Posted on Jan 4, 2020
Iran identifies US targets for retaliatory strikes after airstrike
711
12
11
4
4
0
So is any else still buying the argument the military action was meant to de-escalate and prevent further acts of aggression? No me neither. Time will tell if both sides are bluffing or 2020 is going to be a far more dangerous year than anticipated.
Iran identifies US targets for retaliatory strikes after airstrike
Posted from dailymail.co.uk
Iran
Donald Trump
Terrorism
Posted 5 y ago
Responses: 3
4
4
0
MAJ James Woods
Good question. GOP again saying this will lead to regime change. How many times have we heard that?
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
So Iran threatens us with "retaliation" -- so what. They have been a constant threat to us for decades. When they get hit back for their aggression, they have no right to feel victimized.
Perhaps they thought that because they could cow the Obama Administration, they could do the same with Trump. Sorry Acmed, there's a new guy in the White House and he has a much lower tolerance level for terrorism.
Perhaps they thought that because they could cow the Obama Administration, they could do the same with Trump. Sorry Acmed, there's a new guy in the White House and he has a much lower tolerance level for terrorism.
(2)
(0)
MAJ James Woods
"How is it considered OK for Obama to use drone strikes on terrorists, but Trump should get permission from Congress before using one on an Iranian terrorist with the rank of General, while he is in Iraq?"
Well for starters I said Obama was criticized heavily for his excessive use of drone strikes on terrorists while you implied the Obama Admin. was soft on terror compared to Trump. So yeah i referred your comment as anti-Obama rhetoric. As for Trump targeting an Iranian military officer and member of the Iranian government, he targeted a state actor; that is not the same as targeting non-state actors (terrorists) like Bin Laden or Al-Baghdadi. The AUMF authorizes targeting non-state threats on foreign soil but it doesn't authorize targeting state actors; just cause the Trump Admin. labeled the IRGC a terrorist group it doesn't change the characterization of that military organization as the Iranian State military.
Yeah Carter's handling of Iran was FUBAR but so was the way Reagan handled Iran (Iran-Contra) and Afghanistan (Put Taliban in power). So tell me another one.
Well for starters I said Obama was criticized heavily for his excessive use of drone strikes on terrorists while you implied the Obama Admin. was soft on terror compared to Trump. So yeah i referred your comment as anti-Obama rhetoric. As for Trump targeting an Iranian military officer and member of the Iranian government, he targeted a state actor; that is not the same as targeting non-state actors (terrorists) like Bin Laden or Al-Baghdadi. The AUMF authorizes targeting non-state threats on foreign soil but it doesn't authorize targeting state actors; just cause the Trump Admin. labeled the IRGC a terrorist group it doesn't change the characterization of that military organization as the Iranian State military.
Yeah Carter's handling of Iran was FUBAR but so was the way Reagan handled Iran (Iran-Contra) and Afghanistan (Put Taliban in power). So tell me another one.
(0)
(0)
CW3 Harvey K.
MAJ James Woods - Well to straighten out your false assumption, I never claimed that the Obama Administration was “soft on terror”, just ineffective in dealing with Iran's terror. Obama was in charge when Bin Laden was killed, and he sure played
enough drone “wack-a-mole” with the puppet terrorists supported, and ultimately controlled by, Soleimani.
But it was “hands off” when it came to Soleimani himself, no doubt from the same fears that stayed the hand of several CINC you listed, and which you expressed as also your great worry about the killing of a terrorist who is a “state-actor”, a General in Iran's army. Yeah, a real General. Serving in the army of Iran. Very impressive … if you're 10 years old.
The fact is that Iran is a “terrorist state”, supporting terrorism by financing, arming, organizing, and effectively controlling terrorist groups. Even the Dems in Washington admit the evil terrorism supported by Soleimani as a “state-actor”of Iran, but there's where they (and you, as I infer from your comments) run into a problem.
If Soleimani was the evil terrorist they admit he was, and was also a high-ranking “state actor” for Iran, then it is consistent to hold that “terrorist state actor”demonstrates Iran is a “terrorist state”. It is absurd to claim otherwise. Trump treated a terrorist and a terrorist state exactly the way they should be treated.
Further, there is no basis for your claim “Just cause the Trump Admin. labeled the IRGC a terrorist group it doesn't change the characterization of that military organization as the Iranian State military”.
It's not just Trump defining a “terrorist group” (or “terrorist state”, or “terrorist”), but those Dems in D.C., and you yourself.
So please DON'T tell me another one.
enough drone “wack-a-mole” with the puppet terrorists supported, and ultimately controlled by, Soleimani.
But it was “hands off” when it came to Soleimani himself, no doubt from the same fears that stayed the hand of several CINC you listed, and which you expressed as also your great worry about the killing of a terrorist who is a “state-actor”, a General in Iran's army. Yeah, a real General. Serving in the army of Iran. Very impressive … if you're 10 years old.
The fact is that Iran is a “terrorist state”, supporting terrorism by financing, arming, organizing, and effectively controlling terrorist groups. Even the Dems in Washington admit the evil terrorism supported by Soleimani as a “state-actor”of Iran, but there's where they (and you, as I infer from your comments) run into a problem.
If Soleimani was the evil terrorist they admit he was, and was also a high-ranking “state actor” for Iran, then it is consistent to hold that “terrorist state actor”demonstrates Iran is a “terrorist state”. It is absurd to claim otherwise. Trump treated a terrorist and a terrorist state exactly the way they should be treated.
Further, there is no basis for your claim “Just cause the Trump Admin. labeled the IRGC a terrorist group it doesn't change the characterization of that military organization as the Iranian State military”.
It's not just Trump defining a “terrorist group” (or “terrorist state”, or “terrorist”), but those Dems in D.C., and you yourself.
So please DON'T tell me another one.
(0)
(0)
MAJ James Woods
Well the Obama Admin like all his predecessors handled Iran's terror the same way and that is by funding and equipping the proxies that countered Iran in the region. So I don't know what your issue with the Obama Admin other than flawed rationale.
And for labeling Iran as a "terrorist state" for financing, arming, organizing, and controlling groups US and it's allies labeled as terrorist groups. What makes you think our adversaries like Iran, China, N. Korea, Syria haven't labeled the US as a "terrorist state" for financing, arming, organizing, and controlling proxies that Iran and it's allies have labeled as terrorist groups? You do understand what we do to the enemy they can also do in kind to us. Label their military a terrorist organization then they label our military a terrorist organization. A vicious circle of aggression and escalation is all we're talking about. So let me be clear, just cause we label a state actor a terrorist state and their military a terrorist organization doesn't change the fact that they are a "state actor" recognized by the international community and any act against that state actor can be considered an act of war. It's international affairs 101; some of us learned that at FT. Leavenworth. This is why when the Trump Admin attacked a Syrian military air base, that raised concern that it would be viewed as a deliberate act of war against a sovereign nation. Lets remember the war powers in dispute says a president can act when imminent threat to US; there was no imminent threat to US when we attacked Syria. The use of chemical weapons on the Syrian population provided us top cover but technically a POTUS required notifying Congress first and not acting unilaterally in that situation as well (and not by tweet).
So yeah I will keep correcting you and anyone else conservative and liberal that thinks labeling a nation state a "terror state" can result in unilateral actions without proof of imminent threat to US.
And for labeling Iran as a "terrorist state" for financing, arming, organizing, and controlling groups US and it's allies labeled as terrorist groups. What makes you think our adversaries like Iran, China, N. Korea, Syria haven't labeled the US as a "terrorist state" for financing, arming, organizing, and controlling proxies that Iran and it's allies have labeled as terrorist groups? You do understand what we do to the enemy they can also do in kind to us. Label their military a terrorist organization then they label our military a terrorist organization. A vicious circle of aggression and escalation is all we're talking about. So let me be clear, just cause we label a state actor a terrorist state and their military a terrorist organization doesn't change the fact that they are a "state actor" recognized by the international community and any act against that state actor can be considered an act of war. It's international affairs 101; some of us learned that at FT. Leavenworth. This is why when the Trump Admin attacked a Syrian military air base, that raised concern that it would be viewed as a deliberate act of war against a sovereign nation. Lets remember the war powers in dispute says a president can act when imminent threat to US; there was no imminent threat to US when we attacked Syria. The use of chemical weapons on the Syrian population provided us top cover but technically a POTUS required notifying Congress first and not acting unilaterally in that situation as well (and not by tweet).
So yeah I will keep correcting you and anyone else conservative and liberal that thinks labeling a nation state a "terror state" can result in unilateral actions without proof of imminent threat to US.
(0)
(0)
CW3 Harvey K.
MAJ James Woods - Yes, Obama did follow in the footsteps of his predecessors in dealing with Iran, with the same level of failure, using a “flawed rationale”. They all busied themselves chopping off the heads of the Hydra. Now it seems we have stabbed at its heart. Whether that will be a mortal wound to Iran's terrorism is yet to be seen.
Of course Obama didn't hesitate to use drone strikes to kill American citizens. Labeling them as “terrorists” was sufficient justification in that case. But you seem to think we can overlook that Constitutional nicety, while bemoaning the danger of a “vicious circle of aggression and escalation” that Trump has put us in by eliminating that “terrorist state actor”. It was a step taken with every bit as much justification as can be mustered for Obama's citizen killing action, even if it makes Iran mad at us (as if they loved us as a brother before).
Glad to see you no longer claim that narrow “labeling of a terrorist group” as merely Trump's doing, but now it's the “US and it's [sic] allies”. That's a step up for you and all those Democrats in D.C. who struggle with the problem of admitting Soleimani was a “terrorist”, with the implication that Iran must therefore be a “terrorist state”, and justifiable action was taken against both the individual terrorist and the terrorist state he served.
What makes you think post-Shah Iran ever had any peaceful intent towards the “great Satan” of the USA? You should understand they are dedicated to our destruction, and want to be the central power in the Middle East. That danger from Iran that you fear is nothing new. I see no sense in fearing what Iran might do in revenge for killing Soleimani. I doubt that there is anything they wouldn't do to us without that “revenge” excuse.
Did your instruction in “International Affairs 101” include the fact that states that are perceived as dangerous, potential threats to other nations are not truly part of the “international community”? They may be tolerated, as Saddam's Iraq was, up to a point. That clear “act of war” when Israeli planes bombed his nuclear reactor caused quite a fuss. Contrary to dire predictions of war in the region, there was no such thing, and no severe consequences to Israel either. Such pragmatic steps, no matter how they break “international law”, are not prosecuted.
As far as the justification to Congress of killing Soleimani, Trump claims Soleimani WAS an “imminent threat” who planned to attack as many as four of our embassies among other targets. What proof of that will be provided I don't know. Neither am I so naive to think that the CIA can't manufacture “evidence”. On the surface at least, Trump has acted in accord with the War Powers Act. You have ignored the fact that Trump claims conformance to the law. In no way have you “corrected” me.
So let me be clear --- the elimination of Soleimani was a calculated risk. It may turn out to be nothing more than just another head of the Hydra cut off. But if his power was such that Soleimani was the irreplaceable figure he has been described as, then we will find that insignificant “risk” of FURTHER angering the terrorist state of Iran well worth it.
So yeah, I will continue to justify the pragmatic solution taken by Trump against Soleimani and the terrorist state of Iran, to anyone of any political persuasion. That holds whether Trump violated the War Powers Act or not. I consider it wiser eliminating threats before they become “imminent”. Our War Powers policies have shown themselves as dysfunctional by repeated violations by several presidents, none of whom suffered any consequence of their “law-breaking”. It appears it is a law which Congress itself finds “more honored in the breach than the observance”.
Certainly those historical presidential violations indicate that the War Powers Act should be re-evaluated from the viewpoint of maximizing the flexibility of the defense of this nation, rather than the goal of ham-stringing the CINC.
Of course Obama didn't hesitate to use drone strikes to kill American citizens. Labeling them as “terrorists” was sufficient justification in that case. But you seem to think we can overlook that Constitutional nicety, while bemoaning the danger of a “vicious circle of aggression and escalation” that Trump has put us in by eliminating that “terrorist state actor”. It was a step taken with every bit as much justification as can be mustered for Obama's citizen killing action, even if it makes Iran mad at us (as if they loved us as a brother before).
Glad to see you no longer claim that narrow “labeling of a terrorist group” as merely Trump's doing, but now it's the “US and it's [sic] allies”. That's a step up for you and all those Democrats in D.C. who struggle with the problem of admitting Soleimani was a “terrorist”, with the implication that Iran must therefore be a “terrorist state”, and justifiable action was taken against both the individual terrorist and the terrorist state he served.
What makes you think post-Shah Iran ever had any peaceful intent towards the “great Satan” of the USA? You should understand they are dedicated to our destruction, and want to be the central power in the Middle East. That danger from Iran that you fear is nothing new. I see no sense in fearing what Iran might do in revenge for killing Soleimani. I doubt that there is anything they wouldn't do to us without that “revenge” excuse.
Did your instruction in “International Affairs 101” include the fact that states that are perceived as dangerous, potential threats to other nations are not truly part of the “international community”? They may be tolerated, as Saddam's Iraq was, up to a point. That clear “act of war” when Israeli planes bombed his nuclear reactor caused quite a fuss. Contrary to dire predictions of war in the region, there was no such thing, and no severe consequences to Israel either. Such pragmatic steps, no matter how they break “international law”, are not prosecuted.
As far as the justification to Congress of killing Soleimani, Trump claims Soleimani WAS an “imminent threat” who planned to attack as many as four of our embassies among other targets. What proof of that will be provided I don't know. Neither am I so naive to think that the CIA can't manufacture “evidence”. On the surface at least, Trump has acted in accord with the War Powers Act. You have ignored the fact that Trump claims conformance to the law. In no way have you “corrected” me.
So let me be clear --- the elimination of Soleimani was a calculated risk. It may turn out to be nothing more than just another head of the Hydra cut off. But if his power was such that Soleimani was the irreplaceable figure he has been described as, then we will find that insignificant “risk” of FURTHER angering the terrorist state of Iran well worth it.
So yeah, I will continue to justify the pragmatic solution taken by Trump against Soleimani and the terrorist state of Iran, to anyone of any political persuasion. That holds whether Trump violated the War Powers Act or not. I consider it wiser eliminating threats before they become “imminent”. Our War Powers policies have shown themselves as dysfunctional by repeated violations by several presidents, none of whom suffered any consequence of their “law-breaking”. It appears it is a law which Congress itself finds “more honored in the breach than the observance”.
Certainly those historical presidential violations indicate that the War Powers Act should be re-evaluated from the viewpoint of maximizing the flexibility of the defense of this nation, rather than the goal of ham-stringing the CINC.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google