• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Trump and neocons started War with Iran in order to win elections?

If the Iranian regime topples, Trump will be hailed as a foreign-policy genius and a latter-day Ronald Reagan. However the regime has a lot of experience cracking down on dissent and I wouldn't bet on it falling down so easily. We'll see.
 

I'm glad to see it too, but it was tiny and isolated in comparison to the funeral of bad man.
 
House Democrats hold a news conference on situation in Iraq and Iran – 1/8/2020 - YouTube

Pramila Jayapal called Trump "reckless", claiming that the Trump admin offered no evidence of an imminent threat. Also had no consultation with allies. Also Trump taking the US out of the JCPOA.

Mark Pocan described how he recently left a classified briefing, with its lack of evidence of a claimed imminent threat. Also how some days earlier Trump claimed that all was well with Iran. Referred to the 2002 AUMF ("Authorization of the Use of Military Force" with Iraq). He described how a committee almost unanimously decided on repealing it, but that that repeal was stripped out by then-Speaker Paul Ryan.

Barbara Lee described her experiences back in 2002 with the issue of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. She wanted to hold up action until inspectors could settle whether or not those WMD's existed. She was not successful, and she has tried for years to repeal that AUMF. Not just Paul Ryan but also Mitch McConnell took that out. Most recently, with the NDAA, the House passed that repeal, but MMC took it out again.

Ro Khanna praised BL as being a good subject of a Chapter 1 of a sequel for Profiles in Courage. We should get back into the JCPOA and other such diplomacy. Then the Admin's obsession with Iran.

Ilhan Omar confessed that talk of war gives her PTSD. She quoted Einstein on how one cannot prevent war by preparing for it. Which seems rather naive on his part, if that's what he actually said. Military force can be useful against rival military force, either directly or indirectly, as a deterrent. IO also referred to "the occupant of the White House" and she claims that previous admins have considered killing Gen. Soleimani and that they had decided that it was not worth the trouble. "War does not have a reset button". Then reasserting what sems li

Then some questions from reporters. PJ said that these Congressional actions have to be done quickly, to forestall further actions by the Trump admin. Sheila Jackson Lee also spoke. Some 4,000 dead and 60,000 injured.

Then Mark Takano spoke. He's the head of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, and he has a lot of knowledge of what war can do in its participants. He liked Pete Buttigieg's proposal of sunsets for AUMF's, expiration dates for them, so that they don't get used for later stuff.


Others present: Rashida Tlaib, AOC, Jan Schakowsky, Jesus "Chuy" Garcia (man with a mustache), some tall man and some tall woman. When BL started, AOC and RT said something to each other.
 
NY Times's Haberman: Trump 'surprised' Iranian strike wasn't 'more of a unifying event' | TheHill
“He actually was surprised this was not more of a unifying event for the country, which is what he expected it was going to be," Haberman responded. "Something more along the lines of what you saw around the Iraq War lead-up."

"However, that lead-up came after a massive attack on U.S. soil," she continued. "It’s not remotely the same. It’s not as if Gen. Soleimani’s name rolls off of most voters’ tongues very easily."

"Look, he’s not separating this from impeachment politics. This has roiled impeachment politics. He recognizes this is all related," Haberman added. "I think that he’s aware there’s questions about how legally binding this is, even if it goes to the Senate and it passes. But he does not want it highlighted that he is taking an act that could be seen as continuing these forever wars."
That's Maggie Haberman.

It wasn't a case of the US being attacked, like Fort Sumter or Pearl Harbor or 9/11. It was a case of the US doing the attacking without any provocation being very evident.

If he continues to act like Congress is his employees, he's likely to piss off more Republicans. If he pisses off Mitch McConnell, it's game over for him.
 
If the Iranian regime topples, Trump will be hailed as a foreign-policy genius and a latter-day Ronald Reagan. However the regime has a lot of experience cracking down on dissent and I wouldn't bet on it falling down so easily. We'll see.
It is something that Iran really stepped in it, and is being held to account by domestic and foreign alike. And Trump, who helped to precipitate it kind of walks off without any problems. Granted, a poll released indicated that a majority of Americans thought Trump's move was bad, and only 1 in 4 think it made America safer. So he hasn't benefited much from it. But like with most things, it didn't harm him much either.
 
EOA5A0pWkAAqm_E.jpeg

US citizens are basically mafia wives.

Nice bank account you got here Iraq, would be a shame if something happened to it.
 
I would rather a prime minister who paid out $10mil to somebody (not that it was his decision to do so) than a president who wants to start world war 3.

It was obviously Justin Castro's decision. He did not even consult the parliament. And it's not just somebody but a terrorist and traitor.

Are you in a contest to cram as many factual errors into as few words as possible?
 
Are you in a contest to cram as many factual errors into as few words as possible?
The only non-factual thing was giving his last name as "Castro" and that was tongue-in-cheek. Everything else is fully factual.

I mean, not really. There was a mediated settlement involving the relevant ministers (AG and foreign minister) to a Canadian citizen who had had his human rights violated. He is not factually a 'terrorist' or unlawful combatant now or at the time of the settlement, though he was considered an unlawful combatant at the time of his capture. Perhaps he is on some sort of terror watchlist in the US, but the Canadian government doesn't consider him a terrorist by any definition I am aware of. Perhaps colloquially many consider him a 'terrorist' and 'traitor', but that is more a matter of opinion and debate rather than fact. By facts, we don't even know if he threw the grenade or the extent of his involvement in combat let alone terrorist activities. We don't know the extent of his willingness to even be there.
 
Some mighty fancy tap dancing:

MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to ask you about that attempt to breach the perimeter and the embassy, but also broadly, the threat that the U.S. was tracking that has been described as imminent time and again by the administration. The president said last week that there was an attempt to blow up the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. Here's specifically what he said on Fox News.

(BEGIN CLIP)

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I can reveal that I believe it would have been four embassies, but Baghdad certainly would have been the lead. But I think it would have been four embassy, could have been military bases, could have been a lot of other things, too. But it was imminent. And then all of a sudden he was gone.

(END CLIP)

MARGARET BRENNAN: Why couldn't you share that specific threat with senators in a classified briefing?

U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE MARK ESPER: Well, that information- there was a reference in this- in this exquisite intelligence to an attack on the United States embassy in Baghdad. That information was shared with the Gang of Eight. All that exceptional intelligence shared with the Gang of Eight, not the broader membership of the Congress.

MARGARET BRENNAN: A specific threat against the U.S. embassy in Baghdad to blow it up--

SEC. ESPER: Well, I was--

MARGARET BRENNAN: --was shared with the Gang of Eight?

SEC. ESPER: I was not in that meeting with the Gang of Eight. But I will tell you, I spoke to one of the briefers. What the briefer said to me coming out of that meeting was his assessment that most, if not all the members, thought that the intelligence was persuasive and that they- and that the Gang of Eight did not think that it should be released to the broader members of Congress.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But, broadly, can you clarify though, was the specific threat that the president shared with Fox News about four U.S. embassies being under threat, also shared with Congress? Why was there a difference?

SEC. ESPER: Well, what the president said was he believed that it probably and could have been attacks against additional embassies. I shared that view. I know other members of national security team shared that view. That's why I deployed thousands of American paratroopers to the Middle East to reinforce our embassy in Baghdad and other sites throughout the region.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Probably and could have been. That is- that sounds more like an assessment than a specific, tangible threat with a- a decisive piece of intelligence.

SEC. ESPER: Well, the president didn't say there was a tangible- he didn't cite a specific piece of evidence. What he said is he probably- he believed, could have been—

MARGARET BRENNAN: Are you saying there wasn't one?

SEC. ESPER: I didn't see one with regard to four embassies. What I'm saying is I share the president's view that probably- my expectation was they were going to go after our embassies. The embassies are the most prominent display of American presence in a country.

MARGARET BRENNAN: The description had been that this was a imminent threat to U.S. personnel and facilities in the region. Is that a more accurate description than what the president provided?

SEC. ESPER: Well, what I've said publicly, I've- I've said many times, is that we had information that there was going to be an attack within a matter of days that would be broad in scale, in other words, more than one country, and that it would be bigger than previous attacks, likely going to take us into open hostilities with Iran.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Is that threat gone?

SEC. ESPER: That was orchestrated by Qassem- Qassem Soleimani. He was the one- was- has led the attacks against America for 20 years now, so we had every expectation to believe that this would happen. In fact, a very, very senior person from the intelligence community said the risk of inaction is greater than the risk of action. That was compelling for me.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Is that threat gone?

SEC. ESPER: That threat has been disrupted. I think what we have to find out now is continue to work to make sure that that threat is completely eliminated.
 
I'm catching up.
Sanders holds a news conference on Iraq/Iran || UNITED STATES - YouTube - catching up (2020 Jan 9)

Bernie Sanders described how he opposed both the Vietnam War and the Iraq War. He recalled how horrible the Vietnam War was. Then in 2002-2003, the Bush II admin described what terrible weapons the Iraqi regime might have and how it was working with the likes of Al Qaeda. Those claims turned out to be false, and the war did a lot of destabilization.

Then Sen. Patrick Leahy spoke. He's the other Vermont senator. He described how a vote on the Vietnam War had a lone vote from a very conservative Senator who voted that way because he was tired of being lied to. He was very annoyed at some Trump Admin official who claimed that it would be a mistake for Congress to even so much as debate the issue.

Then Rep. Ro Khanna, on how it's important to stop funding for dubious military adventures, like in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Then an elderly male Senator affirmed this principle.

Then Rep. Barbara Lee, on how the Trump Admin shuns diplomacy, with a Cabinet full of "warmongers" and "war hawks".

Then Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, on how reckless Pres. Trump's actions were.

Then Rep. Pramila Jayapal, on how destructive wars can be. Also the lack of evidence for a threat.

Then Sen. Maria Cantwell, basically agreeing. Congress must assert itself here.

Then BS answered questions from the audience. BS responded to one of them by saying that Trump ought to come to Congress and say "I have read the Constitution of the United States, and I have no intention of engaging in warfare unless I have authorization from the United States Congress". The BL spoke about how Congress has been reluctant to rein in the President out of fear of seeming soft on terrorism.
 
That elderly male senator was likely Chuck Schumer.

Cosponsors - H.R.5543 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): No War Against Iran Act | Congress.gov | Library of Congress - Ro Khanna is now joined by 93 cosponsors, including the 47 original ones

Cosponsors - S.3159 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): No War Against Iran Act | Congress.gov | Library of Congress - Bernie Sanders is now joined by 13 cosponsors, including the 12 original ones

The Senator who has joined BS as an additional cosponsor is Sen. Mike Lee, R-UT. Good to see some Republican turn against the Trump Admin - he criticized the Trump Admin for having a very poor case.
 
House passes measures limiting Trump's ability to go to war with Iran
  • The Democratic-led House of Representatives voted on Thursday to approve two measures that will constrain President Donald Trump’s ability to go to war with Iran.
  • One of the measures would block funding for any use of offensive military force in or against Iran without congressional approval. It passed 228-175.
  • The other would repeal the 2002 resolution that authorized military force against the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq and has since been invoked by successive presidents pursuing fights against new enemies. It passed 236-166.

... (Ro Khanna)
“The American government has spent trillions of taxpayer dollars fighting endless wars across the Middle East,” Khanna said in a statement after his measure passed. “Today, Congress passed two historic pieces of legislation to reassert our authority over matters of war and peace.

... (Barbara Lee)
After her resolution passed, Lee said in a statement that it was “a historic step to reassert our Constitutional authority and stop our endless wars.”

“We cannot afford to leave outdated AUMFs on the books indefinitely,” she said. “It is past time for Congress to finally do our Constitutional duty and vote on matters of war and peace. That extends beyond the 2002 AUMF – we must now work to repeal the overly broad 2001 AUMF.”

H.R.5543 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): No War Against Iran Act | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
Ro Khanna, D-CA-17 with 102 cosponsors

H.R.2456 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): To repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
Barbara Lee, D-CA-13 with 134 cosponsors

Still no record of the vote on those bills at congress.gov
 
Our national security was at risk regardless, the President was getting impeached. And the guy who wanted to attack Iran had just submitted a damning manuscript against Trump to the NSA for review prior to publishing.
 
Our national security was at risk regardless, the President was getting impeached. And the guy who wanted to attack Iran had just submitted a damning manuscript against Trump to the NSA for review prior to publishing.
...which violated classification rules, apparently.
So, who granted Bolton his clearance, anyway? A clearance is literally granted to say, 'we trust you with national security.' Seems odd that Trump has any issue with anyone's handling of classified materials, since he personally handed out clearances like Oprah, to staff who FAILED their background checks. 'YOU get sensative data, and YOU get sensitive data, YOU ALL get sensitive data! And YOU get to sit in on NSC meetings, for no reason!'
 
From Jan 6:

AOC Condemns Killing of Soleimani: This Was an Act of Aggression Committed by the United States | Democracy Now!
Over the weekend, Democracy Now! spoke with New York Congressmember Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and asked her response to the assassination of Iranian general Qassem Suleimani. “We need to be tactical about how we can actively resist further escalation on already an unprecedented level of escalation and aggression by the president, and therefore by the United States,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “He did this on behalf of our entire country. And that’s what makes the potential illegality of his action so flagrant, because he did not consult Congress and this was not done with the support of the United States.”

Former Top Bush Official: I Saw the March to War in 2003. I’m Seeing the Same Thing with Iran Now | Democracy Now!
I associated the 2003 situation and the catastrophic decision to invade Iraq, which is what produced what we’re looking at today, essentially — all across the region, the chaos that we’re looking at was produced by the United States invasion in 2003. I watched as the intelligence was cooked, as principals in the George W. Bush government were sold by that intelligence or helped to warp that intelligence, as was the case was with Dick Cheney, and I watched the inevitable march to war, even though I was working for a man who did everything he could, especially after the U.N. Security Council resolution in November, 8 November, 2002, that sent the inspectors back into Iraq — I watched us go to war nonetheless. I’m watching the same thing again.

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson: Qassem Soleimani Worked with U.S. in Fight Against Taliban & ISIS | Democracy Now!
Now let’s go back to 2003. Ever since 9/11, the beast of the national security state, the beast of endless wars, the beast of the alligator that came out of the swamp, for example, and bit Donald Trump just a few days ago, is alive and well. America exists today to make war. How else do we interpret 19 straight years of war and no end in sight? It’s part of who we are. It’s part of what the American Empire is. We are going to lie, cheat and steal, as Pompeo is doing right now, as Trump is doing right now, as Esper is doing right now, as Lindsey Graham is doing right now, as Tom Cotton is doing right now, and a host of other members of my political party, the Republicans, are doing right now. We are going to cheat and steal to do whatever it is we have to do to continue this war complex. That’s the truth of it. And that’s the agony of it.
 
Back
Top Bottom