Jump to content
Airbrush

Is this war with Iran?

Recommended Posts

Yeah. I don’t feel strongly on this. You may have a point on the wet signature. 

More broadly... He’s held congress in contempt for quite some time and IMO he’s basically trolling them by suggesting he met his obligation to notify them in writing by tweeting about it. It’s the equivalent of waving his dick in their face and saying “what’dya gonna do about it?”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, iNow said:

Yeah. I don’t feel strongly on this. You may have a point on the wet signature. 

More broadly... He’s held congress in contempt for quite some time and IMO he’s basically trolling them by suggesting he met his obligation to notify them in writing by tweeting about it. It’s the equivalent of waving his dick in their face and saying “what’dya gonna do about it?”

That and gaining more power when no one from the Repubs objects.Divide and conquer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To flip things around, it is perhaps paradoxically also a boon to the Iranian government. Iran was shaken by violent protests against its government (according to Reuters about 1,500 died). The recent threats by Trump to attack Iranian cultural sites may give the Iranian government further excuses to shut down protesters and rally the rest. Obviously, especially in the larger cities there are plenty of progressive Iranians who are are not precisely sad that Soleimani was killed per se, but there are also real fears about a potential war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, swansont said:

Also, a tweet is not something that you can say has been delivered to the Speaker of the House and President pro tem of the Senate.

He would have to @ tag them in the tweet :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Tweets are part of his public record so he could probably argue they are notification.

Seems like he still deletes them occasionally so he has it both ways - official AND just kidding, depending on what's convenient.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, iNow said:

More broadly... He’s held congress in contempt for quite some time and IMO he’s basically trolling them by suggesting he met his obligation to notify them in writing by tweeting about it.

Trolling is one thing, but notifications (no less threats) of war might be a violation of Twitter's terms of service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 1/4/2020 at 5:41 PM, iNow said:

This summer, democratic senators tried to require congressional approval for any military action involving Iran, but the GOP (you know, those fine folks always talking about states rights and limits to federal powers, and the same ones who screamed from the rooftops about limiting presidential power while Obama was in office) blocked it: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/28/senate-rejects-iran-war-powers-amendment-1390175

The hilarious(in a sick sort of way) thing, is that the same Democrats who said the president(Obama at the time) needed those powers and fought against the GOP movement to limit the president, are not trying to limit the president(Trump).

Now it's the other way around.

The GOP are not the only hypocrites here.

On 1/4/2020 at 9:17 PM, zapatos said:

The way cold wars keep from getting hot involves using something other than open warfare. That is why Iran uses proxies, denies bombing tankers or oil fields, etc. If Trump decided to take out Soleimani, I wish he would have done it with a bit more subterfuge. I feel like his 'in your face' approach makes it harder for Iran to respond with restraint of their own.

I don't know if I entirely agree with this.

To me, Iran using proxies and the such is kind of like a bully constantly stealing your lunch money. Except, instead of beating you up or anything, they just quietly steal it from your desk and leave you nasty "F**k you" sticky notes. Sure, they're not in your face stealing your money. But they're still doing it. An in your face approach is a very direct way to deal with this. We didn't beat them up. We stood up, walked over, and said they will stop it. Immediately. Beating them up would be going to all out war, which, contrary to those saying Donald Trump violated the constitution by doing, we have not done. Yet.

That's my two cents at least.

8 hours ago, swansont said:

I think "in writing" means a wet signature (but maybe a digital signature will do); a tweet cannot necessarily be traced back to the president. Can you say with reasonable assurance that he wrote it? Maybe someone else did.

We literally just assassinated one of the highest ranking members of Iran, and we're discussing whether a tweet(which for better or worse, served the purpose the constitution wanted), counts as notification. Perhaps there are more important things to discuss? 🙂

2 hours ago, iNow said:

He would have to @ tag them in the tweet :)

I agree. If he wants to do it via twitter, he should have to @tag each of the 535 members of congress. 

Edited by Raider5678

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

he hilarious(in a sick sort of way) thing, is that the same Democrats who said the president(Obama at the time) needed those powers and fought against the GOP movement to limit the president, are not trying to limit the president(Trump).

Now it's the other way around.

The GOP are not the only hypocrites here

Which ones?

Which democrats argued for increased military autonomy under Obama but argue now for less under Trump. Be specific. References would help, too. This is news to me.

On another note... As best I recall, Obama always notified the gang of 8 before operations were conducted and he expressly sought their authorization to respond to Bashir Al Sayad after be used chemical weapons on his people in Syria. 

47 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I agree. If he wants to do it via twitter, he should have to @tag each of the 535 members of congress. 

Speaker of the House and President pro  tempore of the Senate is sufficient according to the code. 

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42699.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

To me, Iran using proxies and the such is kind of like a bully constantly stealing your lunch money.

What is it like when the US uses proxies? Are we bullies constantly stealing someone's lunch money?

For 40 years both the Soviets and the Americans conducted their conflict through proxies. Had we instead been shooting at each other the world might have a much smaller population now.

If the US and Iran switch to direct attacks we run the risk of a conflict that impacts the entire globe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, iNow said:

Speaker of the House and President pro  tempore of the Senate is sufficient according to the code. 

It was a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I’m aware. I responded to clarify for anyone who wasn’t. Humor doesn’t always come through in text. Please try not to take it personally. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, iNow said:

Which ones?

Which democrats argued for increased military autonomy under Obama but argue now for less under Trump. Be specific. References would help, too. This is news to me.

Obama started a bombing campaign that killed more then 1,100 people and injured more then 4,500 in Libya, Democrats didn't have an issue. Republicans say it's a massive overstep of presidential powers.

Trump killed 1 high profile terrorist and 5 more not so high profile terrorists, and Democrats suddenly have an issue. Republicans don't care.

 

How either side can argue with a straight face if baffling to me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Obama started a bombing campaign that killed more then 1,100 people and injured more then 4,500 in Libya,

And he adheres to the war powers act when doing so, did he not?

Also, you didn’t actually answer my question. I asked which democrats. Instead of naming them, you merely repeated your assertion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, iNow said:

And he adheres to the war powers act when doing so, did he not?

It's debatable. 

But if that's adhering to the war powers act, then Trump also adhered to the war powers act in the assassination.

 

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

Also, you didn’t actually answer my question. I asked which democrats. Instead of naming them, you merely repeated your assertion. 

I said that Democrats largely said nothing.

So literally just pick a random Democrat who was in office at the time, and they likely said nothing. Here's a list of names of the 120th congress (2011)  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/112th_United_States_Congress

Edited by Raider5678

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

f that's adhering to the war powers act, then Trump also adhered to the war powers act in the assassination.

Please elaborate. This strikes me as totally nonsequitur, but I trust you have a valid point here and I want to understand it. 

9 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

So literally just pick a random Democrat who was in office at the time,

Just to be sure we’re clear, it appears you cannot name even one. Is that correct?

Edited by iNow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎4‎/‎2020 at 5:41 PM, iNow said:

but the GOP (you know, those fine folks always talking about states rights and limits to federal powers, and the same ones who screamed from the rooftops about limiting presidential power while Obama was in office) blocked

Just to be fair, INow…
You didn't mention any names either when you made your assertion.
You just made the same blanket statement as Raider.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Just to be sure we’re clear, it appears you cannot name even one. Is that correct?

Why do you require of others what you fail to provide ?
( not trying to be a di*k, just keeping you honest :) )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, MigL said:

Why do you require of others what you fail to provide ?
( not trying to be a di*k, just keeping you honest :) )

Just to be fair, did iNow fail to provide a name when requested? Assertions without citations are fine as long as they are provided when requested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, MigL said:

Why do you require of others what you fail to provide ?

Who asked me to provide a name? Please quote them (instead of merely introducing the question to me now after the fact). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"They're allowed to torture and maim our people. They're allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people. And we're not allowed to touch their cultural sites? It doesn't work that way," Trump told reporters on Sunday."

Lindsey Graham trying to explain simple concepts to Trump: 

"We’re not at war with the culture of the Iranian people. ... The cultural sites are not targets under law ... unless they have been weaponized," Graham told reporters Monday"

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/graham-trump-on-iran-cultural-sites-not-lawful-targets

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, iNow said:

Who asked me to provide a name?

And if you had been asked, could you have provided one ?

D Trump doesn't seem to realize that Iranian culture is part of OUR shared human culture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état

The 1953 Iranian coup d'état, known in Iran as the 28 Mordad coup d'état (Persian: کودتای ۲۸ مرداد‎), was the overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in favour of strengthening the monarchical rule of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi on 19 August 1953,[5] orchestrated by the United States (under the name TPAJAX Project[6] or "Operation Ajax") and the United Kingdom (under the name "Operation Boot").[7][8][9][10] It was the first covert action of the United States to overthrow a foreign government during peacetime.[11]

Whatever happened to "do unto others as you would have others do unto you"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

10 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

 We literally just assassinated one of the highest ranking members of Iran, and we're discussing whether a tweet(which for better or worse, served the purpose the constitution wanted), counts as notification. Perhaps there are more important things to discuss? 🙂

I agree. If he wants to do it via twitter, he should have to @tag each of the 535 members of congress. 

 

8 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

It was a joke.

 

 My irony meter just melted. And now, back to the program...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MigL said:

if you had been asked, could you have provided one ?

Yes. Of course I could. And if I could not, I would openly acknowledge that and retract or alter my claim.

Let me be clear though, are you asking me to name GOP congressmen who’ve regularly called for restricting presidential and federal powers powers in favor of state powers and smaller government... but who are now silent or even vocally supportive of Trumps executive overreach... or, are you asking me to name GOP congressmen who sought to limit what Obama could do militarily without congressional approval but who now vocally support Trump acting on his own?

If it’s the latter (which is more thread relevant), then Mitch McConnell is the single most obvious example. You’ve maybe heard of others who’ve magically flip flopped on this issue like Orin Hatch and Marco Rubio or Jason Chaffetz, and there are scores of other congressional back benchers of whom you’ve likely never heard like Ted Poe of Texas who’s hypocrisy is on full display, too.

There are more, and my position is NOT that democrats are never hypocrites (which would be absurd), but Raider made a pretty big claim there which quickly crumbled when it got even gently challenged. Regardless, I suspect this addresses the question more than suffiently and maybe now we can please return to the topic...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Obama started a bombing campaign that killed more then 1,100 people and injured more then 4,500 in Libya, Democrats didn't have an issue. Republicans say it's a massive overstep of presidential powers.

Trump killed 1 high profile terrorist and 5 more not so high profile terrorists, and Democrats suddenly have an issue. Republicans don't care.

 

How either side can argue with a straight face if baffling to me.

 

So Dennis Kucinich filing a suit, contending a violation of the WPR, didn't actually happen? (and he wasn't joined by John Conyers and Michael Capuano in the suit, because hey, democrats didn't have an issue)

And democrats didn't vote for any of the resolutions limiting involvement in Libya?

9 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

It's debatable. 

But if that's adhering to the war powers act, then Trump also adhered to the war powers act in the assassination.

When did Trump consult with congress about his act, as required?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Were at war with each other atm, Iran are pissing themselves, they can wait...

and nudge...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.