The Anti-Benghazi

[Kathianne]

While I do not like how bellicose Trump is, in this particular case he's earned it.

https://americanmilitarynews.com/2019/12/100-marines-2-apaches-being-sent-to-secure-us-embassy-in-iraq-from-iran-backed-group/

I take note that no major or even alternative media have covered this story.

[Abbey Marie]

While I do not like how bellicose Trump is, in this particular case he's earned it.

https://americanmilitarynews.com/2019/12/100-marines-2-apaches-being-sent-to-secure-us-embassy-in-iraq-from-iran-backed-group/

I take note that no major or even alternative media have covered this story.

I did not see this either.

[Gunny]

While I do not like how bellicose Trump is, in this particular case he's earned it.

https://americanmilitarynews.com/2019/12/100-marines-2-apaches-being-sent-to-secure-us-embassy-in-iraq-from-iran-backed-group/

I take note that no major or even alternative media have covered this story.The one video claiming to show Marines taking defensive positions on the roof of the embassy is bogus. Marines deployed for combat are not wearing Dress Blue "deltas". I don't really seem to recall skylining oneself at at the position of parade, rest being part of any security alert.

Guess the bad guys are going to need a bigger bomb :)

[Kathianne]

FOX is reporting that US killed Quds general at Baghdad airport. Now what an Iranian general was doing there? Guess our intelligence isn't totally worthless. US troops in ME now on highest alert, for good cause.

[Kathianne]

The only link I can find is FOX:

https://www.foxnews.com/world/rockets-baghdad-airport-injuries-reported


Baghdad rocket attack kills Iranian military leaders including Gen. Qassim Soleimani, reports say

At least three rockets were fired at Baghdad International Airport Friday killing at least seven people, including Iranian Gen. Qassim Soleimani, the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' elite Quds Force, according to multiple reports early Friday.


Soleimani is the military mastermind whom Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had deemed equally as dangerous as Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.




In October, Baghdadi killed himself during a U.S. raid on a compound in northwest Syria, seven months after the so-called ISIS “caliphate” officially crumbled as the terrorist group was defeated in its final swath of Syrian territory in March.


Soleimani was the long-running leader of the elite intelligence wing called Quds Force – which itself has been a designated terror group since 2007, and is estimated to be 20,000 strong. Considered one of the most powerful men in Iran, he routinely was referred to as its “shadow commander” or “spymaster.”

...

[Kathianne]

Could be a long night, week?

https://hotair.com/archives/allahpundit/2020/01/02/gamechanger-quds-force-supreme-commander-qassem-soleimani-reported-dead-u-s-airstrike-iraq/

[Kathianne]

i'm about ready to go to bed, but I'll leave the link to Twitter on Soleimani for anyone's perusal:

https://twitter.com/search?q=Soleimani&src=tren&data_id=tweet%3A1212867502608408578

[Drummond]

Soleimani's death is a news item currently dominating all others in the UK at present. Phone-in programmes (e.g from LBC) are concentrating on it.

The BBC's report:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-50979463


Iran's most powerful military commander, General Qasem Soleimani, has been killed by a US air strike in Iraq.

The 62-year-old spearheaded Iranian military operations in the Middle East as head of Iran's elite Quds Force.

He was killed at Baghdad airport, along with other Iran-backed militia figures, early on Friday in a strike ordered by US President Donald Trump.

Soleimani's killing marks a major escalation in tensions between Washington and Tehran.

Under his leadership, Iran had bolstered Hezbollah in Lebanon and other pro-Iranian militant groups, expanded its military presence in Iraq and Syria and orchestrated Syria's offensive against rebel groups in the country's long civil war.

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said "severe revenge awaits the criminals" behind the attack. He also announced three days of national mourning.

Soleimani was widely seen as the second most powerful figure in Iran, behind the Ayatollah Khamenei. His Quds Force, an elite unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, reported directly to the ayatollah and he was hailed as a heroic national figure.

But the US has called the commander and the Quds Force terrorists and holds them responsible for the deaths of hundreds of US personnel.

President Trump, who was in Florida at the time of the strike, tweeted an image of the American flag shortly after the news broke.

A statement from the Pentagon - the headquarters of the US Department of Defense - said Soleimani had been "developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region".

"This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans," it added.

Reaction in the UK has been surprisingly mixed. Dominic Raab, our Foreign Secretary, has called on 'all sides' to 'de-escalate'.

Jeremy Corbyn -- recently a heavy loser in the recent election here, and a hardline Leftie who's been known to share platforms with IRA and Hamas speakers at rallies (and has spoken on Iranian TV [Press TV] as a guest speaker) ... was disapproving. He called the action 'an assassination', and regards it as a belligerent act from America.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7848403/Jeremy-Corbyn-condemns-assassination-Iranian-general-calling-dangerous-escalation.html


Jeremy Corbyn accused the United States of carrying out an 'assassination' of a top Iranian general today as MPs vying to replace him as Labour leader took the opportunity to tear into Donald Trump.

Mr Corbyn accused the US president of carrying out 'an extremely serious and dangerous escalation of conflict' in a region beset with violence after the rocket strike which took out Revolutionary Guard General Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad.

At the same time a host of his backbenchers also spoke out about the deadly attack, ahead of a leadership battle expected to officially start next week.

Mr Corbyn announced he would step down after Labour's disastrous election defeat in December and some of those seen as leading contenders to replace him or become deputy leader were noticeably active on social media this morning after news of the attack broke.

Jess Phillips attacked Mr Trump's 'reckless foreign policy', while Clive Lewis condemned the president's 'cowboy action'.

Yes, Labour's MP's and future Leadership-hopefuls are queuing up to attack Trump over this. [Such is our Left wing ...]

Phone-in programmes in the UK are reflecting varying views. One caller said America should get out of the Middle East once and for all. Another said that Iran's retaliation, when it happens (pretty much everyone thinks it will, and may even be a precursor to war), should receive our support, because Trump has it coming !! By and large, callers were supportive, though (I'd say 75% supportive, 25% critical or even condemnatory).

For myself ... I say, all power to Trump in this. The only 'good' terrorist is a dead one (if bereft of useful information). Exterminate the whole lot of them, everywhere, so far as I'm concerned.

Such actions aren't 'assassinations' ... they are pest control.

[Drummond]

The UK's so-called 'mainstream Lefties' are wading in, trying to be as condemnatory as possible against Trump on this. This has just been issued by Emily Thornberry, another leadership-hopeful in the forthcoming Labour Party's leadership election:

Taken from Facebook (so supplying a link probably wouldn't work well ?) ...

Anyway:


Dear Friends,

You will all have seen the disturbing news overnight of the US drone attack on Baghdad, assassinating top Iranian General, Qassem Suleimani. Unfortunately, in my role as Shadow Foreign Secretary, I have seen this reckless escalation looming for a long time.

Writing almost two years ago on the 15th anniversary of the Iraq War march, I warned that the Trump administration was willfully angling for a catastrophic conflict with Iran, a country nine times as big as Syria, with three-and-a-half times the size of Syria’s pre-war population.

This followed Trump’s equally catastrophic decision, pathetically unopposed by Boris Johnson, to collapse the nuclear deal with Iran, simply out of jealous spite that it was the great diplomatic achievement of his predecessor, President Obama.

I warned that this would set back the hopes of peace in the Middle East for decades, and play right into the hands of the Iranian hardline theocrats who have always wanted to take their country back to a position of isolation and conflict with the West.

I have also been warning for months of the dangers that Iraq’s sovereignty would be breached in order to attack Iranian interests, and that the UK government needed to make clear to the White House that was unacceptable. The Foreign Office’s call for restraint today is too little and far too late, in the wake of such a brazen, unlawful and provocative attack.

Colin Powell’s former top adviser, Lawrence Wilkerson, who helped create the case for the Iraq War, has said the Trump administration is following exactly the same playbook with Iran, but has warned that the war they want would be “10 to 15 times worse in terms of casualties and costs”. Wilkerson said honestly: “I helped sell the false choice of war once; it’s happening again.”

In my article two years ago, I talked of the millions of us who marched against the Iraq war, and said we had to be ready to march again. As the drumbeat for war with Iran grows ever louder, and the first shots are being fired, we must fight through the UN to stop this conflict, and fight in our Parliament to stop British forces being put in harm’s way in the service of Donald Trump.

And just as we have a duty to protect our brave service personnel from becoming embroiled in this conflict, we also have a duty to Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and our other dual-national citizens who are languishing in Iranian jails, and the 83 million innocent Iranian civilians – millions of them children – whose lives will also be put at risk if the US continues on this reckless path of escalation.

These are worryingly dark times, but if we stand together, millions-strong, we can stop this drift to war. Best wishes,

Emily

This is definitely genuine (in case anyone thinks of 'fake news' on Facebook). It's also been read out in full on LBC News, just a couple of minutes ago.

[CSM]

The UK's so-called 'mainstream Lefties' are wading in, trying to be as condemnatory as possible against Trump on this. This has just been issued by Emily Thornberry, another leadership-hopeful in the forthcoming Labour Party's leadership election:

Taken from Facebook (so supplying a link probably wouldn't work well ?) ...

Anyway:



This is definitely genuine (in case anyone thinks of 'fake news' on Facebook). It's also been read out in full on LBC News, just a couple of minutes ago.

I would bet a nickel to a donut that these folks would have surrendered to Hitler ..... came close with Chamberlin ... just sayin

[Drummond]

I would bet a nickel to a donut that these folks would have surrendered to Hitler ..... came close with Chamberlin ... just sayin

... and you said it well ! I completely agree.

Thornberry's own statement is earning some disgust from people phoning in to LBC (I've been listening to it for the past couple of hours). A woman just rang in to say that Labour's worldview is very different to most peoples' thinking in the UK ... if they continue with what's obviously siding with the West's enemies, they can expect to be out of power for 30 years or more ...

[Drummond]

'Jettisoning the Iran nuclear deal was obviously Trump positioning himself for war' is Thornberry's latest pronouncement ... just transmitted by a commentator on LBC News. She says that Trump has acted unlawfully ...

I get the impression that this is all 'grandstanding' from Labour Leadership candidates. They obviously think that the more vitriolic and condemnatory they can be against Trump, the more they can appear 'statesmanlike' to Labour's rank-and-file voters.

Only to a Leftie, could opinions acting as sympathetic to the West's ENEMIES, seem 'meritorious'. Truly .. there are no depths this delusional trash won't stoop to, for personal gain.

[Kathianne]

From what I'm hearing and reading, the criticisms of the decision are being played out by a few-relatively few-on the left.

The 'liberals' that are in anyway attached to the military/intelligence are speaking of the strike being necessary and deserved, but opening up the unknowing response. Bottom line is with this drone attack-NOT assassination-the proxy war between US and Iran may be ending, at least for a time. Both have big armies and both have powerful allies.Most likely the retaliation will be in the neighborhood Iran knows best.

I will say that I support this response, have since I heard of it. I admit that it took me by surprise as it seemed that the President relied much more on strong talk and a strong military he was not keen on using.

Even John Bolton praised the actions this morning and the readiness that was in place to get folks out of the ME.

[Drummond]

'Relatively few on the Left' depends on how you view it.

Not too long ago, Corbyn could've expected to be alone (or nearly alone) in our Labour Party for taking such a line. These days, Labour leadership candidates are jockeying for position in their enthusiasm to express their opposition to what Trump's done. They must expect that to do so will serve them well, otherwise, why do it ?

I said the phone-in averages were coming out as 75%-25% in broad favour of Trump. That's still one in four who either disagree, or strongly disagree. Trouble is, there are also shades to this. Would some agree with Trump's action, if they also didn't view him as reckless ? Our media has worked hard in the past to paint Trump as a maverick and a potential threat to international instability.

I can't speak for the American public .. but ours can go either way on this, especially since so much effort is being put into debating it and keeping it in the fore of public attention.

I'm not confident that our Left won't make inroads on current public opinion in the UK. Our newspapers and other media should be watched in the days ahead to see how this pans out.

[Kathianne]

'Relatively few on the Left' depends on how you view it.

Not too long ago, Corbyn could've expected to be alone (or nearly alone) in our Labour Party for taking such a line. These days, Labour leadership candidates are jockeying for position in their enthusiasm to express their opposition to what Trump's done. They must expect that to do so will serve them well, otherwise, why do it ?

I said the phone-in averages were coming out as 75%-25% in broad favour of Trump. That's still one in four who either disagree, or strongly disagree. Trouble is, there are also shades to this. Would some agree with Trump's action, if they also didn't view him as reckless ? Our media has worked hard in the past to paint Trump as a maverick and a potential threat to international instability.

I can't speak for the American public .. but ours can go either way on this, especially since so much effort is being put into debating it and keeping it in the fore of public attention.

I'm not confident that our Left won't make inroads on current public opinion in the UK. Our newspapers and other media should be watched in the days ahead to see how this pans out.

I was addressing the US responses, I do get that your Labour Party doesn't have much to do, but criticize. That's a good thing, they're just pissing more of your electorate off.

[Drummond]

I was addressing the US responses, I do get that your Labour Party doesn't have much to do, but criticize. That's a good thing, they're just pissing more of your electorate off.

Couldn't agree more on your second point. The more Labour is alienated from public favour, the better. [It's as though they're actually trying to disenfranchise themselves from public life !]

If you're right about American responses, I'm delighted. I'm also envious. Americans have a spirit of patriotism and a knack of understanding their enemies' true natures, that's largely absent in my own people.

[jimnyc]

Oy, what a shitstorm this may produce. Hopefully folks will remember, this is of Iran's doing in Iraq. But as you see, some already don't see that. Probably in 6 months Trump will be blamed for all kinds of war crimes. :(

Overall, to the entire world, this is great news IMO.

[jimnyc]

And no sooner do I write it, the Dems prove my point.

Sure, let him do as he pleases and support terror word wide, he's less dangerous that way. :rolleyes:

--

2020 Dems Condemn Trump Airstrike as 'Reckless,' Making Iran More Dangerous

After President Donald Trump ordered an airstrike that killed Iranian terrorist thug Qasem Soleimani on Thursday, 2020 Democrats rushed to condemn the president's order, describing it as "reckless" and blaming Trump for making Iran more dangerous.

"President Trump just tossed a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox, and he owes the American people an explanation of the strategy and plan to keep safe our troops and embassy personnel, our people and our interests, both here at home and abroad, and our partners throughout the region and beyond," former Vice President Joe Biden said in a statement. "I'm not privy to the intelligence and much remains unknown, but Iran will surely respond. We could be on the brink of a major conflict across the Middle East."

"I hope the Administration has thought through the second- and third-order consequences of the path they have chosen," Biden, the frontrunner in national polls, added. "But I fear this Administration has not demonstrated at any turn the discipline or long-term vision necessary — and the stakes could not be higher."

While Biden attacked Trump for tossing "a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox," he admitted that "no American will mourn Qassem Soleimani's passing. He deserved to be brought to justice for his crimes against American troops and thousands of innocents throughout the region. He supported terror and sowed chaos." Yet the former vice president still faulted Trump for "a hugely escalatory move in an already dangerous region."


My statement on the killing of Qassem Soleimani. pic.twitter.com/4Q9tlLAYFB

— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) January 3, 2020


"Soleimani was a murderer, responsible for the deaths of thousands, including hundreds of Americans. But this reckless move escalates the situation with Iran and increases the likelihood of more deaths and new Middle East conflict," she tweeted Thursday. "Our priority must be to avoid another costly war."

— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) January 3, 2020

Rest - https://pjmedia.com/election/2020-dems-condemn-trump-airstrike-as-reckless-making-iran-more-dangerous/

[Kathianne]

And no sooner do I write it, the Dems prove my point.

Sure, let him do as he pleases and support terror word wide, he's less dangerous that way. :rolleyes:

--

2020 Dems Condemn Trump Airstrike as 'Reckless,' Making Iran More Dangerous

After President Donald Trump ordered an airstrike that killed Iranian terrorist thug Qasem Soleimani on Thursday, 2020 Democrats rushed to condemn the president's order, describing it as "reckless" and blaming Trump for making Iran more dangerous.

"President Trump just tossed a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox, and he owes the American people an explanation of the strategy and plan to keep safe our troops and embassy personnel, our people and our interests, both here at home and abroad, and our partners throughout the region and beyond," former Vice President Joe Biden said in a statement. "I'm not privy to the intelligence and much remains unknown, but Iran will surely respond. We could be on the brink of a major conflict across the Middle East."

"I hope the Administration has thought through the second- and third-order consequences of the path they have chosen," Biden, the frontrunner in national polls, added. "But I fear this Administration has not demonstrated at any turn the discipline or long-term vision necessary — and the stakes could not be higher."

While Biden attacked Trump for tossing "a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox," he admitted that "no American will mourn Qassem Soleimani's passing. He deserved to be brought to justice for his crimes against American troops and thousands of innocents throughout the region. He supported terror and sowed chaos." Yet the former vice president still faulted Trump for "a hugely escalatory move in an already dangerous region."





Rest - https://pjmedia.com/election/2020-dems-condemn-trump-airstrike-as-reckless-making-iran-more-dangerous/

I have no doubt that down the road, he will be blamed. Look what has happened to GW! My point was that few are criticizing in meaningful way, not because they don't want to, but because the public is so down on the Dems right now and the embassy thing brought Benghazi immediately to mind. Then the stupid Dems, manage to call that 'Benghazi 2' and lo and behold, it was dealt with the way Benghazi should have been.

It's not patriotism playing into the majority of Dem responses, but fear of the electorate.

[Kathianne]

3k more troops now being deployed shortly for the ME. I don't know what is going to happen, I guess that is going to be up to Iran and its minions. I am praying for our troops and Israel.

[jimnyc]

Keep all of this in mind when judging this action of having him killed, and in the future when the Dems and pundits inundate the press with just how wrong it was to kill the poor terror leader.

--

Quds Force Leader Qasem Soleimani’s Death Marks Huge Blow to Iranian Regime

The U.S. military, at the direction of President Donald Trump, killed Iran’s most significant military figure, Qasem Soleimani, in airstrikes in Baghdad early Friday morning in a huge blow to the Islamic Republic.

The Pentagon confirmed in a statement that it killed Maj. Gen. Soleimani, the commander of Iran’s elite military forces, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force, as well as the commander of Iranian-controlled Shia militia forces in Iraq, Syria, and around the world.

“The reported deaths of Iranian General Qassem Suleimani and the Iraqi commander of the militia that killed an American last week was a bold and decisive military action made possible by excellent intelligence and the courage of America’s service members,” said Lt. Col. (Ret.) James Carafano, vice president of the Heritage Foundation’s Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy.

“His death is a huge loss for Iran’s regime and its Iraqi proxies, and a major operational and psychological victory for the United States,” Carafano added.

Phillip Smyth, an expert at the Washington Institute on Iran-controlled Shia militias and the Middle East, agreed.

“This is a major blow,” he said. “I would argue that this is probably the most major decapitation strike the United States has ever carried out. … This is a man who controlled a transnational foreign legion that was controlling governments in numerous different countries.”

Smyth said Soleimani had a cult of personality, as well as a unique leadership role in the Iran-controlled Shia militia network.

“He had a hell of a lot of power and a hell of a lot of control,” he said. “You have to be a strong leader in order to get these people to work with you, know how and when to play them off one another, and also know which Iranians do I need within the IRGC-QF, which Lebanese do I need, which Iraqis do I need … that’s not something you can just pick up at a local five and dime. It takes decades of experience.”

Several other experts also agreed that Soleimani’s death was even more significant than al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden’s, or Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s.

https://i.imgur.com/0HvW5Vu.png

The Pentagon indicated that Soleimani’s death would have a significant operational impact.

“General Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region,” the Pentagon said in a statement. “This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans. The United States will continue to take all necessary action to protect our people and our interests wherever they are around the world.”

The Pentagon said Soleimani had orchestrated attacks on U.S.-led coalition bases in Iraq over the last several months, including one on December 27 which killed an American contractor and wounded U.S. service members and Iraqi personnel.

The Pentagon also said Soleimani approved the attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad that took place earlier this week.

The group that carried out the December 27 attack, Kata’ib Hizballah, is the same group that pioneered the use of explosively formed penetrators that killed and maimed hundreds of U.S. service members during the Iraq War, according to Smyth.

Carafano argued that Soleimani’s death should be treated similarly to bin Laden’s. Trump designated the IRGC-Quds Force a foreign terrorist organization in April, essentially labeling Soleimani a terrorist leader.

“The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), led by Suleimani, was responsible for the deaths of more than 600 Americans in Iraq between 2003-2011, and countless more injured. He was a chief architect behind Iran’s continuing reign of terror in the region. This strike against one of the world’s most odious terrorists is no different than the mission which took out Osama bin Laden – it is, in fact, even more justifiable since he was in a foreign country directing terrorist attacks against Americans,” he said.

According to local reports, the U.S. airstrikes also killed Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the leader of the Badr Organization, one of Iraq’s most powerful Iranian-controlled Shia militia groups.

“It’s an incredible two-fer,” Smyth said. “This is another one of those old hands. These guys don’t grow on trees. It takes time.”

The U.S. airstrikes also reportedly killed the public relations chief for the umbrella group of Iran-controlled Shia militia in Iraq, the Popular Mobilization Forces, Mohammed Ridha Jabri, as well. Smyth said Jabri had some significance to the militia network as a spokesman, but his death would not be of the same significance as Soleimani or al-Muhandis.

Rest - https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2020/01/02/quds-force-leader-qassem-soleimani-blow-iranian-regime/

[jimnyc]

3k more troops now being deployed shortly for the ME. I don't know what is going to happen, I guess that is going to be up to Iran and its minions. I am praying for our troops and Israel.

I'm wondering if any more offensives are on deck, or of this is just growing defense as a result of whatever fallout this may bring. And I do expect something, some form of response.

[Kathianne]

I'm wondering if any more offensives are on deck, or of this is just growing defense as a result of whatever fallout this may bring. And I do expect something, some form of response.
I'm pretty certain we're 'done' until there is some response. Israel too:

https://www.axios.com/israel-iran-retaliation-qasem-soleimani-strike-fae7e497-6c62-43bc-8251-1a0e0fe8eb97.html

[jimnyc]

The "oh brother" has started with leader Pelosi leading the way, crying she wasn't notified.


--

Nancy Pelosi Complains: No Notification Before Attack on Iran’s Soleimani

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/03/nancy-pelosi-complains-no-notification-before-attack-on-irans-soleimani/#

Never mind the fact of what Iran's actions were and lead to this, Ilhan Omar thinks it's of Trump's doing, a conspiracy...

Ilhan Omar Pushes Conspiracy Theory: Trump ‘Needs the Distraction’ of War with Iran

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/03/ilhan-omar-pushes-conspiracy-theory-trump-needs-the-distraction-of-war-with-iran/

First complain about Trump inaction and then complain about Trump action.

Democrat Chris Murphy Complains About Soleimani Attack 2 Days After Calling Trump ‘Impotent’ on Iran

American shitty actress actually apologizes to Iran!

Actress Rose McGowan Apologizes to Iran for Soleimani Airstrike: I Don’t Side with Morally Corrupt USA

https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2020/01/03/rose-mcgowan-i-do-not-side-with-iran-i-definitely-dont-side-with-the-usa/

[Kathianne]

Axios has more about 'war footing.'

https://www.axios.com/us-iran-war-footing-qasem-soleimani-airstrike-13cbe74f-9095-47b4-8d03-85f1e702f447.html

[Kathianne]

The "oh brother" has started with leader Pelosi leading the way, crying she wasn't notified.


--

Nancy Pelosi Complains: No Notification Before Attack on Iran’s Soleimani

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/03/nancy-pelosi-complains-no-notification-before-attack-on-irans-soleimani/#

Never mind the fact of what Iran's actions were and lead to this, Ilhan Omar thinks it's of Trump's doing, a conspiracy...

Ilhan Omar Pushes Conspiracy Theory: Trump ‘Needs the Distraction’ of War with Iran

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/03/ilhan-omar-pushes-conspiracy-theory-trump-needs-the-distraction-of-war-with-iran/

First complain about Trump inaction and then complain about Trump action.

Democrat Chris Murphy Complains About Soleimani Attack 2 Days After Calling Trump ‘Impotent’ on Iran

American shitty actress actually apologizes to Iran!

Actress Rose McGowan Apologizes to Iran for Soleimani Airstrike: I Don’t Side with Morally Corrupt USA

https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2020/01/03/rose-mcgowan-i-do-not-side-with-iran-i-definitely-dont-side-with-the-usa/

I think it's interesting that even the major media isn't ignoring what has been done and who's criticizing and why. Pelosi can legitimately whine about notification, but she has a Schiff problem. The rest? Consider the sources.

[Kathianne]

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/u-s-to-deploy-thousands-of-troops-to-middle-east-following-soleimani-strike/?fbclid=IwAR3OBQHKFjXWFO_BAXDZo-FefvWc1Yo3KHcqDtnWNP5nd9AQwO8ZG0TX30k


U.S. To Deploy Thousands of Troops to Middle East Following Soleimani Strike
By TOBIAS HOONHOUT
January 3, 2020 1:06 PM

The U.S. is preparing to deploy some 3,000 troops to the Middle East in preparation for Iran’s response to the Thursday airstrike that killed Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani, according to multiple reports.


The remainder of the 82nd Airborne Division’s Immediate Response Force, a brigade that remains on standby for quick deployment, will join 500 fellow brigade troops who were sent to Kuwait over the weekend following an attack on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad by Iranian-backed militias.

...

[FakeNewsSux]

I have no doubt that down the road, he will be blamed. Look what has happened to GW! My point was that few are criticizing in meaningful way, not because they don't want to, but because the public is so down on the Dems right now and the embassy thing brought Benghazi immediately to mind. Then the stupid Dems, manage to call that 'Benghazi 2' and lo and behold, it was dealt with the way Benghazi should have been.

It's not patriotism playing into the majority of Dem responses, but fear of the electorate.

Looks like The American Spectator agrees with you, Kath:



Trump Averts a Benghazi — and a Jimmy Carter
“This will not be a Benghazi,” vowed President Donald Trump to reporters on New Year’s Eve. “This will never, ever be a Benghazi.”
A spot-on analogy. So far, so good. It looks like a seizure of the U.S. embassy in Baghdad by Iranian militants has been averted. In so doing, President Trump — with full credit to our troops — has averted not only a Benghazi but a Jimmy Carter.
The parallels between what happened in the Middle East the final week of December 2019 and what happened in the Middle East the final weeks of 1979 are chilling. Iranian agitators marched on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad almost 40 years to the day that the Soviet Red Army marched into Afghanistan, a disastrous event that came on the heels of Iranian militants seizing the U.S. embassy in Tehran a few weeks earlier. The events were calamitous, including for President Jimmy Carter, who was seeking reelection.
https://spectator.org/trump-averts-a-benghazi-and-a-jimmy-carter/

[FakeNewsSux]

How the mighty have fallen. Not only has President Trump dispensed President Obama's signature foreign policy "achievement" to the dustbin of history, he did the same to his negotiating partner too! To refresh everyone's memory, here's some reportage from 4 1/2 years ago: https://www.hudson.org/research/11436-obama-strikes-a-deal-with-qassem-suleimani

[Kathianne]

How the mighty have fallen. Not only has President Trump dispensed President Obama's signature foreign policy "achievement" to the dustbin of history, he did the same to his negotiating partner too! To refresh everyone's memory, here's some reportage from 4 1/2 years ago: https://www.hudson.org/research/11436-obama-strikes-a-deal-with-qassem-suleimani

It was not easy to overtake Jimmy Carter as the worst president, Obama made it look easy. At least Carter unsuccessfully tried to save our troops. Obama didn't care.

[jimnyc]

Many speaking out like the dimwits I posted about above. All kinds of reasons but most of them are because this is Trump. With everything this man is responsible for, in Iran and around the world, and so many Americans involved, some still feel leaving him be would be the wisest choice. :rolleyes: We shouldn't ignore scum like this just because some may worry about what his supporters may think or do. And others claiming conspiracy to avoid impeachment somehow. IMO, if you have an opportunity to remove someone like this from breathing, take the chance while you can.

[jimnyc]

Dang, CNN????

--

CNN Anchor Describes Bin Laden’s Death As A ‘Nothing Burger’ Compared To Soleimani Killing

CNN’s chief international anchor described the death of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in 2011 as a “nothing burger” compared to Thursday’s killing of Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani.

The leader of Iran’s elite Quds Force was killed during an airstrike Thursday ordered by President Donald Trump near the Baghdad, Iraq, airport, the Pentagon said in a statement.

“Qasem Soleimani was at the height of his power when he was taken out. Unlike Osama bin Laden, who was a forgotten, you know, nothing burger, sort of hiding in a villa in Pakistan,” CNN’s Christiane Amanpour said Friday.

Former President Barack Obama ordered the raid on bin Laden’s compound in May 2011, resulting in his death. Bin Laden’s death was one of the highlights of the Obama administration.

“But, it’s not the person you take out, it’s what they leave behind and the tentacles and who comes next,” Amanpour continued. “Al-Qaeda terrorism did not end with the sidelining of Osama bin Laden. ISIS has not ended with the killing of al-Baghdadi.”

“So if you’re trying to end whatever is happening, this is a major escalation, and we need to see what the plan is.”

Soleimani was “actively developing plans” to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq, according to the Pentagon.

https://dailycaller.com/2020/01/03/cnn-christiane-amanpour-bin-laden-nothing-burger/

[Kathianne]

It seems the 'left' is pushing the Dems to a place they know they shouldn't go. Reminds me of Pelosi and impeachment:

https://hotair.com/archives/john-s-2/2020/01/03/elizabeth-warren-revises-statement-criticized-left-calling-soleimani-murderer/

Rand Paul and Tucker are not happy with the President for principles, so far muted unhappiness.

[Abbey Marie]

Saw this posted today on FB. This is the mentality we are dealing with.



12277

[icansayit]

Saw this posted today on FB. This is the mentality we are dealing with.



12277


There is NO mentality in posts like that. We all know the President is just doing what his job entails, according to the Constitution.

You know? That terrible RAG the Democrats hate so much because it makes them look even more stupid than they are???

[Kathianne]

No surprise, Dana Perino and I agree. Watching 'The Five' and she said, 'We'll find out this was in the works for quite awhile for a reason. Let's not forget that Iran is more of a proxy, a powerful proxy, for Russia and China.'

Yeah, that.

[Kathianne]

The left is going after anyone who's not saying that Trump wants WWIII:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnbc-qassem-solemani

https://hotair.com/archives/john-s-2/2020/01/03/elizabeth-warren-revises-statement-criticized-left-calling-soleimani-murderer/

[Drummond]

The left is going after anyone who's not saying that Trump wants WWIII:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnbc-qassem-solemani

https://hotair.com/archives/john-s-2/2020/01/03/elizabeth-warren-revises-statement-criticized-left-calling-soleimani-murderer/

I've nothing new to report from my side of the Pond, apart from the fact that Emily Thornberry was interviewed by LBC radio earlier ... and restated the case to the listeners that I posted she'd made, yesterday. This caused LBC to put her statements at the top of their next two news summaries.

She emphasised today that Trump's action has moved us closer to war (another Leftie arguing that this was a 'warmongering' act) .. she seemingly rejects the idea that anything good could come of the death.

This news item continues to dominate the news over here .. even the Australian fires are being pushed to second place right now. Another point now being raised is that it seems Boris Johnson / his Government didn't get advance warning about the attack.

Our people expect to get advance warnings of such actions, hours or more before they happen .. sometimes our Government is asked for any views we might have. None of this appears to have happened this time around.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50981719


Boris Johnson was not warned about the US airstrike in Iraq that killed a top Iranian general, the BBC understands.

The UK has 400 troops based in the Middle East and works alongside US forces in the region.

But President Donald Trump did not tell the UK PM about the attack he ordered that killed Qasem Soleimani on Friday.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has asked Mr Johnson to confirm what the UK was told before the airstrike.

In a letter to the prime minister, he asked whether, if it had been informed in advance, the government had expressed its opposition to the attack.

He also requested an urgent meeting of the privy council to discuss the airstrike's consequences, and asked what the government was doing to ensure the safety of UK nationals.

Boris hasn't said one word about any of this publicly (regarded as an unusual degree of silence from him, and beginning to be interpreted by our media pundits as a sign that he actually disapproves ... though I'm thinking that it's only because we were kept out of the loop this time).

[jimnyc]

A few headlines/updates:


RED ALERT Iran vows to hit 35 US targets as it unfurls red flag of WAR after America executed General Soleimani

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10670210/iran-unfurls-red-flag-ready-for-war/

Terrifying moment Iran unveils red flag at Mosque warning of severe battle to come

IRAN has issued a terrifying warning to the US as it raised a red flag over the Holy Dome Jamkarān Mosque as a symbol of a severe battle to come.

Iran and US tensions are at an all-time high following the killing of Iranian general Qassem Soleimani by Washington in an airstrike. Global leaders have begun assessing the magnitude of the situation with many holding fears of World War 3 and destabilisation of the Middle East. For the first time in the history of Iran, a red flag was raised over the Holy Dome of Jamkarān Mosque symbolising a severe battle to come. The disturbing war flag reads the words: "Those who want to avenge the blood of Hussein."

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1223958/Iran-US-red-flag-Qassem-Soleimani-world-war-3-ww3-Donald-Trump-Jamkaran-Mosque

Iran will punish Americans wherever they are within its reach- Guards commander

DUBAI, Jan 4 (Reuters) - Iran will punish Americans wherever they are within reach of the Islamic Republic in retaliation for the killing of miliary commander Qassem Soleimani, Tasnim news agency quoted a senior Revolutionary Guards commander as saying.

General Gholamali Abuhamzeh, the commander of the Guards in the southern province of Kerman, raised the prospect of possible attacks on ships in the Gulf.

Iran reserved the right to take revenge against the United States for the death of Soleimani, he said in comments made late on Friday and reported on Saturday by Tasnim.

"The Strait of Hormuz is a vital point for the West and a large number of American destroyers and warships cross there ... vital American targets in the region have been identified by Iran since long time ago ... some 35 U.S. targets in the region as well as Tel Aviv are within our reach," he said.

http://news.trust.org/item/20200104104819-ohs52

'We TERMINATED him.' Donald Trump says Qassem Soleimani had plotted terror around the world but sends message to Iran that 'we took action to stop a war not to start a war'


Donald Trump said he did not order the death of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani to start a war but to stop one
'Soleimani was plotting imminent and sinister attacks on American and diplomatic personnel. But we caught him in the act and terminated him,' Trump said
The U.S. is sending nearly 3,000 more Army troops to the Mideast
Soleimani, Iran's highest ranking general, was killed early Friday
U.S. drone missiles obliterated vehicles carrying Soleimani and his entourage of Iraqi Shiite militiamen
The president boasted that Soleimani should have been killed many years ago and accused him of plotting to kill Americans
He also claimed the people of Iraq wanted to be free from Iranian domination
U.S. stocks fell about 1 per cent at the market's opening while oil prices surged
Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said 'Jihad of Resistance will continue with more motivation'
President Hassan Rouhani vowed that Soleimani would be avenged by Iran and the 'free nations of the region'
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told CNN Friday morning there was a threat of 'imminent' attack in the region
The Pentagon says the strike was necessary to save American lives and deterring future attacks
Militia leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, who helped besiege the US embassy Tuesday, was among the dead
Thousands of mourners flooded the streets of Soleimani's hometown in Kerman, while tens of thousands poured onto the streets of Tehran, chanting 'Death to America' and torching the Stars and Stripes


Rest - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7848729/Trump-taunts-Iran-saying-never-won-war-ordering-strike-killed-Soleimani.html

"There will be dead Americans" as a result of Iran general being killed, ex-CIA deputy director says

The targeted killing of Qassem Soleimani, one of Iran's top military leaders, has escalated tensions between the U.S. and Iran, with Iran vowing revenge. CBS News senior national security contributor, and former acting and deputy CIA director Michael Morell told "CBS This Morning" the drone strike on Soleimani will lead to "dead civilian Americans."

"Soleimani was an evil genius, he had a lot of American blood on his hands," Morell said. "The world is a better place without him. The problem is that comes at a very high cost. Number one, there will be dead Americans, dead civilian Americans, as a result of this. Possibly over the next few days in any place where Iran has its proxies, Iraq is the most likely place, but also Lebanon, Bahrain, other places in the Middle East."

Morell said Iran would lose the battle if they responded with a military strike on U.S. forces in the region. He said he thinks Iran's proxies throughout the region will go after civilians, but that's not all.

"At a time and place of their choosing, they're going to conduct a terrorist strike that kills a senior American official," Morell said. "And that could be anywhere in the world."

Such an attack could occur on American soil, he said.

Rest - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/qassem-soleimani-iran-general-killed-dead-americans-as-result-former-acting-cia-director-michael-morell/

[Gunny]

A few headlines/updates:


RED ALERT Iran vows to hit 35 US targets as it unfurls red flag of WAR after America executed General Soleimani

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10670210/iran-unfurls-red-flag-ready-for-war/

Terrifying moment Iran unveils red flag at Mosque warning of severe battle to come

IRAN has issued a terrifying warning to the US as it raised a red flag over the Holy Dome Jamkarān Mosque as a symbol of a severe battle to come.

Iran and US tensions are at an all-time high following the killing of Iranian general Qassem Soleimani by Washington in an airstrike. Global leaders have begun assessing the magnitude of the situation with many holding fears of World War 3 and destabilisation of the Middle East. For the first time in the history of Iran, a red flag was raised over the Holy Dome of Jamkarān Mosque symbolising a severe battle to come. The disturbing war flag reads the words: "Those who want to avenge the blood of Hussein."

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1223958/Iran-US-red-flag-Qassem-Soleimani-world-war-3-ww3-Donald-Trump-Jamkaran-Mosque

Iran will punish Americans wherever they are within its reach- Guards commander

DUBAI, Jan 4 (Reuters) - Iran will punish Americans wherever they are within reach of the Islamic Republic in retaliation for the killing of miliary commander Qassem Soleimani, Tasnim news agency quoted a senior Revolutionary Guards commander as saying.

General Gholamali Abuhamzeh, the commander of the Guards in the southern province of Kerman, raised the prospect of possible attacks on ships in the Gulf.

Iran reserved the right to take revenge against the United States for the death of Soleimani, he said in comments made late on Friday and reported on Saturday by Tasnim.

"The Strait of Hormuz is a vital point for the West and a large number of American destroyers and warships cross there ... vital American targets in the region have been identified by Iran since long time ago ... some 35 U.S. targets in the region as well as Tel Aviv are within our reach," he said.

http://news.trust.org/item/20200104104819-ohs52

'We TERMINATED him.' Donald Trump says Qassem Soleimani had plotted terror around the world but sends message to Iran that 'we took action to stop a war not to start a war'


Donald Trump said he did not order the death of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani to start a war but to stop one
'Soleimani was plotting imminent and sinister attacks on American and diplomatic personnel. But we caught him in the act and terminated him,' Trump said
The U.S. is sending nearly 3,000 more Army troops to the Mideast
Soleimani, Iran's highest ranking general, was killed early Friday
U.S. drone missiles obliterated vehicles carrying Soleimani and his entourage of Iraqi Shiite militiamen
The president boasted that Soleimani should have been killed many years ago and accused him of plotting to kill Americans
He also claimed the people of Iraq wanted to be free from Iranian domination
U.S. stocks fell about 1 per cent at the market's opening while oil prices surged
Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said 'Jihad of Resistance will continue with more motivation'
President Hassan Rouhani vowed that Soleimani would be avenged by Iran and the 'free nations of the region'
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told CNN Friday morning there was a threat of 'imminent' attack in the region
The Pentagon says the strike was necessary to save American lives and deterring future attacks
Militia leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, who helped besiege the US embassy Tuesday, was among the dead
Thousands of mourners flooded the streets of Soleimani's hometown in Kerman, while tens of thousands poured onto the streets of Tehran, chanting 'Death to America' and torching the Stars and Stripes


Rest - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7848729/Trump-taunts-Iran-saying-never-won-war-ordering-strike-killed-Soleimani.html

"There will be dead Americans" as a result of Iran general being killed, ex-CIA deputy director says

The targeted killing of Qassem Soleimani, one of Iran's top military leaders, has escalated tensions between the U.S. and Iran, with Iran vowing revenge. CBS News senior national security contributor, and former acting and deputy CIA director Michael Morell told "CBS This Morning" the drone strike on Soleimani will lead to "dead civilian Americans."

"Soleimani was an evil genius, he had a lot of American blood on his hands," Morell said. "The world is a better place without him. The problem is that comes at a very high cost. Number one, there will be dead Americans, dead civilian Americans, as a result of this. Possibly over the next few days in any place where Iran has its proxies, Iraq is the most likely place, but also Lebanon, Bahrain, other places in the Middle East."

Morell said Iran would lose the battle if they responded with a military strike on U.S. forces in the region. He said he thinks Iran's proxies throughout the region will go after civilians, but that's not all.

"At a time and place of their choosing, they're going to conduct a terrorist strike that kills a senior American official," Morell said. "And that could be anywhere in the world."

Such an attack could occur on American soil, he said.

Rest - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/qassem-soleimani-iran-general-killed-dead-americans-as-result-former-acting-cia-director-michael-morell/I agree with Morell. "Dead civilian Americans". That's been their threat all along, and one the left wants to cow to. We already know Iran would lose a military battle so that option's out.

I'm kind of laughing at the "to stop a war not start a war" line though. Right. :laugh:

As far as I'm concerned, anyone not armed and/or willing to fight needs to be brought home and we need to quit pussying around and finish this. It's only going to end one of two ways. Them or us dead. We're stupid for thinking any other outcome will work for that shithole and the shithead in charge.

[FakeNewsSux]

And the hits just keep on coming:

Round Two: US Drone Airstrikes Kill Six Pro-Iran Militia CommandersWhether he is eating ice cream or not, Trump appears to be on a rampage to recreate the end of The Godfather.
Less than 24 hours after a US drone shockingly killed the top Iranian military leader, Qasem Soleimani, resulting in equity markets groaning around the globe in fear over Iranian reprisals (and potentially, World War III), the US has gone for round two with Reuters and various other social media sources reporting that US air strikes targeting Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Units umbrella grouping of Iran-backed Shi’ite militias near camp Taji north of Baghdad, have killed six people and critically wounded three, an Iraqi army source said late on Friday.
... to the objectively concerned, with some wondering how much further is Iraq going to let US operate freely in country before they decide to kick their assets out? These airstrikes really make the Iraqi government look weak like they can't deal with their problems by themselves, which may or may not be true, but the point stands."
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/round-two-us-drone-airstrikes-kill-six-pro-iran-militia-commanders

As for the last paragraph, I wonder why some are wondering how much further Iraq is going to let the US operate freely in country while not wondering how much further Iraq is going to let Iran operate freely in country? I guess Trump is the only true imperialist left on the earth.

[Drummond]

I agree with Morell. "Dead civilian Americans". That's been their threat all along, and one the left wants to cow to. We already know Iran would lose a military battle so that option's out.

I'm kind of laughing at the "to stop a war not start a war" line though. Right. :laugh:

As far as I'm concerned, anyone not armed and/or willing to fight needs to be brought home and we need to quit pussying around and finish this. It's only going to end one of two ways. Them or us dead. We're stupid for thinking any other outcome will work for that shithole and the shithead in charge.

Iran has long since been a threat that nobody pre-Trump has been willing to take on, face-on. Obama tried his appeasement route, giving them a nuclear deal which favoured Iran. He even gave them a generous funding present ...

Appeasement is 'good' for temporary solutions. It's useless as anything that lasts long-term. So far as I'm concerned, Trump's approach, no matter how much others protest about it, is the only realistic one out there.

I see from previous posting that Iran's threatened 35 targets ? Funnily enough, that's yet another item I've not seen on BBC news broadcasts (.. I'd be missing out on the whole picture, were it not for this forum) ! Ah, but, what I have seen from the BBC is Trump's threat against 52 Iranian ones !

Any advance on 52 ?? Come on, Tehran.:rolleyes:

Honestly, this one-upmanship posturing is puerile. Time, I think, for Trump to tell Iran he means business, and that further threats aren't going to be tolerated. Iran remains a thorn acting against the world's security interests for only as long as it's allowed to continue as one.

[Gunny]

Iran has long since been a threat that nobody pre-Trump has been willing to take on, face-on. Obama tried his appeasement route, giving them a nuclear deal which favoured Iran. He even gave them a generous funding present ...

Appeasement is 'good' for temporary solutions. It's useless as anything that lasts long-term. So far as I'm concerned, Trump's approach, no matter how much others protest about it, is the only realistic one out there.

I see from previous posting that Iran's threatened 35 targets ? Funnily enough, that's yet another item I've not seen on BBC news broadcasts (.. I'd be missing out on the whole picture, were it not for this forum) ! Ah, but, what I have seen from the BBC is Trump's threat against 52 Iranian ones !

Any advance on 52 ?? Come on, Tehran.:rolleyes:

Honestly, this one-upmanship posturing is puerile. Time, I think, for Trump to tell Iran he means business, and that further threats aren't going to be tolerated. Iran remains a thorn acting against the world's security interests for only as long as it's allowed to continue as one.I prefer to negotiate. IF one can in good faith. As I pointed out in the thread I just posted which is basically an update to the situation, looks lie talking time is done which suits me just fine. I joined the Marines to kill Iranians. All of them. Been wasting my time for 40 years.

I can do the vicarious thing though :)

[Drummond]

I prefer to negotiate. IF one can in good faith. As I pointed out in the thread I just posted which is basically an update to the situation, looks lie talking time is done which suits me just fine. I joined the Marines to kill Iranians. All of them. Been wasting my time for 40 years.

I can do the vicarious thing though :)

Well, I'm sure Trump doesn't trust the Iranian regime to negotiate in good faith. And, he's right. The Iranians will only negotiate if they can come out of it a winner, which to their dogmatically extremist eyes also means that the US must comparably lose.

None of this ultimately achieves anything worthwhile.

Listening to LBC (news broadcast / phone-in station), Iranians have phoned in to say that what Trump has done is WELCOMED by many Iranians. Many of the 'common people', we're told, have come to despise the regime ruling them.

It's the dogmatism of the rulers that is really the problem. They will never, ever, move from their psychology of always needing to 'win' against the West. Consequently, they are a permanent threat to peace, regardless of whatever they may say in more 'peaceful' moments.

I wonder if Trump would do all of us a power of good if he candidly indicated a desire to effect regime change in Iran.

[Gunny]

Well, I'm sure Trump doesn't trust the Iranian regime to negotiate in good faith. And, he's right. The Iranians will only negotiate if they can come out of it a winner, which to their dogmatically extremist eyes also means that the US must comparably lose.

None of this ultimately achieves anything worthwhile.

Listening to LBC (news broadcast / phone-in station), Iranians have phoned in to say that what Trump has done is WELCOMED by many Iranians. Many of the 'common people', we're told, have come to despise the regime ruling them.

It's the dogmatism of the rulers that is really the problem. They will never, ever, move from their psychology of always needing to 'win' against the West. Consequently, they are a permanent threat to peace, regardless of whatever they may say in more 'peaceful' moments.

I wonder if Trump would do all of us a power of good if he candidly indicated a desire to effect regime change in Iran.I don't care about "change". Tae out the current regime? All for it.

But you have to consider the aftermath, something GWB didn't. Erdogan will be licking his chops as will Putin.

Speaking of Erdogan. Mighty Mouth has been rather silent. Wonder why :)

[FakeNewsSux]

Iran has long since been a threat that nobody pre-Trump has been willing to take on, face-on. Obama tried his appeasement route, giving them a nuclear deal which favoured Iran. He even gave them a generous funding present ...

Appeasement is 'good' for temporary solutions. It's useless as anything that lasts long-term. So far as I'm concerned, Trump's approach, no matter how much others protest about it, is the only realistic one out there.

I see from previous posting that Iran's threatened 35 targets ? Funnily enough, that's yet another item I've not seen on BBC news broadcasts (.. I'd be missing out on the whole picture, were it not for this forum) ! Ah, but, what I have seen from the BBC is Trump's threat against 52 Iranian ones !

Any advance on 52 ?? Come on, Tehran.:rolleyes:

Honestly, this one-upmanship posturing is puerile. Time, I think, for Trump to tell Iran he means business, and that further threats aren't going to be tolerated. Iran remains a thorn acting against the world's security interests for only as long as it's allowed to continue as one.

There appears to be a reason for selecting 52 Iranian targets:
WOW – President Trump chooses 52 targets in Iran (for 52 hostages they took years ago). One move against us, and Iran feels it….no threats he said…2 mins ago
1 min read



Iran is talking very boldly about targeting certain USA assets as revenge for our ridding the world of their terrorist leader who had just killed an American, & badly wounded many others, not to mention all of the people he had killed over his lifetime, including recently….
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 4, 2020 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1213593965838163968?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)

….hundreds of Iranian protesters. He was already attacking our Embassy, and preparing for additional hits in other locations. Iran has been nothing but problems for many years. Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have…..
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 4, 2020 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1213593974679769093?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)

….targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 4, 2020 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1213593975732527112?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)
President Trump (https://videos.whatfinger.com/tag/president-trump/)

[Gunny]

There appears to be a reason for selecting 52 Iranian targets:
WOW – President Trump chooses 52 targets in Iran (for 52 hostages they took years ago). One move against us, and Iran feels it….no threats he said…

2 mins ago
1 min read



Iran is talking very boldly about targeting certain USA assets as revenge for our ridding the world of their terrorist leader who had just killed an American, & badly wounded many others, not to mention all of the people he had killed over his lifetime, including recently….
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 4, 2020 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1213593965838163968?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)

….hundreds of Iranian protesters. He was already attacking our Embassy, and preparing for additional hits in other locations. Iran has been nothing but problems for many years. Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have…..
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 4, 2020 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1213593974679769093?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)

….targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 4, 2020 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1213593975732527112?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)
President Trump (https://videos.whatfinger.com/tag/president-trump/)
Could be for each of Baskin Robbins flavors for all I care. Let 'er rip ... :)

[Drummond]

There appears to be a reason for selecting 52 Iranian targets:
WOW – President Trump chooses 52 targets in Iran (for 52 hostages they took years ago). One move against us, and Iran feels it….no threats he said…

2 mins ago
1 min read



Iran is talking very boldly about targeting certain USA assets as revenge for our ridding the world of their terrorist leader who had just killed an American, & badly wounded many others, not to mention all of the people he had killed over his lifetime, including recently….
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 4, 2020 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1213593965838163968?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)

….hundreds of Iranian protesters. He was already attacking our Embassy, and preparing for additional hits in other locations. Iran has been nothing but problems for many years. Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have…..
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 4, 2020 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1213593974679769093?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)

….targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 4, 2020 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1213593975732527112?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)
President Trump (https://videos.whatfinger.com/tag/president-trump/)


If memory serves, those 52 hostages were taken back in the 1980's !

[Gunny]

If memory serves, those 52 hostages were taken back in the 1980's !1979.

[FakeNewsSux]

Two British publications released footage that they claim shows the moment that a U.S. Reaper drone killed Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Quds Force, which is a designated terrorist organization.
President Donald Trump authorized the strike last week after receiving credible information from the U.S. intelligence community that Soleimani was planning imminent terrorist attacks on U.S. forces and interests throughout the Middle East.
The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/04/huge-crowds-expected-in-baghdad-for-funeral-of-iranian-general-killed-by-us) and Sky News (https://news.sky.com/video/reports-say-that-the-drone-strike-that-killed-qassem-soleimanis-was-caught-on-camera-11900692) published the footage that they say they obtained from Iraq CCTV.

https://youtu.be/hApKcYbTB70

Who would have known Blue Oyster Cult saw it coming?


https://youtu.be/PVn6b9QQZeM

[Drummond]

Two British publications released footage that they claim shows the moment that a U.S. Reaper drone killed Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Quds Force, which is a designated terrorist organization.
President Donald Trump authorized the strike last week after receiving credible information from the U.S. intelligence community that Soleimani was planning imminent terrorist attacks on U.S. forces and interests throughout the Middle East.
The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/04/huge-crowds-expected-in-baghdad-for-funeral-of-iranian-general-killed-by-us) and Sky News (https://news.sky.com/video/reports-say-that-the-drone-strike-that-killed-qassem-soleimanis-was-caught-on-camera-11900692) published the footage that they say they obtained from Iraq CCTV.


Who would have known Blue Oyster Cult saw it coming?



I can't comment from any knowledgeable basis as to whether a Guardian-sourced video footage such as this is genuine (or whether it's been edited, or worse). I can say that the Guardian is a Left-wing newspaper, not above employing trickery to advance a political agenda !

It has history of doing just that.

I'm reminded of their efforts to get British readers to cold-call voters in Clark County, what you'd call a 'swing State', to persuade people not to vote for GW Bush, to help skew one of your elections.

I'm reminded of a dim memory I have of a Bill O'Reilly broadcast on Fox News, where the transcript of an interview of his was heavily censored, to 'show' his efforts to kill a microphone of an interviewee who 'was saying things he refused to listen to'. [In fact, a large chunk of dialogue was cut from the transcript they printed]

So, beware of anything coming out of the Guardian.

It may be bona fide. Then again, it may not.

Theirs is a LEFT WING publication.

As for Sky ... they're more reputable. Still ... to what extent do they use Guardian material, and trust it ?

[Kathianne]

Wonder how this is going to turn out? :rolleyes:

https://hotair.com/archives/allahpundit/2020/01/06/pelosi-house-will-vote-limit-trumps-power-wage-war-iran-30-days/

Pelosi: The House Will Vote To Limit Trump’s Power To Wage War Against Iran To 30 Days
ALLAHPUNDIT Posted at 3:31 pm on January 6, 2020

Pitiful. Not the impulse behind the idea — that’s virtuous, wanting to reassert Congress’s warmaking authority by imposing limits on the president’s power to strike unilaterally. Clearly America shouldn’t be dragged into conflict, especially major conflict, by a single elected official if the people’s representatives oppose it. What’s pitiful is that each party’s interest in reasserting that authority waxes and wanes depending upon which party the president belongs to. One would hope that a subject as momentous as which branch has the final say over war might escape the immense gravitational pull of partisanship, but nope. The War Powers Resolution orbits Team Blue/Team Red inanity just like every other topic in Washington does.


“Last week, the Trump administration conducted a provocative and disproportionate military airstrike targeting high-level Iranian military officials,” Pelosi said in a letter to colleagues Sunday. “This action endangered our servicemembers, diplomats and others by risking a serious escalation of tensions with Iran.”




“As members of Congress, our first responsibility is to keep the American people safe,” she continued. “For this reason, we are concerned that the administration took this action without the consultation of Congress and without respect for Congress’s war powers granted to it by the Constitution.”…




“It reasserts Congress’s long-established oversight responsibilities by mandating that if no further Congressional action is taken, the Administration’s military hostilities with regard to Iran cease within 30 days,” she said.

The War Powers Resolution was passed in 1973 over Richard Nixon’s veto and seeks to limit the circumstances in which the president can go to war on his own. Specifically, it says, only if Congress has formally authorized some sort of military action *or* if there’s a national emergency caused by an attack on the United States is the commander-in-chief empowered to act. That’s not what we had with the Soleimani killing, although some hawks would argue that the 2002 AUMF greenlighting the Iraq war and the subsequent 2014 deployment of U.S. troops to Iraq to fight ISIS kinda sorta provide the necessary authorization. The Resolution also says that “The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances.” We didn’t have that either in the Soleimani case. In fact, the latest word from WaPo is that Mike Pompeo started chatting with Trump about targeting Soleimani months ago. That doesn’t mean that last week’s strike wasn’t in response to an imminent threat — maybe Soleimani was on the cusp of ordering something big — but it raises the question of why the administration didn’t seek broad authority sooner to target Iran’s military under certain circumstances.


So, no, it’s not off-base for Pelosi to demand a congressional role in decisionmaking at a moment when the U.S. is at risk of war with the region’s foremost Islamic military power. What makes it pitiful is how short her memory is. Come with me on a trip back in time to June 2011. Headline: “Pelosi backs Obama on Libya.”


President Obama did not require Congress’s approval to launch attacks in Libya, nor does he need congressional authorization to keep U.S. forces there, the top House Democrat said Thursday.




Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the White House violated neither the Constitution nor the War Powers Resolution when it launched military operations in the war-torn African nation in March without Congress’s endorsement.




“The limited nature of this engagement allows the president to go forward,” Pelosi told reporters at the Capitol. “I’m satisfied that the president has the authority he needs to go ahead.


You will be shocked to learn that at the time it was Republicans, the out-party, who were demanding greater executive consultation with Congress before the White House attacked Qaddafi in Libya. Pelosi would defend her hypocrisy by insisting that the two situations, then and now, are materially different. There are American troops on the ground in Iraq who are directly in harm’s way if Iran retaliates whereas there were none in Libya. The Libya intervention was aimed at preventing a humanitarian disaster by Qaddafi, the mass slaughter of Libyan rebels, whereas Soleimani wasn’t threatening anyone on quite that level. (The hundreds of thousands killed in Syria as part of Iran’s proxy war are already dead.) And Qaddafi’s regime was a pipsqueak power capable of menacing its own people and virtually no one else, very much unlike Iran. The potential repercussions from killing Soleimani are an order of magnitude greater for U.S. national security.


But none of that has anything to do with the basic point of the War Powers Resolution, which is to demand coordination with Congress on military action whenever feasible. Coordination was eminently feasible before the first bombs fell in Libya. There were UN debates about intervention; a multinational coalition was formed; a lot of planning went into it. It wasn’t a matter of acting immediately on perishable intelligence about a single official’s whereabouts, as was the case with Soleimani. Siding with the rebels against Qaddafi was also far more aggressive an act in furtherance of regime change than taking out Soleimani was vis-a-vis Iran. If the United States is going to take military action that leads to the fall of a government somewhere, you would think that’d be a paradigm case for involving Congress. Most damning of all, though, is the fact that Obama’s own lawyers at the Pentagon and DOJ thought he was bound by the War Powers Resolution. O decided to ignore them for reasons of convenience and side with members of his own staff who concluded that bombing a foreign regime knowing that it would likely lead to the downfall of that regime somehow doesn’t amount to “hostilities” for purposes of the Resolution.


Pelosi could have struck a blow for her branch of government by making a big deal of that revelation at the time and insisting that the president come to Congress for authorization of further action in Libya. Instead she went into the tank like a good partisan hack. She’s doing the same thing now with Trump, pandering to a lefty base that would have been quiescent if Obama had liquidated Soleimani in one of his own many, many drone strikes. And of course Republicans in the House and Senate won’t dare complicate Trump’s life by joining her in this futile exercise to demand executive accountability. They’ll vote against the resolution like good party hacks too, ensuring that it fails to attract the two-thirds majorities in both chambers that it would need to overcome a Trump veto.


In lieu of an exit question, go read this Timothy Carney piece about another embarrassing hypocrite in Pelosi’s caucus on this subject.

[Drummond]

Wonder how this is going to turn out? :rolleyes:

https://hotair.com/archives/allahpundit/2020/01/06/pelosi-house-will-vote-limit-trumps-power-wage-war-iran-30-days/

Pelosi: The House Will Vote To Limit Trump’s Power To Wage War Against Iran To 30 Days
ALLAHPUNDIT Posted at 3:31 pm on January 6, 2020

Pitiful. Not the impulse behind the idea — that’s virtuous, wanting to reassert Congress’s warmaking authority by imposing limits on the president’s power to strike unilaterally. Clearly America shouldn’t be dragged into conflict, especially major conflict, by a single elected official if the people’s representatives oppose it. What’s pitiful is that each party’s interest in reasserting that authority waxes and wanes depending upon which party the president belongs to. One would hope that a subject as momentous as which branch has the final say over war might escape the immense gravitational pull of partisanship, but nope. The War Powers Resolution orbits Team Blue/Team Red inanity just like every other topic in Washington does.
“Last week, the Trump administration conducted a provocative and disproportionate military airstrike targeting high-level Iranian military officials,” Pelosi said in a letter to colleagues Sunday. “This action endangered our servicemembers, diplomats and others by risking a serious escalation of tensions with Iran.”




“As members of Congress, our first responsibility is to keep the American people safe,” she continued. “For this reason, we are concerned that the administration took this action without the consultation of Congress and without respect for Congress’s war powers granted to it by the Constitution.”…




“It reasserts Congress’s long-established oversight responsibilities by mandating that if no further Congressional action is taken, the Administration’s military hostilities with regard to Iran cease within 30 days,” she said.

The War Powers Resolution was passed in 1973 over Richard Nixon’s veto and seeks to limit the circumstances in which the president can go to war on his own. Specifically, it says, only if Congress has formally authorized some sort of military action *or* if there’s a national emergency caused by an attack on the United States is the commander-in-chief empowered to act. That’s not what we had with the Soleimani killing, although some hawks would argue that the 2002 AUMF greenlighting the Iraq war and the subsequent 2014 deployment of U.S. troops to Iraq to fight ISIS kinda sorta provide the necessary authorization. The Resolution also says that “The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances.” We didn’t have that either in the Soleimani case. In fact, the latest word from WaPo is that Mike Pompeo started chatting with Trump about targeting Soleimani months ago. That doesn’t mean that last week’s strike wasn’t in response to an imminent threat — maybe Soleimani was on the cusp of ordering something big — but it raises the question of why the administration didn’t seek broad authority sooner to target Iran’s military under certain circumstances.


So, no, it’s not off-base for Pelosi to demand a congressional role in decisionmaking at a moment when the U.S. is at risk of war with the region’s foremost Islamic military power. What makes it pitiful is how short her memory is. Come with me on a trip back in time to June 2011. Headline: “Pelosi backs Obama on Libya.”
President Obama did not require Congress’s approval to launch attacks in Libya, nor does he need congressional authorization to keep U.S. forces there, the top House Democrat said Thursday.




Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the White House violated neither the Constitution nor the War Powers Resolution when it launched military operations in the war-torn African nation in March without Congress’s endorsement.




“The limited nature of this engagement allows the president to go forward,” Pelosi told reporters at the Capitol. “I’m satisfied that the president has the authority he needs to go ahead.


You will be shocked to learn that at the time it was Republicans, the out-party, who were demanding greater executive consultation with Congress before the White House attacked Qaddafi in Libya. Pelosi would defend her hypocrisy by insisting that the two situations, then and now, are materially different. There are American troops on the ground in Iraq who are directly in harm’s way if Iran retaliates whereas there were none in Libya. The Libya intervention was aimed at preventing a humanitarian disaster by Qaddafi, the mass slaughter of Libyan rebels, whereas Soleimani wasn’t threatening anyone on quite that level. (The hundreds of thousands killed in Syria as part of Iran’s proxy war are already dead.) And Qaddafi’s regime was a pipsqueak power capable of menacing its own people and virtually no one else, very much unlike Iran. The potential repercussions from killing Soleimani are an order of magnitude greater for U.S. national security.


But none of that has anything to do with the basic point of the War Powers Resolution, which is to demand coordination with Congress on military action whenever feasible. Coordination was eminently feasible before the first bombs fell in Libya. There were UN debates about intervention; a multinational coalition was formed; a lot of planning went into it. It wasn’t a matter of acting immediately on perishable intelligence about a single official’s whereabouts, as was the case with Soleimani. Siding with the rebels against Qaddafi was also far more aggressive an act in furtherance of regime change than taking out Soleimani was vis-a-vis Iran. If the United States is going to take military action that leads to the fall of a government somewhere, you would think that’d be a paradigm case for involving Congress. Most damning of all, though, is the fact that Obama’s own lawyers at the Pentagon and DOJ thought he was bound by the War Powers Resolution. O decided to ignore them for reasons of convenience and side with members of his own staff who concluded that bombing a foreign regime knowing that it would likely lead to the downfall of that regime somehow doesn’t amount to “hostilities” for purposes of the Resolution.


Pelosi could have struck a blow for her branch of government by making a big deal of that revelation at the time and insisting that the president come to Congress for authorization of further action in Libya. Instead she went into the tank like a good partisan hack. She’s doing the same thing now with Trump, pandering to a lefty base that would have been quiescent if Obama had liquidated Soleimani in one of his own many, many drone strikes. And of course Republicans in the House and Senate won’t dare complicate Trump’s life by joining her in this futile exercise to demand executive accountability. They’ll vote against the resolution like good party hacks too, ensuring that it fails to attract the two-thirds majorities in both chambers that it would need to overcome a Trump veto.


In lieu of an exit question, go read this Timothy Carney piece about another embarrassing hypocrite in Pelosi’s caucus on this subject.

Any possibility of hypocrisy from the Left ? Wow. Who'd have thought it ..... :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Interesting. It might not surprise you to know that none of this has been cropping up in the intensive media discussions over here. Our media is full of either saying, or at least hinting, that Trump has been reckless in implementing that attack against the Iranian general (arguably a terrorist, from his past activities). Are we lurching to war ? How will Iran escalate, making good on its threat ? How will Trump escalate in response to their escalation ? The media over here is full of that, certainly nothing about a check on such powers on the American side.

So, thank you for this. Yet again, being a member of this forum is giving me a more complete education than UK-based media is interested in supplying its People. The BBC. ITV. Sky News. LBC. These are my principal sources of news, outside of this forum. On the subject raised here .... NADA. Zilch. From any of them. It's all about Trump, and what he might be dragging us all towards ....

The latest that's being reported is something about a letter sent to the Iraqis from America agreeing to withdraw American forces ... accompanied by a report of 'unusual' levels of helicopter activity in Iraq, as though troops are indeed being airlifted out (a BBC reporter reported on hearing those helicopters himself ... Jeremy Bowen). This has been swiftly followed by a report that the letter was sent in error, and that no such withdrawal is happening !!

If it did, UK forces will be forced out, too .. as our contingent in Iraq is far smaller, and so incapable of fighting off a sustained onslaught as yours could. Reports suggest a total lack of consultation from the American side towards anybody over here .. so, all this is being closely monitored in case we have to act quickly ...

[icansayit]

Any possibility of hypocrisy from the Left ? Wow. Who'd have thought it ..... :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Interesting. It might not surprise you to know that none of this has been cropping up in the intensive media discussions over here. Our media is full of either saying, or at least hinting, that Trump has been reckless in implementing that attack against the Iranian general (arguably a terrorist, from his past activities). Are we lurching to war ? How will Iran escalate, making good on its threat ? How will Trump escalate in response to their escalation ? The media over here is full of that, certainly nothing about a check on such powers on the American side.

So, thank you for this. Yet again, being a member of this forum is giving me a more complete education than UK-based media is interested in supplying its People. The BBC. ITV. Sky News. LBC. These are my principal sources of news, outside of this forum. On the subject raised here .... NADA. Zilch. From any of them. It's all about Trump, and what he might be dragging us all towards ....

The latest that's being reported is something about a letter sent to the Iraqis from America agreeing to withdraw American forces ... accompanied by a report of 'unusual' levels of helicopter activity in Iraq, as though troops are indeed being airlifted out (a BBC reporter reported on hearing those helicopters himself ... Jeremy Bowen). This has been swiftly followed by a report that the letter was sent in error, and that no such withdrawal is happening !!

If it did, UK forces will be forced out, too .. as our contingent in Iraq is far smaller, and so incapable of fighting off a sustained onslaught as yours could. Reports suggest a total lack of consultation from the American side towards anybody over here .. so, all this is being closely monitored in case we have to act quickly ...

We all know (those of us who HAVE read the Constitution). That the President's Number One Job is the Security of the nation. He is doing what the Constitution gives him the power to do...without NANCY's Stupidity. But she is depending on the other UNINFORMED Americans who hate Trump to agree with her. That's how things go here in the Colonies with IDIOTS running their own show.
https://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_govt.html#Exec
The Executive
The duty of the Executive Branch is to enforce the laws of the United States. The branch is headed by the President. The Constitution sets out the qualifications for the President in Article 2, Section 1:

35 years old or older
Must be a natural-born U.S. citizen
Must have lived in the United States for fourteen years
There is a bit of ambiguity in some of these requirements. First, the definition of "natural-born" is a matter of law, and, hence, interpretation. For example, the child of American citizens who happened to be overseas when the child was born is considered natural-born. A child born in an acquired U.S. territory (such the U.S. Virgin Islands) is considered a citizen at birth as determined by law. To be safe, a person is eligible to be President if that person was born in a state after the date of statehood. If a person was born in a territory or overseas, one should check the U.S. Code (Title 8) to be sure. Next, there is no clarity on the 14 year requirement. Few think that it means 14 consecutive years inside the United States, as that would likely disqualify many citizens who traveled abroad or who lived in military bases. Some think it should mean 14 accumulated years from birth, including time in U.S. military bases, embassies, and off-shore offices of U.S. corporations. It may take a Supreme Court decision to set the rule in stone.

Note that there is no restriction in terms of gender, race, class, social standing, or any other classification, for President or Vice President.

The other Constitutional members of the Executive are the Vice President, who, by virtue of the 12th Amendment must have the exact same qualifications as the President in order to be VP; the Executive Departments (see The Cabinet Topic for details); the Military; various Agencies, Councils, Advisors, and Offices that work with and for the President; and Embassies, Missions, and Ambassadors to international organizations and foreign nations.

The President is restricted to two full elected terms in office by the 22nd Amendment. This is the only term limit in the Constitution. There is no restriction of term for the Vice President or any of the non-elected members of the Executive Branch. The longest serving President was Franklin Roosevelt, who, in a time of national emergency, overturned a traditional (but not legal) two-term limit first set by George Washington. Roosevelt was elected four times. The shortest serving President was William Harrison, who died after one month in office.

The President has several constitutional duties aside from the general "enforce the laws" duty. These are:

To be Commander in Chief of the military
To conduct foreign affairs
To negotiate treaties with other nations
To nominate members of the cabinet, judiciary, etc.
To review and sign or veto bills
To administer the laws of the nation
To issue pardons as he sees fit
To address the Congress from time to time to assess the state of the nation
The President, as leader of the nation, and as leader of his or her party, de facto if not de jure, has several other roles. These are:

Morale builder
Party Leader
Legislative leader
Coalition builder
Crisis manager
Personnel recruiter
World Leader
Budget Setter
Priority setter
Bargainer and Persuader
Conflict resolver

[Gunny]

Two British publications released footage that they claim shows the moment that a U.S. Reaper drone killed Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Quds Force, which is a designated terrorist organization.
President Donald Trump authorized the strike last week after receiving credible information from the U.S. intelligence community that Soleimani was planning imminent terrorist attacks on U.S. forces and interests throughout the Middle East.
The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/04/huge-crowds-expected-in-baghdad-for-funeral-of-iranian-general-killed-by-us) and Sky News (https://news.sky.com/video/reports-say-that-the-drone-strike-that-killed-qassem-soleimanis-was-caught-on-camera-11900692) published the footage that they say they obtained from Iraq CCTV.


Who would have known Blue Oyster Cult saw it coming?

A couple of vets at the Dollar Store were all excited and asked what I thought. I just said it looks like someone has good aim :halo9:

I walked into the conversation so I have no idea how it started nor who was for what.

[Kathianne]

Any possibility of hypocrisy from the Left ? Wow. Who'd have thought it ..... :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Interesting. It might not surprise you to know that none of this has been cropping up in the intensive media discussions over here. Our media is full of either saying, or at least hinting, that Trump has been reckless in implementing that attack against the Iranian general (arguably a terrorist, from his past activities). Are we lurching to war ? How will Iran escalate, making good on its threat ? How will Trump escalate in response to their escalation ? The media over here is full of that, certainly nothing about a check on such powers on the American side.

So, thank you for this. Yet again, being a member of this forum is giving me a more complete education than UK-based media is interested in supplying its People. The BBC. ITV. Sky News. LBC. These are my principal sources of news, outside of this forum. On the subject raised here .... NADA. Zilch. From any of them. It's all about Trump, and what he might be dragging us all towards ....

The latest that's being reported is something about a letter sent to the Iraqis from America agreeing to withdraw American forces ... accompanied by a report of 'unusual' levels of helicopter activity in Iraq, as though troops are indeed being airlifted out (a BBC reporter reported on hearing those helicopters himself ... Jeremy Bowen). This has been swiftly followed by a report that the letter was sent in error, and that no such withdrawal is happening !!

If it did, UK forces will be forced out, too .. as our contingent in Iraq is far smaller, and so incapable of fighting off a sustained onslaught as yours could. Reports suggest a total lack of consultation from the American side towards anybody over here .. so, all this is being closely monitored in case we have to act quickly ...

This is what started the brouhaha regarding the letter:

https://www.reuters.com/article/iraq-security-withdrawal/u-s-led-coalition-says-it-will-withdraw-from-iraq-letter-idUSL8N29B4GK

It seems that one of two things happened, 1. this one star somehow got this sent on his own, as the Iraqis did receive it. 2. Somehow the Pentagon sent the unsigned letter that was just a contingency and it was a just a regular screw up:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/01/us-accidentally-releases-draft-letter-calling-for-withdrawal-of-troops-from-iraq.html

[Kathianne]

I tend to agree that this was a mistake; though I also think that if it hadn't been that, it would have been pretty Machiavellian to put it out there, as Iraq does not want to be Iranian dominated, which is what would have happened:

https://hotair.com/archives/allahpundit/2020/01/06/u-s-responds-iraqi-demands-withdrawal-okay-bye-baghdad/

[Drummond]

In our media over here, this business has taken another turn. Our media are mulling over just what those 52 targets Trump has in mind, actually are.

We're told that Trump is considering hitting targets which are culturally / historically of great value to Iran, a part of Iran's heritage. This was being discussed earlier this afternoon on BBC Radio 4, and earlier on LBC, the Nick Ferrari show.

Consensus was that if Trump does this, he'll have gone too far. Apparently the Hague Convention of 1954 forbids attacks on such heritage targets, and according to the Convention ruling, if Trump did this, he'd be committing a war crime !

I wonder if that is true.

I've looked at this:

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/armed-conflict-and-heritage/convention-and-protocols/


Wars, confrontations and conflicts in general, between two or more opposing factions, have always represented a serious threat to the integrity of cultural heritage located in their territories. Unfortunately, this threat often materializes in the form of the destruction of significant amounts of cultural property (movable and immovable): monuments, religious sites, museums, libraries, archives, etc. Humanity is thus deprived of a shared and irreplaceable cultural heritage. This threat also materializes in the form of the pillaging of cultural property proclaimed as “spoils of war”.

In the objective of protecting cultural heritage in times of armed conflict, the international community adopted the following instruments:

The 1954 Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict encourages States to adopt peacetime protective measures for the safeguarding of cultural property. The Convention sets out a minimum level of protection, which all States Parties must respect in times of conflict and occupation. The Convention also requires States Parties to implement criminal sanctions for violations of the Convention and encourages States Parties to promote the Convention. Finally, it creates a form of protection (called “special protection”) for cultural property.

The 1954 First Protocol, which prohibits the export of movable cultural property from an occupied territory and requires its return to the territory of the State from which the property was exported. The Protocol also prohibits the retention of cultural property as war reparations.

The 1999 Second Protocol, which strengthens provisions of the Convention, especially the provisions regarding the safeguarding of cultural property and conduct during hostilities. It also creates a greater form of protection (called “enhanced protection”) for cultural property of the greatest importance for humanity. The 1999 Second Protocol also defines sanctions triggered by serious violations against cultural property. Finally, this Protocol creates an institutional element: the Committee for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict.

Anyway: the same site provides lists of signatory countries, who've adopted a status, according to their level of commitment to the Convention. Either a country possesses 'accession' status, or 'ratification' status (or a degree of either).

I've looked at both protocols' lists ... the USA doesn't appear on either of them. I'm interpreting that to mean that the US doesn't consider itself bound by either protocol, and officially cannot be answerable to them.

None of this is stopping the vitriol, though ... anti-American commentators are having a field day categorising any enacted attack of this type by Trump as an act of barbarism.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-iran-cultural-sites-soleimani-war-crimes-a9271566.html


Donald Trump has doubled down on his claim that it would be acceptable for American forces to retaliate against any attack by Tehran by targeting Iranian cultural sites, an act which some experts believe would constitute a war crime under US and international law.

On Saturday, Mr Trump responded to Iranian promises of retaliation for his ordering of the targeted killing of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Maj Gen Qassem Soleimani with a tweet threatening to attack 52 separate targets, including some "at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture".

While Secretary of State Mike Pompeo used a series of Sunday morning television appearances to claim that Mr Trump "didn’t say he’d go after a cultural site," the president reiterated his desire to do just that Sunday evening while speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One.

After inviting reporters to his cabin while flying back to Washington from a two-week holiday in Florida, Mr Trump opined that it would be unfair for US forces to not be permitted to target Iranian cultural sites because of the tactics used by many of the insurgent groups the US has fought since it invaded Iraq in 2003.

"They’re allowed to kill our people. They’re allowed to torture and maim our people. They’re allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people. And we’re not allowed to touch their cultural sites? It doesn’t work that way," Mr Trump said as he sat behind the desk in his airborne office.

As I'm indicating in this post, Trump's not ruling out attacking cultural sites is being concentrated on as a means of discrediting any such attack Trump launches. It's becoming a big propaganda issue.

[Kathianne]

In our media over here, this business has taken another turn. Our media are mulling over just what those 52 targets Trump has in mind, actually are.

We're told that Trump is considering hitting targets which are culturally / historically of great value to Iran, a part of Iran's heritage. This was being discussed earlier this afternoon on BBC Radio 4, and earlier on LBC, the Nick Ferrari show.

Consensus was that if Trump does this, he'll have gone too far. Apparently the Hague Convention of 1954 forbids attacks on such heritage targets, and according to the Convention ruling, if Trump did this, he'd be committing a war crime !

I wonder if that is true.

I've looked at this:

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/armed-conflict-and-heritage/convention-and-protocols/



Anyway: the same site provides lists of signatory countries, who've adopted a status, according to their level of commitment to the Convention. Either a country possesses 'accession' status, or 'ratification' status (or a degree of either).

I've looked at both protocols' lists ... the USA doesn't appear on either of them. I'm interpreting that to mean that the US doesn't consider itself bound by either protocol, and officially cannot be answerable to them.

None of this is stopping the vitriol, though ... anti-American commentators are having a field day categorising any enacted attack of this type by Trump as an act of barbarism.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-iran-cultural-sites-soleimani-war-crimes-a9271566.html



As I'm indicating in this post, Trump's not ruling out attacking cultural sites is being concentrated on as a means of discrediting any such attack Trump launches. It's becoming a big propaganda issue.

President actually said this, dependent on Iran carrying through with their more serious threats. His rationale being that since Iran or its proxies use IEDs and such, they should get like treatment.

Esper and the military said, 'not so. We'll stay within the laws.'

It's Trump being Trump. The guy many love, with the bellicosity that keeps me from going along, even when I agree with his policies. I'd honestly like to vote for many of his actions, but his mouth and bullying keeps me from being able to.

He can't just let someone who works for him, but no longer pleases him walk away. No, he has to blast, humiliate, and grind down their reputations. Thus the panic that Bolton may testify if McConnell cannot control the Senate rules. Luckily, he most likely can.

In so many ways, Trump very much remind me of Nixon, he may end up being one of the worst and best Presidents. Again, the other side of the coin with Obama, whoever thought we'd have a worse president than Carter?

[Kathianne]

Just finished listening to Trump presser with Greek ambassador. He said regarding the letter, 'We do want out of Iraq, but not right now. The letter was a mistake.'

He also said that he knows the law about cultural sites and will follow the law, though not fair.

Tomorrow the reasons for the targeted killing will be explained to Congressional reps and hopefully we'll get a better idea. I strongly think it was a good thing to happen.

[Kathianne]

I'm not going to say that I thought the US should have responded to earlier provocations by Iran, I did think so. (Yeah, I lied.) However, this article does express why I think that Trump was more than correct to do what he did with the drone attack on the Iranian:

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/01/irans_miscalculation.html

[icansayit]

Personally. I'm really proud Trump is our President. We finally have someone who isn't afraid of the opposition and does what he has said he would do while running. It feels good to know (as a veteran), we have a Commander-in-Chief that doesn't play the political games, and only does what his home-grown enemies want, or think he should do to remain in the game. And yes. Politics is nothing but a Dirty Game, being played by professional, career, and often Lifetime perpetual liars who really only care about THEIR FUTURE, and not the people they claim to represent.

We have very few politicians in Washington, and across this nation whose party affiliation Doesn't come before WE THE PEOPLE, every time.

America is owned by the BIG, RICH, CEO'S, POLITICIANS, and SELFISHLY ARROGANT members of the PRESS, HOLLYWOOD, and WASHINGTON.

The President knows that. And it's time for all Americans to know it too!

[Kathianne]

Iran sent many surface to surface missiles to a US base in Iraq. No reports on casualties.

[Kathianne]

So far, no casualties. Iran leader says if US responds they’ll hit in US. An hour or so ago, WH was planning possible address. Not tonight.

It appears Iran purposefully did not shoot the missiles to kill, but to respond.

What do you think US will do?

It seems now that the Iraqi leader, Iran’s puppet, is now taking the letter, the mistake letter, at face value.

[Kathianne]

It seems there's no US casualties, may well be Iraqi. From what I'm hearing, now that I'm home, is that they are doing an assessment to damage and injuries to anyone.

President has tweeted that, 'all is well,' but more to say tomorrow.

[Drummond]

So far, no casualties. Iran leader says if US responds they’ll hit in US. An hour or so ago, WH was planning possible address. Not tonight.

It appears Iran purposefully did not shoot the missiles to kill, but to respond.

What do you think US will do?

It seems now that the Iraqi leader, Iran’s puppet, is now taking the letter, the mistake letter, at face value.

This is a demonstration of pure arrogance coming out of Iran ... an effort to dictate how this whole issue evolves. Rather than wait for America to hit the '52 sites', instead, they're proving their willingness to take America on ... but in such a way that 'they seem reasonable'. Following swiftly after the attack, a report emerges that Iran says it doesn't want hostilities over this to go any further.

As well as the physical reality of the attack, there's a secondary propagandist element to it: to show everyone that it's IRAN that can be seen to have the upper hand, and is the side to give the most 'reasonable' and 'proportionate' response to current realities.

Much of the world will be keen to follow the IRANIAN lead on this, not excluding the UK, I'm thinking.

I believe there's no way that Trump will just let this lie ... he can't, he won't. Trump is not a leader to play second-fiddle to any propaganda initiative of Iran's crafting, and in no way will he just step back and do nothing in the face of American lives and assets being attacked by a belligerent power.

Neither SHOULD he, in my view.

I doubt that Trump will take any subtle route of reprisal, though in his place, I'd attempt it. Me ... I'd arrange a response that Iran couldn't doubt came from America, but one which doesn't buy into an image of military belligerence.

What I'd do is abandon, for right now, military force (though I might increase a military presence in the region, rather than think of reducing it further). Instead, I'd arrange the most massive, most crippling cyber attack it was possible to launch. Smash their technological infrastructure (possibly also doing damage to their nuclear facilities ??) Let Tehran digest THAT capability, and understand that they do not have, and will not be permitted to have, the upper hand.

I'd also ask the UK for assistance. After all, I'd know that the UK are world leaders in cyber matters ... the UK's GCHQ personnel have a level of expertise and capability that few others approach in this world ... it'd be good to get the UK on board in doing something properly constructive ... :cool:

[Gunny]

I thin the law regarding cultural sites is stupid. Ragheads use them as shields.

[Kathianne]

I don't think anyone should forget as a bottom line, Trump does not want war; indeed he'd love to be able to bring all the troops in ME to US borders. It would be irresponsible to do so, which he has needed continual reminders about.

The world is dangerous, not easy to forget in times like the last few days. Here's another reason, most aren't picking up on. Guess who just happens to be visiting NOW in Syria, (supposedly Iran's puppet, ignores whom Iran is dancing for. *cough* Russia and China.)

https://hotair.com/archives/jazz-shaw/2020/01/08/putin-syria-im-sure-just-coincidence/

[Kathianne]

So far the 'assessment' of the two bases hit or at least aimed for, did little or no damage. No casualties-none. UN confirms no casualties. Meanwhile Iran's voice paper is saying many hurt/killed. (over 80).

[Kathianne]

President Trump going to address this in about 5 minutes or so. I'm guessing that will put paid for contractor and general, until something else flares up.

[Drummond]

President Trump going to address this in about 5 minutes or so. I'm guessing that will put paid for contractor and general, until something else flares up.

I've heard Trump's little speech on this subject, a moment ago. It sounds very much as though Trump has heeded others' voices to de-escalate. Though, apparently, Trump is now threatening more economic measures against Iran.

H'm.

I don't know what to make of this. Is Trump genuinely acting in a manner which allows Tehran to claim that Trump has been taught, and has meekly heeded, 'a lesson' from Iran's military ?? If that's so .. it sends out a lamentably bad signal. The Iranian regime will think it sees signs of weakness, which it'll seek to exploit.

My guess ... if things are as they seem, Iran will now dig its heels in and absolutely insist that its intention to scrap any nuclear restraints will not be diverted from (& the very fact that Tehran would seek to ramp up its nuclear enrichment capabilities AT ALL, belies their claim to have ever meant their nuclear technology to be a peaceful one).

I have the hope that Trump is lulling Tehran into a false sense of security .. and something major against Iran will be prepared for (e.g a devastating cyber-attack, as I've suggested). If Trump really is caving in, dismissing the rocket attack as something to be tolerated .. it's a very big mistake.

[Kathianne]

I've heard Trump's little speech on this subject, a moment ago. It sounds very much as though Trump has heeded others' voices to de-escalate. Though, apparently, Trump is now threatening more economic measures against Iran.

H'm.

I don't know what to make of this. Is Trump genuinely acting in a manner which allows Tehran to claim that Trump has been taught, and has meekly heeded, 'a lesson' from Iran's military ?? If that's so .. it sends out a lamentably bad signal. The Iranian regime will think it sees signs of weakness, which it'll seek to exploit.

My guess ... if things are as they seem, Iran will now dig its heels in and absolutely insist that its intention to scrap any nuclear restraints will not be diverted from (& the very fact that Tehran would seek to ramp up its nuclear enrichment capabilities AT ALL, belies their claim to have ever meant their nuclear technology to be a peaceful one).

I have the hope that Trump is lulling Tehran into a false sense of security .. and something major against Iran will be prepared for (e.g a devastating cyber-attack, as I've suggested). If Trump really is caving in, dismissing the rocket attack as something to be tolerated .. it's a very big mistake.

I hear what you are saying, indeed I'm probably the most critical of the president's lack of action to previous Iranian provocations. The bottom line though, US does NOT want war, not with Iran or anyone else for that matter-never has. We can 'afford' to let Iran strut and say they killed 80 service people, the UN has already called a lie to that. Seems there's little doubt they hit 'nothing' intentionally; the audience was Iranians, not Americans. They folded. The may well be at the end of their rope between sanctions and their own people. They have hard choices to make.

[Kathianne]

About that Ukrainian plane:

https://hotair.com/archives/john-s-2/2020/01/08/ukrainian-passenger-jet-went-iran-last-night/

[Drummond]

I hear what you are saying, indeed I'm probably the most critical of the president's lack of action to previous Iranian provocations. The bottom line though, US does NOT want war, not with Iran or anyone else for that matter-never has. We can 'afford' to let Iran strut and say they killed 80 service people, the UN has already called a lie to that. Seems there's little doubt they hit 'nothing' intentionally; the audience was Iranians, not Americans. They folded. The may well be at the end of their rope between sanctions and their own people. They have hard choices to make.

I am sure that America doesn't seek war. Of course you don't ... no sane, civilised person seeks war if it can be averted.

I'm not at all sure, however, that America's opposition in this world is entirely sane opposition, much less civilised.

I think that Iran will view Trump's speech from today as America showing weakness. They will want to exploit it, if they can. I suspect that Iran's belligerence - as a direct consequence - won't have ended yet. Iran wants propagandist advantage. Showing America to be weak gives it that advantage.

We'll see how this plays out. My prediction is that Iran will try something else. They may even think that America has weathered Iran's attack rather too well for its liking, that the punishment factor hasn't been properly inflicted as of yet, that more is 'owed'.

If Iran is suffering from sanctions, and faces yet worse of the same, the desire to strike back in retribution may only worsen.

Let's see if I understand our enemies as well as I think I do. Time will tell !

[Kathianne]

I am sure that America doesn't seek war. Of course you don't ... no sane, civilised person seeks war if it can be averted.

I'm not at all sure, however, that America's opposition in this world is entirely sane opposition, much less civilised.

I think that Iran will view Trump's speech from today as America showing weakness. They will want to exploit it, if they can. I suspect that Iran's belligerence - as a direct consequence - won't have ended yet. Iran wants propagandist advantage. Showing America to be weak gives it that advantage.

We'll see how this plays out. My prediction is that Iran will try something else. They may even think that America has weathered Iran's attack rather too well for its liking, that the punishment factor hasn't been properly inflicted as of yet, that more is 'owed'.

If Iran is suffering from sanctions, and faces yet worse of the same, the desire to strike back in retribution may only worsen.

Let's see if I understand our enemies as well as I think I do. Time will tell !
You may be correct, I don't doubt it. At the same time, it is incumbent on a powerful nation or person for that matter, to take the path of least destruction until there is no other choice. There's very few countries that wouldn't like to take the US down a peg or more. Iran, I contend, is an unstable proxy of Russia and even China. The more complex issue right now though is that Iran has so very many of its own proxies, which may make any 'cease fire' pointless in any case.

There's nothing to say that the Iraqi thugs doing the Iranian mullahs work won't go rogue. Hezbollah is really uncontrollable. So on and so forth. I do not doubt that there are many in Iran's military are not happy that there are strong rumors that the US got a head's up prior to the attack last night, from Iranian sources.

[icansayit]

I am sure that America doesn't seek war. Of course you don't ... no sane, civilised person seeks war if it can be averted.

I'm not at all sure, however, that America's opposition in this world is entirely sane opposition, much less civilised.

I think that Iran will view Trump's speech from today as America showing weakness. They will want to exploit it, if they can. I suspect that Iran's belligerence - as a direct consequence - won't have ended yet. Iran wants propagandist advantage. Showing America to be weak gives it that advantage.

We'll see how this plays out. My prediction is that Iran will try something else. They may even think that America has weathered Iran's attack rather too well for its liking, that the punishment factor hasn't been properly inflicted as of yet, that more is 'owed'.

If Iran is suffering from sanctions, and faces yet worse of the same, the desire to strike back in retribution may only worsen.

Let's see if I understand our enemies as well as I think I do. Time will tell !

I do appreciate your candor on this. But I have much more confidence that Iran, while they may think they have an upper hand. Do not know who they are really dealing with in this matter. President Trump is not another Obama, or Bush who sought to appease, rather than make any waves since 1979, when Reagan scared them into releasing the hostages. So, I simply remember. Trump wrote "THE ART OF THE DEAL". And he, more than anyone else around him in Washington, is not a typical politician who holds his finger up to see which way the Winds of Stupidity are blowing. Call me old fashioned, or Biased, but the Old Sailor in me who has served under Six Presidents. Kinda has a different ear to differences in Commanders in Chief. And this one DOES NOT WANT A WAR. I believe he will be calling All of our troops home, just to make the Dems and Trump Haters scream that he is placing America in Danger by doing so. MURPHY'S LAW APPLIES.
p.s...LBJ, NIXON, FORD, REAGAN, BUSH, CLINTON...in case anybody wondered.��

[Drummond]

You may be correct, I don't doubt it. At the same time, it is incumbent on a powerful nation or person for that matter, to take the path of least destruction until there is no other choice. There's very few countries that wouldn't like to take the US down a peg or more. Iran, I contend, is an unstable proxy of Russia and even China. The more complex issue right now though is that Iran has so very many of its own proxies, which may make any 'cease fire' pointless in any case.

There's nothing to say that the Iraqi thugs doing the Iranian mullahs work won't go rogue. Hezbollah is really uncontrollable. So on and so forth. I do not doubt that there are many in Iran's military are not happy that there are strong rumors that the US got a head's up prior to the attack last night, from Iranian sources.

Well, if you think of the path of destruction being cumulative, it could be said that a number of 'little' skirmishes may add up to more than one big one. If Iran is still itching, for whatever precise reason, to do more ... then, restraint may ultimately not count for very much.

I still say that Iran may interpret, and may actively wish to interpret, America's appearance of restraint as weakness that's exploitable.

A complication, though, is one you mention: Iran's links with more powerful nations, notably Russia. Action taken against Iran that's too overtly strong could drag Russia into a more active role. Indeed, Iran could be counting on it.

I think that if America got a 'heads up', it came from Iraq becoming aware of what was to come, and Iraq giving a warning. I don't think Iran would've wanted American forces to receive a warning ... my feeling is that they would've wanted a price in blood to be paid, as 'just' recompense for the assassination of their 'No 2'.

No. I don't think this is over yet. There will be more from Iran. That is, if I read my bloodthirsty Muslim maniacs correctly ....