100 Marines to Baghdad (Iran conflict discussion)(Reopened & Merged) (1 Viewer)

samiam5211 said:

I don't really see how the AUMF should be applicable to any of the current operations we have going on.

None of the people we are fighting planned, authorized, committed, or aided any of the terrorists involved with the attacks on 911.

Click to expand...

samiam5211 said:

I don't really see how the AUMF should be applicable to any of the current operations we have going on.

None of the people we are fighting planned, authorized, committed, or aided any of the terrorists involved with the attacks on 911.

Click to expand...

JimEverett said:

Its an interesting set of questions, I think - although it is probably mostly academic.
First, the 2001 AUMF has been expanded by precedent, Obama using it to justify all sorts of military campaigns like Libya and Syria; and by Congress itself when it widened it to include a phrase [like] "associated forces." As in "al-queda and associated forces."
There is also the 2002 AUMF which authorizes use of force to deal with the threat of Iraq. You can interprest that narrowly to mean simply the threat posed by Husseinn's Iraq, or more broadly in terms of any threa within Iraq. The latter view seems to be how it is being used. Although I am not 100% sure on that - seems like it would depend on if the basis for continuing military operations in Iraq after the topple of the Hussein regime was still, essentially, dealing with defeating Sunni insurgents that were part of that regme.
I think Obama primarily relied on the 2001 AUMF for his fight with ISIS, but that is probably due to the fight being carried over into Syria - he used the 2002 as a secondary source.

Click to expand...

samiam5211 said:

Yea, this is the problem. I don't see how it should even have included the fight against ISIS. Not to say that ISIS shouldn't have been dealt with, but these broad interpretations should be challenged much more than it appears they have been.

I mean, couldn't this just go on into perpetuity. There will probably be militant groups in the Middle East long after anyone alive today is still around, and they could all be connected back to 911 if we're going to look at it like six degrees from Kevin Bacon.

We could be fighting people connected to 911 500 years from now i guess.

Click to expand...

JimEverett said:

Meant to be "We" not "W"

I think Archie's Ghost and Chuck's comments about our objective with Iran is roughly what I think.
I don't know if killing Soleimani will help or hurt in achieving those objectives. I think we needed to do something, although that doesn't mean we picked the best option of those presented: I don't know either way.

Same with the second question. I had posted about the growing sentiment against Iran and sort of wondering if this was taken into account in our latest acts.

I think Iran is feeling boxed in and wants to put pressure on us in some way or another. I don;t know if I would go as far as aRchie in saying that it is about hurting Trump's chances for re-election, but that seems plausible.


I also don't know if Iran truly wants us out of Iraq. I mean clearly they say they do. But I have doubts simply because us being there provides them with certain benefits - like being able to use our presence as propaganda, being able to hurt troops for whatever purpose, and also our shared fight against ISIS. I mean its not as if our presence there is having much effect on the hearts and minds of the population - we are basically just holed up in the Green Zone with little-to-no interaction with Iraqis.

Click to expand...

dtc said:

Iran wants us out so they can do what they want without us in Iraq.

We just got told to leave Iraq by Iraq.

Iran wins. Trump and the US lost.

Now, we have spent a trillion dollars to prevent Iran from controlling Iraq and the rest of the region and Trump seems to have shirt the bed.

We are leaving and you're acting like that was his plan. It wasn't and I don't care a bit about killing some Iranian terrorist. Kill them all for all I care, but do it in a way that's smart and protects the investment we've already made.

Instead, we got golfing Trump assassinating a foreign official and his son posting pictures of himself with an AR with HIllary Clinton's face on it.

On what planet is that a victory?

Click to expand...

Farb said:

I know everyone that dislikes Trump (one can argue however they like but that is the root of the reason, just like a lot of Repubs didn't like the Obama drone wars) will view this dude as a wonderful shining light of peace and hope.

Click to expand...

coldseat said:

Who is "this dude"? The Iranian general we just killed?

You're post was a little confusing, not really sure what point you where trying to make.

Click to expand...

reubenray said:

Here is an hypothetical question. What happens if Iran has gun/missile emplacements, etc. at these so called cultural sites? Other countries has done this in the past.

Click to expand...

reubenray said:

Here is an hypothetical question. What happens if Iran has gun/missile emplacements, etc. at these so called cultural sites? Other countries has done this in the past.

Click to expand...

Nebaghead said:

I think that makes them legal targets. If you are getting at Trump was saying Cultural Targets because they house military hardware, that is a stretch. He didnt say we will bomb all your Military targets even if you hide them in cultural locations. He was trying to talk tough and has no idea what the guidelines for International Law are. Remember the reports that come out about him asking why cant we bomb this or do that and his military leaders having to explain to him that isn't an option.

Click to expand...

reubenray said:

Here is an hypothetical question. What happens if Iran has gun/missile emplacements, etc. at these so called cultural sites? Other countries has done this in the past.

Click to expand...

Joe Okc said:

And what evidence do you have of this? a few thousand at the Generals funeral... Do you know how many are hoping for a regime change?

I am not going to say that this decision was right or wrong... But somebody had to plan the attacks... and something was done.. At least Trump is not just sitting by.. He gave Iran two or three passes... But they kept pushing.. and Killing Americans was just the straw that broke the camel back.

Click to expand...

reubenray said:

Here is an hypothetical question. What happens if Iran has gun/missile emplacements, etc. at these so called cultural sites? Other countries has done this in the past.

Click to expand...

Article 9. Immunity of cultural property under special protection

The High Contracting Parties undertake to ensure the immunity of cultural property under special protection by refraining, from the time of entry in the International Register, from any act of hostility directed against such property and, except for the cases provided for in paragraph 5 of Article 8, from any use of such property or its surroundings for military purposes.

Article 11. Withdrawal of immunity

1. If one of the High Contracting Parties commits, in respect of any item of cultural property under special protection, a violation of the obligations under Article 9, the opposing Party shall, so long as this violation persists, be released from the obligation to ensure the immunity of the property concerned. Nevertheless, whenever possible, the latter Party shall first request the cessation of such violation within a reasonable time.

2. Apart from the case provided for in paragraph 1 of the present Article, immunity shall be withdrawn from cultural property under special protection only in exceptional cases of unavoidable military necessity, and only for such time as that necessity continues. Such necessity can be established only by the officer commanding a force the equivalent of a division in size or larger. Whenever circumstances permit, the opposing Party shall be notified, a reasonable time in advance, of the decision to withdraw immunity.

3. The Party withdrawing immunity shall, as soon as possible, so inform the Commissioner-General for cultural property provided for in the Regulations for the execution of the Convention, in writing, stating the reasons.

Click to expand...