Iran General Soleimani assassinated in Baghdad

[WuDrWu]

I’ve heard many blame Trump as it happened for real. The delusion is strong with these libs.

[1972Shocker]

Looks like the Iranians brought down their own commercial airplane, as I suspected. A 3 year old 737-800 isn't being brought down by one engine fire. Speculation is that a Russian Tor anti aircraft missile was fired by Iranian defense. Reason 21345 not to give them money to buy things they can't handle. Command and control in the hands of complete idiots shooting down a commercial airline.

No longer speculation. Iran has admitted that they did in fact shoot down the airliner as a result of "human error''.

Perhaps the real error was not grounding all civil aviation for a period of time when they knew they would be firing missiles towards U.S. bases in a neighboring country.

[ShockingButTrue]

No longer speculation. Iran has admitted that they did in fact shoot down the airliner as a result of "human error''.

Perhaps the real error was not grounding all civil aviation for a period of time when they knew they would be firing missiles towards U.S. bases in a neighboring country.

It probably was intentional. But now they can't blame the United States because we didn't return fire.

It was a set-up. Just like smollet, the n-word tape, russiagate, ukrainegate, et al. Even Ray Charles saw it; They. Hate. The. American. President.

#TDS

[WuDrWu]

They can't, but liberals and the media in this country continue to try and blame the President and his unneeded and illegal escalation. Their words, not mine>

[SB Shock]

What did occur is an impeached president effectively declaring war without approval from (and without notifying) Congress. And that's considered handling the situation beautifully. Wow.

How is calling in a drone strike declaring war? How many drone strike did Obama call in? He was doing them in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Kenya to name a few and none of those countries have a declaration of war.

The president is not required to get permission from congress for doing military action. The requirement is:

1. Within 48 hours of military hostilities must notify Congress.

2. The president is then required to end hostilities within 60 days unless congress declares war or provides additional authorization.

I never did see u being the critic of the war powers act when Obama violates it in 2011 with the attacks on Libya. Nor when Clinton was bombing Kosovo with out congressional approval.

Of course there is the question whether the war powers act is even constitutional. Republicans challenged Clinton for Kosovo and the Supreme Court would not even take up the case.

[pogo]

I look forward to his reply.

[jdshock]

How is calling in a drone strike declaring war? How many drone strike did Obama call in? He was doing them in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Kenya to name a few and none of those countries have a declaration of war.

An assassination of a pretty high ranking person is clearly closer to declaring war than a strike on a less high ranking official. That seems fairly logical.

The president is not required to get permission from congress for doing military action. The requirement is:

1. Within 48 hours of military hostilities must notify Congress.

2. The president is then required to end hostilities within 60 days unless congress declares war or provides additional authorization.

I never said it was unconstitutional. I said an impeached president "effectively" declared war without approval from Congress. Again, no authorization is needed, but it's kind of a sad state of affairs.

I never did see u being the critic of the war powers act when Obama violates it in 2011 with the attacks on Libya. Nor when Clinton was bombing Kosovo with out congressional approval.

I don't remember any folks on Shockernet posting champion threads for Obama after a drone strike. I don't remember anyone responding to Obama's actions by saying "They were warned. They chose poorly." I don't remember anyone saying he handled drone strikes beautifully. If those posts had existed, I probably would have commented.

Of course there is the question whether the war powers act is even constitutional. Republicans challenged Clinton for Kosovo and the Supreme Court would not even take up the case.

My recollection is that the issue in Kosovo was that Clinton went past the allowable time frame of the war powers act. Yeah, I don't think the war powers act is great, but I'm not going to make the argument that it's a slam dunk that it's unconstitutional.

Seriously, I don't understand how people can defend Trump on this stuff. He said four US embassies were going to be targeted. Source. Trump's own defense secretary said he wasn't aware of that type of intelligence. Source.

[ShockingButTrue]

Seriously, I don't understand how people can defend Trump on this stuff. He said four US embassies were going to be targeted. Source. Trump's own defense secretary said he wasn't aware of that type of intelligence. Source.

Your perplexity reveals that you've misinterpreted the political winds, as most progressives these days.

Defending Trump? He just did what we "the electorate" wanted him to do, and what should have been done for 40 years. To say nothing of the last 10 months. The electorate follow foreign affairs too you know. We're relieved our Military performed the execution, just like many others still celebrating over in the Middle East. It's another reason why Trump is your President. Oh, yeah, you didn't mention the last time one of our Embassies came under attack and how that was handled...

But here's a very brief list in case you weren't being redundant and really want a short answer:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/...152234464.html

[jdmee]

Seriously, I don't understand how people can defend Trump on this stuff. He said four US embassies were going to be targeted. Source. Trump's own defense secretary said he wasn't aware of that type of intelligence. Source.

Defense Secretary Mark Esper said Sunday that he "didn't see" specific evidence that Iran was readying to attack four U.S. embassies, as President Donald Trump claimed last week, though Esper said he shared Trump's view that such an attack was "probably" in the works.

"What the president said was he believed that it probably and could've been attacks against additional embassies," Esper told CBS's "Face the Nation." "I shared that view, I know other members of the national security team shared that view, that's why I deployed thousands of American paratroopers to the Middle East to reinforce our embassy in Baghdad and other sites throughout the region."

This is from the very article you linked to. The Secretary says he hasn't seen the specific evidence for "FOUR" embassies, but he shares the view that additional embassy attacks were in the works. Would you have been okay if Trump said "Additional" instead of "Four"? Talk about nitpicking.

[Awesome Sauce Malone]

This is from the very article you linked to. The Secretary says he hasn't seen the specific evidence for "FOUR" embassies, but he shares the view that additional embassy attacks were in the works. Would you have been okay if Trump said "Additional" instead of "Four"? Talk about nitpicking.

Id like some clarification on this if possible. Because the President did say there were 4 embassies who were to be attacked and Mark Espers said he didn't have specific evidence that was true.

[SB Shock]

An assassination of a pretty high ranking person is clearly closer to declaring war than a strike on a less high ranking official. That seems fairly logical.

He was not a high official of the government. He was a general in charge of exporting terrorism (both internal and external). And he was meeting with a terrorist who forces just attacked American's and our embassy (which is an act of WAR). This makes him a fair target even if you don't even consider all the other american blood on his hands.

I never said it was unconstitutional. I said an impeached president "effectively" declared war without approval from Congress. Again, no authorization is needed, but it's kind of a sad state of affairs.

It called reestablishing deterrence that Obama and Trump (up to this point) had let slip over the last 11 years.

I don't remember any folks on Shockernet posting champion threads for Obama after a drone strike. I don't remember anyone responding to Obama's actions by saying "They were warned. They chose poorly." I don't remember anyone saying he handled drone strikes beautifully. If those posts had existed, I probably would have commented.

There was no need to. Obama was just carrying on with the Bush doctrine and you liberals were not about to criticize the Messiah. Nor would you all criticize his forays into Libya, Syria or the support of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

My recollection is that the issue in Kosovo was that Clinton went past the allowable time frame of the war powers act. Yeah, I don't think the war powers act is great, but I'm not going to make the argument that it's a slam dunk that it's unconstitutional.

So I guess we can agree that Trump didn't violate the War Powers act and didn't have to inform anybody before ordering the strike.

He said four US embassies were going to be targeted. Source. Trump's own defense secretary said he wasn't aware of that type of intelligence. Source.

Actually your summary is not correct. Trump said he "believed" and Esper said there was a threat just not to 4 specific embassies.

[Shocker1976]

He was not a high official of the government. He was a general in charge of exporting terrorism (both internal and external). And he was meeting with a terrorist who forces just attacked American's and our embassy (which is an act of WAR). This makes him a fair target even if you don't even consider all the other american blood on his hands.



It called reestablishing deterrence that Obama and Trump (up to this point) had let slip over the last 11 years.




There was no need to. Obama was just carrying on with the Bush doctrine and you liberals were not about to criticize the Messiah. Nor would you all criticize his forays into Libya, Syria or the support of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.



So I guess we can agree that Trump didn't violate the War Powers act and didn't have to inform anybody before ordering the strike.




Actually your summary is not correct. Trump said he "believed" and Esper said there was a threat just not to 4 specific embassies.

Well reasoned and expressed response; I have a life long friend who holds similar views as those posted by jdshock which makes for a frustrating friendship at times.

[jdshock]

There was no need to. Obama was just carrying on with the Bush doctrine and you liberals were not about to criticize the Messiah. Nor would you all criticize his forays into Libya, Syria or the support of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

You believe this because you view "liberals" as this homogeneous group as portrayed by Fox news. One of my favorite stats: 22 percent of Republicans supported Syria strikes under Obama; 86 percent supported them under Trump. 38 percent of Democrats supported Obama's Syria strikes. 37 percent supported Trump's. Source.

Now, I'm sure you're not going to believe that study for whatever reason. And there are absolutely instances where Dems are hypocrites, but that's not my point. My broader point is that many Dems were actually pretty vocal about opposing some of those efforts. So to say "we all" wouldn't criticize Obama is just wrong. Many of us did. In fact, the data would suggest the majority of us did.

Actually your summary is not correct. Trump said he "believed" and Esper said there was a threat just not to 4 specific embassies.

Lol, okay. If that means you think Trump is an honest guy, so be it.

[pinstripers]

I doubt if any of them are honest, certainly not Obama

[Kung Wu]

One of my favorite stats: 22 percent of Republicans supported Syria strikes under Obama; 86 percent supported them under Trump. 38 percent of Democrats supported Obama's Syria strikes. 37 percent supported Trump's.

...


Now, I'm sure you're not going to believe that study for whatever reason.

This is "one of [your] favorite stats"?

Are you sure it reflects what you have insinuated it means: Republicans are hypocrites, while the Democrats were consistent on Syrian strikes?

For your sake, go have a cigarette and think about your response.