The Iran War

[CAA Flagship]

Which is why the nature of the immediate threat Soleimani imposed needs to be shared. Otherwise it just looks like an
impeached President ordering the assassination of a foreign military leader who’s country we are not currently at war with during an election year without properly consulting congress.

Perhaps that’s still constitutional, I don’t know.

On a side note, even if it was politically motivated I’m not sure it helps Trump. Some indies are ok with his buffoonery as long as he keeps his ding a ling playing to Twitter. But the thought of him as a war time president effecting large scale conflict might push independent voters away.

Shared with who?

And it would be wise to protect the way we obtained the intelligence on his whereabouts. It's possible that the "nature of the threat" may easily lead to the source or method of the information gathering.

Congress is supposed to be briefed soon. Let's see how that goes.

[houndawg]

Whats that on her mouth, herpes?

That was my first thought, but on further inspection it's one of those not quite invisible headset microphones.

The plastic surgeon did a good job around her eyes of hiding the Down's Syndrome

[SeattleGriz]

I keep hearing Trump did this to distract from impeachment. Hadn't his polls risen to pre-impeachment levels?

Essentially, it sounds like a poor talking point.

[kalm]

Which is why the nature of the immediate threat Soleimani imposed needs to be shared. Otherwise it just looks like an
impeached President ordering the assassination of a foreign military leader who’s country we are not currently at war with during an election year without properly consulting congress.

Perhaps that’s still constitutional, I don’t know.

On a side note, even if it was politically motivated I’m not sure it helps Trump. Some indies are ok with his buffoonery as long as he keeps his ding a ling playing to Twitter. But the thought of him as a war time president effecting large scale conflict might push independent voters away.

Shared with who?

And it would be wise to protect the way we obtained the intelligence on his whereabouts. It's possible that the "nature of the threat" may easily lead to the source or method of the information gathering.

Congress is supposed to be briefed soon. Let's see how that goes.

So there’s no way to confidentially brief leaders of both parties (gang of 8 or whatever) prior?

Just “trust me...he’s done some bad things”?

[kalm]

[kalm]

[Winterborn]

[CAA Flagship]

Shared with who?

And it would be wise to protect the way we obtained the intelligence on his whereabouts. It's possible that the "nature of the threat" may easily lead to the source or method of the information gathering.

Congress is supposed to be briefed soon. Let's see how that goes.

So there’s no way to confidentially brief leaders of both parties (gang of 8 or whatever) prior?

Just “trust me...he’s done some bad things”?

Maybe. Maybe not. Who knows how much lead time they had to launch the attack.

Not sure if Osama bid Laden was about to initiate more terror prior to him being taken out. His history was enough. Same with al-Baghdadi.

It was as close to perfect as you can get. He was not in a place where innocent civilians would be collateral damage. Also took out some other "bad guys" with the strike. And it took place in a location that was not his home country. Not sure how often that scenario presents itself.

[JohnStOnge]

I keep hearing Trump did this to distract from impeachment. Hadn't his polls risen to pre-impeachment levels? .

I think what's happened with the polls since the start of impeachment is within the range of expected random variation. In other words: They suggest that things have remained basically the same. When Pelosi announced the start of the impeachment inquiry on September 24 the Real Clear Politics (RCP) averages for Trump's job approval were 45.3% approve and 52.1% disapprove (-6.8 percentage points). As of today they're 45.1% approve and 52.2% disapprove (-7.1 percentage points). Over the interim his RCP average approval has ranged from 41.6% to 45.3% (his average on the date of Pelosi announcing the inquiry was actually the highest of the period). That range is well within what one would expect from random noise.

Me, I don't think the Democrats mind a distraction from impeachment right now in any case. I don't think Pelosi really wanted to do it but the Whistleblower thing forced her hand. No way she could NOT support an inquiry once that happened. RCP averages since that started on October 1 have consistently had more people favoring impeachment inquiry than opposing it. And of course the people they need to turn out during the 2020 elections overwhelmingly favor it. But I think they'd have been better off election wise if there had been no Whistleblower complaint so that the decision never had to be made. I don't think they mind having people talk about something else for a while.

[JohnStOnge]

As for the event itself: All I know is that previous Presidents could have done this and calculated that the negatives of doing so outweighed the positives. So it comes down to whether I think Trump is just some brilliant guy who knows more about world affairs than previous Presidents did. I think you can guess that I don't think that.

[kalm]

So there’s no way to confidentially brief leaders of both parties (gang of 8 or whatever) prior?

Just “trust me...he’s done some bad things”?

Maybe. Maybe not. Who knows how much lead time they had to launch the attack.

Not sure if Osama bid Laden was about to initiate more terror prior to him being taken out. His history was enough. Same with al-Baghdadi.

It was as close to perfect as you can get. He was not in a place where innocent civilians would be collateral damage. Also took out some other "bad guys" with the strike. And it took place in a location that was not his home country. Not sure how often that scenario presents itself.

Sure....the 24 scenario although I’d be surprised if Suleimani himself was going to be executing the terrorist hit.

So I guess we wait for congress to be debriefed?

[HI54UNI]

I think what you mean to say is you have no value. We in the context you are using must include the turd you carry in your pocket. You have nothing in common with a constitutional America. You speak only for yourself. You are not we.

Which is why the nature of the immediate threat Soleimani imposed needs to be shared. Otherwise it just looks like an
impeached President ordering the assassination of a foreign military leader who’s country we are not currently at war with during an election year without properly consulting congress.

Perhaps that’s still constitutional, I don’t know.

On a side note, even if it was politically motivated I’m not sure it helps Trump. Some indies are ok with his buffoonery as long as he keeps his ding a ling playing to Twitter. But the thought of him as a war time president effecting large scale conflict might push independent voters away.

Good job Kalm. I think you hit every major D talking point I've been seeing on Twitter in the last 24 hours.

[CAA Flagship]

Maybe. Maybe not. Who knows how much lead time they had to launch the attack.

Not sure if Osama bid Laden was about to initiate more terror prior to him being taken out. His history was enough. Same with al-Baghdadi.

It was as close to perfect as you can get. He was not in a place where innocent civilians would be collateral damage. Also took out some other "bad guys" with the strike. And it took place in a location that was not his home country. Not sure how often that scenario presents itself.

Sure....the 24 scenario although I’d be surprised if Suleimani himself was going to be executing the terrorist hit.

So I guess we wait for congress to be debriefed?

Why would you be surprised?

[JohnStOnge]

I''m sure someone else must've already said this and I'm not going to go back and read everything to check:

An obvious problem in this situation is that we have an Administration that constantly lies and misleads to an extent beyond that characterizing previous Administrations. A sensible person cannot believe anything the people in this Administration say. So them telling us there was legal justification for the action in the form of an imminent threat is meaningless.

On the other hand, I don't rule out the possibility that this sort of thing could work in concept. You know, keep identifying people in leadership and targeting them for assassination. I think it'd probably be inconsistent with laws and international agreements at some point. But in theory one can see the possibility that it would modify some behavior.

[JohnStOnge]

Another likely "somebody already posted that" thing as it's so obvious but here goes:

https://www.businessinsider.com/pompeo- ... raq-2020-1

They tell us they reduced the likelihood of attacks while at the same time telling everybody to get the hell out due to heightened tensions.

Maybe one can make an argument that the strike will make the world a safer place in the long run. But saying the strike made the world "a safer place today" on the day after the strike does not pass the laugh test.

[HI54UNI]

If you want a few laughs check this out

https://twitter.com/Qasam_Soleimani

[kalm]

Which is why the nature of the immediate threat Soleimani imposed needs to be shared. Otherwise it just looks like an
impeached President ordering the assassination of a foreign military leader who’s country we are not currently at war with during an election year without properly consulting congress.

Perhaps that’s still constitutional, I don’t know.

On a side note, even if it was politically motivated I’m not sure it helps Trump. Some indies are ok with his buffoonery as long as he keeps his ding a ling playing to Twitter. But the thought of him as a war time president effecting large scale conflict might push independent voters away.

Good job Kalm. I think you hit every major D talking point I've been seeing on Twitter in the last 24 hours.

Good job Fiver, for not wanting to debate the substance.

According to Pence now, Soleimani was a part of the 9/11 conspiracy. Quick! Go justify the threat after the fact!

[HI54UNI]

[HI54UNI]

Good job Kalm. I think you hit every major D talking point I've been seeing on Twitter in the last 24 hours.

Good job Fiver, for not wanting to debate the substance.

According to Pence now, Soleimani was a part of the 9/11 conspiracy. Quick! Go justify the threat after the fact!

What's the point of debating? When Obama was doing it all was good. Now Trump is doing it and the role is reversed. Members of both parties were upset when Trump pulled troops out of Syria where there was no declaration of war. Now he offs a terrorist and they are all clutching their pearls.

188 Democrats voted against a provision promoted by Tulsi Gabbard in the recent defense bill that would have limited Trump's authority to use military force in Yemen or Iran. So they can all STFU.

[kalm]

Good job Fiver, for not wanting to debate the substance.

According to Pence now, Soleimani was a part of the 9/11 conspiracy. Quick! Go justify the threat after the fact!

What's the point of debating? When Obama was doing it all was good. Now Trump is doing it and the role is reversed. Members of both parties were upset when Trump pulled troops out of Syria where there was no declaration of war. Now he offs a terrorist and they are all clutching their pearls.

188 Democrats voted against a provision promoted by Tulsi Gabbard in the recent defense bill that would have limited Trump's authority to use military force in Yemen or Iran. So they can all STFU.

1). The point of debating on here is there are some well informed peeps including yourself who’s perspectives I value.

2). There were still some on the left questioning Obama and Hillary regarding foreign policy and international policing.
Gabbard was probably one of them along with some progressive pundits. They often tend to be the anti-corporatist types.

I’ve noticed an increasing amount of Iraq and Afghanistan vets running in Democratic primaries. That’s a positive trend.

[CID1990]

I mentioned before I was not sure what to think about this strike.. I can envision several scenarios (none involve a full on war)

David Petraeus makes some very good points about Iran’s position here:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/03/pe ... eterrence/

For sure though- they really must be wondering about us in Teheran right now. If taking out their Yamamoto is our opening shot then they have to be anxious about what we’ll do next. The “they only respect one thing” doctrine is going to get a good test

[BDKJMU]

“You Can’t Do Anything” – Iranian Leader Ayatollah Khamenei Taunts President Trump on Twitter Following Raid on US Embassy in Baghdad
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/0 ... n-baghdad/
The next day...

[Col Hogan]

A Middle East perspective ...

Top commander's assassination leaves Iran with very few options to retaliate

The scene was indeed set perfectly. Washington could not have chosen a better time, as after a series of protests from Baghdad to Tehran and Beirut, Soleimani had lost some public support and was seen as part of Iran's suppression system against people and their free wills. The attack on the US Embassy in Baghdad had also turned the majority of Iraqi political forces and the international community against Soleimani as the highest — albeit unofficial — leader of the PMU. The location turned out to be perfect as well. The strike took place in Iraqi territory, raising questions among the Iraqi public about the reason for an Iranian general being present in Iraq, especially after accusations facing Iran-backed forces of killing Iraqi protesters and abducting many of them. Selecting a quiet place in the airport also prevented the killing of any civilians that might allow Iran to victimize themselves and demonize the United States.

The reaction of the Iraqi public was not as strong as Iran might have expected. The president, prime minister and most of the Iraqi political parties — including Sunnis, Kurds and Shiites, among them Muqtada al-Sadr's and Ammar al-Hakim's movements — only denounced the event, calling all involved parties in Iraq to be patient and avoid any clash on Iraqi territory.

https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/origin ... aq-us.html

[93henfan]

Hahah. I'm watching the leftists protest in DC. The current speaker actually just mocked the US for flaunting international law.

So I guess attempting to overrun an embassy isn't against international law?

Are these people really as dumb as they pass themselves off to be?

Also, there's a They behind the speaker (honestly can't tell the gender) who just held up a sign that says, "Bombing for Peace is Like Fucking for Virginity".

Classy people. I'm glad I'm not there to smell them.

[Chizzang]

For me personally I don't care who we bomb or why...
I don't have the "INTEL" so I assume the best - including this most recent case

What bothers me
is that we "don't have the money" to care for our own citizens
or care for our own children