Tension from Iraq

Status
Not open for further replies.
dragulagu said:
Fyi, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51039520

Iran and the US are on a stand-down now, after having a rocket strike retaliation on a US base....0 casualities according to the US, 80 deaths according to Iran; both parties seem "fine" with the result....which is kind of surprising that
they took such a "diplomatic" turn. I'd expect an escalation from Trump.

And in other news.... https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-m...th-of-ukrainian-passenger-plane-crash-in-iran

So yeah....
Click to expand...

"All is well!" - Trump
 
ENyghxdWoAILYYq
 
MoonFlier said:
That's really the irony here: Trump thinks he's a dictator, keeps finding ways to press those limits, but in reality he's being manipulated by big business and the military.

In normal operations, the military is filled with personnel very bright in their own respective fields, all revolving around military intelligence and operation. It is NOT their job to know the political relation nuances between the US and other countries. For that they typically look to the president to combine his/her specialized knowledge with theirs to decide on a plan of action. (I don't think I need to go into Trump's abilities, or lack there of, in this area.)

However, they and others have been saying from the very first day Trump was in office that he is hard to work with: he won't read, won't take proper briefings, wants everything as visuals. Well, it looks like they have it figured out, at least partially.

Note how quickly after the strikes that the military came forth to the media (the New York Times in particular) and said that they had been talking with Trump for months about the situation with general. They claim they gave him a good handful of options and were shocked when Trump went with the most extreme one.



(Excuse me, when does Trump NOT go with the most extreme option? They knew he'd take it, that's why they put it on the table!)

The military is simply covering their own asses by telling us there were alternatives provided. Note the whining now going on as people are seeing through their smoke and calling them out.

https://theweek.com/speedreads/8876...leimani-pentagon-leaders-stunned-trump-agreed

-- Don't get me wrong, I still blame Trump, but did we expect anything less?
Click to expand...
Ugh. Classic manipulation. Put a dumbass on a very powerful position and everything will collapse.
 
MoonFlier said:
I believe Trump hasn't a clue that we are not all in a story he's writing about himself.
Click to expand...
That's a serious problem. He knows he is powerful, he just doesn't understand the complete and complex repercussions of his power. Even more so, he is dumb and vulnerable to manipulation. Argh.

Whatever. My president is pulling out all our workers from Iran. If he's not yet doing that for America, we good.
 
dragulagu said:
Fyi, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51039520

Iran and the US are on a stand-down now, after having a rocket strike retaliation on a US base....0 casualities according to the US, 80 deaths according to Iran; both parties seem "fine" with the result....which is kind of surprising that
they took such a "diplomatic" turn. I'd expect an escalation from Trump.

And in other news.... https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-m...th-of-ukrainian-passenger-plane-crash-in-iran

So yeah....
Click to expand...
Personally the difference in the casualties reported has damaged my trust of the state sponsored Iranian news. I can't believe that a government that is shooting hundreds of protestors in the streets would lie. :m083:
 
Of course none of this concluded the issue of Iranian backed militias running about taking shots at American soldiers. At least they lost the guy who was coordinating all that Tom fuckery.

Still the situation isn't going to change, the middle east will always be a radioactive dumpster fire.
 
acd said:
Never thought I'd find myself thanking God for Sens. Lee and Paul but here we are. Only 2 Republicans willing to question this decision. Republicans are so willing to just hand all authority over to the president.
Click to expand...
Remember when they called Obama a "King" for ordering excessing drone strikes?
They huffed and puffed and whined and cried...oh, the moral outrage!
Eventually, they added extra conditions required for such a strike to minimize the "collateral damage" (dead civilians).
Still, they were so happy that Trump was going to put an end to such dictatorial actions!

To date - more drone strikes in Yemen than all 8 years of Obama...drone strikes as a whole are up everywhere as well.
And....remember that moral outrage?
Trump tore up the required conditions to minimize casualties.

Why isn't Fox news on fire from such outrageous overuse and misuse of drone strikes?
The same goes for all the Conservatives who proclaimed some moral high ground when it was Obama and are quiet as mice now.

I find the whole idea crazy to begin with....imagine a foreign country circling your own with drones and taking shots blowing up shit they don't like from time to time...maybe a few women and children will get killed.....or a hospital will "accidentally" get hit.
It's as if we've given Trump (and every other POTUS) a remote-control license to kill.
Then when you add someone like Trump, who has no clue about international relations, laws, history, words in books, diplomacy, warfare, etc.
(It's quite a long ass list), it's really scary.
At least Obama seemed to understand the consequences of his actions.
Can't say that for our current superstar.
 
Reason said:
Now let's leave the middle east since Iraq has handed us a diplomatic mandate to do so
Click to expand...
But that would undo all the 'work' of the last few decades in attempting to outcircle Iran in Afghanistan and Iraq in the first place.

What's annoying here is that the structure of government in the US empowers the executive to ignore long-term strategy at a whim. This is a very very dangerous time for the US's strategic position as the Pax Americana comes to an end, and I don't think positioning someone very impulsive in this short-term executive position is particularly wise.

Skarekrow said:
words in books
Click to expand...
Lmao
 
Deleted member 16771 said:
But that would undo all the 'work' of the last few decades in attempting to outcircle Iran in Afghanistan and Iraq in the first place.

What's annoying here is that the structure of government in the US empowers the executive to ignore long-term strategy at a whim. This is a very very dangerous time for the US's strategic position as the Pax Americana comes to an end, and I don't think positioning someone very impulsive in this short-term executive position is particularly wise.


Lmao
Click to expand...
He technically isn't supposed to have such powers - https://libertyclassroom.com/warpowers/

“The president has the power to initiate hostilities without consulting Congress.”

Ever since the Korean War, Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution – which refers to the president as the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States” – has been interpreted this way.

But what the framers actually meant by that clause was that once war has been declared, it was the President’s responsibility as commander-in-chief to direct the war. Alexander Hamilton spoke in such terms when he said that the president, although lacking the power to declare war, would have “the direction of war when authorized or begun.” The president acting alone was authorized only to repel sudden attacks (hence the decision to withhold from him only the power to “declare” war, not to “make” war, which was thought to be a necessary emergency power in case of foreign attack).
 
Skarekrow said:
He technically isn't supposed to have such powers - https://libertyclassroom.com/warpowers/

“The president has the power to initiate hostilities without consulting Congress.”

Ever since the Korean War, Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution – which refers to the president as the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States” – has been interpreted this way.

But what the framers actually meant by that clause was that once war has been declared, it was the President’s responsibility as commander-in-chief to direct the war. Alexander Hamilton spoke in such terms when he said that the president, although lacking the power to declare war, would have “the direction of war when authorized or begun.” The president acting alone was authorized only to repel sudden attacks (hence the decision to withhold from him only the power to “declare” war, not to “make” war, which was thought to be a necessary emergency power in case of foreign attack).
Click to expand...
Interesting.

Well an act of war was committed, and the president felt like he had the power to make that decision.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top