.

Click to expand...

Good thread, except, there should absolutely be no presumption that the administrations rationale of self defense is being made in good faith.

Not after what was just released about the lies about Afghanistan, not after the Iraq War, and most pertinently, not after the reputation rightfully earned about this administrations dishonesty and willingness to deceive the American people for self benefit.

That is an unwise conciliatory posture to give any administration, let alone this one.

She doesn’t explicitly offer it, but it is implied that it is correct to trust first and ask for verification later. Not so anymore. It is fair to acknowledge any power bestowed to take these actions, but the first response should be a demand to clearly and comprehensively show the justification for this action as being truly in imminent self defense(which on its face makes absolutely no forking sense). And she doesn’t really make that clear enough.

JimEverett said:

I remember hearing a little of the controversy over targeted killing during the Obama Administration but did not pay close attention. Why would any extra authority be necessary for a targeted killing during a time of war? Assuming you can tie the killing to the purpose of the Congressional Authorization then what else is necessary according to those who see a problem?

This sort of, though far from exactly, ties into the question of why are congressional democrats saying that Trump needed to consult with Congress over this. Do they believe that the President has no authority to carry out such acts under the existing war on terror?

Click to expand...

Does the calculus change depending on who the target is? Most foreign terrorists are not 'state's actors. In this case, while we deemed them terrorists, they are State actors.

If we assassinated the Ayatollah, would the calculus change, vs assassinating a member of ISIS or Al Queda? (With no direct govt ties). I think, yes, it would, a lot.

Pete Buttigieg's statement.