Huge Protests In Iran Call for IRGC and Regime to Go After They Admit Shooting Down Plane

Already sourced that this happens all the time. Get over it.

I think we had 100.000's of Iranians on the streets having a problem with the US military action against their hero who was beating ISIS all over the place. While the US has shown no evidence of that so called imminent threat. It's all, trust me... I'm a politician. lol

 

What was the purpose of arresting a sitting ambassador for an hour, releasing him, and now advocating for the closing of that embassy?

 

He was a well known terrorist, leading attacks against Americans, in Iraq.

So he was vaporized.

Trump took out the top sunni terrorist and the top shia terrorist in just over a month.

 

Go email the Iranian press secretary that question.

If they are telling the UK to close that embassy, than it's not advocating. It's an order that must be complied to, or else Iran will close the embassy themselves. It's Irans right to do so... if they gave the UK a reasonable amount of time to clear the building. And I already answered why they would demand that. Totally reasonable. It would be the same for that US diplomat who did a hit and run in the UK. They can't have that diplomat at the table to make deals with. That butcher needs to go to jail.

 

The primary militia was that of President Mliki. At the outset of the civil war, his militia worked separately, but in concert with the Iraqi military, carrying out the harshest of the religious cleansing operations of non-Shi'a residents of cities Maliki believed belong exclusively to Shi'a.

There are other militias, but Mliki had significant influence with this main militia. When demanded by the US, he slowed the militia from slaughtering Sunnis in some cases where Iraqi and US forces had moved ISIS out of the area. Once the areas were weakened, the militia was coming in behind us and killing Sunnis regardless of their political loyalties.

Yes, we retain the right to defend ourselves. But, that doesn't include going out on missions independent of the Iraqi military against militias.

And, yes it is a major mess. They have no president at present - only a "caretaker" who is not interested in permanent office and has rejected pay for even the caretaker position, as I remember. Plus, they have well founded strained relations with Iran, Turkey, Kurds, Sunnis, and the US. As majority Shi'a, Iraq is a religious minority in the region. And, the US is more interested in objectives other than an economically and politically sound country of Iraq.

Plus, given our last few actions in Iraq, it's crystal clear that nobody there can guess what we will do next or what agreements we will stand behind.

 

Too late for that, he already went to meet with his maker.

 

He led attacks against ISIS. We all know that. Americans are just making things up.
And in return, Iran gets all of Iraq under it's sphere of influence.
What a dumb move from the US to hand over all that influence to Iran.

For all we know,... We all could be driving Iranian gas in our cars, when Iran just tunnels through their oil to Iraq and sell it on the market like that.

 

We need a policy, not one off attacks on individuls that leave two key counries more motivated against us.

And, we need a president that doesn't lie about actions of that level of importannce.

 

"Yes, we retain the right to defend ourselves. But, that doesn't include going out on missions independent of the Iraqi military against militias."

I disagree with this. Of course we have the right to defend ourselves against anyone who attacks us, especially in a country like Iraq whose central government is weak and which doesn't command a powerful, effective national army. In that circumstance, if we don't defend our troops and our people, no one will.

 

Yes a shia terrorist fought a sunni terrorist group. That does not make them an ally.

And yes, he is directly responsible for US deaths in the region.

 

And? I'm not sure what your point is here.
QUOTE]
Trumps policy is that the US will never allow Iran to get nukes, and that its people should not be attacked by the regime.

Its not military action, and its not supporting regime change-if Iran wants new leadership they will have to make it happen themselves.[/QUOTE]
Sure. BUT, assassinating a general is not a move designed to prevent Iran from acquiring nukes. In fact, it has clearly worked AGAINST that objective.

And, regime change IS another US objective, so it's worth considering whether we made progress against that objective.

Clearly, we did not.

 

Yes. My comment is that we can't go on a US only combat missions to find and attack those we think attacked us.

That's not a defensive response.

 

Are you referring to the Soleimani killing?

I am satisfied at this point that he had been directing these Shiite militias who killed and wounded our people recently and who attacked our embassy. He was a soldier, and while directing operations against our people, he got killed. That's how I see it, Will.

 

So What?

It happens all the time.

Yeah. No kidding.

As is usually the case.

 

That seems like a Complicated Question.

Why are you asking someone on a message board?

 

I don't see a way to include the attack on the Baghdad airport killing a diplomatic mission from Iran as being covered by "self defense". The administration has given (and then contradicted) various versions of what happened and why.

At one point, Trump claimed in a phone call that he had needed to take a harder line on Iran in order to stay in good graces with Republican hawks. The issue of how it would help his impeacment campaign came up. The clear record is that Trump takes actions calculated to benefit himself personally - even to the extent of the acts for which he is impeached.

Overall, the problem here is that we have no plan/strategy for Iran. And, this president has NO interest or ability to develop a direction more consistent than whatever acts seem good at the time.

 

We're not too far apart. The 2001 AUMF applies strictly to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. The 2002 AUMF expands to cover Iraq under Saddam Hussein, consistent with the Bush administration's attempt to link Hussein to Al Qaeda. IMO, neither would apply to Iran. I agree that it would have been risky to have informed the Iraqi government IF the purpose of the drone attack was to terminate the General and the leader of the Iraqi pro-Iranian militia. On the other hand, if the purpose was to simply stop the anticipated attack on our Baghdad Embassy, I would think informing the Iranians, via an Iraqi leak, and telling the Iraqis we hold them responsible for our Embassy's security, per international law, would have had the effect of cancelling their plan...at least temporarily. And, while I have no problem with the outcome, I do think our actions should be constient with b both U.S. Constitutional and statute law, as well as international law.

 

Trump doesn't need Republican hawks to back him in the Senate on the impeachment. There is zero chance of his removal by the Senate. I have heard this same report, and until it's verified with real people, I'm going to doubt it. Actually, thinking about it, it wouldn't surprise me if Trump said something along that vein, just knowing Trump. But that doesn't change the fact that Soleimani has been killing American soldiers in Iraq for a long time, and that he was the one pulling the strings on the Shiite militias who killed an American and wounded 4 U.S. troops and who attacked our embassy.

The man was a soldier. He was involved in these attacks, and he got killed. When you are a soldier, that can happen.

If Trump blathered on about hawk support, I don't really care. He's not going to get removed by the Senate anyway.

I think we do have a plan for Iran, but you may or may not agree with it. That plan is pressure through sanctions and support for change in Iran. Trump has actually been militarily very patient and lenient with Iran on a military level up until these attacks on our people in Iraq. He has resisted pressure to strike back at Iran for other incidents, like the mining of oil tankers, the attack on Saudi Arabia, and the shooting down of our drone. But when an American was killed, others wounded, and our embassy threatened, he took off the gloves. That was his red line, and I'm fine with that.

 

Real scanctions involve multiple nations working in concert. Economies are too big to block trade with the actions of one nation - even if we threaten everyone.

Trump pulled the plug on the group that could do that.

 

Him blathering about hawk support demonstrates that he is conduction foreign policy based on what is good for himself - NOT for Ameria.

The assassination has had negative effects. The admiistration story has been ridiulous - scrambled and directly contradictory. It shows NO move toward any plan or strategy, and as such shows a problem that is larger than any individual general.

 

That is NOT why the assassination took place, according to this administration.

Nobody in the administration can come up with a rational, uncontradictory, informed justification for the assassination - leaving people like you and me to dream up excuses.

And, that is clear evidence that this adminisration does NOT have a plan.

 

One of Obama's greatest murders

 

I think we are not too far apart. You're right about the AUMF's. They don't apply to Iran. One or both were used as legal justification to re-enter Iraq by the Obama administration, and Congress, as a whole, did not object.

And although the AUMF's do not apply to Iran, the War Powers Act of 1973 does apply to this situation. Quoting ....

SEC. 2. (c)

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

In essence, the President may take action in response to an attack or imminent threat of attack. So I'm OK with the killing of Soleimani, as I believe he is the one who was pulling the strings on these Iraqi Shiite militias who attacked our troops and who tried to storm our embassy. And, I am reasonably confident that he was not meeting the Deputy Commander of the PMF, an Iranian-backed Shiite militia, to discuss peace and harmony with the U.S., given his track record.

 

OK, Will, well I don't think Trump is looking for a war with Iran. I think the hit on Soleimani served two purposes: a legitimate act of self defense, and it sent a message to Iran not to trifle with this President and to believe him when he warns of worse to come if these attacks continue.

One thing about Trump is that he is very transparent. What you see is what you get. He is not going to be cowed by Iran, and when he warns, he's serious. I'm fine with that.

 

I suspect the reason Obama used it in our return to Iraq was the purpose - i.e. to fight ISIS, which was a spin-off from the remnants of Al Qaeda. Applying it to Iran would, IMO, be a "bridge too far." And, while I agree that Trump acted within the War Powers Act, by informing Congress within 48 hours of the drone strike, I am uncertain as to whether his message/briefing contained the necessary elements required in the Act. IMO, ALL AUMF's should require a sunset date (while acknowledging that the Act makes no such provision at present). If the problem is not resolved, it may be renewed. Haven't found the exact document yet, but I am vaguely aware that international law allows for defensive action to repel an "imminent attack" (which was one of the U.N.'s objections to our Iraqi invasion...we couldn't prove an "imminent threat). U.N. Charter? Also...there is the problem of whether or not ISIS has actually been defeated as previously claimed. If it has, why are our troops still in Iraq? If not, what is the current prognosis regarding when ISIS will be gone and how long U.S. troops will remain? I am not as sure as yourself regarding Trump's "transparency," and believe we will remain in Iraq until there is a regime change in Tehran and that our primary purpose in that regime change lies more with the security of Israel and Saudi Arabia, than the security of the U.S. If that's supported by the U.S. electorate, that's fine with me, but I believe we need an honest debate.