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

Users who are viewing this thread

    We’re gonna try to stay on point in this one -🤞 .

    After the Iranian admission of shooting down the Ukrainian 737, which was carrying 82 Iranian passengers, protests against the Supreme Leader have broken out.

    The UK ambassador to Iran has been arrested for talking photos of the protests. President Trump has tweeted support for the protesters in English and Farsi.


     
    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.
    From a practical point, I agree.
    From the standpoint of congressional authorization, I think not. There is too much precedent surrounding the 2001 authorization that allows the President to use force against any organization or nation that he deems to be a terrorist.
     


    Iranian state TV carried a statement by Khamenei also calling Soleimani “the international face of resistance.” Khamenei declared three days of public mourning for the general’s death.

    “Martyrdom was the reward for his ceaseless efforts all these years,” Khamenei said on his Farsi-language Twitter account in reference to Soleimani.

    “With him gone, God willing, his work and his path will not be stopped, but severe revenge awaits the criminals who bloodied their foul hands with his blood and other martyrs in last night’s incident.”

    Maybe we'll get 3 days of quiet before they act.
     
    FB_IMG_1578074353637.jpg


    Pete Buttigieg's statement.
    It’s interesting how most Democrats have framed their messaging here.

    There’s a lot of ways to open your statements, interesting how three of the four front runners felt the need to open with a pander to American Exceptionalism and the Republicans moral justification for this action.

    Bernie initially did not do this and I think it made his messaging more clear and unable to be muddied. They all essentially make the same arguments, but only Bernie thought it unwise/unnecessary to dedicate his opening statement to backing the Republican moral framing of this assassination. I think he is correct in doing so after reading them all and the initial reactions on the left and right. Because as with Iraq, the messaging war is not going to be won when your opponents can claim you are simply in alignment with their moral justifications and get bogged down having to thread the needle of signaling you are happy this guy is dead but disagree on the tactics, instead of simply leading and sticking to your core message that Pete and others do articulate well in the rest of their responses.

    Though Bernie is about to speak and it will be interesting if he also feels the pressure togive lip service to our ingrained sense of exceptionalism


    Edit: he did not, and crappy video aside I think actually made a stronger argument than his initial statement. Focusing on painting a clear arc of how this started with the abandonment of diplomacy and unilaterally breaking the Iran agreement to how Trumps actions and decisions as president, both in his domestic and foreign sphere, continue to be increasingly escalatory and dangerous. Using the same set of justifications from the same people that led us into Iraq. It’s not gonna get the beltway brownie points from pundits up their own arse, but it comes across as a far more clear and concise articulation of the Democratic opposition and concerns, while tying it to tangible policy decisions that can only be rooted out through electoral and structural change. Say what you will about Bernie, and he is not my first choice, but few in our lifetimes have been better at distilling complex political machinations and conveying clear, concise, and largely defensible solutions to those problems...While also just being on the right side of history.
     
    Last edited:
    So how does everyone feel about Eric Trump tweeting about the attack before it happened. He doesn't have clearance and isn't even a federal employee. Also, he knew about it and the congress didn't.
    It’s outrageous assuming verified, but his support base and defenders won’t care.

    As evidenced by the crickets you can hear across the right wing ecosystem to this facet of the assassination.
     
    Last edited:
    So how does everyone feel about Eric Trump tweeting about the attack before it happened. He doesn't have clearance and isn't even a federal employee. Also, he knew about it and the congress didn't.

    They will just say that, as president, Trump can declassify and reclassify things at will and we should get over it.

    I bet Eric and Jr went and made sure their bone spur diagnosis's were up to date a few days ago.
     
    They will just say that, as president, Trump can declassify and reclassify things at will and we should get over it.

    I bet Eric and Jr went and made sure their bone spur diagnosis's were up to date a few days ago.
    GOP leadership from congress wasn't informed either. Not a good look. Doubt anything comes from it but this garbage does build up and if Mitch ever grew a pair he might call him out on it.
     
    So how does everyone feel about Eric Trump tweeting about the attack before it happened. He doesn't have clearance and isn't even a federal employee. Also, he knew about it and the congress didn't.
    If he knew about it then it is awful and something should be done about it - what, exactly, I do not know. But I do not think that tweet, assuming it is the tweet you are talking about, indicates he knew.
     
    If he knew about it then it is awful and something should be done about it - what, exactly, I do not know. But I do not think that tweet, assuming it is the tweet you are talking about, indicates he knew.
    I agree. He could have just been talking about the 100 marines sent there. He's just throwing bravado. Anyone claiming he knew of the specific strike was coming, based on that tweet is bending the information. Sorry.

    Now, he may have known. But this tweet isnt enough to make a good judgement.

    IMG_20200103_142618.png
     
    From a practical point, I agree.
    From the standpoint of congressional authorization, I think not. There is too much precedent surrounding the 2001 authorization that allows the President to use force against any organization or nation that he deems to be a terrorist.
    That's where my limited knowledge is out classed. Does the use of force authorization allow for anyone? Might be worth looking at the limits there.
     
    That's where my limited knowledge is out classed. Does the use of force authorization allow for anyone? Might be worth looking at the limits there.
    The authorization itself is broad, although arguably not broad enough to give the President almost free-reign. But the subsequent acts, by both the President and Congress have set the precedent that the PResident is able to act against any entity deemed a terrorist.
    You can see this in one of the announcements (I think the DoD announcement) of this particular strike - where there is a focus on the target being a terrorist and being in charge of a group listed as a terrorist organization.

    Superchuck's post of a guy's tweet is, generally speaking, making a similar or same argument. Once the deed is done based on all this precedent it rings hollow to claim the PResident needs to consult or didn't have the authority to order such a strike.
    Although even on the later point the Administration seems to focus a good deal of energy on pointing out this Iranian was about to kill more Americans thus giving the President the power to kill him even absent direct congressional authorization, although in that case Congress would have a much longer leg to stand on as far as demanding consultation.
     
    As I said on the previous board, Iran is playing high stakes chicken. They desperately need sanctions to end, which means get Trump out of office.

    An unpopular war would do that. The trick is to start a war with the that is two things, unpopular with Trump’s base and not ruinous to Iran.

    Attacking the embassy was a bit of a mistake. Soleimani getting killed is a major blow to Iranian prestige but may motivate some fence sitters.

    This was a bit earlier than I expected. I didn’t think Iran would start pushing hard until late spring.

    Maybe they thought an embassy takeover and hostage crisis would help with impeachment.

    We can’t say times aren’t interesting.
    That is my original post in this thread.

    Iran doesn’t want a US invasion of Iran but they desperately need to provoke the sort of ground response that would be widely unpopular in the Middle East.

    Trump has dealt a wildcard to the Iranians by killing a high profile Iranian. They have to respond dramatically or look like their threats are empty.

    Trump has to remain judicious in response.

    Personally, I much prefer the targeted strikes against high ranking targets whose names we already know versus killing low level foot soldiers. I think it is more effective.
     
    I agree. He could have just been talking about the 100 marines sent there. He's just throwing bravado. Anyone claiming he knew of the specific strike was coming, based on that tweet is bending the information. Sorry.

    Now, he may have known. But this tweet isnt enough to make a good judgement.

    IMG_20200103_142618.png


    This is coming from the son of a sitting US President. I dont read it anywhere near he knew about the airstrike.

    I read it as he is playing a video game and has no real vested interest in who dies or lives.

    Its privilege disguised as bravado.

    and utterly disrespectful to the 100 Marines that got dispatched to that region.
     
    That is my original post in this thread.

    Iran doesn’t want a US invasion of Iran but they desperately need to provoke the sort of ground response that would be widely unpopular in the Middle East.

    Trump has dealt a wildcard to the Iranians by killing a high profile Iranian. They have to respond dramatically or look like their threats are empty.

    Trump has to remain judicious in response.

    Personally, I much prefer the targeted strikes against high ranking targets whose names we already know versus killing low level foot soldiers. I think it is more effective.
    So taking your scenario and assumptions at face value(I think your assessment of the Iranian goal here is not correct, but it can be saved for later), you seem to support this escalation, suggest Iran will be forced to respond in kind, so what do we do when they respond as dramatically as you say they will? I have my thoughts, but let’s hear yours.
     
    GOP leadership from congress wasn't informed either. Not a good look. Doubt anything comes from it but this garbage does build up and if Mitch ever grew a pair he might call him out on it.

    I read a headline saying that Lindsay Graham was informed.
     
    I read a headline saying that Lindsay Graham was informed.
    Because he was golfing with Trump from what i.

    Which indicates much of this, once again, was conducted outside the normal channels of national security protocol and processs, and would be a moment of outrage had Obama or any Democrat conducted crucial national security in this manner.
     
    Was Eric with them on the golf course?
    That would be interesting to check. But also if Trump did brief Graham Monday or Tuesday, that also throws cold water on the first attempt at justifying this action by the administration, which was as a necessary and hasty response to an emergent imminent threat Soleimani posed.

    I’m guessing though this won’t be the final narrative and the next few days will be yet another pick your own adventure from his supporters selecting what shifting spin they prefer and thinks suits them best.

    Edit: and it seems like Mike Pence is in for the freshest spin yet, claiming Iran, with Soleimani’s help, a Shiite country, not our ally Saudi’s Arabia, was the principle vasel through which Al Qaeda, a Sunni group mostly from Saudi Arabia, was carried out. So everyone get emotionally triggered and praise dear leader for bombing the bad man!

    This is really circa 2002 all over again with this nonsense. Hope America finally learned some lessons...
     
    Last edited:

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom