Iran War

Should the US wage war with Iran?

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.

SGaynor

Well-known member
Callsign: KN4KFS
Dec 6, 2006
6,767
133
48
Bristol, TN
God you are fucking dense. I mean deliberately dense.

You do realize there is a ton of protection going on about how we know what we know, right?

So you think that all these threats were presented to the President but none of them were imminent, we just had threats and they were all briefed in secret as to how we know and the details of how and what we know and the President just said:

Go kill this guy and tell everyone he was about to do something.

And they all said "yes sir" then directed an NCO in a building outside of Las Vegas to pull a trigger?
Yeah...that's exactly what happened.

Ton of protection? They (Pompeo, Esper) can't even say, "Yes, we had intel that there were imminent strikes?" They can't even admit that?

How about the simple fact that if those attacks were imminent, why didn't they notify said embassies?


It was an assassination, pure and simple. One can argue about the legality - or the wisdom - of taking out a foreign leader (that's Pandora's box), but to lie about why? To make up a justification? Why do that?

Because it's what Trump does - lie and make shit up. Remember this:
 

p m

Administrator
Callsign: AK6PM
Apr 19, 2004
14,379
100
54
La Jolla, CA
www.3rj.org
Well, since NO ONE - not the SecDef, not the SecState, not the President's National Security adviser, will go on record saying that the threat was "imminent" or that there was a specific threat against ANY embassy, let alone 4...
Scott, FYI:
I don't expect you to subscribe to Wall Street Journal, but if you do - here's your read.
Otherwise, here's a quote (I took a liberty of highlighting the subject for you):
"If the threat to Americans from Soleimani was real, it doesn’t matter under international law whether the threat was “imminent.” The traditional law of war couldn’t be clearer on this point. If Soleimani was an enemy combatant waging war on the U.S., then the U.S. has every right to target him. If he was directing attacks on the U.S., as not even Chuck Todd doubts he was, then he can be legally targeted. "
 

gimebakmybulits

Well-known member
Dec 11, 2013
767
36
Pasadena
Yeah...that's exactly what happened.

Ton of protection? They (Pompeo, Esper) can't even say, "Yes, we had intel that there were imminent strikes?" They can't even admit that?

How about the simple fact that if those attacks were imminent, why didn't they notify said embassies?


It was an assassination, pure and simple. One can argue about the legality - or the wisdom - of taking out a foreign leader (that's Pandora's box), but to lie about why? To make up a justification? Why do that?

Because it's what Trump does - lie and make shit up. Remember this:
OK Tard Boy, you can go on thinking it was an assassination if it will make you feel better about your pathetic life living in mommy's basement.
 

SGaynor

Well-known member
Callsign: KN4KFS
Dec 6, 2006
6,767
133
48
Bristol, TN
Scott, FYI:
I don't expect you to subscribe to Wall Street Journal, but if you do - here's your read.
Otherwise, here's a quote (I took a liberty of highlighting the subject for you):
"If the threat to Americans from Soleimani was real, it doesn’t matter under international law whether the threat was “imminent.” The traditional law of war couldn’t be clearer on this point. If Soleimani was an enemy combatant waging war on the U.S., then the U.S. has every right to target him. If he was directing attacks on the U.S., as not even Chuck Todd doubts he was, then he can be legally targeted. "
Like I said, one can argue about the legality (or the wisdom) of it. Quite frankly, "legal" has nothing to do with acts of war; a country can do what it wants - and deal with the repercussions. No one is going to get arrested or taken to court over a country doing something "illegal." (Genocides the exception)

The point is this: Trump made up the justification.
 

SGaynor

Well-known member
Callsign: KN4KFS
Dec 6, 2006
6,767
133
48
Bristol, TN
OK Tard Boy, you can go on thinking it was an assassination if it will make you feel better about your pathetic life living in mommy's basement.
What do you call it?

If they didn't use a bomb but a bullet, then you'd be ok calling it an assassination?
 

gimebakmybulits

Well-known member
Dec 11, 2013
767
36
Pasadena
Like I said, one can argue about the legality (or the wisdom) of it. Quite frankly, "legal" has nothing to do with acts of war; a country can do what it wants - and deal with the repercussions. No one is going to get arrested or taken to court over a country doing something "illegal." (Genocides the exception)

The point is this: Trump made up the justification.
Personally, I think you do realize just how dumb you sound right now.
 

AbnMike

Well-known member
Apr 6, 2016
962
31
Morgantown, WV
Yeah...that's exactly what happened.

Ton of protection? They (Pompeo, Esper) can't even say, "Yes, we had intel that there were imminent strikes?" They can't even admit that?

How about the simple fact that if those attacks were imminent, why didn't they notify said embassies?
Good god man.

Just stop. Seriously.

you're taking TDS to a new level.

Define imminent in a manner that both the WH administration and the Dems will agree to.

You do realize the Dems are playing a game with the word "imminent" right?
 

SGaynor

Well-known member
Callsign: KN4KFS
Dec 6, 2006
6,767
133
48
Bristol, TN
Scott, FYI:
I don't expect you to subscribe to Wall Street Journal, but if you do - here's your read.
Otherwise, here's a quote (I took a liberty of highlighting the subject for you):
"If the threat to Americans from Soleimani was real, it doesn’t matter under international law whether the threat was “imminent.” The traditional law of war couldn’t be clearer on this point. If Soleimani was an enemy combatant waging war on the U.S., then the U.S. has every right to target him. If he was directing attacks on the U.S., as not even Chuck Todd doubts he was, then he can be legally targeted. "
PS - the word imminent is what is in the AUMF from 2002 to invade Iraq that Trump & Co are saying gave them authority to blow him up. That's the hang up on the word - was it authorized by Congress? Trump & Co are saying yes, because it was imminent. (I don't have access to the whole Op-ed, but I'm guessing if they are arguing about "legality" from an international law point, they are creating a straw-man).

It may not even matter if it was "imminent" because the AUMF was/is broadly written.
 

SGaynor

Well-known member
Callsign: KN4KFS
Dec 6, 2006
6,767
133
48
Bristol, TN
Since you all seem to think that we should just be blowing up anyone who remotely threatens the US, who's next on your list?
 

gimebakmybulits

Well-known member
Dec 11, 2013
767
36
Pasadena
PS - the word imminent is what is in the AUMF from 2002 to invade Iraq that Trump & Co are saying gave them authority to blow him up. That's the hang up on the word - was it authorized by Congress? Trump & Co are saying yes, because it was imminent. (I don't have access to the whole Op-ed, but I'm guessing if they are arguing about "legality" from an international law point, they are creating a straw-man).

It may not even matter if it was "imminent" because the AUMF was/is broadly written.
Thank you for the insight Wemple
Since you all seem to think that we should just be blowing up anyone who remotely threatens the US, who's next on your list?
Remotely threaten? Are you on crack?
 

Blue

Well-known member
Mar 26, 2004
8,702
108
AZ
The whole Iranian theocracy could collapse as a result of all this. This could be huge.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brian4d

brian4d

Well-known member
Dec 3, 2007
6,118
32
High Point, NC
They shot down a passenger airline in their own back yard and the people are pissed. Trump said since DAY 1 he was not going to run Front Page Headlines regarding Military operations nor revel anything that could help the enemy and Scott is having a meltdown.

Hey Scott, guess what you can do? DEAL WITH IT!
 

brian4d

Well-known member
Dec 3, 2007
6,118
32
High Point, NC
Since you all seem to think that we should just be blowing up anyone who remotely threatens the US, who's next on your list?
I don't remember you bitching about Obama's drone strikes. Have you seen the stats on Trump Vs. Obama's drone strikes? Makes the crying Trump haters look like fools. You'd fall direct on that list Scott.

14 terrorists leaders killed in Obama drone strikes 700 civilians. Yet, Trump is bad for killing one top Iranian General?

Again, you're a fool.

 

SGaynor

Well-known member
Callsign: KN4KFS
Dec 6, 2006
6,767
133
48
Bristol, TN
They shot down a passenger airline in their own back yard and the people are pissed. Trump said since DAY 1 he was not going to run Front Page Headlines regarding Military operations nor revel anything that could help the enemy and Scott is having a meltdown.

Hey Scott, guess what you can do? DEAL WITH IT!
Uh oh...Brian is
 

SGaynor

Well-known member
Callsign: KN4KFS
Dec 6, 2006
6,767
133
48
Bristol, TN
I don't remember you bitching about Obama's drone strikes. Have you seen the stats on Trump Vs. Obama's drone strikes? Makes the crying Trump haters look like fools. You'd fall direct on that list Scott.

14 terrorists leaders killed in Obama drone strikes 700 civilians. Yet, Trump is bad for killing one top Iranian General?

Again, you're a fool.

If you don't understand the difference between a non-state terrorist and one of the highest ranking generals of a major power in the region, and how that could have repercussions beyond tomorrow, well....

But you bring up a good point: Are you going to be OK when the Syrians, or Iranians, or Iraqis assassinate one of our generals? You know, because drone strikes killed hundreds? Or the thousands that were killed by US troops?

No, you aren't.

Because you don't think that open assassinations on foreign leaders is a bad thing - as long as the US is doing the killing. 'Cause...'Merica.

That type of thinking is childish at best, dangerous at worst.


As I've said for the 1000th time: I'm glad this guy is dead. But I seriously doubt Trump spent ANY time thinking about the consequences of such an action. His recent shifting statements on the justification for doing it (aka, lies) just reinforce that thought - Trump acted impulsively. Again. Like he always does.
 

brian4d

Well-known member
Dec 3, 2007
6,118
32
High Point, NC
But I seriously doubt Trump spent ANY time thinking about the consequences of such an action. His recent shifting statements on the justification for doing it (aka, lies) just reinforce that thought - Trump acted impulsively. Again. Like he always does.
Is this what the Washington Post told you? I mean Scott, you do know Freedom of the Press means the press can publish information they gather, not the press has access to all conversation inside the oval and will publish at will. News Flash, the media doesn't know (and never will) everything.

My key take away form what you just said.

I seriously doubt

In other words, you don't know shit.

Have a great rest of the afternoon pounding sand.