War with Iran?

[LGR4GM]

16 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

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. 

Responding before an attack happens isn't the conversation though. We're talking about whether killing this guy was an act of war. 

I'll ask again, why wouldn't Iran consider this an act of war? 

Edited January 7, 2020 by LGR4GM

[LGR4GM]

Stop trying to change the conversation. The question is was this an act of war? Not was it justified, or preventive, or helpful. Simply should this be viewed as an act of war. By the definition you supplied, the answer is yes. 

Once we answer this, we can move on to it being justified. 

[SABRES 0311]

Just now, Weave said:

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. 

I could see it either way. Some acts targeting U.S. military personnel in Iraq are attributed to Iran. The biggest difference I have seen is the number of casualties associated. There is a follow on to the definition of assassination which talks about indirect involvement. I can’t remember EO but I’ll find it. Domestically this situation relies heavily on the legalities so I don’t think it gets resolved quickly.

[SABRES 0311]

1 minute ago, LGR4GM said:

Stop trying to change the conversation. The question is was this an act of war? Not was it justified, or preventive, or helpful. Simply should this be viewed as an act of war. By the definition you supplied, the answer is yes. 

Once we answer this, we can move on to it being justified. 

Pump your brakes superhero. I’m one guy addressing comments from a handful of you guys.

I’m not a military lawyer but from what I have read it would be an act of war if it was meant to provoke war. If the U.S. was already engaged in armed conflict even without a declaration of war it would be an act of war. If this was solely the use of offensive capabilities to deter/prevent an imminent threat then I start to lean toward no. If it was in reality an assassination it’s a crime. I have to wait and see what information comes out to make a final opinion.

As I learn more about this and if put on the spot I would say act of war against a foreign force we and our allies have been in armed and unarmed conflict with. But you can’t talk act of war without discussing justification. 

Iran I’m pretty sure has already said they consider it an act of war. I do think they retaliate but not to the extent requiring U.S. invasion. 

[Weave]

12 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

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. 

I’m going to quote Rand Paul again (barf).  You’d have to be brain dead to think that this event wouldn’t result in escalation.

In other words, regardless of Trumps intentions, he had to expect some level of escalation.  Which means it was done with an expectation that active fighting is possible.  IOW, an act of war.

[SABRES 0311]

2 minutes ago, Weave said:

I’m going to quote Rand Paul again (barf).  You’d have to be brain dead to think that this event wouldn’t result in escalation.

In other words, regardless of Trumps intentions, he had to expect some level of escalation.  Which means it was done with an expectation that active fighting is possible.  IOW, an act of war.

I’m not arguing if the strike was an act of war. I’m arguing that rank/billet automatically make it an act of war. What if Suleimani wasn’t in the car and an Iranian Lieutenant was killed instead? Iran would still call it an act of war. If rank/billet are so important in your classification then what would killing an Iranian Lieutenant be to you?

[LGR4GM]

1 hour ago, SABRES 0311 said:

Pump your brakes superhero. I’m one guy addressing comments from a handful of you guys.

I’m not a military lawyer but from what I have read it would be an act of war if it was meant to provoke war. If the U.S. was already engaged in armed conflict even without a declaration of war it would be an act of war. If this was solely the use of offensive capabilities to deter/prevent an imminent threat then I start to lean toward no. If it was in reality an assassination it’s a crime. I have to wait and see what information comes out to make a final opinion.

As I learn more about this and if put on the spot I would say act of war against a foreign force we and our allies have been in armed and unarmed conflict with. But you can’t talk act of war without discussing justification. 

Iran I’m pretty sure has already said they consider it an act of war. I do think they retaliate but not to the extent requiring U.S. invasion. 

No sure why you're being condescending but it's clearly an act of aggression at the very least. 

Guess we'll learn more over time. 

Edited January 7, 2020 by LGR4GM

[SABRES 0311]

19 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

No sure why you're being condescending but it's clearly an act of aggression at the very least. 

Guess we'll learn more over time. 

Condescending because you act like I’m changing the subject when I’m trying to respond to multiple posters in succession. Not sure if you’re calling Trump’s actions or my post an act of aggression.

[SABRES 0311]

There you go. CNN reports 10 IRGC rockets fired at Al Assad Air Base. Iran says 10s. One CNN reporter remains calm saying this isn’t exactly out of the norm the other lists a lot of what ifs. Just the facts ma’am. Third anchor corrects himself as he was about to call the Suleimani strike an assassination. I wonder why.

Iran calls it a crushing response. Gives more threats. 

Edited January 8, 2020 by SABRES 0311

[LGR4GM]

1 hour ago, SABRES 0311 said:

Condescending because you act like I’m changing the subject when I’m trying to respond to multiple posters in succession. Not sure if you’re calling Trump’s actions or my post an act of aggression.

You did try to change the subject. Hence my response. You tossed out letting ppl attack us first. That was never the conversation. It was is killing the general an act of war. 

That said, Iran is reportedly firing missiles at a US base in Iraq. I wonder how this will go now. Trump now has every excuse to retaliate with force. 

Edited January 8, 2020 by LGR4GM

[Weave]

2 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said:

I’m not arguing if the strike was an act of war. I’m arguing that rank/billet automatically make it an act of war. What if Suleimani wasn’t in the car and an Iranian Lieutenant was killed instead? Iran would still call it an act of war. If rank/billet are so important in your classification then what would killing an Iranian Lieutenant be to you?

Given that it was pre-emptive and against someone who we are not actively at war with, I'd still label it an act of war.

Rank isn't important in the distinction to me regarding act of war.  It could have been a car full of soldiers and I would label it that way.  Rank changes my thoughts regarding assassination.

[LGR4GM]

It doesn't matter to a degree what we call it. Act of war or not, the Iranians view it as such and have started to respond. How this will escalate is uncertain but escalate it will. 

[Eleven]

2 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said:

There you go. CNN reports 10 IRGC rockets fired at Al Assad Air Base. Iran says 10s. One CNN reporter remains calm saying this isn’t exactly out of the norm the other lists a lot of what ifs. Just the facts ma’am. Third anchor corrects himself as he was about to call the Suleimani strike an assassination. I wonder why.

Iran calls it a crushing response. Gives more threats. 

And who started it, 311?  The Iranians?  (Who missed their marks.) Or YOUR Donald. 

He started it. You know it.  Look inside and admit it.

There was no reason for any of God's people to be hurt.  Trump did this,  

[SABRES 0311]

2 hours ago, Eleven said:

And who started it, 311?  The Iranians?  (Who missed their marks.) Or YOUR Donald. 

He started it. You know it.  Look inside and admit it.

There was no reason for any of God's people to be hurt.  Trump did this,  

I don’t think Iran missed their mark. Iran does not want to escalate things. 

War is never a good thing. I agree with you on that. I also agree Trump fired the first shot on this one. Time will tell if it was justified. I think Suleimani and the Quds Force should’ve been addressed under the previous two administrations. Both knew what was going on. Both helped set the conditions in the Middle East, Africa and Asia. As of right now we removed Al Baghdadi and Suleimani and received a salvo of a dozen missiles with no U.S. casualties. 

Wars will continue for the foreseeable future. I see Iran’s threats to hit us in the U.S. as a soft acknowledgment they are state sponsors of terrorism. You don’t play nice with people like that and you sure as hell don’t walk on eggshells. 
 

I don’t think you should be accusing me of being delusional like you did when you seem to have no concept of what is happening.

Edited January 8, 2020 by SABRES 0311

[LGR4GM]

I saw reports of no casualties and that Iran may claim they are avenged now. Let's hope things start to cool. 

[Eleven]

9 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said:

 I think Suleimani and the Quds Force should’ve been addressed under the previous two administrations.

This doesn't exactly fit with a policy of non-intervention.  

Edited January 8, 2020 by Eleven

[Eleven]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

I saw reports of no casualties and that Iran may claim they are avenged now. Let's hope things start to cool. 

Yes, let's.

[LTS]

20 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said:

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. 

Frankly not a single Middle Eastern policy has worked out... ever. At best there are lulls in violence while a new regime (often strengthened by US intervention) comes to power and then becomes yet another despised despot in the region.

17 hours ago, drnkirishone said:

Hahahahahahahahahaha

You may not agree, but at least state why.  Responses like this don't further the conversation or add value.

17 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said:

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. 

Do you think a General was going to be the only reason an attack was carried out?  If the guy was SuperMan I might accept that. If he planned an attack I am sure there are others who would carry it out and can still carry it out.  It's like shooting the offensive coordinator after the play was called in to the QB.

15 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said:

Condescending because you act like I’m changing the subject when I’m trying to respond to multiple posters in succession. Not sure if you’re calling Trump’s actions or my post an act of aggression.

That said, you were not condescended against, so let's keep things in better standing.  It's a touchy subject and we'll all get heated.

[Eleven]

17 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said:

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. 

Trump doesn't get the benefit of the doubt.  Not with his record.  No way.

[SABRES 0311]

59 minutes ago, Eleven said:

Trump doesn't get the benefit of the doubt.  Not with his record.  No way.

You invoke God as in God’s children in a previous post but pass judgement like that.

1 hour ago, LTS said:

Do you think a General was going to be the only reason an attack was carried out?  If the guy was SuperMan I might accept that. If he planned an attack I am sure there are others who would carry it out and can still carry it out.  It's like shooting the offensive coordinator after the play was called in to the QB.

That said, you were not condescended against, so let's keep things in better standing.  It's a touchy subject and we'll all get heated.

A general does not execute but provides the authority and concurrence for the operation. They also serve as the liaison to civil authorities. No doubt there are subordinates but removing him I would think has an affect on military moral, the planning process and forces a subordinate into the role likely with less experience. 

I’m not the one saying someone was being condescending. I’m the one accused of being condescending and for good reason. That guy told me to stop trying to change the subject. In reality I was responding to other posters, not him.  Not sure why you quoted me but I don’t see where you are the expert on what is condescending. You label all Trump supporters as supporters of hate and bigotry without even knowing them. 
 

 

[LGR4GM]

20 hours 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;". 

 

20 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said:

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. 

 

20 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Responding before an attack happens isn't the conversation though. We're talking about whether killing this guy was an act of war. 

I'll ask again, why wouldn't Iran consider this an act of war? 

 

20 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Stop trying to change the conversation. The question is was this an act of war? Not was it justified, or preventive, or helpful. Simply should this be viewed as an act of war. By the definition you supplied, the answer is yes. 

Once we answer this, we can move on to it being justified. 

 

20 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said:

Pump your brakes superhero. I’m one guy addressing comments from a handful of you guys.

I’m not a military lawyer but from what I have read it would be an act of war if it was meant to provoke war. If the U.S. was already engaged in armed conflict even without a declaration of war it would be an act of war. If this was solely the use of offensive capabilities to deter/prevent an imminent threat then I start to lean toward no. If it was in reality an assassination it’s a crime. I have to wait and see what information comes out to make a final opinion.

As I learn more about this and if put on the spot I would say act of war against a foreign force we and our allies have been in armed and unarmed conflict with. But you can’t talk act of war without discussing justification. 

Iran I’m pretty sure has already said they consider it an act of war. I do think they retaliate but not to the extent requiring U.S. invasion. 

 

18 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

No sure why you're being condescending but it's clearly an act of aggression at the very least. 

Guess we'll learn more over time. 

 

18 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said:

Condescending because you act like I’m changing the subject when I’m trying to respond to multiple posters in succession. Not sure if you’re calling Trump’s actions or my post an act of aggression.

 

1 hour ago, SABRES 0311 said:

You invoke God as in God’s children in a previous post but pass judgement like that.

A general does not execute but provides the authority and concurrence for the operation. They also serve as the liaison to civil authorities. No doubt there are subordinates but removing him I would think has an affect on military moral, the planning process and forces a subordinate into the role likely with less experience. 

I’m not the one saying someone was being condescending. I’m the one accused of being condescending and for good reason. That guy told me to stop trying to change the subject. In reality I was responding to other posters, not him.  Not sure why you quoted me but I don’t see where you are the expert on what is condescending. You label all Trump supporters as supporters of hate and bigotry without even knowing them. 
 

 

This is not true. You directly quoted me, I responded, you then tossed out your super hero remark. You were responding to me. 

Can we move on?

[Eleven]

1 hour ago, SABRES 0311 said:

You invoke God as in God’s children in a previous post but pass judgement like that.

Yep.  I have no problem with that.  I'm not judging Trump's fate; I'm judging his actions and words.  He does not get the benefit of the doubt.

[LTS]

2 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said:

A general does not execute but provides the authority and concurrence for the operation. They also serve as the liaison to civil authorities. No doubt there are subordinates but removing him I would think has an affect on military moral, the planning process and forces a subordinate into the role likely with less experience. 

I’m not the one saying someone was being condescending. I’m the one accused of being condescending and for good reason. That guy told me to stop trying to change the subject. In reality I was responding to other posters, not him.  Not sure why you quoted me but I don’t see where you are the expert on what is condescending. You label all Trump supporters as supporters of hate and bigotry without even knowing them. 
 

 

If an attack was imminent, how much more planning was necessary?  Not only that, but I would think targeting a military leader in such a way would have an impact on morale, but in the way that strengthens it, not weakens it. It all depends on how much they really liked the guy I suppose.

With regards to being condescending, you acknowledged your action in your own post when you said, "Condescending because you act like I’m changing the subject" after calling another poster a name.  By the guidelines for the forum, we're aiming to avoid that level of interaction.  So I quoted you because you did it.

In reality, your post, in which you called another poster a superhero only referenced a single person - 

 

You were not responding to multiple people and even if you were, you were only calling one of them a superhero.  As far as your commentary on being an expert on what is condescending I'll give you a two part rebuttal.  First, you acknowledge you were being condescending, so I don't have to be an expert.

 

And the second part is that because of that and the fact that I am the one who gets to help keep the air clean in this group, I have the right to call it out.

As far as your reference to what I said about Trump supporters.  We have discussed it.  It doesn't qualify as being condescending, not even a little bit.  I don't have to know a person to know that if they support someone who is a racist, they support racism. Regardless, it's not pertinent to this specific conversation and it doesn't qualify by the definition of the word.

 

[drnkirishone]

Trump supporters and Republicans that tolerate him remind me of someone in a abusive relationship. We all see the abuse and we see the scummy stuff the abuser does. But I'll be damned if we can get them to acknowledge the facts

[SABRES 0311]

5 hours ago, LTS said:

If an attack was imminent, how much more planning was necessary?  Not only that, but I would think targeting a military leader in such a way would have an impact on morale, but in the way that strengthens it, not weakens it. It all depends on how much they really liked the guy I suppose.

With regards to being condescending, you acknowledged your action in your own post when you said, "Condescending because you act like I’m changing the subject" after calling another poster a name.  By the guidelines for the forum, we're aiming to avoid that level of interaction.  So I quoted you because you did it.

In reality, your post, in which you called another poster a superhero only referenced a single person - 

 

You were not responding to multiple people and even if you were, you were only calling one of them a superhero.  As far as your commentary on being an expert on what is condescending I'll give you a two part rebuttal.  First, you acknowledge you were being condescending, so I don't have to be an expert.

 

And the second part is that because of that and the fact that I am the one who gets to help keep the air clean in this group, I have the right to call it out.

As far as your reference to what I said about Trump supporters.  We have discussed it.  It doesn't qualify as being condescending, not even a little bit.  I don't have to know a person to know that if they support someone who is a racist, they support racism. Regardless, it's not pertinent to this specific conversation and it doesn't qualify by the definition of the word.

 

Yes you have the responsibility to call it out. Therefore you have the responsibility to set the example. I’m pretty sure you said people who support Trump support racism and such. Well I support Trump and I do not support racism despite what you think you know about me. Take it how you want but I don’t think it promotes what I thought this board was for. I guess I’ll move on.