CanucksCorner.com Forums

Strangelove wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 4:04 pm

Per wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 2:08 am This raises a number of questions:

Had congress been informed?
Has congress approved the initiation of a war against Iran?

Marco Rubio: "The President doesn't need Congressional Approval to respond to attacks against our forces."

Here's why: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoriza ... Terrorists

And I read:

the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

So you are trying to pin 9/11 on Iran?
Now that’s ludicrous. We all know it was the Saudis.
Osama was Saudi. Almost all hi-jackers were Saudi.
Both al qaeda and ISIS have mainly been funded and supported by Saudi money.

Iran and Saudi Arabia hate eachother.
To confuse them with eachother is like confusing the USA and the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War.

Also doesn't need Congressional Approval to thwart an imminent attack, which I believe is the case here.

Allegedly being the key word here...

Have any of you seen a movie called Wag The Dog?

I guess I shouldn't have used that link but oh well...

Per, the AUMF has always been broadly interpreted.

It has been used to justify military force 37 times in 14 countries.

AUMF has been used in non-9/11-related actions many times.

Your buddy Obama used it plenty (including for strikes on Libya, which I complained about in this forum).

In this case Trump could use the AUMF passed by Congress regarding Iraq in October of 2002.

(the Prez can authorize the killing of terrorists in Iraq without Congressional approval)

(if he killed this dirty fucker in Iran of course, that particular AUMF would not apply)

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLA ... ubl243.pdf

Having said all that, the administration will probably just go with "imminent danger defensive action".

Yes, I've seen 'Wag The Dog' and you're grasping at straws and/or slinging mud here.

Trump is under the microscope, as if he'd do something like this without ironclad evidence, lol...

Strangelove wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 5:33 pm Per, the AUMF has always been broadly interpreted.

It has been used to justify military force 37 times in 14 countries.

The AUMF has been used in non-9/11-related actions many times.

Your buddy Obama used it plenty (including for strikes on Libya, which I complained about in this forum).

In this case Trump could use the AUMF passed by Congress against Iraq in October of 2002.

(the Prez can authorize the killing of terrorists in Iraq without Congressional approval)

(if he killed this dirty fucker in Iran, of course, that particular AUMF would not apply)

Having said that, the administration will probably just go with "imminent danger defensive action".

Yes, I've seen 'Wag The Dog' and you're grasping at straws and/or slinging mud here.

Trump is under the microscope, as if he'd do something like this without ironclad evidence, lol...

I said all this already which is why The Cheeto Christ will skate on this. The problem isn’t whether or not it was “legal” for trump to light up his smoke on the general’s ashes.

The problem is how smart was it to do this now? This terrorist is different than bin laden who was not supported by his own government. This terrorist is also a uniformed hero of a sovereign state that is no paper tiger.

There is going to be retribution for this. There is a huge Shiite population in Iraq. Iran sees that population as it’s responsibility as it does for all Shia living in Sunni countries.

You characterized the conflict as Saudi/ Iranian it’s not. It’s Shiite / Sunni which makes the Middle East more like the balkans and like the balkans it’s really difficult to tell who is the bad guy and who is the good guy.


For trump to go wading into the Middle East waving his art of deal schtick is kinda scary. Especially when you see the former colonial powers in the region the British and the French both cringe and calling for restraint.

This might be the single most dangerous thing Trump had done so far

ukcanuck wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 6:05 pm You characterized the conflict as Saudi/ Iranian

I did?

Anyhoo, bravo Lord Trump, no guts no glory, gotta kill terrorists, that's what they're there for, gotta protect/avenge Americans...

Hmmmm.

Trump = Man of God.

Hillary = The Witch.

Two terms.

Thoughts UK?

Strangelove wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 8:42 pm

Hmmmm.

Trump = Man of God.

Hillary = The Witch.

Two terms.

Thoughts UK?

"Take heed that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name, saying, I am the CHEETO CHRIST, and they will lead many astray. [...] Then if any one says to you, Lo, here is the Christ! or There he is!, do not believe it. For false Christs and KIM CLEMENT will arise and show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. Lo, I have told you beforehand. So, if they say to you, Lo, he is in the wilderness, do not go out; if they say, Lo, he is in the inner rooms, do not believe it." (Matthew 24:4-5, 24:23-26)

"But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their licentiousness, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words; from of old their condemnation has not been idle, and their destruction has not been asleep." (2 Peter 2:1-3)

"Beware of false prophets DOCTOR STRANGELOVE , who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits."

Topper wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 8:30 am Quds was declared a terrorist organization in 2007, the same year the UN Security Council sanctioned Soleimani. Those UN sanctions banned Soleimani from international travel.

As far back as June, 2019, the US was urging the UN to extend the sanctions as they are set to expire in October 2019. In August of last year, the US raised concern that General Soleimani has travelled to Russia in violation of the UN sanctions.

He was responsible for the attack on the US Embassy in Baghdad days earlier. The Embassy is considered US sovereign ground.

I understand that this hits home with a lot of people in the USA. Which was also the intention. Rally the base ahead of the elections. Wag the dog. But I think the international fallout could be bad, and put American (among other) lives at risk.

Was he a terrorist? Questionable.

Quds is basically the special forces/military intelligence division of Iran’s revolutionary guard, which is an integrated part of their army.

Of course special forces and military intelligence violate laws on a regular basis. This holds true for the SEAL teams, the CIA, the KGB, GRU, FSB, Moussad, MI5, MI6, SAS, etc, etc. The Russians just recently killed a Chechen refugee in Berlin.
But you do not normally declare the special forces of another country terrorists.

For some reason the US did this in 2007 though, and in 2012 Canada followed suit. I think Egypt has done so as well.
Then in 2018 Saudi Arabia and some vassal states of theirs decided to declare the entire revolutionary guard terrorists, and despite protests from the CIA and the Defence Department, the Trump administration followed suit in April of 2019. I mean, Trump really admires the Saudis, and I guess especially the way they handle nosy journalists from the Washington Post...

So technically, in the eyes of the USA, Canada and a handful of Arab countries, the General in charge of Quds, was considered a terrorist. Internationally, not so much. Russia, for instance, has condemned the assassination. Guess Donny forgot to check with his boss...

In the eyes of most of the world, the USA used a drone to take out the head of military intelligence of another country, inside a third country. This pretty much breaks every rule in the book. And thus it sets a dangerous precedent. If the USA does not play by the rules, why should anyone else? Why not target US political and/or military leaders with drones?

To make matters worse, Soleimani was hugely popular in Iran, a decorated war hero and largely credited with turning the tide of the war in Syria in Assad’s favour by crippling ISIS. Many assume that he has more or less dictated not only strategic military decisions, but most of Iran’s foreign policy in recent years. He wiekded a lot more informal power than his job title suggested.

Iran has promised to avenge his death, and that probably means they have to do something big. Something visible. Something that shows the USA that they will not take this lying down. Thus the world has just gotten somewhat less safe.

What nonsense.

Possibly a terrorist? His key strategy was asymmetric warfare. The user of proxy militias, usually foreign militias to where twist attacks throughout the region. Who else was in the car with him?

So Obama's CIA didn't want the revolutionary guards declared a terrorist entity by a neighbour state and US ally while the nuclear deal was being negotiated. Even more silly dangerous acts to emplaced that failed policy.

Trump's policies have Iran on the brink of collapse.

While a hero to the upper levels of the regime, Soleimani was feared, not respected by most. There is a reason his photos could not be published in the press.

The leader of the revolutionary guards in Soliemani's home state has announced they have been tracking 43 US military ships in the Gulf and also have targets in Tel-Aviv within reach. This confirms Trump's imminent attack reasoning

Topper wrote: ↑Sat Jan 04, 2020 7:39 am The leader of the revolutionary guards in Soliemani's home state has announced they have been tracking 43 US military ships in the Gulf and also have targets in Tel-Aviv within reach. This confirms Trump's imminent attack reasoning

OK, so I guess retaliation could be swift then?

https://mobile.twitter.com/ColinKahl/st ... -iran.html

For what it's worth, I find it hard to believe the Pentagon would provide Trump targeting options that include Iranian cultural sites. Trump may not care about the laws of war, but DoD planners and lawyers do...and targeting cultural sites is war crime.

Topper wrote: ↑Sat Jan 04, 2020 6:08 am So Obama's CIA didn't want the revolutionary guards declared a terrorist entity by a neighbour state and US ally while the nuclear deal was being negotiated.

Possible, but the point I made was that Trump’s CIA and Defence Department did not want the revolutionary guards declared a terrorist entity by the USA when Trump did so in 2019.

While a hero to the upper levels of the regime, Soleimani was feared, not respected by most. There is a reason his photos could not be published in the press.

Yeah, well you probably know better than the CIA.

In 2017, when TIME included Soleimani on its list of the 100 most influential people, former CIA analyst Kenneth M. Pollack wrote that “To Middle Eastern Shi’ites, he is James Bond, Erwin Rommel and Lady Gaga rolled into one.” Inside Iran, his successes abroad evoke the past glories of the Persian empire that, in its early years, the Islamic Republic worked to downplay, because they predated Islam. But the ayatollahs have lately found an asset in nationalism; another poster memorializing Soleimani labels him “PERSIAN GENERAL.”

So popular was he with the Iranian public that Soleimani was envisioned—at least by some in Tehran—as a figure who might provide much-needed public faith in the regime after the eventual passing of the Supreme Leader, now 80—perhaps by becoming the public face of the Islamic Republic while a new top cleric found his feet. That notion, however real or plausible, was also destroyed on the Baghdad pavement.

https://time.com/5758250/qasem-soleiman ... taliation/

There is some speculation in how Iran will retaliate.

American troops in the region?
Targets within the USA?
Israel?
Tankers passing through the Hormuz strait?
Saudi oil production?

I hope they opt for the latter.

Sky rocketing oil prices could facilitate and speed up the transition from fossil fuels to renewables.

Topper wrote: ↑Sat Jan 04, 2020 7:39 am The leader of the revolutionary guards in Soliemani's home state has announced they have been tracking 43 US military ships in the Gulf and also have targets in Tel-Aviv within reach. This confirms Trump's imminent attack reasoning

Wait, if trump chose to interpret that Iran was tracking 43 targets as an imminent threat and reacted with a preemptive strike.

What should Iran’s response be to the notion that the US is targeting 52 sites?

I mean if one can stretch that argument to justify rocking the boat like this then surely the same sauce cooks the goose as well as the gander?