zapatos

What was the "second" attack? Edit: Or rather, what are you saying was the first attack.

I feel this was a pretty smart move by Iran. We made a direct, in-your-face, significant attack which they would have felt required a significant response. At the same time, they seem to be saying "now let's let it go and get back to our normal way of doing things". Ball is in our court. Can Trump accept the proposal and possibly see this crisis end? Will he not accept because it would be bad for his base? Will he not accept because he is a megalomaniac? Personally I hope we don't respond in kind, but I don't know if that is something Trump will be able to do. He already drew a red line by saying he'd hit 52 sites in Iran if they hit us, which they clearly did, and he ripped Obama previously for drawing a red line and not enforcing it.

It is you being dishonest. iNow asked for a name of someone who did something. You gave him a list of people who MIGHT have done something. It boggles the mind that you think that is the same thing. There, now was that so hard?

Are you saying DE is simply people being confused? When did NASA do that? You've lost me.

Have you listened to any of his discussions and debates on the universe being a simulation or are you basing all of this on the headline?

You might want to Google that one.

I'm not sure that is an accurate description of what he is doing. I don't think it is likely we are in a simulation.

There is a big difference between refusing to support your claim, and not supporting your claim until asked. Has anyone here not explained why they feel religion is nonsense when asked?

I know we are getting a bit off topic, but I'm surprised you would have called gravity waves nonsense. There was no evidence of gravity waves but there was plenty of reason to believe they might be found. I doubt anyone would have funded and built the necessary detectors if they believed gravity waves were nonsense.

Just to be fair, did iNow fail to provide a name when requested? Assertions without citations are fine as long as they are provided when requested.

Like gravity waves up until recently?

What is it like when the US uses proxies? Are we bullies constantly stealing someone's lunch money? For 40 years both the Soviets and the Americans conducted their conflict through proxies. Had we instead been shooting at each other the world might have a much smaller population now. If the US and Iran switch to direct attacks we run the risk of a conflict that impacts the entire globe.

I have no idea what you are on. I mean, I have no idea what you are on about.

Of course I do. It's not as if he is an unknown. Thanks for that tidbit. Did anyone say it did?

Yeah, sorry about that. I should have dropped it a lot sooner. I typed up my New Year's Resolution to "be more lean" this year, but it autocorrected to "be more mean"! 🥳

Perhaps next time you can read the entire thread so that you have the context of the conversation that is in flight. Otherwise you are responding inappropriately and causing confusion. Well I'm sure we'd call it an act of war, but that is not equivalent to what we are talking about. An equivalent question to the discussion to date would be 'what would Iran's legal system call it if Iran killed Pompeo in a drone strike?'

Fine. But when we were talking about what Trump did, I asked what in the Constitution gave Congress and not Trump the Right to do what Trump did. You responded with "Article 1, Section 8". You were equating what Trump did with a declaration of war. When I stated "I can't see how you can possibly make the judgement that Trump did not have the authority to authorize the strike due to the Constitution granting the right to declare war to Congress" you responded with "Because the constitution grants that power to congress, not the President". Again, you are clearly equating Trump's action with a declaration of war. For you to now state that "I didn’t say what he did was a declaration of war, I said it was an act of war" is disingenuous.

I quoted you. If you want to say you misspoke that is fine. But your first post was about declaration of war.

We were talking about "declaration of war" up until your last post. Remember your first post to me when I asked what in the Constitution gave Congress and not Trump the Right to do what Trump did? You responded: I then asked how you define "declaration of war" and you stated: Clearly we were talking about "declaration of war" from the very beginning.

If you stop the fires, how will that impact that which is dependent on fire? Is the impact an acceptable tradeoff to the benefits of limiting fire?

The way cold wars keep from getting hot involves using something other than open warfare. That is why Iran uses proxies, denies bombing tankers or oil fields, etc. If Trump decided to take out Soleimani, I wish he would have done it with a bit more subterfuge. I feel like his 'in your face' approach makes it harder for Iran to respond with restraint of their own.

Completely agree. I also feel the killing was a mistake, mainly because you can always shoot later if it's deemed necessary. The guy was clearly an easy target. My biggest question was related to whether or not it was a legal or reasonable decision, not whether or not it was a good decision.

Both Obama and Trump introduced troops to Syria, and Trump also launched missiles in retaliation (not prevention) for chemical attacks in Syria. These were also "violations" of the War Powers Act. There are also other examples in the War Powers Resolution link you provided. From what I've seen in the past the military tends to deal with threats in their own way and in their own time. Meaning they don't seem to be constrained by "it has to be the guy pulling the trigger". "Command and Control" seem to be some of the first targets in conflict because the overall risk is reduced by targeting them first. Clearly they are an important components of the threat. I am unsure that it is reasonable to say we can only target the threat if they guy has his finger on the trigger. Taking out the threat in some other way or at some other time seems a reasonable response.

If you can't or don't want to answer the question then by all means be a smart ass. Makes for a great discussion.

Thanks. As I read this I'm not sure he violated the War Powers Resolution. Perhaps you can give me some insight. This seems to indicate Trump did not violate his authority depending on what he based his decision to act. And the following seems to suggest that as long as he lets them know afterwards, he is again within the rule of law. No, it doesn't. If a declaration of war is not defined, then you cannot claim that what he did was a declaration of war. A colonel also wears boots. Neither my statement nor yours are relevant to the question though.