Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Bucky86

The Current Iran Threat (2020)Iran Launches Rocket Attack on US Bases Around Iraq

Recommended Posts

Iran still doing it's thing.  

Quote

 

US warship seizes Iranian weapons, including surface-to-air missiles, Navy says

U.S. officials have confirmed to Fox News Thursday that a U.S. Navy warship intercepted Iranian-made weapons from a vessel in the Arabian Sea earlier this week.

Crew members from the USS Normandy seized a huge cache of weapons from a dhow – a small vessel with lateen sails – on Sunday while conducting maritime security operations in the U.S. Central area of operations.

The weapons and weapon components were intended for the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen, according to officials.

The crew of the USS Normandy seized an illicit shipment of advanced weapons and weapon components intended for the Houthis in Yemen, aboard a dhow during a maritime interdiction operation in the U.S. Fifth Fleet area of operations, Feb. 9, 2020. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Michael H. Lehman)

Among the weapons seized were 150 “Dehlavieh” anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM), which are Iranian-manufactured copies of Russian Kornet ATGMs.

Other weapons were also Iranian design and manufacture, including three surface-to-air missiles, thermal imaging weapon scopes, components for unmanned aerial and surface vessels, as well as other munitions and advanced weapons parts.

Many of the weapons were identical to those seized by the USS Forest Sherman in the Arabian Sea in November. Those weapons were also determined to be of Iranian origin and assessed to be destined for the Houthis in Yemen – a violation of UN Security Council Resolution that prohibits direct or indict supply, sale, or transfer of weapons to the Houthis.

https://www.foxnews.com/world/us-warship-seizes-iranian-weapons-including-surface-to-air-missiles-navy-says

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2020 at 1:46 AM, Max Power said:

Iran still doing it's thing.  

 

Of course it is

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

White House provided its justification for killing Soleimani To Congress. 
https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/_cache/files/4/3/4362ca46-3a7d-43e8-a3ec-be0245705722/6E1A0F30F9204E380A7AD0C84EC572EC.doc148.pdf

 

This is going to shock everyone, but it doesn’t include any reference to an “imminent threat.”  In fact, it tries to justify it pretty much entirely under the 2002 AUMF. 
 

Share this post


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

White House provided its justification for killing Soleimani To Congress. 
https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/_cache/files/4/3/4362ca46-3a7d-43e8-a3ec-be0245705722/6E1A0F30F9204E380A7AD0C84EC572EC.doc148.pdf

 

This is going to shock everyone, but it doesn’t include any reference to an “imminent threat.”  In fact, it tries to justify it pretty much entirely under the 2002 AUMF. 
 

And surprisingly, not a blip.  Fire up the next inquiry...what a waste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Henry Ford said:

White House provided its justification for killing Soleimani To Congress. 
https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/_cache/files/4/3/4362ca46-3a7d-43e8-a3ec-be0245705722/6E1A0F30F9204E380A7AD0C84EC572EC.doc148.pdf

 

This is going to shock everyone, but it doesn’t include any reference to an “imminent threat.”  In fact, it tries to justify it pretty much entirely under the 2002 AUMF. 
 

The lies in this administration never end.  Trump is like an untreated infection that just spreads and spreads.  

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


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

The lies in this administration never end.  Trump is like an untreated infection that just spreads and spreads.  

He is the corona virus of presidents.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

He is the corona virus of presidents.

Except there was no incubation period

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I and the majority of the military support the strike against Soleimani.  

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

I and the majority of the military support the strike against Soleimani.  

Do you (and the military) support the process (that may have been circumvented in the case of Soleimani) concerning attacks on foreign officials from countries with which there is no declared war?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Do you (and the military) support the process (that may have been circumvented in the case of Soleimani) concerning attacks on foreign officials from countries with which there is no declared war?

Yes, when the role he was serving also facilitated terrorism that directly impacted troops in the field.  It was an acceptable action.  

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


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

Yes, when the role he was serving also facilitated terrorism that directly impacted troops in the field.  It was an acceptable action.  

:goodposting:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Yes, when the role he was serving also facilitated terrorism that directly impacted troops in the field.  It was an acceptable action.  

Would you say that the best response to a legal system not perfectly fitting the realities of inter-country asymmetric warfare would be to take action outside the current legal framework or to change it?

Edited by msommer
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


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

 

18 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Yes, when the role he was serving also facilitated terrorism that directly impacted troops in the field.  It was an acceptable action.  

:goodposting:

Hence the need to invent a claim of imminent threat and attacks on embassies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Hence the need to invent a claim of imminent threat and attacks on embassies.

I explained in the Iran thread why I thought the military considered it "imminent".  Why it wasn't sourced as that in the reporting, I can't answer.  But to suggest that our people aren't on alert and under hostile fire almost daily is BS on the part of the media.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Hence the need to invent a claim of imminent threat and attacks on embassies.

Hence the need to take out a nasty terrorist.

For a generation, Iranian Major General Qasem Soleimani bestrode the Middle East spreading terror and death. President Trump’s decision to order the general’s death via drone attack in Baghdad Thursday night is a great boon for the region. It is also belated justice for the hundreds of Americans whom Soleimani had a hand in killing.

Few are more deserving of his fate than Soleimani, who since 1998 had commanded the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). He had a mandate to export Iran’s revolution across the Middle East. The State Department, which labeled the IRGC a foreign terrorist organization last year, says the group was responsible for killing 608 American soldiers during the Iraq war as it supplied deadly roadside bombs.

American veterans will toast his death, and they’ll be joined by millions in the Middle East. Soleimani abetted genocide in Syria to keep Bashar Assad in power, and he armed Hezbollah in Lebanon with rockets to attack innocent Israelis. Plenty of Iranians also are rejoicing given his role in suppressing popular protests.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-arrives-for-soleimani-11578085286

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I explained in the Iran thread why I thought the military considered it "imminent".  Why it wasn't sourced as that in the reporting, I can't answer.  But to suggest that our people aren't on alert and under hostile fire almost daily is BS on the part of the media.  

God Bless and total respect on that point. But either there’s a threat on embassies or there isn’t. Apparently there wasn’t. Trump could have stood on the grounds you just gave but he did *not.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, John Blutarsky said:

Few are more deserving of his fate than Soleimani, who since 1998 had commanded the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

Then the president could have just said that was the basis for the attack.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Then the president could have just said that. 

No matter what he said you and others would be critical. He took out a nasty terrorist and some of you complain about it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

No matter what he said you and others would be critical. He took out a nasty terrorist and some of you complain about it. 

Well that’s leadership. Say I agree with the memo and even the points about Suleimani - I think I do - why invent the story about the imminent attacks on the embassies?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, msommer said:

Would you say that the best response to a legal system not perfectly fitting the realities of inter-country asymmetric warfare would be to take action outside the current legal framework or to change it?

@Max Power care to comment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/15/2020 at 4:17 AM, Henry Ford said:

White House provided its justification for killing Soleimani To Congress. 
https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/_cache/files/4/3/4362ca46-3a7d-43e8-a3ec-be0245705722/6E1A0F30F9204E380A7AD0C84EC572EC.doc148.pdf

 

This is going to shock everyone, but it doesn’t include any reference to an “imminent threat.”  In fact, it tries to justify it pretty much entirely under the 2002 AUMF. 
 

Trump straight up lied about military action and none of his supporters care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

God Bless and total respect on that point. But either there’s a threat on embassies or there isn’t. Apparently there wasn’t. Trump could have stood on the grounds you just gave but he did *not.

I'll give it a pass.  We get threat reporting streams all the time talking about possible attacks.  Maybe 5% pan out, but that isn't reason to take the other 95% seriously.  

I do hope some more info is released to the public on the issue.  Seems like something the MSM would have run with harder.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

God Bless and total respect on that point. But either there’s a threat on embassies or there isn’t. Apparently there wasn’t. Trump could have stood on the grounds you just gave but he did *not.

That’s because he couldn’t have stood on those grounds. He has no authorization for force under that scenario. As I explained in that same thread when discussing it with Max. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

@Max Power care to comment?

Sorry, I missed that the first time.  I might not be smart enough on the subject, what was outside legal framework?  

I know it complicates things when a terrorist wears duel-hats, but since the Obama years, someone in that position is considered an operational terrorist, AMUF covers it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Sorry, I missed that the first time.  I might not be smart enough on the subject, what was outside legal framework?  

I know it complicates things when a terrorist wears duel-hats, but since the Obama years, someone in that position is considered an operational terrorist, AMUF covers it.  

"imminent attack".

So, that clarified. extra legal action, or change the law?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Sorry, I missed that the first time.  I might not be smart enough on the subject, what was outside legal framework?  

I know it complicates things when a terrorist wears duel-hats, but since the Obama years, someone in that position is considered an operational terrorist, AMUF covers it.  

No.  It doesn’t. You and I discussed briefly - the AUMF only covers terrorists who were behind 9/11 and those helping them. 

Edited by Henry Ford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Otherwise the executive could call any organization terrorists and then kill them. Which is what happened here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Otherwise the executive could call any organization terrorists and then kill them. Which is what happened here. 

I don't doubt Soleimani's role had him coordinating and supporting terrorists as little as I doubt that he was an official for a foreign country with which the US is not at war.


IMHO, the scary bit about Max' claim/assertion that the US military is behind this attack and the justification given is that it paint the picture that the military would rather take extra-legal means in use to pursue a goal than to wait until the laws had been changed to make the action legal.


These are supposedly the stalwart defenders of the constitution of the United States of America, willing to look past the rule of law when it becomes expedient.

That, to an outsider, is supremely concerning - in a non Susan Collins sense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

No.  It doesn’t. You and I discussed briefly - the AUMF only covers terrorists who were behind 9/11 and those helping them. 

Obama cited AUMF to kill Awlaki, so this isn't the first time AUMF has been applied broadly.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Otherwise the executive could call any organization terrorists and then kill them. Which is what happened here. 

Quds force was designated a terrorist organization.  

Share this post


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

I don't doubt Soleimani's role had him coordinating and supporting terrorists as little as I doubt that he was an official for a foreign country with which the US is not at war.


IMHO, the scary bit about Max' claim/assertion that the US military is behind this attack and the justification given is that it paint the picture that the military would rather take extra-legal means in use to pursue a goal than to wait until the laws had been changed to make the action legal.


These are supposedly the stalwart defenders of the constitution of the United States of America, willing to look past the rule of law when it becomes expedient.

That, to an outsider, is supremely concerning - in a non Susan Collins sense

Wars weren't meant to be fought by lawyers.  

And I find that to be a poor take.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Max Power said:

Wars weren't meant to be fought by lawyers.  

And I find that to be a poor take.  

I'm not a lawyer and I am not fighting a war. I find your stance to be convenient for future military self justification.
There are reasons why the military, in democracies, have civilian oversight.

Share this post


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

I'm not a lawyer and I am not fighting a war. I find your stance to be convenient for future military self justification.
There are reasons why the military, in democracies, have civilian oversight.

Self defense and protecting the force is our #1 priority.  When a decision is made that enables those things, we support it.  Always. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Would you say that the best response to a legal system not perfectly fitting the realities of inter-country asymmetric warfare would be to take action outside the current legal framework or to change it?

And completely lie about it as well.

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We took out a terrible person that was a terrorist and yet because of 3 letters we can’t use some people have an issue with it. Love our country, don’t hate it.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, John Blutarsky said:

We took out a terrible person that was a terrorist and yet because of 3 letters we can’t use some people have an issue with it. Love our country, don’t hate it.

No surprise here

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, HellToupee said:

No surprise here

True...claiming people are hating this country because we believe in the rule of law and not being lied to about imminent attacks.  Especially from this who complained so much about the government claims that Benghazi was about a video.  In fact...several stated they were glad this administration was being honest and truthful (until now we know they weren’t).  Those same people who were happy the admin was being honest are silent about that part now.  

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

True...claiming people are hating this country because we believe in the rule of law and not being lied to about imminent attacks.  Especially from this who complained so much about the government claims that Benghazi was about a video.  In fact...several stated they were glad this administration was being honest and truthful (until now we know they weren’t).  Those same people who were happy the admin was being honest are silent about that part now.  

Oh my :lmao:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Quds force was designated a terrorist organization.  

By the executive.  That’s my point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Obama cited AUMF to kill Awlaki, so this isn't the first time AUMF has been applied broadly.    

Awlaki was Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda was behind 9/11. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Max Power

If the President declares the Democratic Party to be terrorists, do you think the AUMF authorizes assassination of party leaders?

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Wars weren't meant to be fought by lawyers.  

And I find that to be a poor take.  

Decisions about who we have authorization to go to war with are meant to be made by Congress.  Legislators and lawyers.  That’s the basis of this country’s entire governmental system. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Henry Ford said:

@Max Power

If the President declares the Democratic Party to be terrorists, do you think the AUMF authorizes assassination of party leaders?

Wow, a new low.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, John Blutarsky said:

Wow, a new low.

I’ll give you a hint: it doesn’t. It’s the problem with this absolutely false belief in what the AUMF says. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

@Max Power

If the President declares the Democratic Party to be terrorists, do you think the AUMF authorizes assassination of party leaders?

Is this really the hypothetical we're going with?  And shouldn't it be the secretary of state that designates terrorist groups?

Share this post


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

Awlaki was Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda was behind 9/11. 

He was an American who denounced the 9/11 attacks.  It wasn't until he was thrown in jail for unknown reasons that he turned to AQ.  

Share this post


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

Is this really the hypothetical we're going with?  And shouldn't it be the secretary of state that designates terrorist groups?

Go with any one you want. If the SOS designates Germany a terrorist group? Taiwan? South Africa? 
 

It’s not what the AUMF says. It doesn’t authorize that use of force. 

Share this post


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

He was an American who denounced the 9/11 attacks.  It wasn't until he was thrown in jail for unknown reasons that he turned to AQ.  

At which point he was a member of Al Qaeda, which falls under the AUMF. 

Share this post


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

I’ll give you a hint: it doesn’t. It’s the problem with this absolutely false belief in what the AUMF says. 

I’ll give you a hint....we took out a terrible, nasty terrorist and you and others try to complain about it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Yes, when the role he was serving also facilitated terrorism that directly impacted troops in the field.  It was an acceptable action.  

Then why not go through the process?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.