Middle East US Airstrike decapitates Iraqi Hezbollah

D

Deleted member

Guest
...And Also kills Qassem Soleimani

Now this is a hit like none we have executed before. It's a brilliant reprisal for the embassy attack, and a powerful gesture -- Qassem Solemani is nothing less than the commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps' Quds Force, their foreign special operations corps which is itself the size of an Army. This is a major strike against the Iranian regime conducted in the heart of Iraq, and a serious challenge to them to either back down or go to war.
 
Further updates suggest we killed the head of the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Units (PMUs) and captured two other major PMU leaders for their hand in the embassy attack, as well. The story continues to develop rapidly.
 
I think there might be an 'austere religious scholar' joke to be made here...
EDIT:
Slightly snort-worthy:
rrbRWSn.jpg


Trump continues US policy of blowing up people who pose problems to the US in foreign countries...Those people generally doing such by way of encouraging blowing things and people up regardless of their connection to the US or status as civilians. Considering the long record of blowing up those problem-causing people in administrations since 2001, I can't say it's unprecedented, and with the active screwing-around Iran has gotten up to--the embassy most recently--it's more justified than most. Concerns to be had over the US' continued screwing-around, but the way the media and political establishments (on both sides of the aisle, really) go back-and-forth between 'We shouldn't be intervening' and 'Why aren't we intervening!' is something of a joke at this point.

Urging Congress to actually do their fucking job and enforce the War Powers Act instead of constantly shrugging off responsibility and capacity for decision-making to the President should be more the focus of criticism, really. The targets...Don't seem defensible (while other targets have been much more-so).

Don't fuck with America's boats embassies.
Particularly if you're Iran.
 
Last edited:
This is a big deal.

A really big deal.

This is sending a clear message that Trump isn't interested in the restraint that is so often interpreted as weakness by groups like Iran's leadership; you pull a knife, he'll skip the gun, and go straight to the bazooka.

And very, very importantly here, this isn't just hitting a group of low-ranking foot soldiers. This is hitting the leadership. This is a message:

"Don't think that you can order this shit and we'll kill men you consider expendable. Order this shit, and we will kill you."

There's a reason that after Carter flailing around for years, the Iranians handed over the embassy hostages within 24 hours of Reagan being sworn into office. Trump is telling them he understands the language of violence, and he'll speak it right back at them.
 
LordsFire said:
This is a big deal.

A really big deal.

This is sending a clear message that Trump isn't interested in the restraint that is so often interpreted as weakness by groups like Iran's leadership; you pull a knife, he'll skip the gun, and go straight to the bazooka.

And very, very importantly here, this isn't just hitting a group of low-ranking foot soldiers. This is hitting the leadership. This is a message:

"Don't think that you can order this shit and we'll kill men you consider expendable. Order this shit, and we will kill you."

There's a reason that after Carter flailing around for years, the Iranians handed over the embassy hostages within 24 hours of Reagan being sworn into office. Trump is telling them he understands the language of violence, and he'll speak it right back at them.
Click to expand...
Especially when US technology and skill is so advanced so that it let's them do this.

Very impressive with the proxy fighting.

While it's not the Vietnam war which is a past quagmire it's like if they whacked a high ranking NVA officer and Vietcong leadership in one go.
 
prinCZess said:
Urging Congress to actually do their fucking job and enforce the War Powers Act instead of constantly shrugging off responsibility and capacity for decision-making to the President should be more the focus of criticism, really. The targets...Don't seem defensible (while other targets have been much more-so).
Click to expand...

The War Powers Act has major Constitutional questions hanging over its head. The President is, Constitutionally, the Commander-in-Chief of the US military and Congress has zero authority to order around US military forces. In addition, the President is sworn to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies.

Congress has the authority to regulate the formation and makeup of the military but its ability to regulate how that military is used is both far more limited and far more Constitutionally shakey.

Ultimately Congress has two powers to compel the Executive Branch. They control its funding and they can Impeach its members. So long as Congress is willing to continue funding the military and unwilling to impeach officials over the issue, the President remains free to use the US military pretty much entirely as he sees fit.
 
Emperor Tippy said:
The President is, Constitutionally, the Commander-in-Chief of the US military and Congress has zero authority to order around US military forces.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, Congressional authority to declare war in the first place is a substantial authority over US military forces (not as direct an authority in usage as command of those forces, perhaps, but a significant one in broader regards of deployment and operation that such command is supposed to oversee and direct). That such has been skirted and/or ignored for the last half-century because Presidents and Congressmen prefer it that way isn't an elimination of it so much as a condemnation of those presidents and congressmen.

Course, as you say, this one does become more of that same 'Congress is unwilling to do anything' issue because their shuffling-along with AUMF and NDAAs related to the issue and never attempting any resistance to the Presidential authority being exercised in similar manners prior. But...well, it is a divide, and from a surface read of things because I've by no means looked into it a lot, the President having whole-hog authority to use the military as he sees fit whether that means edging into new wars...Really doesn't seem like the morally, legally, or historically correct read of things.


I suppose cross-fingers and see how things shake out is the necessity in regards to this one. Doubt it's the dawn of a regional conflict (and one could argue over how much one has been in existence already considering Iran's activities there and elsewhere--including Europe), but the last thing the US needs is to get dragged back into the Mideast.
 
prinCZess said:
On the contrary, Congressional authority to declare war in the first place is a substantial authority over US military forces (not as direct an authority in usage as command of those forces, perhaps, but a significant one in broader regards of deployment and operation that such command is supposed to oversee and direct). That such has been skirted and/or ignored for the last half-century because Presidents and Congressmen prefer it that way isn't an elimination of it so much as a condemnation of those presidents and congressmen.

Course, as you say, this one does become more of that same 'Congress is unwilling to do anything' issue because their shuffling-along with AUMF and NDAAs related to the issue and never attempting any resistance to the Presidential authority being exercised in similar manners prior. But...well, it is a divide, and from a surface read of things because I've by no means looked into it a lot, the President having whole-hog authority to use the military as he sees fit whether that means edging into new wars...Really doesn't seem like the morally, legally, or historically correct read of things.


I suppose cross-fingers and see how things shake out is the necessity in regards to this one. Doubt it's the dawn of a regional conflict (and one could argue over how much one has been in existence already considering Iran's activities there and elsewhere--including Europe), but the last thing the US needs is to get dragged back into the Mideast.
Click to expand...

Declaring War is irrelevant to the use of military force by the US. What it does do is put all kinds of economic rules in place and authorize the executive to do all kinds of other things, but it doesn't alter how the President may use the US military in any way.

Before the US had a standing military it was much more meaningful as a declaration of war effectively authorized the President to raise a military to persecute that war, but since the US has switched to a standing military it is essentially meaningless.
 
Realm said:


Prophetic
Click to expand...

Really, because I’m not seeing a war.
I’m seeing a righteous respond. Iran isn’t going to start a war over him.
They may bluster but they’ve been put on notice we will hit them hard and fast.
Their most beloved general was taken out with a snap of the finger. I expect the leadership to back up.
The Democratics are in a horrible situation here. Because either they back this or they come defending a man who is responsible for about 17 percent of Americans deaths in Iraq.
Omar the crazy has already given Trump more fuel for his campaign.
www.dailywire.com

State Dept: Iranian General Killed In U.S. Strike Responsible For 17% Of American Deaths In Iraq | The Daily Wire

www.dailywire.com www.dailywire.com
www.dailywire.com

Ilhan Omar Attacks Trump For Killing Top Iranian Terrorist, Promotes Conspiracy Theory | The Daily Wire

www.dailywire.com www.dailywire.com
I sometimes wonder if she and AOC are plants.
I mean you seriously can’t be so stupid as to complain Trump had the General responsible for 17 percent of US combat deaths in Iraq. Killed after he help with the organizing of an assault against a US embassy.
 
Christi said:
Really, because I’m not seeing a war.
I’m seeing a righteous respond. Iran isn’t going to start a war over him.
They may bluster but they’ve been put on notice we will hit them hard and fast.
Their most beloved general was taken out with a snap of the finger. I expect the leadership to back up.
The Democratics are in a horrible situation here. Because either they back this or they come defending a man who is responsible for about 17 percent of Americans deaths in Iraq.
Omar the crazy has already given Trump more fuel for his campaign.
www.dailywire.com

State Dept: Iranian General Killed In U.S. Strike Responsible For 17% Of American Deaths In Iraq | The Daily Wire

www.dailywire.com www.dailywire.com
www.dailywire.com

Ilhan Omar Attacks Trump For Killing Top Iranian Terrorist, Promotes Conspiracy Theory | The Daily Wire

www.dailywire.com www.dailywire.com
I sometimes wonder if she and AOC are plants.
I mean you seriously can’t be so stupid as to complain Trump had the General responsible for 17 percent of US combat deaths in Iraq. Killed after he help with the organizing of an assault against a US embassy.
Click to expand...
Depends if the populace know.

But the general was in Iraq stirring shit? A casual belli to start a war when caught with their hands in the cookie jar isn't a good motivator on the Iranian side unless they got told a bunch of lies of the evil Americans killing their general for reasons.
 
Last edited:
Christi said:
Then tell them. All Trump has to do is tweet. Send out some surrogates to talk about it on Fox.

They hit him in while he was traveling by car to the Baghdad airport.
Click to expand...
I'm not really sure of the rules of engagement regarding a nation's member of government being caught in the vicinity.

Still these things are murky when powers that be go slugging it in the mud of contested ground occupied by a third party.
 
Christi said:
Edit: As for war. There will be no war because the leadership don’t want to die.
Click to expand...
If Russia didn't go ballistic over Turkey killing some of their boys, I'm not sure of Iran doing the same with a proven superpower.

Things are much different now in retaliation strikes.
 
Random Username said:
I'm not really sure of the rules of engagement regarding a nation's member of government being caught in the vicinity.

Still these things are murky when powers that be go slugging it in the mud of contested ground occupied by a third party.
Click to expand...
It is a grey area but not unheard of, see for instance many operations during the cold war or the drone strikes done during the past ten years.
 
Random Username said:
If Russia didn't go ballistic over Turkey killing some of their boys, I'm not sure of Iran doing the same with a proven superpower.

Things are much different now in retaliation strikes.
Click to expand...
Forgive the double post but that is how the game works, they kill some of ours we kill some of theirs, the parties involved won't escalate because this isn't unusual in geopolitics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top