Iran

[BoyNextDoor]

I was going to make a thread with the title "Tell Congress to pass legislation that would prohibit military action against Iran without Congressional approval."

But that would be redundant. Legislation is unnecessary. Any action would be criminal.

 

[oralaccents]

Don't tease Donald with the c-word.

 

[Counselor706]

The Obama administration is acknowledging its transfer of $1.7 billion to Iran earlier this year was made entirely in cash, using non-U.S. currency

 

[Counselor706]

Obama’s hidden Iran deal giveaway

 

[Counselor706]

The secret backstory of how Obama let Hezbollah off the hook

 

[SpeareChucker]

I was going to make a thread with the title "Tell Congress to pass legislation that would prohibit military action against Iran without Congressional approval."

But that would be redundant. Legislation is unnecessary. Any action would be criminal.

Are you that unaware of what is going on?

Readers Digest version:

President Obama decided upon appeasement, just to get a deal.

<insert Chamberlain reference>​

President Trump decided that strategy failed.
He then put the Mullahs between Iraq and a hard place.

< Like that word play? >​

The Mullahs have two choices:

A: Lots of bellicosity as to not appear weak and lose power thusly.
B: Negotiate for better terms - See option A (a no-go, appears weak)
C: WAR! The surest way to lose power and maybe even the power grid....

So what do you see a lot of? A, B, or C?

 

[Rightguide]

Are you that unaware of what is going on?

Readers Digest version:

President Obama decided upon appeasement, just to get a deal.

<insert Chamberlain reference>​

President Trump decided that strategy failed.
He then put the Mullahs between Iraq and a hard place.

< Like that word play? >​

The Mullahs have two choices:

A: Lots of bellicosity as to not appear weak and lose power thusly.
B: Negotiate for better terms - See option A (a no-go, appears weak)
C: WAR! The surest way to lose power and maybe even the power grid....

So what do you see a lot of? A, B, or C?

Did Borenextdoor whine when Obama went to war in Libya without a declaration.

So if we're attacked by Iran Borenextdoor wants to have a weeks long congressional debate before the President reacts. Great strategy for losing your fleet.

 

[bbx56]

I was going to make a thread with the title "Tell Congress to pass legislation that would prohibit military action against Iran without Congressional approval."

But that would be redundant. Legislation is unnecessary. Any action would be criminal.

STFU with this Shit, NIGGER BUM NEXT DOOR

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Legislation is unnecessary. Any action would be criminal.

 

[Que]

Did Borenextdoor whine when Obama went to war in Libya without a declaration.

So if we're attacked by Iran Borenextdoor wants to have a weeks long congressional debate before the President reacts. Great strategy for losing your fleet.

He might have. He is pretty consistent about foreign adventures for the benefit of the military industrial complex. I cannot fault him for that..

On the other hand, we have a commander and chief for a reason who has pretty broad powers to do whatever he thinks is a good idea at the time. Obviously Congress can get together and defund any adventurism that he wants to embark on, but they can't stop him from firing the first couple of shots. Hell, they can't stop him if he just decides that it's a good idea to Nuke Iran. Something they've been worried about since he was elected and he still hasn't gotten around to.

So naturally, this:

Legislation is unnecessary. Any action would be criminal.

Is Cowshitter-grade bovine excrement.

There is no crime in exercising his powers as CIC. Don't like it? Defund him, impeach him, or find a better candidate than any of the ones you got.

 

[icanhelp1]

Did Borenextdoor whine when Obama went to war in Libya without a declaration.

So if we're attacked by Iran Borenextdoor wants to have a weeks long congressional debate before the President reacts. Great strategy for losing your fleet.

It would never pass, Nancy doesn't want Trump to get a win.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky, said a war with Iran would be an even bigger mistake than the war with Iraq, and pushed for Congress to get involved in the process of approval.

Paul appeared on "Your World with Neil Cavuto" Tuesday and commented on the possibility of President Trump sending additional troops to the Middle East.

"You know, I'm for less troops in the Middle East. I think it's a mistake to keep ramping things up," Paul said.

"One of the things I like about President Trump is that he said the Iraq War was a mistake. I think an Iran war would be even a bigger mistake than the Iraq War. We lost over 4,000 soldiers over there. I don't think we need to get involved in another war.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Last week, two lawmakers — Trump ally Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) and Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) — said that Pompeo had invoked the 2001 AUMF in a closed-door briefing with lawmakers about Iran, suggesting the administration could use it as a legal justification for war.

“We were absolutely presented with a full formal presentation on how the 2001 AUMF might authorize war on Iran,” Slotkin said. “Secretary Pompeo said it with his own words."

Exiting an earlier closed-door briefing on May 21 by Shanahan, Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) told reporters, “What I heard in there makes it clear that this administration feels that they do not have to come back and talk to Congress in regards to any action they do in Iran.”

 

[BoyNextDoor]

When Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) pushed Pompeo in that hearing to pledge that the administration would not rely on the 18-year-old war authorization to attack Iran, the secretary demurred, saying he would “prefer to leave that to the lawyers."

“I can tell you explicitly you have not been given power or authority by Congress to have a war with Iran and in any kind of semblance of a sane world you would have to come back and ask us before you go into Iran,” Paul retorted.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Did Borenextdoor whine when Obama went to war in Libya without a declaration.

So if we're attacked by Iran Borenextdoor wants to have a weeks long congressional debate before the President reacts. Great strategy for losing your fleet.

You are such a frightened little punk.

Just like all your posts you have to play make believe to have a point to make. No one is talking about "if we're attacked by Iran". Learn to read and think about geopolitics and you can sit at the adults table. Because so far all you have demonstrated is you can parrot Hannity and Tiny.

Remember the Gulf of Tonkin? No one is attacking the US here. The US military-industrial complex is manufacturing a reason to attack another country. AGAIN. FFS stop being such a fucking dope. Wake up.

 

[Que]

Last week, two lawmakers — Trump ally Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) and Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) — said that Pompeo had invoked the 2001 AUMF in a closed-door briefing with lawmakers about Iran, suggesting the administration could use it as a legal justification for war.

“We were absolutely presented with a full formal presentation on how the 2001 AUMF might authorize war on Iran,” Slotkin said. “Secretary Pompeo said it with his own words."

Exiting an earlier closed-door briefing on May 21 by Shanahan, Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) told reporters, “What I heard in there makes it clear that this administration feels that they do not have to come back and talk to Congress in regards to any action they do in Iran.”

Again, you completely misunderstand how the chain of authority in the military works. He currently has the authorization for the use of military force. He wouldn't even need to use that to commence hostilities with Iran. He could also use the War Powers Act. Which also ought to be rescinded.

What the administration is doing is baiting the Congress into rescinding the aumf which they have every authority and frankly the responsibility to do. If they do that it gives Trump cover if Iran acts up further, because he would then need to go to Congress and get concurrence as he shoukd.

The way Congress prefers to leave it is leave him the tools to do what he wants and then blame him for action or inaction whichever way he decides to go.

Congress doesn't get to shake their fingers while not using their actual legitimate powers.

They and you need to join the grown-ups at the table.

 

[Rightguide]

You are such a frightened little punk.

Just like all your posts you have to play make believe to have a point to make. No one is talking about "if we're attacked by Iran". Learn to read and think about geopolitics and you can sit at the adults table. Because so far all you have demonstrated is you can parrot Hannity and Tiny.

Remember the Gulf of Tonkin? No one is attacking the US here. The US military-industrial complex is manufacturing a reason to attack another country. AGAIN. FFS stop being such a fucking dope. Wake up.

Fuck you, armchair Corporal. My point is the President doesn't need a declaration of war in order to react to provocations by the Iranians. Ya friggin' dipshit.

 

[Rightguide]

Again, you completely misunderstand how the chain of authority in the military works. He currently has the authorization for the use of military force. He wouldn't even need to use that to commence hostilities with Iran. He could also use the War Powers Act. Which also ought to be rescinded.

What the administration is doing is baiting the Congress into rescinding the aumf which they have every authority and frankly the responsibility to do. If they do that it gives Trump cover if Iran acts up further, because he would then need to go to Congress and get concurrence as he shoukd.

The way Congress prefers to leave it is leave him the tools to do what he wants and then blame him for action or inaction whichever way he decides to go.

Congress doesn't get to shake their fingers while not using their actual legitimate powers.

They and you need to join the grown-ups at the table.

Even under the existing, and possibly unconstitutional, War Powers Act passed by a Democrat Congress he has 60 days of authority to act before he's required to go to Congress.

 

[Que]

Even under the existing, and possibly unconstitutional, War Powers Act passed by a Democrat Congress he has 60 days of authority to act before he's required to go to Congress.

Interestingly, it is the Republican-held Senate leading the way with a collection of Dems and dovish Republicans telling Trump no to billions in hsrware sales for Saudia Arabia. For purposes of the economy and the health of the military-industrial complex which is what keeps us on the cutting-edge but also in trillions of debt this sort of makes sense. But it shouldn't be something the president's deciding on his own.

It does not sound like they have the votes for a veto override if Trump decides to go that way but all of that sort of things that are within the purview of the senate or the House Representatives they should be actively engaged in governance. Far too much has been given to all of the presidents.

I can't remember the entire history of the wars Powers Act I don't think it's ever been challenged but there's certainly been discussions about it and at this point there's a latches argument in that the Congress and the courts of taking no action to stop any president so it would be some protracted litigation to stop a president from exercising that minimum 60-day Authority.

I doubt it's actually constitutional.

There's no point in sending the military anywhere if we do not have a pretty solid level of agreement and support throughout the country. It's no good to have that whipsawed every two to four years when government power changes. If these decisions had to be made in Congress I would think that although there'd be some deadlocking on some issues that maybe you nor I might want to go adventuring upon it would also mean that under serious circumstances everyone would need to be on board and it would take it away as a political football. Which it should never be.

 

[Rightguide]

Interestingly, it is the Republican-held Senate leading the way with a collection of Dems and dovish Republicans telling Trump no to billions in hsrware sales for Saudia Arabia. For purposes of the economy and the health of the military-industrial complex which is what keeps us on the cutting-edge but also in trillions of debt this sort of makes sense. But it shouldn't be something the president's deciding on his own.

It does not sound like they have the votes for a veto override if Trump decides to go that way but all of that sort of things that are within the purview of the senate or the House Representatives they should be actively engaged in governance. Far too much has been given to all of the presidents.

I can't remember the entire history of the wars Powers Act I don't think it's ever been challenged but there's certainly been discussions about it and at this point there's a latches argument in that the Congress and the courts of taking no action to stop any president so it would be some protracted litigation to stop a president from exercising that minimum 60-day Authority.

I doubt it's actually constitutional.

There's no point in sending the military anywhere if we do not have a pretty solid level of agreement and support throughout the country. It's no good to have that whipsawed every two to four years when government power changes. If these decisions had to be made in Congress I would think that although there'd be some deadlocking on some issues that maybe you nor I might want to go adventuring upon it would also mean that under serious circumstances everyone would need to be on board and it would take it away as a political football. Which it should never be.

The War Powers Act has never been reviewed by the SCOTUS, if it were it would probably be declared an unconstitutional infringement on the Art II powers of the Executive. We have a history of armed conflicts with foreign powers going back over 200 years, starting with the Second President in which no declaration of war by Congress was declared and no President impeached.

If you want to see an explosion in the civil society let Iran put 5000 American sons and daughters on the bottom of the ocean because the president has his hands tied by congressional enemies wanting to run the nation's foreign policy.

 

[phrodeau]

John McCain was ready to bomb Iran. That’s enough right there to keep Trump from ever doing it.

 

[Liar]

I was going to make a thread with the title "Tell Congress to pass legislation that would prohibit military action against Iran without Congressional approval."

But that would be redundant. Legislation is unnecessary. Any action would be criminal.

When did that last stop the White House?

 

[Dazzle1]

I was going to make a thread with the title "Tell Congress to pass legislation that would prohibit military action against Iran without Congressional approval."

But that would be redundant. Legislation is unnecessary. Any action would be criminal.

But you are fine with Iran attacking tankers, U.S drone in international waters

 

[SpeareChucker]

I was going to make a thread with the title "Tell Congress to pass legislation that would prohibit military action against Iran without Congressional approval."

But that would be redundant. Legislation is unnecessary. Any action would be criminal.

If the attack a ship of the line with loss of life
we should sit back and take measured stock...



They just shot down a drone over international water
but hey, what the fuck was the drone doing there in the first place, right?

Not to mention, where were you when President Obama was waging war in Syria?
He acted without Congressional action and you cheered him for supporting
terrorists as they tried to kill the very bad man Assad...

 

[SpeareChucker]

When did that last stop the White House?

That's right!

As I just pointed out, President Obama operated militarily without regard to Congress.
Why should Congress start fighting back now?