IRGC leader Soleimani has been killed in targeted assassination near Baghdad

a reply to: face23785

These empty suits in Congress whining that they didn't give authorization for the attack yesterday. Seriously? There's still an AUMF in place from 2001 that authorizes action like this.

If that's true, and a legal defense against congressional advice and consent, then why didn't Trump say so? Why did he say he ignored the protocol for Democrats for the same reason he didn't inform Iran. He informed Republicans, but he didn't inform Democrats because they are on the same political level with him as Iran, says Trump.

a reply to: Sillyolme

His actions of peace through strength haven't changed a bit from the time he was elected to now. The impeachment is only a distraction so the bleating sheep can get sleep at night. I'm sure Trump is just as concerned with that farce as the rest of us are.

Thank God he's our president and doesn't bow to the enemy. You should be thankful, silly.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: face23785

I'm not moving the goalposts. I was responding to a different post than your follow-up on the AUMF. In my first post I quoted the extent of the AUMF. It doesn't seem vague at all. In fact as recently as July of last year the Pentagon has stated that they don't believe the AUMF can be applied to Iran due to their limited/nonoperational ties to al-Quaeda.

Whether or not the AUMF against terrorists can be applied is debatable. It has been very broadly interpreted in the past though.
But in this specific case, I'd direct you to the AUMF against Iraq passed by Congress in October 2002. It's perfectly legal for US forces to kill terrorists inside Iraq. If they'd killed him inside Iran it would have been another story from a legal viewpoint, but killing a terrorist mastermind in Iraq is perfectly fine.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: face23785

These empty suits in Congress whining that they didn't give authorization for the attack yesterday. Seriously? There's still an AUMF in place from 2001 that authorizes action like this.

If that's true, and a legal defense against congressional advice and consent, then why didn't Trump say so? Why did he say he ignored the protocol for Democrats for the same reason he didn't inform Iran. He informed Republicans, but he didn't inform Democrats because they are on the same political level with him as Iran, says Trump.

Because there are numerous ways to defend the action. The one they're using is that it was a defensive action taken because there was an imminent plot, which doesn't require the advice and consent of Congress. If that's the case, he doesn't need to resort to legal technicalities and using the AUMF. He may also think it's wiser to use that defense than the AUMF defense, for political reasons. The fact that they haven't invoked it (yet) doesn't mean anything. And there's no disputing the fact that the AUMF has been successfully used to legally justify wide-ranging targeting of terrorists, even those unrelated to 9/11. This guy was a designated terrorist. The AUMF applies. That is a fact no one here can dispute.

a reply to: face23785

Again, he informed the Republicans. He ignored the Democrats. He's making this political, because it's a desperate political strategy to distract from impeachment. It's also reckless and puts all American lives at risk. Americans are not safer as a result of Trump temper tantrum.

originally posted by: mightmight

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: face23785

I'm not moving the goalposts. I was responding to a different post than your follow-up on the AUMF. In my first post I quoted the extent of the AUMF. It doesn't seem vague at all. In fact as recently as July of last year the Pentagon has stated that they don't believe the AUMF can be applied to Iran due to their limited/nonoperational ties to al-Quaeda.

Whether or not the AUMF against terrorists can be applied is debatable. It has been very broadly interpreted in the past though.
But in this specific case, I'd direct you to the AUMF against Iraq passed by Congress in October 2002. It's perfectly legal for US forces to kill terrorists inside Iraq. If they'd killed him inside Iran it would have been another story from a legal viewpoint, but killing a terrorist mastermind in Iraq is perfectly fine.

Which was also passed by...

Congress.

They have zero room to complain. It is obviously 100% political theater that these lemmings are falling for.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: face23785

Again, he informed the Republicans. He ignored the Democrats. He's making this political, because it's a desperate political strategy to distract from impeachment. It's also reckless and puts all American lives at risk. Americans are not safer as a result of Trump temper tantrum.

The fact that he told a few Republican allies doesn't prove that he was required to inform Congress. That's a complete failure of logic. It has been demonstrated in numerous ways by numerous people in this thread that approval from Congress was not required, nor was informing them. Your lack of logical thinking on this is ironic considering you're talking about temper tantrums, which is rich from a group that has been in a non-stop temper tantrum since November 2016. Hillary lost because she was a bad candidate and didn't campaign effectively. It's time to get over that.

And if you honestly think this was done solely to distract from impeachment, you're an idiot. I simply can't imagine going through life this gullible and naive. Geopolitics doesn't come to a halt simply because you guys can't get over a 3-year old election and decided to impeach the President over nothing. Iran has been instigating us for months. Did they do that to help Trump distract from impeachment? Learn to think for yourself, just repeating what you're told to believe regardless of how absurd it is is not working out well for you.

a reply to: face23785

Reading through the CRS' report on the AUMF, it looks like anytime the AUMF has been used as sole justification for a military action, it has been related to combating al-Quaeda or the Taliban. That said, I'm willing to admit that the point is pretty much moot. The strike occurred in Iraq, which has had an AUMF in place since 2002.

Now if we start putting boots on the ground in Iran, that will be a different story that will require Trump to justify the action to Congress.

It was just a matter of time until trump fell under the influence of the neocons and ramped up the War on terror. Time to invest in the war machine once again. Wars for profit, fantastic....

Get in early, cause when it spins out of control, you make bigly bank!!!

originally posted by: olaru12
It was just a matter of time until trump fell under the influence of the neocons and ramped up the War on terror. Time to invest in the war machine once again. Wars for profit, fantastic....

Translation: I have nothing to contribute so here's some baseless fearmongering!

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Unfortunately the democrats have a long history of running to the microphone whenever they believe they can score political points with classified information. Loose lips sink ships....

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: olaru12
It was just a matter of time until trump fell under the influence of the neocons and ramped up the War on terror. Time to invest in the war machine once again. Wars for profit, fantastic....

Translation: I have nothing to contribute so here's some baseless fearmongering!

Baseless fearmongering? Remember Iraq and Afghanastan? Halliburton did quite well with that cluster ****!!! It's just capitalism....

Those that forget the lessons of History are bound to repeat it....It's that time again, eh?

originally posted by: olaru12
It was just a matter of time until trump fell under the influence of the neocons and ramped up the War on terror. Time to invest in the war machine once again. Wars for profit, fantastic....

Doubtful, you people never seem to get anything correct, why would we believe your opinion?

As stated before, Trump has been extremely passive and very reasonable.

So one major attack and suddenly all your delusions have been justified? Lol, no dude.

In fact, there won't be war and the warhawks will find that Trump will be financially stingy with this potential operation.

We got a strong President not afraid to use force.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I still haven't heard any. It's easy to notice when they're not in the air, a little eerie actually. You can't hold a conversation outside for more than 15 minutes because they scream overhead so often. You saw the distance from my building to the runway so you can imagine how close they are when they go over us. You can see the windows on the cockpit if you're at the right angle.

If this was Obama most posts would be how he is in the Saud’s and Israeli’s pocket.

If this was Bush it would be another step to creating his police state and the MiC’s global plan.

Trump? Nah it’s cool.

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: olaru12
It was just a matter of time until trump fell under the influence of the neocons and ramped up the War on terror. Time to invest in the war machine once again. Wars for profit, fantastic....

Translation: I have nothing to contribute so here's some baseless fearmongering!

Baseless fearmongering? Remember Iraq and Afghanastan? Halliburton did quite well with that cluster ****!!! It's just capitalism....

So? ...and what? Is this Iraq and Afghan?

Is Trump claiming weapons of mass destruction and an excuse to invade?

Dude, update your BIOS, seriously.

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: olaru12
It was just a matter of time until trump fell under the influence of the neocons and ramped up the War on terror. Time to invest in the war machine once again. Wars for profit, fantastic....

Translation: I have nothing to contribute so here's some baseless fearmongering!

Baseless fearmongering? Remember Iraq and Afghanastan? Halliburton did quite well with that cluster ****!!! It's just capitalism....

Those that forget the lessons of History are bound to repeat it....It's that time again, eh?

Translation: There have been wars in the past, so every time a US soldier sneezes it's the start of another war!!!!!!!

This is the extent of your logic. Same people telling you this told you we were going to war with Syria. Stop believing everything you're told to think that has no basis in reality. Iran is not gonna go to war with us.

In April of 2019, US officially designated Iran's elite IRGC as a foreign terrorist organization. He was their leader. This strike is no different than killing any other terrorist. I don't care if his day job was Major General he carried out attacks that killed US troops and he was planning more attacks.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Justoneman

His legacy will not fall to dumb conspiracy theories.
He was a very good president. And he was well loved by the american people.

How was he good? He kept his foot on the neck of minorities and killed the economy. If Trump did what obama did, y'all would REALLY be flabbergasted over how inept he is. You could actually back that up instead of telling yourself it's true.

So.

Trump is still president.

Soleimani is still dead.

People are arguing over WHAT just exactly ?