• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

WH memo: No mention of imminent threat

Rogue Valley

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
94,262
Reaction score
82,620
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
White House memo on Soleimani strike makes no mention of imminent threat

2/14/20
A White House memo justifying the U.S. strike that killed Iranian military leader Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani in January makes no mention of an imminent threat, which was President Trump’s rationale for the attack. The two-page memo made public by the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Friday instead says the Soleimani strike was carried out in response to previous attacks and to deter Iran from conducting or supporting attacks in the future. “This official report directly contradicts the president’s false assertion that he attacked Iran to prevent an imminent attack against United States personnel and embassies,” said House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot L. Engel. A spokesman for the National Security Council said the White House had no further comment beyond the memo.
Click to expand...

Yet another Trump/WH lie that led to the downing of Ukrainian International Airlines flight PS-752 killing all 167 aboard and 109 US soldiers in Iraq affected with traumatic brain injury (TBI) from an Iranian missile attack.

Trump needed a distraction with the beginning of the Senate impeachment trial and House Managers presenting evidence for the two Articles of Impeachment.

All of this death and suffering resulted from a dishonest Trump strike-predicate.
 
Wow I'm shocked,just shocked I tell you!!! :eek:
 
Who cares? The dude needed to die.
 
apdst said:
Who cares? The dude needed to die.
Click to expand...

I don't care about Soleimani. But I do care about why Trump felt the need to lie about the raison d'être of an assassination?

Why? Because he's simply an habitual liar. Not a good quality for a commander.
 
Rogue Valley said:
I don't care about Soleimani. But I do care about why Trump felt the need to lie about the raison d'être of an assassination?

Why? Because he's simply an habitual liar. Not a good quality for a commander.
Click to expand...

You don't care that Soleimani murdered Americans?
 
apdst said:
You don't care that Soleimani murdered Americans?
Click to expand...

Should the only consideration be whether he was responsible for the deaths of Americans?
 
Rogue Valley said:
I don't care about Soleimani. But I do care about why Trump felt the need to lie about the raison d'être of an assassination?

Why? Because he's simply an habitual liar. Not a good quality for a commander.
Click to expand...

The same reason you feel a need to claim that Trump is responsible for an Iranian military faux pas.
 
apdst said:
You don't care that Soleimani murdered Americans?
Click to expand...



Highway 80, from Kuwait to Basra, went down in history as the “Highway of Death” in the first Gulf War when a retreating column of Iraqi tanks and trucks was bombed by US in 1991, destroying 2,700 vehicles.
Click to expand...

5cpmkez91kf21.jpg

Should Powell or Cheney been assassinated for this?
 
braindrain said:
Fist you do realize soleimani is from Iran not Iraq.
And second that was in response to invading their neighbor.

But nice try though
Click to expand...

You didn't answer the question. And that wasn't even a half-assed try. Further, we invaded Iran's neighbor.
 
Last edited:
dave8383 said:
You didn't answer the question. And that wasn't even a half-assed try. Further, we invaded Iran's neighbor.
Click to expand...

If you don’t think Hussein would have killed Powell or Chaney if they had the opportunity then you are delusional. Besides which one of those two were directing attacks against a country that the US wasn’t at war with.

So let me see if can follow your logic, if that’s what you want to call it, you think it was acceptable for Iran to kill Americans because we invaded a third party country and they should have suffered any consequences but not ok for the US to kill Iraqis who were invading a different country who asked for our help to stop the invaders.

Your line of thinking is a perfect example that someone can force themselves to believe anything if they want it bad enough. Even if it means throwing away logic, reason and any sort of consistency in their thinking.

Well done
 
Rogue Valley said:
White House memo on Soleimani strike makes no mention of imminent threat



Yet another Trump/WH lie that led to the downing of Ukrainian International Airlines flight PS-752 killing all 167 aboard and 109 US soldiers in Iraq affected with traumatic brain injury (TBI) from an Iranian missile attack.

Trump needed a distraction with the beginning of the Senate impeachment trial and House Managers presenting evidence for the two Articles of Impeachment.

All of this death and suffering resulted from a dishonest Trump strike-predicate.
Click to expand...

The imminent threat was to the bozo Iranian thug who thought he was above the law and immune from retaliation. Decades of soft American responses to people like him may have caused him to think Trump was helpless to do anything about his brazen attacks on Americans. Thank God Trump proved him and all his dummass terrorist friends wrong.
 
braindrain said:
If you don’t think Hussein would have killed Powell or Chaney if they had the opportunity then you are delusional. Besides which one of those two were directing attacks against a country that the US wasn’t at war with.

So let me see if can follow your logic, if that’s what you want to call it, you think it was acceptable for Iran to kill Americans because we invaded a third party country and they should have suffered any consequences but not ok for the US to kill Iraqis who were invading a different country who asked for our help to stop the invaders.

Your line of thinking is a perfect example that someone can force themselves to believe anything if they want it bad enough. Even if it means throwing away logic, reason and any sort of consistency in their thinking.

Well done
Click to expand...


I have no line of thinking. I asked a question which you have yet to answer. You're just wallowing in suppositions.
 
braindrain said:
So let me see if can follow your logic, if that’s what you want to call it, you think it was acceptable for Iran to kill Americans because we invaded a third party country and they should have suffered any consequences but not ok for the US to kill Iraqis who were invading a different country who asked for our help to stop the invaders.
Click to expand...

Yes, we invaded a country in a highly controversial strategic move that many long time American allies warned us would destabilize the region and lead to widespread violence and loss of life, and then shortly thereafter it became a well known "secret" that several top American policy makers wanted to invade Iran next.

That doesn't excuse Iranian support for terrorists, but to pretend like Iran hates us for no valid reason is stupidly ignorant.
 
apdst said:
Who cares? The dude needed to die.
Click to expand...

What you are saying is that the next democrat president should have the authority to kill anyone/everyone that he deems needs to die without congressional notice or approval.

Is that really what you think?
 
roughdraft274 said:
What you are saying is that the next democrat president should have the authority to kill anyone/everyone that he deems needs to die without congressional notice or approval.

Is that really what you think?
Click to expand...

The last one did. He killed U.S. citizens, even; no charges, no trial, no nothing, but a hellfire up his ass. None of you complained about that. Where was your outrage, then? Should a president who executes a U.S. citizen, with no due process of the law, be allowed to remain in office? Or should he be impeached and removed, forthwith?
 
apdst said:
The last one did. He killed U.S. citizens, even; no charges, no trial, no nothing, but a hellfire up his ass. None of you complained about that. Where was your outrage, then? Should a president who executes a U.S. citizen, with no due process of the law, be allowed to remain in office? Or should he be impeached and removed, forthwith?
Click to expand...

He targeted a US citizen, but the person was an enemy combatant and a member of an organization that the US congress has declared war against (Al-Qaeda).

So bringing up the killing of an enemy combatant is nothing but a red herring and a demonstration that you are unable to refute my points.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Yes, we invaded a country in a highly controversial strategic move that many long time American allies warned us would destabilize the region and lead to widespread violence and loss of life, and then shortly thereafter it became a well known "secret" that several top American policy makers wanted to invade Iran next.

That doesn't excuse Iranian support for terrorists, but to pretend like Iran hates us for no valid reason is stupidly ignorant.
Click to expand...

Which has nothing to do with what we were talking about.
 
roughdraft274 said:
What you are saying is that the next democrat president should have the authority to kill anyone/everyone that he deems needs to die without congressional notice or approval.

Is that really what you think?
Click to expand...

If that person is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans and is actively working to kill more then yes I very much hope the next democrat president does exactly as Trump did. This is one of only about three things trump has done that I think were the right moves.
 
roughdraft274 said:
He targeted a US citizen, but the person was an enemy combatant and a member of an organization that the US congress has declared war against (Al-Qaeda).

So bringing up the killing of an enemy combatant is nothing but a red herring and a demonstration that you are unable to refute my points.
Click to expand...
And soleimani was a member of a declared
Terrorist organization that was actively working to kill Americans.
Let’s be honest the two situations are not that different.
 
braindrain said:
Which has nothing to do with what we were talking about.
Click to expand...

To pretend like that has no bearing on what an Iranian general would be targeting Americans is a foolish hill to die on.
 
braindrain said:
Fist you do realize soleimani is from Iran not Iraq.
And second that was in response to invading their neighbor.

But nice try though
Click to expand...

Braindrain:

Didn't the USA invade Iran's neighbour in 2003? So if America's infliction of mass casualties on the Highway of Hell in 1991 was a legitimate military act in response to an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, then why was Gen. Soleimani's and the Iranian backed militias not a legitimate military response to the US invasion of Iraq twelve years later? American exceptionalism perhaps?

The important point of this lack of imminent threat finding is that President Trump made war on both Iraq and Iran without Congressional authority in contravention to the US constitution and thus broke US law. When confronted with that fact, President Trump lied to cover his mistake up. That's why the finding is important.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Evilroddy said:
Braindrain:

Didn't the USA invade Iran's neighbour in 2003? So if America's infliction of mass casualties on the Highway of Hell in 1991 was a legitimate military act in response to an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, then why was Gen. Soleimani's and the Iranian backed militias not a legitimate military response to the US invasion of Iraq twelve years later? American exceptionalism perhaps?

The important point of this lack of imminent threat finding is that President Trump made war on both Iraq and Iran without Congressional authority in contravention to the US constitution and thus broke US law. When confronted with that fact, President Trump lied to cover his mistake up. That's why the finding is important.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

So let’s try and follow you logic. Iraq invades it’s tiny neighbor who then requests international assistance. The US and a large coalition of countries respond and in doing so kill many Iraqis as they free the country of Kuwait. Then years later after many many violations of the United Nations resolutions put in place against Iraq the US and allied nations invaded Iraq to remove a leader who has killed many thousands of his own people. Meanwhile Iran which has played no part in any of this decides to send its terrorist organization into Iraq to kill Americans and many Iraqis civilians. And due to your seething hatred for the US you think Iran was justified in doing so and the US is at fault for killing the Iranian who was in the middle of planning attacks against America and it allies.


So if someone breaks in to my house and I ask you to come help me kick them out that makes it ok for my neighbor to attack your family. That’s essentially what you are saying.

If this involved anyone other then the US you would not be taking Iran’s side so forgive me if I could not care less what you think.
 
Last edited:
Jredbaron96 said:
To pretend like that has no bearing on what an Iranian general would be targeting Americans is a foolish hill to die on.
Click to expand...

Tell me what part of the US invading Iraq, an enemy of Iran, to remove a mass murderer means that Iran has to be involved. I get it you want to blame the US for most everything but I want to see your logic on this.
 
braindrain said:
Tell me what part of the US invading Iraq, an enemy of Iran, to remove a mass murderer means that Iran has to be involved.
Click to expand...

Of if I had to guess, it may have something to do with American policy makers pretty much stating they wanted to invade Iran. I mean, that might be a clue.

"Seven countries in five years" | Salon.com


You wanna know the crazy part? In between 9/11 and Bush's axis of evil speech we actually worked with Iran. Iran hated the Taliban because back in 1998 they murdered a bunch of Iranian diplomats and Iran almost invaded. Not longer after we identified the Taliban as harboring Bin Laden the Iranians were feeding us intelligence on Taliban positions and forces in Afghanistan.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom