Iraqi TV Reports Strike Kills Powerful Iranian Revolutionary Guard Commander

[Fred C Dobbs II]

Who is paying for Obama's library? Private contributions are. Huge difference. Bush wasted or lost 100's of billions of taxpayer funds in Iraq. The Huge and apparently insecure Embassy and was not the half of it.

Taxpayers will be chipping in $150 million.

The point is that if a library in Chicago can cost $500 million then a $750 million Embassy in an area of the world noted for attacking Embassies is not out of line. Their staff need the added security and the building needs to be secure.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Who said the US, or Coalition forces, did "None" of the killing?? If you don't have the complete numbers than you should avoid using them.

Why? So that you can ignore the fact that those deaths have happened?

Has Trudeau completed his retreat from the danger zone yet?

If I'm in a bar and a couple of big (and egotistical) drunks look like they are going to start a donnybrook, I leave. What do you do?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

They are what make this brilliant plan:



not possible.

The actual way that plan goes is

A) we attempt to arrest Soleimani, which has a much lower chance of success, and a much higher chance of Americans and nearby Iraqis being killed.
B) If we managed to grab him (an iffy proposition, though it can be done), we turn him over to the Iraqi government
C) Who immediately releases him, definitely-not-least because
D) 80,000 armed militants, and so, Soleimani goes right back to
E) Meeting with abu Mahdi al-Muhandis about the next round of attacks against American positions.

And we have achieved less than nothing, having embarrassed ourselves and the Iraqi government for no gain.

In short, "We can't follow the law because our ally (Iraq) is actually their (Iran's) ally and if we attempt to follow the law the whole world will see that every single life lost in Iraq has been a waste. This might annoy those who are actually our allies and whose soldiers have died in Iraq. It will also make us look VERY foolish and stupid.".

SO, this plan is not a plausible one.

Because the very foundation of it (that Iraq is strongly on the side of the United States of America) is a farce.

It ranks right up next to "Why don't we send Iran the intel proving he's a bad guy so they will fire him" and "Maybe the UN could write Soleimani a Very Strongly Worded Letter, and he will have a Change of Heart".

Yes, I can see why you would think that.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Articles I Section 8 Clause 11

"To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;"

Nope, doesn't cover the ground.

and II Section 2.

"The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session."

Nope, doesn't cover the ground either.

Glad I could help .

BACKATCHA.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Well you can hope anyway.

What happened to Mr. Trump's "Line In The Sand"?

 

[joko104]

What exactly are you defending? Oh right, ‘Death to the Iranian regime’. Because ‘Merica is great and Iran is evil. Even though North Korea and Saudi Arabia are demonstrably more evil. You have fun sorting out your morals and ethics.

A Democrat spitting on the USA and loving Iran. Probably that is because Iran kills and imprisons homosexuals plus officially oppresses Jews - and the USA doesn't. Many a Democrat loves Iran and hate the USA for those reasons.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Who is paying for Obama's library? Private contributions are. Huge difference. Bush wasted or lost 100's of billions of taxpayer funds in Iraq. The Huge and apparently insecure Embassy and was not the half of it.

Not to worry. Mr. Trump has said that the Iraqis will pay for it all.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

A Democrat spitting on the USA and loving Iran. Probably that is because Iran kills and imprisons homosexuals plus officially oppresses Jews - and the USA doesn't. Many a Democrat loves Iran and hate the USA for those reasons.

"Iran’s Jewish community is the largest in the Mideast outside Israel – and feels safe and respected"

Until 2003, it was illegal to be a homosexual in the United States of America - how quickly people forget. Many "fundamentalist Christians" would like to see that legal position back again.

 

[cpwill]

In short, "We can't follow the law because our ally (Iraq) is actually their (Iran's) ally and if we attempt to follow the law the whole world will see that every single life lost in Iraq has been a waste. This might annoy those who are actually our allies and whose soldiers have died in Iraq. It will also make us look VERY foolish and stupid.".

...no. We can follow the law just fine, and, in fact, did so. I'm assuming you have the reading comprehension to look at what I wrote and see that it bears no connection to what you did, and therefore know that your "In Short" is, in fact "I Would Rather It Be".

Because the very foundation of it (that Iraq is strongly on the side of the United States of America) is a farce.

I don't know if anyone has made that argument a foundation of anything.

Yes, I can see why you would think that.

Because it is correct, and, frankly, sort of obvious.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[cpwill]

"To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;"

Nope, doesn't cover the ground.

You are incorrect. Congress has the ability to authorize the Executive to engage in military conflict, which includes both killing the enemy and force protection.

"The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session."

Nope, doesn't cover the ground either.

:shrug: you are incorrect again. As Commander in Chief, the President is not only called on to wage the military efforts authorized by Congress, he (or she) has authority to approve military operations and engage in force protection.


I realize that the guiding principle is TRUMP BAD, but, in this instance, what he did was indeed within his authority.

 

[iguanaman]

Taxpayers will be chipping in $150 million.

The point is that if a library in Chicago can cost $500 million then a $750 million Embassy in an area of the world noted for attacking Embassies is not out of line. Their staff need the added security and the building needs to be secure.

Why did we need the largest U.S embassy in the world in Baghdad? It was a senseless waste of money.

 

[Fred C Dobbs II]

Why? So that you can ignore the fact that those deaths have happened?

A rather foolish guess. Why not mention who did the most killing rather than just mention "Americans". Canadians can be so provincial in their carping about their neighbors. What an unsophisticated bunch too many of them can be,

If I'm in a bar and a couple of big (and egotistical) drunks look like they are going to start a donnybrook, I leave. What do you do?

I've no doubt you'd leave, and quickly.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

A rather foolish guess. Why not mention who did the most killing rather than just mention "Americans". Canadians can be so provincial in their carping about their neighbors. What an unsophisticated bunch too many of them can be,
I've no doubt you'd leave, and quickly.

Yep, that's the most sensible thing to do.