Page 59 of 68 FirstFirst ... 9495758596061 ... LastLast
Results 581 to 590 of 677

Thread: Immediate Threat is a Lie!

  1. #581
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    84,400
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Immediate Threat is a Lie!

    Quote Originally Posted by jnug View Post
    It would be hard to make a strong rebuttal to an Emergency Powers claim in the case of the Soliemani assassination. Frankly that is not my concern though I understand how it could be for some folks. Just for context, an Emergency Powers claim for DonDon's Wall is hilariously absurd.

    That the administration has settled on this Imminent Threat claim that they can't make a case for is Keystone Kops stuff. Is there anybody left in Trump's National Security apparatus that knows how to think?
    I am not here to argue for their competence.
    "Above all, not too much zeal." --Prince Talleyrand

  2. #582
    Conservatarian

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,089

    Re: Immediate Threat is a Lie!

    Quote Originally Posted by jnug View Post
    The issue should be that whether we like it or not, Soliemani was a government official of a sovereign nation we had not declared war upon. Yet we overtly assassinated him. I don't buy into this "yea but he was a terrorist" argument …

    The point is not actually as much whether we do not have the means to assassinate, conduct coup d'etat etc but whether or not we take the additional step of doing it overtly, balls out. Because if countries are going to start balls out, overt assassination of the government officials of sovereign nations they have not declared war upon, all bets are off. Don't complain when somebody puts a bomb under your VP or a bunch of your Senators that are part of a ConDel because you will have given up your right to complain. We have the ability to conduct covert operations and while I am pretty opposed to regime change operations or assassination, we have government assets designed to conduct those operations covertly. To have overtly assassinated Soliemani seems to me just another bit of Trumpian bravado with no real benefit. ...
    So, in sum, Trump has needlessly "boxed himself in" by inept messaging, Soleimani was a government official, you don't buy into the concept of terrorism as a reason to kill anyone, and why didn't Trump do it covertly so as to provide plausible deniability?

    You are correct in part. The Trump administration has poorly handled messaging, needlessly tossing around the modifier "imminent", as if the war powers act were determinative. No one thought Libya was an imminent or even pending threat, nor Serbia, but the messaging by Obama and Clinton was better handled.

    However, to call Soleimani "a government official" is a problematical assertion and distinction that makes no difference. His official capacity is that of a Major General who held military commands, at one time the 41st Tharallah Division of Kerman, and the the Quds special operations elite of the IRG. He has been credited as the operational, and in personal command, master-mind of the IRC/Qud counter attacks that saved Assad, as well as many other military operations.

    And if "terrorism" is defined as the targeting and killing of civilians, there isn't any doubt that Iran and he has been a part of that. A New Yorker biography, written in 2013/14 puts it thus:

    Suleimani took command of the Quds Force fifteen years ago, and in that time he has sought to reshape the Middle East in Iran’s favor, working as a power broker and as a military force: assassinating rivals, arming allies, and, for most of a decade, directing a network of militant groups that killed hundreds of Americans in Iraq. The U.S. Department of the Treasury has sanctioned Suleimani for his role in supporting the Assad regime, and for abetting terrorism. And yet he has remained mostly invisible to the outside world, even as he runs agents and directs operations. “Suleimani is the single most powerful operative in the Middle East today,” John Maguire, a former C.I.A. officer in Iraq, told me, “and no one’s ever heard of him.”
    and, as the bio points out:

    Suleimani has orchestrated attacks in places as far flung as Thailand, New Delhi, Lagos, and Nairobi—at least thirty attempts in the past two years alone. The most notorious was a scheme, in 2011, to hire a Mexican drug cartel to blow up the Saudi Ambassador to the United States as he sat down to eat at a restaurant a few miles from the White House. The cartel member approached by Suleimani’s agent turned out to be an informant for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. (The Quds Force appears to be more effective close to home, and a number of the remote plans have gone awry.) Still, after the plot collapsed, two former American officials told a congressional committee that Suleimani should be assassinated. “Suleimani travels a lot,” one said. “He is all over the place. Go get him. Either try to capture him or kill him.” …
    The Shadow Commander | The New Yorker

    Of course, this isn't the first time he has been discovered in the field ordering operations, but was the first time he had no diplomatic cover and was caught in the open. The reasons for attacking him are obvious: 1) It's indisputably illegal for the CIA to assassinate anyone. 2) He had to be caught operating as a military commander. 3) He had to be in Iraq or some other foreign country actively engaged in threatening or harming Americans.

    He was, now he's dead. He crossed a red line long ago in orchestrating the military campaign to kill Americans in Iraq during the war of occupation, and he didn't believe American warnings of recent. So be it.

    And Iran, most likely, has got the message. Cease the attacks or else.
    Last edited by maxparrish; 01-13-20 at 03:14 PM.

  3. #583
    Sage
    digitusmedius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    7,365

    Re: Immediate Threat is a Lie!

    Quote Originally Posted by cabse5 View Post
    Your proof of Dirtbag Donnie's recklessness?
    1. The sending of 3500 more US troops to Iraq
    2. The Iraqi parliament voting to expel US troops
    3. Increasing hatred of US in Iraq allowing opportunities for increased
    opportunities for terrorist activity.
    4. The death of 176 passengers by a Iranian missile from fear of a US attack
    5. Further destabilization of the ME
    "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." (authorship disputed)

  4. #584
    Sage
    digitusmedius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    7,365

    Re: Immediate Threat is a Lie!

    Quote Originally Posted by maxparrish View Post
    However, to call Soleimani "a government official" is a problematical assertion and distinction that makes no difference. His official capacity is that of a Major General who held military commands, at one time the 41st Tharallah Division of Kerman, and the the Quds special operations elite of the IRG. He has been credited as the operational, and in personal command, master-mind of the IRC/Qud counter attacks that saved Assad, as well as many other military operations.
    If you apply a simple analogy to that statement, you will see how it fast it falls apart. Substitute, e.g., Gen. David Petraeus in Afghanistan for Soleimani in Iraq. If a foreign government sympathetic to the Taliban had assassinated him you would certainly have considered that an act of war. Don't try dismissing that analogy as a false one because many Afghan civilians were killed as a result of US operations there and don't dismiss those deaths as justified just because they may not have occurred deliberately. Dead is dead no matter how "well-intentioned" (i.e., that well-worn paving material of the road to hell) we'd like to imagine they were. Another flaw in your reasoning is that it doesn't matter that you don't accept that Soleimani was part of the Irani government. It only matters that that's how the Iranian government and people saw him.
    Last edited by digitusmedius; 01-13-20 at 03:18 PM.
    "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." (authorship disputed)

  5. #585
    Conservatarian

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,089

    Re: Immediate Threat is a Lie!

    Quote Originally Posted by digitusmedius View Post
    If you apply a simple analogy to that statement, you will see how it fast it falls apart. Substitute, e.g., Gen. David Petraeus in Afghanistan for Soleimani in Iraq. If a foreign government sympathetic to the Taliban had assassinated him you would certainly have considered that an act of war. Don't try dismissing that analogy as a false one because many Afghan civilians were killed as a result of US operations there and don't dismiss those deaths as justified just because they may not have occurred deliberately. Dead is dead no matter how "well-intentioned" (i.e., that well-worn paving material of the road to hell) we'd like to imagine they were.
    The only place it is "falling apart" is in your mind - its an the analogy that is murky at best. The Taliban is not sponsored by a foreign power, it was a government and ex-government force in Afghanistan. The US was not attacking the troops of a foreign power, it was attacking Taliban. And yes, if the US had a policy of attacking foreign troops or the Taliban of course Petraeus was a legitimate target of those troops. THAT is the point that eludes you.

    So your argument is incoherent drivel, something about "civilians killed" and "dead is dead" as if war is supposed to be a doily collared gentlemen's game.

    How foolish of you.
    Last edited by maxparrish; 01-13-20 at 03:29 PM.

  6. #586
    Sage
    digitusmedius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    7,365

    Re: Immediate Threat is a Lie!

    Quote Originally Posted by RetiredUSN View Post
    If anyone but Trump turned Soleimani's lights out, this OP would be orgasmic.
    But no one else has....so think up another rationalization for the lying.
    "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." (authorship disputed)

  7. #587
    Sage
    digitusmedius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    7,365

    Re: Immediate Threat is a Lie!

    Quote Originally Posted by maxparrish View Post
    The only place it is "falling apart" is in your mind - its an the analogy that is murky at best. The Taliban is not sponsored by a foreign power, it was a government and ex-government force in Afghanistan. The US was not attacking the troops of a foreign power, it was attacking Taliban. And yes, if the US had a policy of attacking foreign troops or the Taliban of course Petraeus was a legitimate target of those troops. THAT is the point that eludes you.

    So your argument is incoherent drivel, something about "civilians killed" and "dead is dead" as if war is supposed to be a doily collared gentlemen's game.

    How foolish of you.
    Well, either your reading ability is faulty or you're deliberately trying to muddy up the analogy (likely both) in order to get away from the very flawed argument you presented. The foreign power in my analogy would have been the US, not the Taliban, and it's very high ranking official and representative in Afghanistan was, of course, Petraeus who was attacking and killing Afghanis, the Taliban, along with a lot of non-combatants who got in the way (please don't humiliate yourself futher by trying to twist that into my being in any way sympathetic to the Taliban which is a well-known go-to straw man for your sort). I'd like to return the "incoherent drivel" insult to you but that would be elevating your response was. Utter cowardly bull**** is the better description. And, as it was a thinly camouflaged attempt to justify Trump's massive blunder it was also repugnant.
    "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." (authorship disputed)

  8. #588
    Conservatarian Guru
    Bullseye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    San Diego
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,111

    Re: Immediate Threat is a Lie!

    Quote Originally Posted by Obscurity View Post
    "He didn't DO WAR CRIMEs, He just SAID HE'D Do them!"

    "He didn't Obstruct Justice, he just SAID he'd do it!"

    Please. You guys angle shoot -everything- to ensure teflon don escapes without accountability.

    This is the same thing.

    There has been NO EVIDENCE offered by either Obama OR Trump to support these claims. Suleimani wasn't doing this training for "political" purposes. He was combatting the United States in a Proxy War, an Undeclared one at that.

    So please. Stop your mouth and think for a few minutes.
    Follow you own advice rather than blindly spewing pro-Iranian propaganda.
    Obama: High unemployment and slow growth are the new normal
    Trump: No they're not

  9. #589
    Conservatarian Guru
    Bullseye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    San Diego
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,111

    Re: Immediate Threat is a Lie!

    Quote Originally Posted by jnug View Post
    Your not fooling anybody but yourselves.
    LOL, snappy comeback, you totally devastated me.
    Obama: High unemployment and slow growth are the new normal
    Trump: No they're not

  10. #590
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,994

    Re: Immediate Threat is a Lie!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    Please note Obama administration precedents in Libya and Syria.

    War Powers Resolution - Wikipedia


    Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia › wiki › War_Powers_Resolution

    ". . . The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States. The resolution was passed by two-thirds each of the House and Senate, overriding the veto of the bill by President Richard Nixon. . . ."
    Why are so many unable to understand the language of this resolution?

    I hope they will now be able to recognize the president was compliant with this provision
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    His left toenail knows more about the world than both hemispheres of Trump’s brain. ~ Brett Stephens about Mayor Pete
    45<44

Page 59 of 68 FirstFirst ... 9495758596061 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •