Shootist Jeff

The Official "War with Iran" thread

Recommended Posts

On 5/20/2019 at 9:42 AM, AJ Oliver said:

Military action against Iran would clearly represent what is referred to as "unlawful orders" . . 

which military personnel are obligated to disobey. 

There is a whole literature on it . . 

What a joke. Let's see how it goes for those if orders are disobeyed in the Military. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Given our history in the region, yeah. Seriously, we were provoking them and they got provoked. Where doesn’t even matter.

Where doesn't matter?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Where doesn't matter?   

First, where wasn’t here. It was there. And we’ve crossed the line there many times with Iran and been caught many times before. So we are not standing on any high ground with anyone.

Indeed with Shitstain, our credibility in the world has sunk to the point that even our allies are saying it doesn’t matter where.

It was a drone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

First, where wasn’t here. It was there. And we’ve crossed the line there many times with Iran and been caught many times before. So we are not standing on any high ground with anyone.

Indeed with Shitstain, our credibility in the world has sunk to the point that even our allies are saying it doesn’t matter where.

It was a drone.

Pretty circuitous reply - you could just said that where DOES matter, but, we've pushed enough buttons over there to understand itchy trigger fingers.    You can't ignore the fact that the Iranian Navy and IRGC push the lines pretty regularly too - I'd say that there's been plenty of restraint so far, but, that it wouldn't take much to evoke a response on either side right now. But - the point is, that where the drone was DOES matter.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the Iranians do push back there but they’re there. And we push everywhere with a world wide trade sanction on them. We do this for the Israelis and Saudis and partisan internal consumption.

We’re not ‘right’ in this case in anyone’s eyes but KSA+Israel and Shitstain’s base.

We provoked them. They were provoked. It’s almost juvenile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

You can't ignore the fact that the Iranian Navy and IRGC push the lines pretty regularly too

Why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I don't need an exit plan".  

This is all anyone needs to know about Trump's abilities as Commander in chief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Swimsailor said:

"I don't need an exit plan".  

This is all anyone needs to know about Trump's abilities as Commander in chief.

Well the US and allies didn't have one for the last few decades, why start now? :wacko:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, mad said:

Well the US and allies didn't have one for the last few decades, why start now? :wacko:

Touché.  I guess the bright side is he's admitting it for all to see.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And not only that, . .  Trump says the US should get paid for guarding the Straights (heh) of Hormuz . . 

But it was the Iranian-backed Shia militias (and regulars even) who did a lot of the heavy lifting to 

defeat ISIS in Iraq and Syria. 

How much should the US pay Iran for doing that ? 

(More seriously, if Iran is removed as a player in the Middle East and West Asia, look for ISIS to make a rapid come-back) 

And when Pompeo insists that Iran and Al Qaeda are allies, he's lying ridiculously. What choice do you have other than to 

conclude that he is lying about everything ? 

(Hope I did not include too many points here . . ) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/20/2019 at 8:42 PM, AJ Oliver said:

Military action against Iran would clearly represent what is referred to as "unlawful orders" . . 

which military personnel are obligated to disobey. 

There is a whole literature on it . . 

I have you on ignore, but since someone quoted you - I feel obliged to reply.  Why do you think military action against Iran would be an "unlawful order"? 

And Just because you don't like it doesn't count.  Just saying......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/20/2019 at 10:09 PM, chinabald said:

Is a mile away really close for missile strikes? 

Yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I have you on ignore, but since someone quoted you - I feel obliged to reply.  Why do you think military action against Iran would be an "unlawful order"? 

And Just because you don't like it doesn't count.  Just saying......

Normally I do not respond civilly to the Reich, but since you are being polite for a change . . 

Read the US Constitution, Article I, Section 8. 

The clear meaning of the Constitution can be destroyed, but only we stand by and let it happen 

Share this post


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

Normally I do not respond civilly to the Reich, but since you are being polite for a change . . 

Read the US Constitution, Article I, Section 8. 

The clear meaning of the Constitution can be destroyed, but only we stand by and let it happen 

While I may agree with you, in principle, the fact is we've given unprecedented power and latitude to the Executive in things like this.

Share this post


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

Normally I do not respond civilly to the Reich, but since you are being polite for a change . . 

Read the US Constitution, Article I, Section 8. 

The clear meaning of the Constitution can be destroyed, but only we stand by and let it happen 

Agreeing with BD, I'll add that with the 2001 AUMF and even the 1973 War Powers Act , Congress has abdicated any and all decision making with respect to war to the Executive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found a summary of the current situation:

Quote

Trump pulls out of the carefully negotiated international deal with Iran and says he wants to negotiate another one. If you notice, that’s a truly idiotic move, along the lines of “I am never paying you back, so lend me more money.” If a country is not honoring the deals it has already signed, why bother negotiate any more deals with it? (That’s a rhetorical question.) Iran announces that since the US isn’t honoring the deal, Iran won’t either. A bunch of oil tankers get damaged and the US tries to blame Iran for it, but nobody believes the US. And so a couple more oil tankers get damaged and the US tries to blame Iran for it again, but nobody believes the US again. And so the US flies a drone into Iranian airspace shadowed by a reconnaissance plane with an international crew on board, hoping that Iran makes a mistake and shoots down the reconnaissance plane. But Iran shoots down the drone and it falls in the shallows, in Iran’s territorial waters, rather than in international waters 100 feet deep, which is what the US claims to have happened, but nobody believes it. Iran swiftly fishes out and proudly displays the wreckage of the no longer top secret drone. The Americans spin a tale about wanting to attack Iran but calling the attack off at the last minute. Oil prices go up a bit. The US oil patch is producing flat out but hemorrhaging red ink like crazy. It needs higher oil prices in order to avoid a huge wave of bankruptcies. That part makes sense; the rest of it? Meh again! In any case, a military attack against Iran is unthinkable: Iran has the ability to close the Strait of Hormuz to all shipping, cutting off a third of all of the world’s oil exports and blowing up the global economy, US included. Executive summary: nothing happens, yet again.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Battlecheese said:

I found a summary of the current situation:

Where did you find that, please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

Normally I do not respond civilly to the Reich, but since you are being polite for a change . . 

Read the US Constitution, Article I, Section 8

The clear meaning of the Constitution can be destroyed, but only we stand by and let it happen 

Ok I read it.  Where in Article 1, section 8 does it say an order to strike Iran would be an illegal order and the military must disobey it?  

Quote

 

The United States Constitution allows for certain powers to be explicitly listed that delegate the extent to which the United States Congress has authority. Congress can be said to have two sets of powers granted to the government body under the Constitution. Article 1, Section 8 includes the listed powers that are vested to Congress, which are referred to as the Enumerated Powers. However, Congress also has implied powers that are set forth and implemented through the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution, which is also found in Article 1, Section 8. Furthermore, Congress’ authority has also been expanded due to the several Amendments committed to the Constitution.

The Enumerated Powers granted to the United State Congress are various and extensive. There are those who believe that the powers and authority of Congress should remain within the limits of the actual provisions as scripted in the Constitution. That is to say that the Constitution should be interpreted in terms of the actual text and that only those powers written into law in the Constitution should be the actual extent of Congress’ powers. 

However, there also others that believe that in order for Congress to effectually carry out its duties within the realm of its granted jurisdiction. These people support the use of the Necessary and Proper Clause to grant Congress a wider breadth in terms of its jurisdictional authority in order to make sure that the Legislative Branch of Government is working effectively and up to its intended purpose.

As mentioned, there are various powers that are included as part of Congress’ Enumerated Powers which are included into the Constitution’s provisions. The following comprises some of the powers that are found in Article 1, Section 8:

●    Congress has the power to impose and collect taxes which are to provide for the debts of the United States, as well as for the common defense and welfare of the country. All such taxes are to be implemented equally through the nation.

●    The power to borrow money on behalf of the United States.

●    The regulation of commerce, both on the international and interstate levels. This is also to include Indian Tribes as well.

●     Congress has the power to establish currency and coin money.

●     The power to establish post offices.

●     To provide for and maintain a navy.

●     Organize, train, and arm a militia.

●     Exclusive powers to legislative matters of the country.

Other powers that have been granted after the original drafting of the Constitution have come in the form of Constitutional Amendments. Three particular Amendments gave specific powers and authority to Congress that were not included under the Enumerated Powers of Article 1, Section 8.  

 

You have read the War Powers Act, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/28/2019 at 3:41 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

You have read the War Powers Act, right?

I have.

On 5/24/2019 at 8:53 PM, Importunate Tom said:
On 5/24/2019 at 4:35 PM, MR.CLEAN said:

 

Do you really not know?  Read the law, man, it's in black and white.

...

Quote

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

So let's go over Libya first, then get to Iran.

In this thread, let's reverse the suggested order.

Has there been a declaration of war on Iran that I missed?

Some SPECIFIC statutory authorization?

A national PANIC?

Share this post


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

Meanwhile, Europe gives america the finger and turns on their SWIFT-less financial exchange with Iran: https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/64804/iran-nuclear-deal-instex-now-operational_en

 

I would characterize that as giving Trump and Bolton the finger, not the US. 

 The goal appears to be the placing of a band-aid until the US gets something other than a total buffoon as a POTUS and a guy who ever met a war he didn't like as NSA again. I don't see this as an effort to overturn the establishment of the US/Saudi petro-dollar, and thereby the role of the US as the world's banker. They are merely seeking to convince Iran to await that too. 

 It is highly likely Trump will be gone in a couple years and the JCPOA will be back in effect immediately thereafter. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mark K said:

I would characterize that as giving Trump and Bolton the finger, not the US. 

 The goal appears to be the placing of a band-aid until the US gets something other than a total buffoon as a POTUS and a guy who ever met a war he didn't like as NSA again. I don't see this as an effort to overturn the establishment of the US/Saudi petro-dollar, and thereby the role of the US as the world's banker. They are merely seeking to convince Iran to await that too. 

 It is highly likely Trump will be gone in a couple years and the JCPOA will be back in effect immediately thereafter. 

 

I think that is likely a very valid assessment..... Up until the last sentence.  I heard an interesting opinion piece recently by a fairly non-partisan think tank guy who says the 2020 election is Trump's to lose, given the steaming economy and the unfolding border crisis that essentially validates Cheeto's earlier call of the border being in crisis.  I have no doubt that he is eminently capable of losing it, but I also think the democRATs are eminently capable of giving the game away as well. 

I haven't seen much out of the current crop of the 27 or so candidates - other than Biden - who could mount an effective campaign against him.  And eventually, the D party will reject Biden as being just another old white guy.  And it will be their downfall.  

Just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I think that is likely a very valid assessment..... Up until the last sentence.  I heard an interesting opinion piece recently by a fairly non-partisan think tank guy who says the 2020 election is Trump's to lose, given the steaming economy and the unfolding border crisis that essentially validates Cheeto's earlier call of the border being in crisis.  I have no doubt that he is eminently capable of losing it, but I also think the democRATs are eminently capable of giving the game away as well. 

I haven't seen much out of the current crop of the 27 or so candidates - other than Biden - who could mount an effective campaign against him.  And eventually, the D party will reject Biden as being just another old white guy.  And it will be their downfall.  

Just saying.

I'm sure the Euro's are pointing out to Iran that Trump is trailing all the real contenders in all the key states at the moment....and with that economy. 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Shitstain is trailing a gay Mayor of a town with a population of 100,000.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_buttigieg-6872.html

Apparently TDS is widespread.

Yeah and shitstain was trailing Hillz in the polls just before Nov 6th 2016.  How'd that work out?

Share this post


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

I think that is likely a very valid assessment..... Up until the last sentence.  I heard an interesting opinion piece recently by a fairly non-partisan think tank guy who says the 2020 election is Trump's to lose, given the steaming economy and the unfolding border crisis that essentially validates Cheeto's earlier call of the border being in crisis.  I have no doubt that he is eminently capable of losing it, but I also think the democRATs are eminently capable of giving the game away as well. 

I haven't seen much out of the current crop of the 27 or so candidates - other than Biden - who could mount an effective campaign against him.  And eventually, the D party will reject Biden as being just another old white guy.  And it will be their downfall.  

Just saying.

I really hate to agree with you on this as I will vote for anyone, I mean anyone, that runs against Trump, even Biden if I have to.  Unless the crowd gets their shit together after that first debate fiasco, I think we are looking forward to at least four more years of Trump and his idiotic policies and actions.  But hey, the USofA will be unrecognizably burnt to a crisp by then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Yeah and shitstain was trailing Hillz in the polls just before Nov 6th 2016.  How'd that work out?

Shitstain wasn’t POTUS then.

now it’s akin to Tom Brady trailing Tim Tebow in QB popularity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fakenews said:
35 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Yeah and shitstain was trailing Hillz in the polls just before Nov 6th 2016.  How'd that work out?

Shitstain wasn’t POTUS then.

GAYTOR!!!!  Dude!  My new nickname for you is "MOTO"**.

**Master of the Obvious

 

Do you have any other salient points to bring up?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

GAYTOR!!!!  Dude!  My new nickname for you is "MOTO"**.

**Master of the Obvious

 

Do you have any other salient points to bring up?

 

For you just the Obvious, which otherwise would escape you.

Heres a freebie.  Assault weapons are a public health hazard and should be banned.

sincerely,

FN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

For you just the Obvious, which otherwise would escape you.

Heres a freebie.  Assault weapons are a public health hazard and should be banned.

How do you feel about the fast food industry? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mad said:

How do you feel about the fast food industry? :)

I avoid it at all costs.  Haven’t so much as been inside a Chipotle in 5+ years.  Difference is some guy with a Big Mac isn’t a threat to anyone’s health but his.

AW’s are more analogous to second hand smoke.  Should be banned or shunted off to a place where it’s harmless (a deserted island for instance).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew I shouldn't have written that last line...I knew it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

I avoid it at all costs.  Haven’t so much as been inside a Chipotle in 5+ years.  Difference is some guy with a Big Mac isn’t a threat to anyone’s health but his.

AW’s are more analogous to second hand smoke.  Should be banned or shunted off to a place where it’s harmless (a deserted island for instance).

And this has sweet fuck all to do with Iran????  And I'M accused of making every thread about gunz????  As evadent....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mark K said:

I knew I shouldn't have written that last line...I knew it. 

Hahaha...  Don't feel too bad.  I'm sure people will forget that rookie mistake.  I'm sure....:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Yeah and shitstain was trailing Hillz in the polls just before Nov 6th 2016.  How'd that work out?

And after by like 3M. Unfortunately, Putin preferred your candidate and still does.

Share this post


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

And after by like 3M. Unfortunately, Putin preferred your candidate and still does.

It looks like 5 more years of fake outrage and meltdown by this dullard. :rolleyes: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Olsonist said:

And after by like 3M. Unfortunately, Putin preferred your candidate and still does.

So you're saying that Putin rigged the EC now too???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Do you have any other salient points to bring up?

I've got a few, if we could get back to the thread topic.

Have you read the War Powers Act? If so,

Has there been a declaration of war on Iran that I missed?

Some SPECIFIC statutory authorization?

A national PANIC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Waiting in Dubai airport yesterday (?) I got talking to a young British officer (seconded to the Saudies for some reason)

I asked how how they cope with Trump and his various provocations... particularly Iran.

He said. "We we ignore it all pretty much, everyone knows the Iranians are OK"

It's sad to be Jeff.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

He said. "We we ignore it all pretty much, everyone knows the Iranians are OK"

It's sad to be Jeff.

Yep, the Americans sanction every country they can, that sells oil ... except the Arabs.

"But but we could buy more weapons from you if we were getting a better price for our oil ..."

"Ok I get that, consider it done."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, random said:

Yep, the Americans sanction every country they can, that sells oil ... except the Arabs.

"But but we could buy more weapons from you if we were getting a better price for our oil ..."

"Ok I get that, consider it done."

Senate shot that down.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/20/us/politics/saudi-arms-sales.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

18 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I think that is likely a very valid assessment..... Up until the last sentence.  I heard an interesting opinion piece recently by a fairly non-partisan think tank guy who says the 2020 election is Trump's to lose, given the steaming economy and the unfolding border crisis that essentially validates Cheeto's earlier call of the border being in crisis.  I have no doubt that he is eminently capable of losing it, but I also think the democRATs are eminently capable of giving the game away as well. 

I haven't seen much out of the current crop of the 27 or so candidates - other than Biden - who could mount an effective campaign against him.  And eventually, the D party will reject Biden as being just another old white guy.  And it will be their downfall.  

I love the laundered fox news bullshittery from you jeffreaux it's chock full of fucking stupid. So much wrong to unpack you just can't pick one. "the steaming" Obama economy you used to bitch about? the border crisis you ignored? your utter cluelessness of the D field - Kamala Harris would gut Trump like a fish. Just come out of the closet and say outloud "I want an old white guy because I'm threatened".

Your boy shitstain showed Iran today - by kissing KJUs ass - exactly why Iran's  nuclear program is worth a potential war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Your boy shitstain showed Iran today - by kissing KJUs ass - exactly why Iran's  nuclear program is worth a potential war.

They can't fight Iran and North Korea at the same time, that's what it's about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, random said:

They can't fight Iran and North Korea at the same time, that's what it's about.

It's about extracting as much "prosperity" for the Trump family personally as they can and Iran aint' playing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:
23 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Do you have any other salient points to bring up?

I've got a few, if we could get back to the thread topic.

Have you read the War Powers Act? If so,

Has there been a declaration of war on Iran that I missed?

Some SPECIFIC statutory authorization?

A national PANIC?

I don't recall addressing that question to you, unless you are Gaytor.  Or Spartacus.  Whatever.  

And no there is no specific authorization.  If it gets to the point we need one, I'm hoping trump follows the WPA like both Bush's did.  But which neither Clinton or Obama ever did.    At the moment, we don't appear to need one.  

You do understand that the WPA authorizes the POTUS to act and then inform congress after the fact within a set period of time and seek authorization to continue?  right?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

You do understand that the WPA authorizes the POTUS to act and then inform congress after the fact within a set period of time and seek authorization to continue?  right? 

If there's a PANIC, yes. Is there one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:
17 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

You do understand that the WPA authorizes the POTUS to act and then inform congress after the fact within a set period of time and seek authorization to continue?  right? 

If there's a PANIC, yes. Is there one?

No.  Has the POTUS invoked the WPA or struck a foreign country yet?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

War with Iran is so May/early Junish. Trump has forgotten about Iran (until the next time he wants to rally to troops and someone reminds him that he can wag the dog with Iran) because his attention has now been diverted by his good friend Kim and we know he cannot think about two things at the same time. Hell, he does a piss poor job of thinking about one thing at a time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

War with Iran is so May/early Junish. Trump has forgotten about Iran (until the next time he wants to rally to troops and someone reminds him that he can wag the dog with Iran) because his attention has now been diverted by his good friend Kim and we know he cannot think about two things at the same time. Hell, he does a piss poor job of thinking about one thing at a time.

No worries, Ivanka can field this one for Dad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mad said:

No worries, Ivanka can field this one for Dad. 

That's true, she seems a natural when it comes to this international diplomacy thing. I have wondered about something. Don Jr and Eric are running the business and Ivanka and Jared are helping Daddy run the country (and the world too). Which pair does Donald have more confidence in? He could have brought the two boys into government and let I and. J run the company.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/28/2019 at 3:41 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

Ok I read it.  Where in Article 1, section 8 does it say an order to strike Iran would be an illegal order and the military must disobey it?  

You have read the War Powers Act, right?

 

8 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

No.  Has the POTUS invoked the WPA or struck a foreign country yet?  

No. Would an order to strike Iran be illegal without a PANIC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Importunate Tom said:
8 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

No.  Has the POTUS invoked the WPA or struck a foreign country yet?  

No. Would an order to strike Iran be illegal without a PANIC?

No, I"m not aware of any wording in the WPA that suggests a PANIC! has to first be declared before invoking it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

That's true, she seems a natural when it comes to this international diplomacy thing. I have wondered about something. Don Jr and Eric are running the business and Ivanka and Jared are helping Daddy run the country (and the world too). Which pair does Donald have more confidence in? He could have brought the two boys into government and let I and. J run the company.

It's easier to cash in on ties to government like Don Jr and Eric are currently doing to the tune of millions when you are in the penumbra of politics like they are. better to look at it as different divisions in the army of grift.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

No, I"m not aware of any wording in the WPA that suggests a PANIC! has to first be declared before invoking it.

OK, OK, how about

Quote

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

A national "emergency." You know, like when there's a Cherry Blossom problem or something.

I think calling it a PANIC helps emphasize that a things like a Cherry Blossom emergency or an "imminent involvement" in hostilities are just scare tactics to grab power. But I'll go along with calling it an emergency. So...

Would an order to strike Iran be illegal without a PANIC an emergency?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Importunate Tom said:

 

Would an order to strike Iran be illegal without a PANIC an emergency?

Trump has already showed that he considers any need to do something an emergency and the Republican party has agreed..  Ergo, he can strike whatever he wants, whenever he wants, with no consequences other than losing an election and going to jail for unrelated financial crimes.

Share this post


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

No.  Has the POTUS invoked the WPA or struck a foreign country yet?  

Other than the Syria episode?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Trump has already showed that he considers any need to do something an emergency and the Republican party has agreed.

It's gone beyond TeamR. Even I have been cheering for his stupid wall emergency in this thread. Or something.

 

4 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Ergo, he can strike whatever he wants, whenever he wants, with no consequences

He's far from the first with that power and the Duopoly show no interest in making him the last. As Eva Dent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The legality of whatever Shitstain would do in the Persian Gulf is a non justiciable political matter. The term you are looking for is impeachable and then convictable. Mitch thinks that's funny and he's very big on the 2A. He thinks selling your country out to Putin is funny too.

image.thumb.png.7136c05cd7f3bcd6f432efc69f363996.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Importunate Tom said:

It's gone beyond TeamR. Even I have been cheering for his stupid wall emergency in this thread. Or something.

 

He's far from the first with that power and the Duopoly show no interest in making him the last. As Eva Dent.

He's not the first with that power but he's the first to call a delay "emergency!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

That's true, she seems a natural when it comes to this international diplomacy thing. I have wondered about something. Don Jr and Eric are running the business and Ivanka and Jared are helping Daddy run the country (and the world too). Which pair does Donald have more confidence in? He could have brought the two boys into government and let I and. J run the company.

Well she is Daddy’s favourite girl. 

Share this post


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

Well she is Daddy’s favourite girl. 

Here ya go. Porkbelly started another thread on the subject. Enjoy.

 

Share this post


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

Other than the Syria episode?

Pretty sure he got Putin's permission on that one. The Syrians got everything expensive out of the way first, anyway...like they knew exactly where and when it was gonna happen... 

Share this post


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

Pretty sure he got Putin's permission on that one. The Syrians got everything expensive out of the way first, anyway...like they knew exactly where and when it was gonna happen... 

Of course. But it took out two tents and a portable shitter and it did so very strongly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread needs some music

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

OK, OK, how about

A national "emergency." You know, like when there's a Cherry Blossom problem or something.

I think calling it a PANIC helps emphasize that a things like a Cherry Blossom emergency or an "imminent involvement" in hostilities are just scare tactics to grab power. But I'll go along with calling it an emergency. So...

Would an order to strike Iran be illegal without a PANIC an emergency?

Yep.  And I would say that impeding or threatening to impede >20% of the world's oil supply by blowing up tankers in international waters and shooting down USAF aircraft in international airspace would definitely qualify as an emergency.  Don't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Other than the Syria episode?

Well, yeah - aside from that.  :lol:

But he was just enforcing obama's red line in the sand.  So that was just a continuation of current practice and policy.

Share this post


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

Yep.  And I would say that impeding or threatening to impede >20% of the world's oil supply by blowing up tankers in international waters and shooting down USAF aircraft in international airspace would definitely qualify as an emergency.  Don't you?

I would again suggest that you

On 6/28/2019 at 3:41 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

read the War Powers Act,

And then let's talk about

Quote

 (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

And be sure to read all the way past the third word, right to the end.

Now... have we, our territories, our possessions, or our armed forces been attacked?

Within the meaning of the Act you wanted to talk about, I'd say clearly no. It was written with the idea that someone might come to the President and say something like, "Here's a list of a dozen major cities that will be vaporized by USSR ICBM's in the next half hour. Should we go to Congress or just react?"

And everyone agreed: just react. Heck, even I agree. But if some shitty Iranian speedboat gets too close to a Navy battle group or even fires on it, that's an attack but not one that creates a national PANIC.

Share this post


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

Now... have we, our territories, our possessions, or our armed forces been attacked?

Yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:
6 minutes ago, Importunate Tom said:

Now... have we, our territories, our possessions, or our armed forces been attacked?

Yes

I must have missed it. Got a cite?

Share this post


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

I must have missed it. Got a cite?

Sure:  https://edition.cnn.com/2019/06/20/middleeast/iran-drone-claim-hnk-intl/index.html

Note is says "USAF" on the side.  Last I recall, the USAF was part of our armed forces.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Sure:  https://edition.cnn.com/2019/06/20/middleeast/iran-drone-claim-hnk-intl/index.html

Note is says "USAF" on the side.  Last I recall, the USAF was part of our armed forces.

 

Because dropping a drone is more or less the same as a flight of nuclear ICBM's coming our way in terms of the level of PANIC?

Not to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should be noted however, that shooting down a civilian airliner is not attacking Iran's armed forces. Nor was our backing of that nice Saddam Hussein fellow in the Iran Iraq border war in any way a direct attack on Iran's armed forces. The important thing is that we are on the moral high ground here, or rather I mean there, there being on the other side of the world right next to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

It should be noted however, that shooting down a civilian airliner is not attacking Iran's armed forces. Nor was our backing of that nice Saddam Hussein fellow in the Iran Iraq border war in any way a direct attack on Iran's armed forces. The important thing is that we are on the moral high ground here, or rather I mean there, there being on the other side of the world right next to them.

You can keep going back - we have a pretty rotten record of making a mess of things in Iran - by our own actions and in cooperation with others.  While that cognizance absolutely should inform our diplomatic approach to Iran - it doesn't negate that they and their intentions are currently a threat that needs to be considered and mitigated. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

You can keep going back - we have a pretty rotten record of making a mess of things in Iran - by our own actions and in cooperation with others.  While that cognizance absolutely should inform our diplomatic approach to Iran - it doesn't negate that they and their intentions are currently a threat that needs to be considered and mitigated. 

Yes and our intentions are milk and cookies. Or rather MBS and Netanyahu's intentions are hummus and gefilte fish.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Yes and our intentions are milk and cookies. Or rather MBS and Netanyahu's intentions are hummus and gefilte fish.

We're super good at considering and mitigating middle eastern threats, because history.  Hey, at least the defense companies will have another 50 years of sales growth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump backed out of the Iran treaty, not Iran... Now that the US has no treaty, and is badgering Iran, they shrug their shoulders and say "Fine... We'll make more nuclear fuel.... Fuck you!" and this is reason to badger them more?

 I've heard that you catch more flies with honey, than vinegar..... (Not sure why you'd want to catch flies, but....)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

Trump backed out of the Iran treaty, not Iran... Now that the US has no treaty, and is badgering Iran, they shrug their shoulders and say "Fine... We'll make more nuclear fuel.... Fuck you!" and this is reason to badger them more?

 I've heard that you catch more flies with honey, than vinegar..... (Not sure why you'd want to catch flies, but....)

Sir, your avatar wants to have a word with you.

image.png.3b683a91c2f17c6c11e31a973c14218a.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Sir, your avatar wants to have a word with you.

image.png.3b683a91c2f17c6c11e31a973c14218a.png

Well..... Yeah, there is that bit...... But...... Actually the flies I like best are attracted to cider vinegar...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

You can keep going back - we have a pretty rotten record of making a mess of things in Iran - by our own actions and in cooperation with others.  While that cognizance absolutely should inform our diplomatic approach to Iran - it doesn't negate that they and their intentions are currently a threat that needs to be considered and mitigated. 

 

I've considered it a bit and think the "emergency" is about like the Cherry Blossom emergency in Oregon that was mentioned in another thread.

In other words, not one. At all.

A threat? Yes and we're provoking them and have been for a long time. The two might be related.

Quote

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

What do you think? Is knocking down a drone the kind of attack that creates a national PANIC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From CNN:

Quote

 

On Monday, Iran announced that its stockpiles of enriched low-grade uranium exceeded the 300-kilogram limit set in a landmark 2015 nuclear deal.
The move is thought to be Tehran's first major breach of the accord since US President Donald Trump withdrew from the agreement last year. The deal limited Iran's uranium enrichment in exchange for an easing of international sanctions.
Iran had threatened to surpass the maximum permitted amount of enriched uranium in retaliation to crippling US economic sanctions.

 

I'm betting there is a strike in the next week or so.  I hope they at least wait until next Tuesday.  SWMBO and I are going diving just at the Oman side of the mouth of the Whore-Moose (tip of the rhino horn) this weekend and then we are both out of the country for the next three weeks.  Shit fuck!!!  :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites