Our new and improved Iraq discussion thread!

[HCM]

This is an example of being dismissive rather than truly trying to grapple with the issues. Perhaps the post was too short and without enough context. I have tried to rectify that. I feel and I may be wrong that you have placed a label or made a predetermined opinion about me or anyone with a view point similar to mine. This conversation and my posts are all present in my mind in a certain way and with a certain context. One of the shortcomings of any form of communication is I know what’s in my head but not what is in yours. If this is a discussion we can work through that. If not I guess everyone is wasting their time.

No, it is accurate. Connection to 9/11 is irrelevant.

What is relevant is listed in tne designation announcement of the IRGC as an FTO.

Particularly:

The Iranian regime is responsible for the deaths of at least 603 American service members in Iraq since 2003. This accounts for 17% of all deaths of U.S. personnel in Iraq from 2003 to 2011, and is in addition to the many thousands of Iraqis killed by the IRGC’s proxies.

[TGS]

If our government is outside the bounds of the constitution then it is completely illegitimate. The words of the AUMF should speak for themselves rather than relying on a twisted interpretation by our “government” that some people seem to believe has surpassed the constitution and they are completely kosher with. What is an Iraq threat if Iraq is a country but countries are only defined by who we have diplomatic relations with and these militias are not part of the country we have diplomatic relationships with. I think I’m probably done here. I will continue to read and may post again but I have made my statements. Those who want to can critique them I will concede there will be ground to legitimately do so. Further some have already made valid and thought provoking responses. But I don’t think at this juncture I have more to meaningfully contribute. I know of no better country but I fear for its future as it becomes untethered from its populace and the documents upon which its legitimacy rest.

cool story bro

[HCM]

The contention is that Iran is not a country because we don’t have diplomatic relations. Ok looking at it I guess that is accurate although I have some concerns about all of that power being placed in the executive branch it is what it is at this point. Still that doesn’t give the executive branch unfettered use of force. They refuse to give any detail as to what Soleimani may have been planning that would constitute an emergency and he clearly isn’t related to the Iraqi government we went to war with and was there with the new Iraqi government we helped form. So that leaves the AUMF which requires a 9/11 nexus to apply.

The congress, judiciary and the American people have allowed the executive to become too powerful in my view personally and in my view constitutionally. I want to know what legal authority there was to take this action and I want it to be clear not contorted and hidden because of “sources and methods”. I’m increasingly doubting our ability to actually have influence on our government through voting but I know we can’t have meaningful input or decision making ability when we are kept in the dark all the time. This is not a Trump issue for me I was too young and uninformed to realize the problem when I voted for W. Bush twice, McCain, and Romney. It was a problem under Obama and it will be a problem until we the people or the other branches of our government do something about it. I want to have meaningful discussion and debate I was unaware that basically in the eyes of the US Iran is not a country. The complexity of all this is enormous and I don’t know it all. I have bits and pieces I am trying to put together and I believe that’s true for everyone. This is why I think we need a government that is not overly controlled by one person and why we need a government that is open, honest and responsive although not completely at the whim of the electorate.

Words mean things.

You claimed Soleimani was an official of a “legitimate and recognized” government.

The U.S. does not recognize the current government of Iran.

That does NOT equal “Iran is not a country.”

You seem to be operating under misperception of the facts and when the facts don’t support your feelings you shift /deflect the objective.

[runcible]

This is an example of being dismissive rather than truly trying to grapple with the issues. Perhaps the post was too short and without enough context. I have tried to rectify that. I feel and I may be wrong that you have placed a label or made a predetermined opinion about me or anyone with a view point similar to mine. This conversation and my posts are all present in my mind in a certain way and with a certain context. One of the shortcomings of any form of communication is I know what’s in my head but not what is in yours. If this is a discussion we can work through that. If not I guess everyone is wasting their time.

The accuracy of the statement in no way correlates with any dismissiveness or lackthereof; it stands on its own merits.

https://www.state.gov/designation-of...y-guard-corps/

[Borderland]

AUMF 2002 does not state 'Iraqi government we went to war with', it states:



Strikes against:



AUMF 2002 doesn't require any 9/11 nexus. It requires an Iraqi threat to national security of the US. Attacking/killing US troops is a threat to national security of the US. I'm certainly no expert but this doesn't appear to be an area of dispute to me.

Here is a good discussion about, 1991, 2001 and 2002 AUMF.

https://www.heritage.org/the-constit...s-sound-policy

91 seems to have been directed at Saddam and 02 at the Axis of Evil (Iran, Iraq and N. Korea). But where we may be going into the weeds here is that Saddam is no longer a threat and nowhere in the 02 statute does it say that the goal is to establish a stable, democratic Iraq which is what has been going on. One of the reasons Obama pulled out in 2007.

There is proposed legislation to abolish 91 and 02.

The primary war authorization relied upon by the Bush, Obama, and Trump Administrations to prosecute the war against al-Qaeda, the Taliban, ISIS, and associated forces has been and continues to be the 2001 AUMF.

My feeling here is that Iraq isn't worth the effort or the cost. If a terrorist organization shows up there you just reduce their population by whatever means available and move on. If there's collateral damage maybe that country shouldn't be aiding a terrorist org. Winning the hearts and minds isn't going to work. We're seeing that right now in Iraq. I think most of the Shia there would just as soon have the Ayatollah running things. The people of Iraq had their chance, actually numerous chances, to govern themselves and have miserably failed at all levels. Maybe living like the people in Iran do now is more their speed.

[runcible]

One of the reasons Obama pulled out in 2007.

In the interests of specificity, the force draw-down began in 2007, but concluded end-of-2011.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-16192105

[Borderland]

deleted...........

[Bart Carter]

...In other news...how did the Iranians manage to shoot down a passenger jet taking off from their own airport?

They needed the body count because their Iraq missile attack didn't kill anyone.

[JohnO]

Partisan Politics on steroids.

[Bart Carter]

...if you’re obviously not qualified to speak on the topic AND can’t even make a reasonable, specific statement, then yes, your opinion is worthless..

And you probably are a commentator for CNN...