'The worst briefing I've had': Senate Iran briefing gets heated

I know. Those who loved Obama had little to ever say. But now they have found their collective voices.

 

Cite the Iraqi agreement. And, cite the Congressional authorization to commit an act of war against a foreign power with whom we are not at war, on the territory of a third party.

 

You made the claim. Instead of a lame attempt at a transparent strawman, try elaborating.

It's almost as if you made, some wild claim and are reluctant to back it up.

 

Great Stuff, SP.

I couldn't agree more.

Is is DANGEROUS to have an Amateur Inexperienced Loose Cannon (Like Trump) making those sorts of moves without some input from Congress.

 

I prefer serious discussion. Have a nice evening. You might want to read the Constitution in your spare time.

 

Lol he seems to be running circles around your "experienced" losers in Congress.

Good luck this fall...

 

Give it up. Obama hasn't been President for three years. He was chasing down the leader of Al Qaeda that had attacked the United States on 9/11 and was covered by a Congressional Resolution to defeat Al Qaeda, including its leadership. If you want to try and develop a link between Iran and Al Qaeda feel free to try.

 

You might want to figure out that if you make a direct claim, people will ask for a link. But, I understand, you made a claim and wont stand behind it, it's as clear as glass.

I know the Constitution, that's why you wont catch me making some BS claims, I scamper off from.

 

No he didn't. Trump had every legal duck in a row. Exactly what the Constitution requires. Now your just pimping opinion on us..... Sad

 

Without any shred of credible evidence that any attack was an "imminent threat" the IMPOTUS has committed an illegal Act of War.

 

None of the commanders who were present have been identified as Iranian nationals, and it is unlikely that the protesters themselves were Iranian either. While it is true that some of the identified groups do in part receive financial support from Iran, calling them Iranians would be like calling the Saudi militants in Yemen American, but I think the bigger picture in pointing the finger at Iran is we're outright avoiding any acknowledgement of how unpopular our military presence in Iraq is among the locals. Some have suggested that Soleimani's death would be celebrated among the Iraqi people, but that is clearly not the case. In fact, Soleimani landed in Iraq in response to an invitation from the Iraqi Prime Minister himself. The Iraqi parliament has voted to expel US troops from Iraq, and the vote was unanimous, not a single member of their parliament voted against the notion.

 

In that case, the question that begs to be asked is why (or how?) could the U.S. declare "war" on terrorism? In the first place a "declaration of war" means nothing to Washington (for the reasons you've just given) and in the second place .... it makes no sense.

 

^Video unavailable
This video has been removed by the user

Must've been some real Groundbreaking Content?

The old Copypasta File getting a bit outdated?

Anyway, Trump IS an AMATEUR...

Glad that Iran gave him a break (and he got LUCKY)...

Loss of Life is never a good thing...

Carry on...

 

Oh jah! Praise those benevolent Iranians!

 

There is no requirement for an imminent threat in regards to going after an internationally designated terrorist under the UN LOAC in the first place.

But at the same time, if you believe that he was there to kiss babies and hand out flowers, have at it.

Your talking points are FAKE.

 

Well, so far as I know, none. But, some here say that bloke had to be assassinated because he had US notches on his CV.

 

Split loyalties and mostly dependent upon sects and who voted. In any event, the trend is for the surrogates to make more noise, but there are plenty in Iraq who want the US there to provide additional ongoing stability.

 

Your criminal IMPOTUS is required to abide by the LAWS of the UNITED STATES!

Baiting and assassinating a high official of a foreign nation is an ACT of WAR for which ZERO "imminent threat" can be demonstrated!

 

You're very funny. If you knew the Constitution, you would have simply agreed with me.

 

I think it's dangerous in general to allow the executive to make these decisions. Article I, Section 8 was written for a reason.

The weird thing is, back in the day Congress' constitutional obligation to declare war was taken much more seriously than it is now, when back then the fastest mode of messaging was a man on a horse, while now you can do 4k video conferencing with every representative in real time from 8000mi away.

I also think it's not dependant on Trump, Obama wasn't exactly a lovey dovey war dove. Indeed there hasn't been a decent President on this issue for many decades. Not Trump, not Obama, not Bush, not Clinton, not Bush, not Reagan, not Carter, not Ford, not Nixon, not Johnson, not Kennedy...

 

And yet, you made a specific claim and wont stand behind it. Why would I "agree" with some random claim, you wont stand behind?

 

You're right. Terrorism is a methodology in making war. Any nation's, including our own, have used it at one time or other in their histories. It would have had to have been a declaration of war against a specific nation or organization. However, it makes sense within the context of our nation and Constitution, as well as international law.

 

Try Article I, Section 8, 11th sentence.

 

Do you plan to keep making indirect claims or prove any?

 

Please point it out, do you even remember your claim?

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
<<Back | Table of Contents | Next>>

Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Post Roads;

Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.