Another quagmire in the Middle East…..

[CG2014]

Originally Posted by rooster

Are you freaking serious? T

.

Yes I am serious and you are the one who is not familiar with Iran history under the Shah


How old are you?

Were you not born yet or were you born already but too young to know about it or remember?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWrcP6ruJ6k

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by CG2014

Do you not remember how Iran was prior to 1979 Islamic Revolution when the Shah was still the leader?

It was great and it was a vacation gem destination of the Middle East.

GOOGLE:

No, I don't remember much about Iran back then as far as it being great.

[fd-guy]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

No, I don't remember much about Iran back then as far as it being great.

So you visited Iran back in the 70s?

[Schwarzer Ritter]

The War Powers Act has never been in front of the SCOTUS so its constitutional legality is in question. The House and the White House operate inside that ambiguity. If someone tells you that a president is violating the Constitution, they're lying. If someone says that a president is doing what other presidents have done since 1973, they're correct.

Trump is correct and as long as he follows up with the proper notifications, he continues to be correct.

Would members of the congress contact a potential enemy to screw up a military op? Not many but some members have.they professed that they are NOT but Gazan or Somali. They look at that as patriotism on their part. More likely, someone like AOC or Schiff would make intentions public to stop a military op.

Typical solution; put out information that differ in significant details so that you can pin point the leak. Then prosecute them.

[fd-guy]

Originally Posted by Schwarzer Ritter

The War Powers Act has never been in front of the SCOTUS so its constitutional legality is in question. The House and the White House operate inside that ambiguity. If someone tells you that a president is violating the Constitution, they're lying. If someone says that a president is doing what other presidents have done since 1973, they're correct.

Trump is correct and as long as he follows up with the proper notifications, he continues to be correct.

Would members of the congress contact a potential enemy to screw up a military op? Not many but some members have.they professed that they are NOT but Gazan or Somali. They look at that as patriotism on their part. More likely, someone like AOC or Schiff would make intentions public to stop a military op.

Typical solution; put out information that differ in significant details so that you can pin point the leak. Then prosecute them.

The War Powers Resolution has definitely been debated for decades, and you’re right that SCOTUS hasn’t squarely ruled on it. But that doesn’t mean constitutional concerns magically disappear — it just means the limits of executive power are still argued about. Saying ‘no one can claim it’s unconstitutional’ is a bit of a stretch. Plenty of legal scholars do exactly that.

As for members of Congress intentionally helping an enemy to sabotage a military operation — that’s a huge accusation. If there were real evidence of that happening, it wouldn’t be a message board theory. It would be a criminal case.

There’s a difference between disagreeing over war powers and assuming political opponents are secretly coordinating with hostile governments


I notice that you seem to go from debating constitutional ambiguity to speculating that specific members of Congress would help an enemy kill Americans. That’s a pretty big jump

[Stockinglover]

None of you had problems when Obama did this or even that cocksucker Bush and his equally shitty father, using the same pricks like Cheney and Rumsfeld and the biggest baby killer of them all, Colin Powell the cocksucker

[fd-guy]

Originally Posted by Stockinglover

None of you had problems when Obama did this or even that cocksucker Bush and his equally shitty father, using the same pricks like Cheney and Rumsfeld and the biggest baby killer of them all, Colin Powell the cocksucker

You’re assuming I didn’t have a problem with previous presidents asserting broad war powers. I did. I wasn’t a fan of executive overreach under Bush, Obama, or anyone else.

For some of us, this isn’t about which party is in office — it’s about the scope of executive authority. So the ‘you were fine with it before’ angle doesn’t really land.

It’s a constitutional question, not a team sport

[rooster]

Originally Posted by CG2014

Yes I am serious and you are the one who is not familiar with Iran history under the Shah

How old are you?

Were you not born yet or were you born already but too young to know about it or remember?

EDIT: I had constructed an entire objective post in response to this, but now...I have come back and I removing all of it.

EDIT REASON: From other posts in this forum...most notably the racist piece of shit Troll Thread about the "Muslim" shooting in Austin...I maintain that the biased and hateful agenda of this person is no longer worth responding to with any reasonable dialog.

I cannot consider this person's opinions about Iran to be worthy of consideration. There is too much bias and rote repetition of MAGA propaganda.

.

[VitaMan]

In human history, how many conflicts, wars, or whatever you want to call them have their been ? Why
are their old castles all over Europe ?


This is just another one that will pass.


If you have a solution please post.

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by Texas Playboy

If you automatically support something because your side said it and reject it because the other side did, you’re not thinking. You’re just cheering.

Some things are complicated. This is one such thing. Trump is neither 100% wrong nor 100% right in this matter. He is right in that the world is better off with a de-fanged Iran. And the majority of Iranians are delighted to be rid of the Ayatollah.

He is wrong in that he is doing this unilaterally, without congressional authorization. And within a week, he should march up to Capitol Hill and demand such an authorization. Put those cowards in Congress on the spot ... make them vote. Truly, they do not want to have the responsibility that the Founders gave them for declaring war, because in hindsight they could turn out to be wrong either way ... and congressmen/women who vote "wrong" don't get re-elected ... and that is the only thing that truly matters to any of them.

So in such an environment, Trump exceeds his constitutional authority. I wish he didn't. But sometimes you have to. I wish he would go demand the authority tomorrow -- he would probably get it.

The critical error is thinking that we own whatever country we wreck. As long as our boots never hit the ground there, that the Iranian people take it from here, then history will be kind to Trump on this. If instead, he gets sucked into an occupation, that will turn out to be a bigger disaster than Iraq.

The only reasonable post in this entire thread. If Trump was smart he would head to capitol hill and see about getting congress onboard. But he certainly won’t and he will neuter his own party in congress.

[Jacuzzme]

The whole way back machine debate is irrelevant. The regional history goes back 100,000 years, some cultures sucked and others didn’t. Fact of the matter is that it’s (was with any luck) currently a brutal theocracy, sitting on an ocean of natural resources. A reasonable government in control is not only good for them, but for the entire civilized world.

[VitaMan]

A day after Iran has a nuclear bomb is the day they would use it on Israel. The regime just killed tens of thousands of its own citizens.

But we get simple posts such as "I don't like wars."

Provide a solution

[Schwarzer Ritter]

Former VP Henry Wallace was feeding information to the Soviet Union.
Speaker Gephardt tried to defund the navy while in operations in the Persian Gulf which was classified a war zone at the time.
General Milley said he kept his Chinese number informed about what Trump was up to.

I did say it was more likely that some pol would make a public announcement hoping to deter presidential action.

[Schwarzer Ritter]

Originally Posted by rooster

At least 108 people have died in an explosion at a school in southern Iran

.

Lets dissect this. The BBC released a story, Iran offered an excuse and made a claim, the allies offered a counter claim. Now, I tend to believe the good guys. That they wouldn't intentionally target a school. More likely a mechanical malfunction caused the tragedy. That's on me.

Rooster believed the bad guys immediately. He believed that the US deliberately targeted a school of girls. What does this say about Rooster? Nothing good.

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by fd-guy

So you visited Iran back in the 70s?

No, never been there.