Time to go public with Soleimani attack intel

[Billy_Kinetta]

you also do not know about history or military history
..there are great generals and there are idiot generals...if they replace him with an idiot general--that's good

Looks like you think we are dealing with the military retards who worked for Saddam. You'll see we are dealing with something way harder to defeat if Trump can't find some way to deescalate things.

hahahha-Iran is also a shithole like the rest of the Middle East
......Iraq had one of the largest, combat EXPERIENCED armies in the world--much more combat experience than the US forces -----yet we went through them like a hot knife through butter ...and Iran didn't defeat Iraq in the YEARS long Iran-Iraq War

You do not know what you are talking about. I can guarantee that the realist generals who have to actually conduct a war are sweating bullets. Not saying that Iran can win but they will make victory so expensive that it seems like a defeat.

You grant them power they don't possess. Iran is ranked 21st, down from 14th a few years ago.

We're #1.

These are the 25 most powerful militaries in the world — and there's a clear winner

Our track record on our wars is not that good. I can only look back at the past for how all this will go. Endless expensive quagmire for years followed by an inconclusive retreat followed by wondering why we ever did it.

That's because we hold back our military forces, and then plant ourselves there forever. Stop that.

 

[whitehall]

It's been three years since Benghazi and we still can't get get the true story from democrats.

 

[Polishprince]

After watching the public reaction to Soleimani’s murder followed by vows of revenge by Iran, we are apparently on the brink of war. At this point it seems obvious that we need to go public with the intel we have showing the imminent attack that was being planned against Americans.

This intel should clearly show the world that Soleimani was a clear and present danger and we had no choice but to go outside of protocol and assassinate him. Do you agree? Thoughts?

No we don't.

Revealing the intel would expose President Trump's spies in the Iranian regime and put them at risk

Make it a lot more difficult in the future to undertake covert actions.

 

[Ken Mac]

Seems some of us here haven't noticed that Iran has been at war with us for over 20 years. Doesn't mean we are at war with them.

 

[White 6]

After watching the public reaction to Soleimani’s murder followed by vows of revenge by Iran, we are apparently on the brink of war. At this point it seems obvious that we need to go public with the intel we have showing the imminent attack that was being planned against Americans.

This intel should clearly show the world that Soleimani was a clear and present danger and we had no choice but to go outside of protocol and assassinate him. Do you agree? Thoughts?

There is no real protocol protecting Generals walking around a battle area, not in their own country.

There is protocol when making moves that could get our country involved in a war. It’s called the war powers act and it involves coordinating with congress. Trump skipped that because of an immanent threat. Now we have Iran promising retribution. The move needs to be explained and justified with evidence

According to Wikipedia:
The War Powers Resolution (also known as the War Powers Resolution of 1973 or the War Powers Act) (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548)[1] is a federal law intended to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress. The Resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congressional joint resolution. It provides that the U.S. President can send the Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization," or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of each of the House and Senate, overriding the veto of the bill from President Nixon.

It has been alleged that the War Powers Resolution has been violated in the past – for example, by President Bill Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo. Congress has disapproved all such incidents, but none has resulted in any successful legal actions being taken against the president for alleged violations.[2]

Contents

• 1 Background
• 2 History
  • 2.1 Background and passage
  • 2.2 Implementation, 1993–2002
  • 2.3 Libya, 2011
  • 2.4 Syria, 2012–2017
  • 2.5 Yemen, 2018–2019
• 3 Questions regarding constitutionality
• 4 Footnotes
• 5 References
• 6 External links

Background
Under the United States Constitution, war powers are divided. Under Article I, Section 8, Congress has the power to:

• declare War
• grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal (i.e., license private citizens to capture enemy vessels)
• raise and support Armies (for terms up to two years at a time)
• provide and maintain a Navy
• make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces
• provide for calling forth the Militia
• make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water
• provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia; and
• govern such Part of [the militia] as may be employed in the Service of the United States.

Section 8 further provides that the states have the power to:

• Appoint the Officers of the militia; and
• train the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

Article II, Section 2 provides that:

• "The president shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States"

It is generally agreed that the commander-in-chief role gives the President power to repel attacks against the United States[3][4] and makes the President responsible for leading the armed forces. The President has the right to sign or veto congressional acts, such as a declaration of war, and Congress may override any such presidential veto. Additionally, when the president's actions (or inactions) provide "Aid and Comfort" to enemies or levy war against the United States, then Congress has the power to impeach and remove (convict) the president for treason. For actions short of treason, they can remove the president for "Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors", the definition of which the Supreme Court has left up to Congress. Therefore, the war power was intentionally split between Congress and the Executive to prevent unilateral executive action that is contrary to the wishes of Congress.

No problem here for Trump. We have been in an active conflict in Iraq since Bush started this crap, and it did not stop it at that time either. To my knowledge the act has never been successfully applied, and will not be this time either.

 

[Slade3200]

Time to go public with Soleimani attack intel

Exactly!!

Especially if it results in the deaths of any of our sources in Iran.

Wow, that’s a shorty thing to say. Sources should be protected

That was sarcastic. You're definitely not the sharpest tool in the shed.

Obviously... you missed the irony in my response. Perhaps you need the sharpening

 

[harmonica]

After watching the public reaction to Soleimani’s murder followed by vows of revenge by Iran, we are apparently on the brink of war. At this point it seems obvious that we need to go public with the intel we have showing the imminent attack that was being planned against Americans.

This intel should clearly show the world that Soleimani was a clear and present danger and we had no choice but to go outside of protocol and assassinate him. Do you agree? Thoughts?

....people still wouldn't believe it --this goes on all over the world
...you should always give the least amount of your intel--this is a very old rule of warfare/etc

hahahha-Iran is also a shithole like the rest of the Middle East
......Iraq had one of the largest, combat EXPERIENCED armies in the world--much more combat experience than the US forces -----yet we went through them like a hot knife through butter ...and Iran didn't defeat Iraq in the YEARS long Iran-Iraq War

You do not know what you are talking about. I can guarantee that the realist generals who have to actually conduct a war are sweating bullets. Not saying that Iran can win but they will make victory so expensive that it seems like a defeat.

..that's EXACTLY what they said about PG1--with the ground attack that lasted about a month

Need I remind you that America has a shitty record of winning the peace? Any dummy can drop a bunch of bombs but we have not been justified in any use of force since WW2 ended.

Korea? PG1? --when saddam [ who started TWO wars, gassed his own people/etc ] invaded tiny Kuwait--like hitler and stalin invaded Poland???!!!
...we won in Korea and PG1 [ please be careful of your response, unless you want to be shown--again--you are ignorant ]

..you prove you have no knowledge of history/military/wars....

You didn’t “win” in Korea. Half the country remains in the hands of an authoritarian dictator and North and South are still technically at war - albeit in a 70 year cease fire.

Kuwait was an “excursion” to repel invaders. It was over in a matter of days. And you went home.

The USA has been at war since 9/11 with no end in sight and Trump CHOSE to start this one. Great Britain and the rest of NATO have told Trump he’s on his own in this.

hahahahah--you fked up and prove you are ignorant on wars/etc --read carefully to learn:
......we did win in Korea--most wars are not total wars--just like PG1 was not a total war --NOT ended with unconditional surrenders like WW2 was....they are ended with cease fires/armistices
...WW1 ended with a cese fire/armistice --YET we won
..PG1 ended with a cease fire--yet we CLEARLY won
ar·mi·stice
/ˈärməstəs

1. an agreement made by opposing sides in a war to stop fighting for a certain time; a truce.

you see the definition?

our goal in Korea was to eject the NKs from South Korea = mission accomplished

a U.S. resolution calling for an “immediate cessation of hostilities” and the withdrawal of North Korean forces to the 38th parallel.

= win for the US
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/truman-orders-u-s-forces-to-korea-2

 

[Slade3200]

After watching the public reaction to Soleimani’s murder followed by vows of revenge by Iran, we are apparently on the brink of war. At this point it seems obvious that we need to go public with the intel we have showing the imminent attack that was being planned against Americans.

This intel should clearly show the world that Soleimani was a clear and present danger and we had no choice but to go outside of protocol and assassinate him. Do you agree? Thoughts?

There is no real protocol protecting Generals walking around a battle area, not in their own country.

There is protocol when making moves that could get our country involved in a war. It’s called the war powers act and it involves coordinating with congress. Trump skipped that because of an immanent threat. Now we have Iran promising retribution. The move needs to be explained and justified with evidence

The administration doesn't need to show evidence to the general public. It is within the resolution on terrorists scope.

I disagree. In this situation I think we owe it to our people and our allies to explain why we did what we did and why it was worth risking war

I'm sure the top brass of our allies will be shown some evidence. That's another thing the administration doesn't have to share with the public.

At the very least top brass needs to see the intel. Why don’t you think it important for the public to see it? Especially the people of Iran who view this General as a hero?

 

[harmonica]

After watching the public reaction to Soleimani’s murder followed by vows of revenge by Iran, we are apparently on the brink of war. At this point it seems obvious that we need to go public with the intel we have showing the imminent attack that was being planned against Americans.

This intel should clearly show the world that Soleimani was a clear and present danger and we had no choice but to go outside of protocol and assassinate him. Do you agree? Thoughts?

....people still wouldn't believe it --this goes on all over the world
...you should always give the least amount of your intel--this is a very old rule of warfare/etc

hahahha-Iran is also a shithole like the rest of the Middle East
......Iraq had one of the largest, combat EXPERIENCED armies in the world--much more combat experience than the US forces -----yet we went through them like a hot knife through butter ...and Iran didn't defeat Iraq in the YEARS long Iran-Iraq War

You do not know what you are talking about. I can guarantee that the realist generals who have to actually conduct a war are sweating bullets. Not saying that Iran can win but they will make victory so expensive that it seems like a defeat.

..that's EXACTLY what they said about PG1--with the ground attack that lasted about a month

Need I remind you that America has a shitty record of winning the peace? Any dummy can drop a bunch of bombs but we have not been justified in any use of force since WW2 ended.

Korea? PG1? --when saddam [ who started TWO wars, gassed his own people/etc ] invaded tiny Kuwait--like hitler and stalin invaded Poland???!!!
...we won in Korea and PG1 [ please be careful of your response, unless you want to be shown--again--you are ignorant ]

..you prove you have no knowledge of history/military/wars....

You didn’t “win” in Korea. Half the country remains in the hands of an authoritarian dictator and North and South are still technically at war - albeit in a 70 year cease fire.

Kuwait was an “excursion” to repel invaders. It was over in a matter of days. And you went home.

The USA has been at war since 9/11 with no end in sight and Trump CHOSE to start this one. Great Britain and the rest of NATO have told Trump he’s on his own in this.

..just like England was on it's own vs Hitler---and England was right

 

[White 6]

After watching the public reaction to Soleimani’s murder followed by vows of revenge by Iran, we are apparently on the brink of war. At this point it seems obvious that we need to go public with the intel we have showing the imminent attack that was being planned against Americans.

This intel should clearly show the world that Soleimani was a clear and present danger and we had no choice but to go outside of protocol and assassinate him. Do you agree? Thoughts?

There is no real protocol protecting Generals walking around a battle area, not in their own country.

There is protocol when making moves that could get our country involved in a war. It’s called the war powers act and it involves coordinating with congress. Trump skipped that because of an immanent threat. Now we have Iran promising retribution. The move needs to be explained and justified with evidence

The administration doesn't need to show evidence to the general public. It is within the resolution on terrorists scope.

I disagree. In this situation I think we owe it to our people and our allies to explain why we did what we did and why it was worth risking war

The war is there. It is a fact. It is even in the budget, after Obama moved it out of off budget accounting. You missed the starting gun by almost 20 years.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

After watching the public reaction to Soleimani’s murder followed by vows of revenge by Iran, we are apparently on the brink of war. At this point it seems obvious that we need to go public with the intel we have showing the imminent attack that was being planned against Americans.

This intel should clearly show the world that Soleimani was a clear and present danger and we had no choice but to go outside of protocol and assassinate him. Do you agree? Thoughts?

There is no real protocol protecting Generals walking around a battle area, not in their own country.

There is protocol when making moves that could get our country involved in a war. It’s called the war powers act and it involves coordinating with congress. Trump skipped that because of an immanent threat. Now we have Iran promising retribution. The move needs to be explained and justified with evidence

The administration doesn't need to show evidence to the general public. It is within the resolution on terrorists scope.

I disagree. In this situation I think we owe it to our people and our allies to explain why we did what we did and why it was worth risking war

The war is there. It is a fact. It is even in the budget, after Obama moved it out of off budget accounting. You missed the starting gun by almost 20 years.

It is even in the budget, after Obama moved it out of off budget accounting.

And what did that change?

 

[Slade3200]

After watching the public reaction to Soleimani’s murder followed by vows of revenge by Iran, we are apparently on the brink of war. At this point it seems obvious that we need to go public with the intel we have showing the imminent attack that was being planned against Americans.

This intel should clearly show the world that Soleimani was a clear and present danger and we had no choice but to go outside of protocol and assassinate him. Do you agree? Thoughts?

No we don't.

Revealing the intel would expose President Trump's spies in the Iranian regime and put them at risk

Make it a lot more difficult in the future to undertake covert actions.

I’m obviously not talking about compromising sources. Intel and evidence can still be revealed. They already said they knew about an imminent attack. So tell us what attack

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

After watching the public reaction to Soleimani’s murder followed by vows of revenge by Iran, we are apparently on the brink of war. At this point it seems obvious that we need to go public with the intel we have showing the imminent attack that was being planned against Americans.

This intel should clearly show the world that Soleimani was a clear and present danger and we had no choice but to go outside of protocol and assassinate him. Do you agree? Thoughts?

1. When you are in a proxy-war with the United States of America since 1979 and your General dies, well that is casualties of war.

2. The individual history alone warranted his death and even if our Government released details of any threat many of you on the left will say it is a lie.

3. You can not be murdered if you are waging a war against a country that killed you...

If this general was an enemy target for assassination then that move should have been brought to congress. Especially if his assassination could trigger a war. If he posed an immanent threat then the kill may be justified but the intel about the threat should be exposed.

Again, it would not matter what this administration would supply as proof because the left like you will discredit it.

The man that was killed was an enemy of the state and was not murdered but in fact died in state of war.

Many of you believe we are not at war with Oran because Congress never approved of it but again since 1979 we have been at war in a unofficial form and his death is a result of it.

The people he was leading ar consider terrorists according to our government and with that his death was not surprising.

 

[White 6]

After watching the public reaction to Soleimani’s murder followed by vows of revenge by Iran, we are apparently on the brink of war. At this point it seems obvious that we need to go public with the intel we have showing the imminent attack that was being planned against Americans.

This intel should clearly show the world that Soleimani was a clear and present danger and we had no choice but to go outside of protocol and assassinate him. Do you agree? Thoughts?

There is no real protocol protecting Generals walking around a battle area, not in their own country.

There is protocol when making moves that could get our country involved in a war. It’s called the war powers act and it involves coordinating with congress. Trump skipped that because of an immanent threat. Now we have Iran promising retribution. The move needs to be explained and justified with evidence

The administration doesn't need to show evidence to the general public. It is within the resolution on terrorists scope.

I disagree. In this situation I think we owe it to our people and our allies to explain why we did what we did and why it was worth risking war

I'm sure the top brass of our allies will be shown some evidence. That's another thing the administration doesn't have to share with the public.

I doubt Trump will show our allies (whoever they are anymore) jack sh#t. He doesn't give a d@amn about allies. Remember the NATO meeting with Putin? He'll probably share with Putin, but that's another story.

 

[The Original Tree]

We should release The CIA footage of him having sex with male goats which was a regular activity of his.

That and posting the love letters he wrote
To Obama.

After watching the public reaction to Soleimani’s murder followed by vows of revenge by Iran, we are apparently on the brink of war. At this point it seems obvious that we need to go public with the intel we have showing the imminent attack that was being planned against Americans.

This intel should clearly show the world that Soleimani was a clear and present danger and we had no choice but to go outside of protocol and assassinate him. Do you agree? Thoughts?

 

[Dick Foster]

After watching the public reaction to Soleimani’s murder followed by vows of revenge by Iran, we are apparently on the brink of war. At this point it seems obvious that we need to go public with the intel we have showing the imminent attack that was being planned against Americans.

This intel should clearly show the world that Soleimani was a clear and present danger and we had no choice but to go outside of protocol and assassinate him. Do you agree? Thoughts?

Apparently you're either not very bright or just not paying attention. What the assholes had been doing before Trump had the asshole taken out was in the global press for days and weeks ahead. The killing of Americans and the attack on our embassy. Just as public and in the open was Trump's very clear warning to Iran that they were not to cross the line of harming Americans. The trouble is the Iranian assholes thought they had another pussy like Obama in the Whitehouse and ignored him. That was their mistake as any idiot that has been watching the news can tell you that Trump doesn't bluff so unless you're an idiot you'd better take what he says he'll do to the bank because that is just exactly what he's going to do. That asshole had no fucking business in Iraq and he knew it and he was also well aware of Trump's warning so he got just exactly what he had coming. It was long past time to take that trouble making asshole out anyway.

 

[The Original Tree]

White 6:

“Day 51 I wander in dessert, no water and no goats to have sex with! Allah hates me!”

There is no real protocol protecting Generals walking around a battle area, not in their own country.

There is protocol when making moves that could get our country involved in a war. It’s called the war powers act and it involves coordinating with congress. Trump skipped that because of an immanent threat. Now we have Iran promising retribution. The move needs to be explained and justified with evidence

The administration doesn't need to show evidence to the general public. It is within the resolution on terrorists scope.

I disagree. In this situation I think we owe it to our people and our allies to explain why we did what we did and why it was worth risking war

I'm sure the top brass of our allies will be shown some evidence. That's another thing the administration doesn't have to share with the public.

I doubt Trump will show our allies (whoever they are anymore) jack sh#t. He doesn't give a d@amn about allies. Remember the NATO meeting with Putin? He'll probably share with Putin, but that's another story.

 

[Slade3200]

After watching the public reaction to Soleimani’s murder followed by vows of revenge by Iran, we are apparently on the brink of war. At this point it seems obvious that we need to go public with the intel we have showing the imminent attack that was being planned against Americans.

This intel should clearly show the world that Soleimani was a clear and present danger and we had no choice but to go outside of protocol and assassinate him. Do you agree? Thoughts?

There is no real protocol protecting Generals walking around a battle area, not in their own country.

There is protocol when making moves that could get our country involved in a war. It’s called the war powers act and it involves coordinating with congress. Trump skipped that because of an immanent threat. Now we have Iran promising retribution. The move needs to be explained and justified with evidence

According to Wikipedia:
The War Powers Resolution (also known as the War Powers Resolution of 1973 or the War Powers Act) (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548)[1] is a federal law intended to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress. The Resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congressional joint resolution. It provides that the U.S. President can send the Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization," or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of each of the House and Senate, overriding the veto of the bill from President Nixon.

It has been alleged that the War Powers Resolution has been violated in the past – for example, by President Bill Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo. Congress has disapproved all such incidents, but none has resulted in any successful legal actions being taken against the president for alleged violations.[2]

Contents

• 1 Background
• 2 History
  • 2.1 Background and passage
  • 2.2 Implementation, 1993–2002
  • 2.3 Libya, 2011
  • 2.4 Syria, 2012–2017
  • 2.5 Yemen, 2018–2019
• 3 Questions regarding constitutionality
• 4 Footnotes
• 5 References
• 6 External links

Background
Under the United States Constitution, war powers are divided. Under Article I, Section 8, Congress has the power to:

• declare War
• grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal (i.e., license private citizens to capture enemy vessels)
• raise and support Armies (for terms up to two years at a time)
• provide and maintain a Navy
• make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces
• provide for calling forth the Militia
• make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water
• provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia; and
• govern such Part of [the militia] as may be employed in the Service of the United States.

Section 8 further provides that the states have the power to:

• Appoint the Officers of the militia; and
• train the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

Article II, Section 2 provides that:

• "The president shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States"

It is generally agreed that the commander-in-chief role gives the President power to repel attacks against the United States[3][4] and makes the President responsible for leading the armed forces. The President has the right to sign or veto congressional acts, such as a declaration of war, and Congress may override any such presidential veto. Additionally, when the president's actions (or inactions) provide "Aid and Comfort" to enemies or levy war against the United States, then Congress has the power to impeach and remove (convict) the president for treason. For actions short of treason, they can remove the president for "Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors", the definition of which the Supreme Court has left up to Congress. Therefore, the war power was intentionally split between Congress and the Executive to prevent unilateral executive action that is contrary to the wishes of Congress.

No problem here for Trump. We have been in an active conflict in Iraq since Bush started this crap, and it did not stop it at that time either. To my knowledge the act has never been successfully applied, and will not be this time either.

If there was an imminent attack and taking out Soleimani prevented that attack then yes I agree, no problem for Trump. If there was another an imminent attack and he took out Soleimani as a response to the embassy protests etc. then he had an obligation to involve congress in that decision

 

[White 6]

There is no real protocol protecting Generals walking around a battle area, not in their own country.

There is protocol when making moves that could get our country involved in a war. It’s called the war powers act and it involves coordinating with congress. Trump skipped that because of an immanent threat. Now we have Iran promising retribution. The move needs to be explained and justified with evidence

The administration doesn't need to show evidence to the general public. It is within the resolution on terrorists scope.

I disagree. In this situation I think we owe it to our people and our allies to explain why we did what we did and why it was worth risking war

I'm sure the top brass of our allies will be shown some evidence. That's another thing the administration doesn't have to share with the public.

At the very least top brass needs to see the intel. Why don’t you think it important for the public to see it? Especially the people of Iran who view this General as a hero?

Top Brass were the ones that gave him lists and justified the possible responses to provocation. He did good this time, but he's not that bright, and he never came up with this on his own. He usually ignores top brass. This time he didn't.

 

[Olde Europe]

The move needs to be explained and justified with evidence

You know that Trump lies about everything. You also know the upper echelons of the Trump administration is in line, and going along, with whatever Trump perpetrates. You also know the intelligence community will not publicly contradict Trump in a matter of national security. The rest of the world knows all that, too. So, why would you think any drug deal they have cooked up as a "justification" would make one whit of a difference?

That said, they took out an Iranian general and an Iraqi general on Iraqi soil in violation of Iraqi sovereignty and their SOFA. There is no possible justification for that. Had, say, a bunch of Spanish soldiers training on U.S. soil taken out a British and a U.S. general and a few bystanders on U.S. soil for whatever purported "reason", you would know in an instant that's not justifiable, and you would talk about murder, or rather, mass murder. Why on earth don't you see the same applies in the Suleimani killing?

From Trumpletons I expect nothing other than such willful blindness. Their complete submission to the Dear Leader requires no less. From you? Inexplicable.