War with Iran?

[Weave]

4 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said:

How do you know the killing was meant to start a war? Neither you or I have the reporting that lead to the strike. Neither do reporters. I get anonymous people are saying it was “razor thin” but in order to know the value of that we have to know a couple things. Things like how much of the info did they have access to, is this an analysis or opinion, do the anonymous people actually exist?

He just happened to be at the Baghdad Airport when the embassy was attacked? If there was actually a credible threat he was overseeing then killing him reduces command and control thus disrupting planning and execution. 

All I’m saying is hold judgment on why/how this happened until more comes out. 
 

 

Assassinating a top military official is pretty much the definition of an act of war.  If that wasn't his intention, holy ***** is he bad a decision making.

As Rand Paul so well put today, you can't tear up a peace agreement, enact crushing sanctions, and then kill a military commander and expect this to lead to negotiation.  The only realistic response is escalation.

Also as said by Paul today, there may have been risk of some sort of action, but by killing a top military official we have pretty much guaranteed that a reprisal will take place.  The odds of someothing happening have only increased now.

 

Edited January 7, 2020 by Weave

[SABRES 0311]

26 minutes ago, Weave said:

Assassinating a top military official is pretty much the definition of an act of war.  If that wasn't his intention, holy ***** is he bad a decision making.

As Rand Paul so well put today, you can't tear up a peace agreement, enact crushing sanctions, and then kill a military commander and expect this to lead to negotiation.  The only realistic response is escalation.

Also as said by Paul today, there may have been risk of some sort of action, but by killing a top military official we have pretty much guaranteed that a reprisal will take place.  The odds of someothing happening have only increased now.

 

You mean assassinating the commander of an organization designated a terrorist group by multiple countries?

You can’t play a part in killing U.S. service members, shout death to America for decades, threaten to destroy an ally then cry when we drop one or two of your military commanders. 

[Weave]

8 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

You mean assassinating the commander of an organization designated a terrorist group by multiple countries?

You can’t play a part in killing U.S. service members, shout death to America for decades, threaten to destroy an ally then cry when we drop one or two of your military commanders. 

He's still a top General in a soveriegn nations military.  Killing any country's top military commander is an act of war, regardless of what he chanted.

I have no F'ing clue if this attack was warranted.  What I do know is it is an act of war.

[SABRES 0311]

56 minutes ago, Weave said:

He's still a top General in a soveriegn nations military.  Killing any country's top military commander is an act of war, regardless of what he chanted.

I have no F'ing clue if this attack was warranted.  What I do know is it is an act of war.

Ill roll with it. Trump ordered an act of war against a country calling for our destruction, looking to develop nuclear capabilities, and tied to the deaths of U.S. military personnel in Iraq. With all that extra baggage tied to Iran we wait until there is supposedly a credible imminent threat. Then we kill a commander of an internationally recognized terrorist organization. 
 

Problem is in this case it’s an act of war if the action was meant to provoke a war. To date that’s the exact opposite of the stated purpose for the strike. 
 

Edited January 7, 2020 by SABRES 0311

[Weave]

24 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

Ill roll with it. Trump ordered an act of war against a country calling for our destruction, looking to develop nuclear capabilities, and tied to the deaths of U.S. military personnel in Iraq. With all that extra baggage tied to Iran we wait until there is supposedly a credible imminent threat. Then we kill a commander of an internationally recognized terrorist organization. 
 

Problem is in this case it’s an act of war if the action was meant to provoke a war. To date that’s the exact opposite of the stated purpose for the strike. 
 

I don’t really care what the stated purpose was.  1. I haven’t believed any of the stated purposes we’ve heard since the Gulf War, including this one, and 2. Regardless of what the intended purpose was, the act itself can only lead to escalation. Whether Trump wants to label this an act of war or not, it is what it is.

[SABRES 0311]

2 hours ago, Weave said:

I don’t really care what the stated purpose was.  1. I haven’t believed any of the stated purposes we’ve heard since the Gulf War, including this one, and 2. Regardless of what the intended purpose was, the act itself can only lead to escalation. Whether Trump wants to label this an act of war or not, it is what it is.

1. Welcome to the dark side.

2. If there actually was a reasonable expectation that killing Suleimani reduced a credible threat then it was a preemptive strike in defense. If so is it still an act of war? I could go either way. The ball is now on Iran’s court as far as escalation.  

 

Edited January 7, 2020 by SABRES 0311

[LGR4GM]

So your stance is you support Trump because he isn't getting us into a war

And

That killing another nation's military commander isn't an act of war. 

 

[SABRES 0311]

3 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

So your stance is you support Trump because he isn't getting us into a war

And

That killing another nation's military commander isn't an act of war. 

 

He hasn’t gotten us into a war yet. 
 

Is it an act of war if the purpose was defensive in nature? If so how? Was it justified? 

[Weave]

31 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

He hasn’t gotten us into a war yet. 
 

Is it an act of war if the purpose was defensive in nature? If so how? Was it justified? 

If you deck a guy because you strongly suspect he is going hit you, you’ still hitting a guy based on what you think he is going to do and not what he is actually doing.  It’s offense, not defense.

[SABRES 0311]

23 minutes ago, Weave said:

If you deck a guy because you strongly suspect he is going hit you, you’ still hitting a guy based on what you think he is going to do and not what he is actually doing.  It’s offense, not defense.

Reducing a country or organization’s ability to execute an attack is defensive. Kind of like how we struck Al Queda training camps and plotted to kill Bin Laden in the nineties. Or like the Stuxnet cyber attack against Iran.

Punching a guy in the face because he presents himself as a threat is also defensive. You are using an offensive capability for defensive means.

Rules of Engagement as I remember them stated you have the right to “defend” yourself if presented a threat.

We killed the commander of the Quds force to reduce a threat. We didn’t invade Iran. Domestically Trump should articulate what the threat was. 

[Eleven]

1 hour ago, SABRES 0311 said:

He hasn’t gotten us into a war yet. 
 

Is it an act of war if the purpose was defensive in nature? If so how? Was it justified? 

IIRC, aren't you former military?  And if so, you must know that assassinating the general of a foreign army is an act of war.

[Weave]

27 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

Reducing a country or organization’s ability to execute an attack is defensive. Kind of like how we struck Al Queda training camps and plotted to kill Bin Laden in the nineties. Or like the Stuxnet cyber attack against Iran.

Punching a guy in the face because he presents himself as a threat is also defensive. You are using an offensive capability for defensive means.

Rules of Engagement as I remember them stated you have the right to “defend” yourself if presented a threat.

We killed the commander of the Quds force to reduce a threat. We didn’t invade Iran. Domestically Trump should articulate what the threat was. 

In any conflict among civilians you would be arrested for that action.  And rightfully so.

Iran had been making threats for as long as I have been aware.  Occasionally they’ve been linked to events others have participated in.  I’d need hard convincing that this situation was materially different.

Here’s a turn around.... Trump has ordered a hit.  He’s threatening more.  Would it be an act of war if Iran chose to preemptive strike at one of our planners?  Would it be defensive on their part?

Edited January 7, 2020 by Weave

[SwampD]

32 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

Reducing a country or organization’s ability to execute an attack is defensive. Kind of like how we struck Al Queda training camps and plotted to kill Bin Laden in the nineties. Or like the Stuxnet cyber attack against Iran.

Punching a guy in the face because he presents himself as a threat is also defensive. You are using an offensive capability for defensive means.

Rules of Engagement as I remember them stated you have the right to “defend” yourself if presented a threat.

We killed the commander of the Quds force to reduce a threat. We didn’t invade Iran. Domestically Trump should articulate what the threat was. 

How'd that work out?

[LGR4GM]

1 hour ago, SABRES 0311 said:

He hasn’t gotten us into a war yet. 
 

Is it an act of war if the purpose was defensive in nature? If so how? Was it justified? 

Yet is the keyword

 

The Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor was done as an attempted defensive move to keep the US from intervening in the Pacific. As a defensive move, was this an act of war? Yes, obviously it was and that is why war was declared short thereafter. 

You are only looking at this through the lens of the US. We do not view it as an act of war. Why would we? The guy was a turd of the highest caliber and the world is probably better without him. That said, does Iran consider it an act of war? I am going to guess yes. So it is then an act of war. Only 1 party has to deem it such a thing. Again I keep hearing this talking point around and it is completely illogical. Under Trump Iran is more hostile today than it was in 2016. The Iran Nuclear Deal is gone and they have restarted all of their attempts to become a Nuclear Power. The evidence suggests that the general was a giant pile of trash and deserved death, but at what cost?

[LGR4GM]

22 minutes ago, Weave said:

In any conflict among civilians you would be arrested for that action.  And rightfully so.

Iran had been making threats for as long as I have been aware.  Occasionally they’ve been linked to events others have participated in.  I’d need hard convincing that this situation was materially different.

Here’s a turn around.... Trump has ordered a hit.  He’s threatening more.  Would it be an act of war if Iran chose to preemptive strike at one of our planners?  Would it be defensive on their part?

Yup and an act of war.

What is truly amazing is that trump has us questioning whether killing another nations military commander is an act of war. This shouldn't really even be a debate. The question should be, if we do x will country y consider it an act of war. I am going to guess that Iran does. 

Edited January 7, 2020 by LGR4GM

[SABRES 0311]

10 minutes ago, Eleven said:

IIRC, aren't you former military?  And if so, you must know that assassinating the general of a foreign army is an act of war.

I’m still military. 
 

act of war

(4) the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of— (A) declared war; (B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or (C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin;

Source

18 USC § 2331(4)

Additional defining of act of war identifies an act to provoke war. Verbally stated as the opposite reason for the strike.

The definition of armed conflict is debated internationally to include the number of deaths associated, somewhere between 25 and 1,000. Therefore one could say we have been in armed conflict with Iran due to the number of U.S. military personnel killed as a result Iranian influence in the Iraq theatre of operations. Then again you could say no. This is important because it helps identify if the kinetic strike was a continuation of armed conflict hence an act of war.

Assassination is the killing of a prominent figure for political or ideological goals. In this case Suleimani was not killed to affect politics. The purpose of the strike was to reduce the capability of a foreign force to carry out what we are told was an imminent threat. Therefore, the kinetic strike, unless otherwise proven does not meet the definition of an assassination but rather a preemptive act in the defense of a threat.

Trump needs to state what the threat was and define the credibility. This can be done through following four points. History, intent, capability, and ability. 

 

[SABRES 0311]

20 minutes ago, SwampD said:

How'd that work out?

It didn’t work out because the administration chose not to follow through with killing him which may very well have disrupted their command and control as well as ability to coordinate with governing bodies such as the Taliban.

Another failure was lack of coordination between intelligence agencies to define the pre 9/11 threat. One of the reasons DHS was created. 

[SABRES 0311]

10 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Yup and an act of war.

What is truly amazing is that trump has us questioning whether killing another nations military commander is an act of war. This shouldn't really even be a debate. The question should be, if we do x will country y consider it an act of war. I am going to guess that Iran does. 

Trump has people guessing because the administration has not laid out the road to the strike which should be done. Beyond that domestic politics plays a part. One example is people taking to twitter apologizing to Iran. We also have people who ask things like what do we do now if there is an air raid. Nothing, because Iran does not possess the capability to conduct such an attack on the continental U.S. and their allies will not do it on their behalf. 

Iran will use proxies to sabotage U.S. and allied efforts in the Middle East. They may threaten to block the Strait of Hormuz as well. They know they cannot win a conventional war with the U.S. and an act attributed directly to them would increase the chance of that.
 

[Eleven]

18 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

I’m still military. 
 

act of war

(4) the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of— (A) declared war; (B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or (C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin;

Source

18 USC § 2331(4)

Additional defining of act of war identifies an act to provoke war. Verbally stated as the opposite reason for the strike.

The definition of armed conflict is debated internationally to include the number of deaths associated, somewhere between 25 and 1,000. Therefore one could say we have been in armed conflict with Iran due to the number of U.S. military personnel killed as a result Iranian influence in the Iraq theatre of operations. Then again you could say no. This is important because it helps identify if the kinetic strike was a continuation of armed conflict hence an act of war.

Assassination is the killing of a prominent figure for political or ideological goals. In this case Suleimani was not killed to affect politics. The purpose of the strike was to reduce the capability of a foreign force to carry out what we are told was an imminent threat. Therefore, the kinetic strike, unless otherwise proven does not meet the definition of an assassination but rather a preemptive act in the defense of a threat.

Trump needs to state what the threat was and define the credibility. This can be done through following four points. History, intent, capability, and ability. 

 

You're quoting the portion of the US criminal code that deals with acts of terrorism for your definition of an act of war?

Killing another country's general, unprovoked, has been an act of war for a lot longer than that definition, or even the United States, has been around.

I suspect you know this.  I think you may have some self-deception going on since Friday morning.  Your boy is trying to do the one thing that you swore to yourself he wouldn't do.

[SABRES 0311]

27 minutes ago, Eleven said:

You're quoting the portion of the US criminal code that deals with acts of terrorism for your definition of an act of war?

Killing another country's general, unprovoked, has been an act of war for a lot longer than that definition, or even the United States, has been around.

I suspect you know this.  I think you may have some self-deception going on since Friday morning.  Your boy is trying to do the one thing that you swore to yourself he wouldn't do.

Considering the Quds Force is designated by multiple countries to include the U.S. as a terrorist organization.

Unprovoked?  I didn’t know you had access to the national security information detailing the supposed imminent threat. 

I think you are letting your personal view of Trump interfere with your assessment of events. Thereby painting him as the bad guy and Suleimani and Iran as a victim of unwarranted U.S. aggression.

 

[SABRES 0311]

So what information that has been released leads people think Trump is trying to start a war? 
Same people accusing Trump of warmongering said he should’ve kept U.S. military personnel in Syria. A situation with a lot of potential for an international incident with a peer/near peer and a battlespace consisting of multiple foreign forces.

When Trump was calling KJU names people said he’s trying to start WW3. That didn’t age well. Why were they saying that then and why are they saying it now? Two reasons, ignorance and narrative.

 

 

Edited January 7, 2020 by SABRES 0311

[drnkirishone]

1 hour ago, SABRES 0311 said:

Two reasons, ignorance and narrative.

Hahahahahahahahahaha

[LGR4GM]

1 hour ago, SABRES 0311 said:

So what information that has been released leads people think Trump is trying to start a war? 
Same people accusing Trump of warmongering said he should’ve kept U.S. military personnel in Syria. A situation with a lot of potential for an international incident with a peer/near peer and a battlespace consisting of multiple foreign forces.

When Trump was calling KJU names people said he’s trying to start WW3. That didn’t age well. Why were they saying that then and why are they saying it now? Two reasons, ignorance and narrative.

 

 

He ***** killed some general of a sovereign nation. Again even though the guy was a piece of crap, I am fairly certain another country would consider it an act of war if you, and I quote, had "(C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin;". 

[SABRES 0311]

17 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

He ***** killed some general of a sovereign nation. Again even though the guy was a piece of crap, I am fairly certain another country would consider it an act of war if you, and I quote, had "(C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin;". 

Was the purpose to start a war or to inhibit the command and control of a foreign threat? Maybe from here on out we should just stick to responding to an attack instead of preventing it even if we have foreknowledge. Then we can kill the bad guy after they have killed some of ours. 

Now if it’s proven that the attack was ordered for purely a political or ideological goal then it’s assassinatiin. Trump should be held accountable for it if so. 

Edited January 7, 2020 by SABRES 0311

[Weave]

2 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said:

I’m still military. 
 

act of war

(4) the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of— (A) declared war; (B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or (C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin;

Source

18 USC § 2331(4)

Additional defining of act of war identifies an act to provoke war. Verbally stated as the opposite reason for the strike.

The definition of armed conflict is debated internationally to include the number of deaths associated, somewhere between 25 and 1,000. Therefore one could say we have been in armed conflict with Iran due to the number of U.S. military personnel killed as a result Iranian influence in the Iraq theatre of operations. Then again you could say no. This is important because it helps identify if the kinetic strike was a continuation of armed conflict hence an act of war.

Assassination is the killing of a prominent figure for political or ideological goals. In this case Suleimani was not killed to affect politics. The purpose of the strike was to reduce the capability of a foreign force to carry out what we are told was an imminent threat. Therefore, the kinetic strike, unless otherwise proven does not meet the definition of an assassination but rather a preemptive act in the defense of a threat.

Trump needs to state what the threat was and define the credibility. This can be done through following four points. History, intent, capability, and ability. 

 

Even if we stop at assassination, THAT is a violation of international law unless the countries involved are in armed conflict.  Conflict by proxy is not in that definition.  We are not (for now) in armed conflict with Iran.