Is this war with Iran?

[dimreepr]

24 minutes ago, MigL said:

It takes two sides to escalate; you can't look at the actions of one side without considering the actions of the other.

for escalate read revenge; and we all know how that ends.

[MigL]

I'm not saying it's right or justified, I'm just introducing it for discussion...

You know why nobody f*cks with Russia ?
Because Russia will be just as brutal, if not more so, in their retaliation to any perceived attacks. They even targeted hospitals in Syria, and they succeeded in putting down ISIS much better than the Americans. I suspect they learned this lesson in WW2, where the Germans were actually afraid of surrendering to them. 

The US ( and Israel ) have always been urged by their populations to take the 'high road' with surgical strikes instead of mass slaughters,  and proportional responses that do little to deter. We are attempting to 'set an example' for how violence should be done.
Does that even make sense ?

And Europe, of course, for the last century has been all about appeasement, crossing their fingers that everything will work out without having to dirty their hands, while Dick-tators around the world do as they please and oppress people.

America for better or worse, currently has a President who can be as big a dick as V Putin; in fact he idolizes him.
I'm actually surprised D Trump hasn't already started a war, although I would have thought it would be against Mexico or Canada.

[iNow]

I’m more interested to see how China’s going to respond to this than I am about Russia right now (especially given the way they’re trying to straddle the lead-by-example vs lead-by-fear divide MigL references)

[dimreepr]

25 minutes ago, MigL said:

The US ( and Israel ) have always been urged by their populations to take the 'high road' with surgical strikes instead of mass slaughters,  and proportional responses that do little to deter.

The proportional response IS to do little to deter.

[zapatos]

11 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

This person - regardless of what he may or may not have done - was a human being, and as such has the basic right to life, and to a fair trial, as we all do. How can it possibly be ethically acceptable that anyone - regardless of his rank or position - can order the blatant killing of another human being, just like that? What Trump has done is akin to me hiring a contract killer to get rid of someone I don’t like; if I did that, I would be brought before a judge, and locked away for life, quite regardless of who the deceased person was or what he/she has done. And quite rightly so. Why do these same standards of law, justice, and human rights not apply to the President of the US? Why do they not apply to other heads of states, who commit similar crimes against humanity? At the very least, this Iranian general would have been entitled to a fair trial before an impartial judge. What happened here was premeditated murder, plain and simple. If this act was illegal under US law, then Trump needs to be held accountable for his action to the full extent of the law, like any other citizen would; if it was legal under US law, then that means the US has deteriorated to a point were human rights count for nothing, and lives are expendable for political gain and leverage. If someone is in the way, just have him killed, no need to bother with fair trials.

 

The thing that makes this situation different for you and I versus Trump, is that we have a structure in place to adjudicate whereas leaders of countries do not. The UN and World Court are dependent upon cooperation of the correct parties, whereas state adjudication is already a mature system.

There was zero chance of bringing Soleimani before a court of law, and when you do not have a judicial system in place, people make their own judicial system. 

Allowing Soleimani to continue in his efforts would have been just as profound a decision as killing him.

It is unfortunate that at the state level we often have people of questionable ability making such profound decisions, but that is the current state our world is in.

I don't know if Trump's decision was good or bad, but I feel that by taking on the role of President, it was his decision to make.

Edited January 4, 2020 by zapatos

[iNow]

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

I feel that by taking on the role of President, it was his decision to make.

I feel that the constitution gives this authority to the congress, not the executive. But alas... what we feel is not terribly relevant at this point. The toothpaste is already out of the tube and it ain’t going back in

[zapatos]

15 minutes ago, iNow said:

I feel that the constitution gives this authority to the congress, not the executive

What specifically in the Constitution gives this authority to Congress?

[swansont]

17 minutes ago, zapatos said:

What specifically in the Constitution gives this authority to Congress?

Article 1, section 8. Congress shall have the power to declare war (edit: also to raise money for armies, and that money can’t be appropriated for longer than 2 years)

[Conjurer]

On 1/3/2020 at 10:25 AM, Airbrush said:

Is this insight into the mind of Trump?  DOES HE BELIEVE that starting a war will help him win the election?

It is more likely that is what his aid told him to do to keep from getting impeached.  He may be trying to call their bluff of having an active nuclear program.  If they nuked someone, they could declare a state of national emergency, so then he could overturn his impeachment.

I would guess that it would more likely end up being a police action, since they do not have the mobilization to attack us without a naval fleet.  Their only likely means to attack would be an ICBM, or they could attack troops in the middle east.  If they pulled out the troops in the middle east, then they would not be able to attack us.  If they cannot attack us back, then it technically isn't a war or anything that would ensue a state of national emergency.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

I don't know if Trump's decision was good or bad, but I feel that by taking on the role of President, it was his decision to make.

At the very least he needed to inform the “gang of 8” which he did not do. The problem is that there are currently no repercussions for not following the rules.

[zapatos]

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

Article 1, section 8. Congress shall have the power to declare war (edit: also to raise money for armies, and that money can’t be appropriated for longer than 2 years)

How do you define "declaration of war"? Does violence or death have to be involved? Any minimum number of people involved? Is blowing up equipment with no loss of life a declaration of war? If you kill others while being attacked (such as at the embassy) is that a declaration of war? Is there some time frame in a defensive response involved? If the killing of Soleimani was a defensive act, is that a declaration of war? 

"War" as in the common vernacular generally involves large operations (WW!, WW2, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, 1812, etc.) Not many people categorize the killing of a handful of individuals to be "war". If that were the case, then probably every country in the world has declared war on one country or the other countless times in the last decade.

10 minutes ago, swansont said:

At the very least he needed to inform the “gang of 8” which he did not do. The problem is that there are currently no repercussions for not following the rules.

Sorry but I'm not familiar with that rule. Can you please give me a little more detail?

[Conjurer]

4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

How do you define "declaration of war"?

Both countries have to declare war.  If they already declared war, then we technically still are not at war unless we also declare war.  They could choose not to go to war and say it was a police action, since it was only decided by the president.  They can get away without having to go to war even though they probably really do, since the only way troops could really be engaged with each other is if we attacked them.  

They would have to at least have an agreement with Iraq to even move troops to our closest troops in Afghanistan.  If they tried that, they could meet opposition with Iraq, so they could bring us into war by attacking Iraq.  Even then we could still say screw-em and let them attack Iraq and still not go to war.  It would be dumb to allow them to position themselves there if they did try something like that.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

How do you define "declaration of war"? Does violence or death have to be involved? Any minimum number of people involved? Is blowing up equipment with no loss of life a declaration of war? If you kill others while being attacked (such as at the embassy) is that a declaration of war? Is there some time frame in a defensive response involved? If the killing of Soleimani was a defensive act, is that a declaration of war? 

It’s up to congress. 

 

Quote

"War" as in the common vernacular generally involves large operations (WW!, WW2, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, 1812, etc.) Not many people categorize the killing of a handful of individuals to be "war". If that were the case, then probably every country in the world has declared war on one country or the other countless times in the last decade.

Sorry but I'm not familiar with that rule. Can you please give me a little more detail?

We haven’t made an official declaration of war since 1942. More recently it’s been an authorization to use military force.

But killing a military member n a military action, and having military craft enter sovereign territory to carry out the attack are considered acts of war.

The UN terminology is aggression, and includes “armed invasions or attacks, bombardments, blockades, armed violations of territory”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_3314#The_definition_of_aggression

 

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

It’s up to congress. 

 

Are you saying there is no definition that the President can look to? If not, how can we expect him, or any other commander anywhere in the world, know if he/she can order some action? If I am a colonel commanding troops somewhere in Africa and I feel under threat, is Congress required to be consulted prior to me taking action? 

Without some understanding of exactly how a declaration of war is defined 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.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

But killing a military member n a military action, and having military craft enter sovereign territory to carry out the attack are considered acts of war.

 

So as the hypothetical colonel somewhere in Africa and with no previous authorization from Congress, I cannot order a defense of my position without consulting with Congress first, else I've usurped their authority.

 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

But killing a military member n a military action, and having military craft enter sovereign territory to carry out the attack are considered acts of war.

 

When did Congress make this declaration? Is it a law? 

[iNow]

2 hours ago, Conjurer said:

It is more likely that is what his aid told him to do to keep from getting impeached.  He may be trying to call their bluff of having an active nuclear program.  If they nuked someone, they could declare a state of national emergency, so then he could overturn his impeachment.

He’s already been impeached and it’s no longer possible for it to be overturned. Perhaps what you meant to refer to is how Senate will vote when it comes to deciding whether or not to remove him from office as a result of that impeachment. Or, you may rightly be expressing how war with Iran would move the public attention away from impeachment. 

Aka: Another intentional distraction from the grift and corruption of him and his team 

22 minutes ago, zapatos said:

When did Congress make this declaration? Is it a law? 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2331
 

It might also be helpful to review the war powers act: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

[swansont]

18 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Are you saying there is no definition that the President can look to? If not, how can we expect him, or any other commander anywhere in the world, know if he/she can order some action?

There’s more than 200 years of precedent. There’s the war powers act, and probably other legislation. 

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

18 minutes ago, zapatos said:

If I am a colonel commanding troops somewhere in Africa and I feel under threat, is Congress required to be consulted prior to me taking action? 

A colonel would be familiar with the rules of engagement 

 

18 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Without some understanding of exactly how a declaration of war is defined 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.

Because the constitution grants that power to congress, not the president.

 

18 minutes ago, zapatos said:

So as the hypothetical colonel somewhere in Africa and with no previous authorization from Congress, I cannot order a defense of my position without consulting with Congress first, else I've usurped their authority.

Rules of engagement 

18 minutes ago, zapatos said:

When did Congress make this declaration? Is it a law?

 

War powers act.

[iNow]

This summer, democratic senators tried to require congressional approval for any military action involving Iran, but the GOP (you know, those fine folks always talking about states rights and limits to federal powers, and the same ones who screamed from the rooftops about limiting presidential power while Obama was in office) blocked it: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/28/senate-rejects-iran-war-powers-amendment-1390175

[zapatos]

16 minutes ago, iNow said:

He’s already been impeached and it’s no longer possible for it to be overturned. Perhaps what you meant to refer to is how Senate will vote when it comes to deciding whether or not to remove him from office as a result of that impeachment. Or, you may rightly be expressing how war with Iran would move the public attention away from impeachment. 

Aka: Another intentional distraction from the grift and corruption of him and his team 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2331
 

It might also be helpful to review the war powers act: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

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.

Quote

It provides that the U.S. Presidentcan send the Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization," or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

And the following seems to suggest that as long as he lets them know afterwards, he is again within the rule of law.

Quote

The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States.

 

15 minutes ago, swansont said:

Because the constitution grants that power to congress, not the president.

 

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.

 

19 minutes ago, swansont said:

A colonel would be familiar with the rules of engagement 

 

A colonel also wears boots. Neither my statement nor yours are relevant to the question though.

[swansont]

27 minutes ago, zapatos said:

 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.

Have you met our constitution?

 

27 minutes ago, zapatos said:

A colonel also wears boots. Neither my statement nor yours are relevant to the question though.

How so?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_engagement

Rules of engagement (ROE) are the internal rules or directives among military forces (including individuals) that define the circumstances, conditions, degree, and manner in which the use of force, or actions which might be construed as provocative, may be applied.[1] They provide authorization for and/or limits on, among other things, the use of force and the employment of certain specific capabilities.

(Emphasis added)

 

[zapatos]

16 minutes ago, swansont said:

Have you met our constitution?

 

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.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Perhaps you can give me some insight. 

As with most things regarding Trump, it’s open to interpretation and requires a degree judgement... hence their massive focus on installing federal judges... so more judgements go their way. 

The idea is that if an attack is imminent, the president can’t be hamstrung to stop it merely because he was supposed to first get approval from congress. If a bomb is about to blow up a stadium or a missile is in the air and heading toward a major US city, then the commander in chief must be able to respond with quickness and urgency and without going first to congress. 

This is how it’s been done and how the courts have ruled when challenged. 

In this scenario, however, the General wasn’t the person doing the strike. We could’ve killed any of his agents who were placing bombs or who were readying for an attack, but he was a strategic planner. Nothing he was personally doing was imminent.

He was surely a bad guy responsible for lots of bad things and it’s probably for the best that he is now gone, but what we did was assassinate him. We didn’t prevent him from personally shooting up the airport or prevent him from personally putting neurotoxins in the water supply. Those types of threats are imminent. His ability to plan and inspire others was not, and that means the president needed congress to sign off first; a congress generally represented by the gang of 8; a congress who had to learn about the strike from news organizations reporting from the Middle East  

Again though, it’s open to interpretation and judgement. It’s also unlike any and all historical precedent. I’ve tried giving the president the benefit of the doubt, but much like Lucy and the football with Charlie Brown, he’s squandered my trust too many times to do it again. Fool me once, shame on you... fool me twice, shame on me. 

Edited January 5, 2020 by iNow

[zapatos]

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.

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

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

We definitely agree. It is, however, also reasonable to get congress involved when doing so and not to act like a dictator with drone firing missiles who can kill anyone at any time. 

[MigL]

37 minutes ago, iNow said:

Fool me once, shame on you... fool me twice, shame on me. 

I don't think that is how G W Bush put it...

[zapatos]

11 minutes ago, iNow said:

We definitely agree. It is, however, also reasonable to get congress involved when doing so and not to act like a dictator with drone firing missiles who can kill anyone at any time. 

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.