Perpetual Middle East Geopolitical Quagmire Megathread

[Fozzz 152]

3 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Considering how completely ignorant and inconsistent he is, Trump got played.  The question is by whom.  I’d put my money on whomever seeks to shield Trump while simultaneously undermining the global standing of the US, jack oil prices, and boost the market for black market arms sales.  I can think of one off the top of my head.

I doubt his commitment is anything more than a belief that escalating conflict with Iran will help his chances in the upcoming election.  What's disturbing is that he's probably not wrong in that calculation.

[Red Five 41593]

2 minutes ago, CowboyFred said:

just to clarify that was that ousux slapdick who said what you quoted.

Oh sure it was Cowboy.

(sorry)

[Homercles 10206]

2 minutes ago, Bruh Man said:

It would be nice if we could put all of the deplorables and blood thirsty neo-cons on the frontlines. 

[4th&Five 41903]

He’s got this. 

 

[Fozzz 152]

So what is the US going to do when Iraq tells them to get the fuck out of their country?  Tell Iraq to fuck off and that we were occupiers all along?  Media might have a tough one spinning that.

Edited January 3, 2020 by Fozzz

[Beantown Express 2.0 6586]

2 minutes ago, Lobo said:

You Trumpkins know there's a difference between targeting an ISIS C-level guy who just happens to be in XYZ country one day when intel/sigint picks him up, and then targeting a recognized 2-star from an established nation's Armed Forces,  who was currently in another sovereign nation? ....RIGHT?

One doesn't require Congressional approval, or even notice (save for a few key ones on certain committees pertaining to that region) because they are terrorists from non-recognized "states" that could pop up anywhere including our own shores.  The other is a General Officer in a long-standing and decades-known Iranian military command.  

You can't brag about how high ranking and well-known this guy was that your boy "took out", and then not realize that's different from a killing Isis operatives who base their command structure on number of goat horns in their possession.  

Now yes, time was of the essence.  If you're going to commit an illegal murder, you need to do it before the target moves/hides, or gets into a civilian area.  You don't have time to convene Congress.  I get it.  For better or worse, this country does that all the time through D and R administrations.  But you had time to tell Eric Trump?  Seriously?  Plus you know it took him several hours to process the intel,   then he had to google who this guy was on an unsecured cell phone, then he had to concoct his eloquent and bold tweet, so he probably knew longer than any other unelected official in the history of our Republic.  Way to go TRUMPKINS!  

 

I was listening to some experts on the BBC last night and they commented over and over again that this guy could have been taken out by us, Israel, etc... for years.  He was always in the open.  Israel and the US chose not to because it could lead to full out war so it wasn't worth it.  Apparently now it was worth it for some reason.  

[DalTxHornFan 3130]

David French (no fan of Trump, quite possibly the most never Trumper ever) lays out the constitutional case for this action quite clearly here in this 6 post thread:

 

[Anastasis 23699]

1 minute ago, Fozzz said:

So what is the US going to do when Iraq tells them to get the fuck out of their country?  Tell Iraq to fuck off and that we were occupiers all along?  Media might have a tough one spinning that.

No they won’t. 

[Guest Lobo]

1 minute ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

I was listening to some experts on the BBC last night and they commented over and over again that this guy could have been taken out by us, Israel, etc... for years.  He was always in the open.  Israel and the US chose not to because it could lead to full out war so it wasn't worth it.  Apparently now it was worth it for some reason.  

I am extraordinarily curious to hear what Israel thinks of this move, first thing I thought of this morning.  Obviously they got their own election and removal shit going on, but they have to be extremely concerned about this.  

[The Royal We 3090]

3 minutes ago, heso said:

“They gave us no choice. We had to respond instead of showing weakness like Obama would have.”

I'm old enough to remember all the way back 2.5 months ago when Dotard stepped aside so Turkey could slaughter our allies.  Seems like pretty weak sauce to me.

This shit is going to escalate quickly and get out of hand.  But when you are dealing with people who, even with the advantage of hindsight, still think the Iraq war 2.0 was a good thing, you have to know there will be lots of chest thumping and 'murica going on.  WhY dOn't YoU sUpPoRt ThE tRoOpS !?

[TriStone 1724]

14 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Speaker:

“The Administration has conducted tonight’s strikes in Iraq targeting high-level Iranian military officials and killing Iranian Quds Force Commander Qasem Soleimani without an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against Iran.  Further, this action was taken without the consultation of the Congress.”

full text:  https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/1220

Well then, he's in violation of title 50 of the U.S.C.  Pretty sure that's an impeachable offense, so I look forward to her introducing additional articles based on this new evidence (assuming her statement isn't a lie, which it very well could be.)

[MNLonghornFUKM 8963]

hope you're the first one signing your kids up to be enlisted because Merica.  I wouldn't sign up to die for a country where my commander in chief (or even anybody in his family) would be willing to die for our country. fuck trump and fuck you

I remember being turning 18 3 days after 9/11. The thought of war/draft scared the shit out of me.


Thisll likely not start up a military draft ever, but it's something young minds are thinking about if Iran retaliates. Especially where it seems the younger generation leans more liberal. A lot of bone spur cases would be my guess when called to duty

[SmokeyTheBear 5569]

What's the chance Trump takes this opportunity to back out of the middle east completely and cede it to Russia and China? Iraq will make some noise and he'll use that as an excuse to say they don't want our money so we are leaving. Turkey all over again. 

[lemonlime 5503]

4 minutes ago, TriStone said:

Well then, he's in violation of title 50 of the U.S.C.  Pretty sure that's an impeachable offense, so I look forward to her introducing additional articles based on this new evidence (assuming her statement isn't a lie, which it very well could be.)

Like it even matters.  The Senate will never convict him.  Rule of law is dead.  

[wildcat09 29556]

This seems relevant:

Quote

No one should doubt that the Dec. 27 rocket attack placed the Trump administration in an extremely difficult position. For months, Kata’ib Hezbollah and other groups had been ratcheting up attacks on facilities housing U.S. personnel, putting them in increased danger. Efforts to work with the Iraqi government to address these threats had seemingly been unsuccessful. Now these attacks had turned fatal, despite Pompeo’s repeated assertions that such an outcome was an American red line. The Trump administration’s entire regional military strategy for containing Iran is premised on deterrence, backed by the threat of overwhelming U.S. military force—a threat whose credibility may be compromised by failing to back up Pompeo’s earlier words with action. Given these circumstances, a calibrated military response—forceful enough to impose real costs while specific enough to deter future rocket attacks without inviting escalation in other areas—may well have seemed like the best of the bad options available, especially as the domestic political pressure to respond continued to build.

Yet this is exactly the situation in which Iran and its proxies like Kata’ib Hezbollah hoped to place the United States. These groups often employ tactics reminiscent of guerilla warfare, focusing on small, targeted actions that harass and hinder the U.S. diplomatic and military presence while capitalizing on their greater mobility and freedom to operate. Where these groups finally push the United States hard enough that it feels compelled to respond, their hope is that it overreaches in a way that triggers Iraqi distrust of the American military and further undermines Iraqi political support for the U.S. troop presence there. That is exactly what the Trump administration did with its Dec. 29 airstrikes—and it couldn’t have come at a better time for Iran.

For months prior to the airstrikes, Kata’eb Hezbollah and other PMFs had been the subject of heated criticism by Iraqi protesters for facilitating corruption and selling out to Iranian interests. The PMFs’ role in trying to violently suppress the protesters only added fuel to this fire. For its part, the United States had done a reasonably good job voicing calibrated support for the protesters and had even gone as far as to put sanctions on some of the PMF leaders involved in the violence. One can imagine a counterfactual in which the United States used the Dec. 27 attack as grounds for renewing demands that the central government of Iraq rein in the PMFs, amplifying the protestors’ own demands. This might not have yielded immediate results, but it would have allowed the United States to put increased public pressure on Iran and position itself alongside what may be the next generation of Iraqi leadership. Even if the United States had ultimately felt the need to pursue military action, it could have spent this time making its case domestically, cultivating support among other Iraqi critics of Iranian influence, and ultimately making clear to the Iraqi public that it was acting on its own only as an absolute last resort. Instead, the United States only succeeded at shifting the Iraqi public’s ire against foreign influence from Iran back to itself, giving its rival much-needed breathing space.

The most dangerous possible outcome from these events would be a sudden escalation in hostilities between the United States and Iran. While Trump and his allies have expressly blamed Iran for both the Dec. 27 rocket attack and the Dec. 31 incursion into the U.S. Embassy, this nonetheless seems unlikely. In their past interactions, both the United States and Iran have been intent on avoiding escalation into open conflict. Instead, Iran has pursued most of its provocations through regional proxies; and the United States, despite the Trump administration’s bellicose rhetoric, has generally pursued measured responses—approaches intended to hedge against unintended escalation. Iran, in particular, must be aware that it would be at a severe disadvantage in an open conflict with the United States and thus seems more likely to continue relying on tactics that are not as vulnerable to direct military response. Hence, barring a decision by the United States to initiate a broader conflict with Iran—a step that would be immensely controversial and pose major legal problems—further escalation in the U.S.-Iran conflict is likely to continue coming in further small steps.

The most direct effect of the U.S. airstrikes is likely to be on the beleaguered security relationship between Iraq and the United States. Since the 2003 U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, many Iraqis have viewed U.S. military involvement in Iraq with immense skepticism—sentiments that Iran and other actors have often capitalized on to undermine support for U.S.-Iraq cooperation. Nonetheless, since 2014, Iraqi leaders have consented to a limited U.S. military presence in the country to help train and advise Iraqi security forces and assist in operations against the Islamic State. While no U.S. forces based in Iraq appear to have played a role in the Dec. 29 airstrikes, the broader U.S. willingness to engage in what most Iraqis see as a violation of Iraqi sovereignty plays into popular concerns about U.S. intentions. The end result may be that Iraq’s leadership—or its parliament, which has frequently considered such measures in the past—decides to rescind or narrow its consent to a U.S. military presence in Iraq. If this were to occur, then U.S. troops would almost certainly have to withdraw to whatever levels the Iraqi government was willing to continue authorizing. This would not only undermine efforts to improve Iraq’s own security forces and prevent a resurgence of the Islamic State but also further hinder U.S. counter-Islamic State operations in Syria, which have been increasingly based out of Iraq since the Trump administration’s partial withdrawal from northern Syria in 2019.

Of course, this military relationship may yet survive the present crisis. Much of the activities it supports are to the benefit of Iraq’s own security forces, and Iraqi leaders have at various times seemed to appreciate the fact that U.S. support provides a counterbalance to Iranian influence, giving them more political space in dealing with Iranian demands. Moreover, even if it were to come about, the withdrawal of U.S. troops would not be the end of the U.S.-Iraq relationship. Both Iraq and the United States continue to share common interests in other areas, including in Iraq’s continued political and economic stability. And the United States has other sources of leverage over Iraq, most notably the important waiver to Iran-related oil sanctions that the United States generally provides to Iraq every year. That said, building and maintaining such a relationship would require a diplomatic presence robust enough to make up for the precipitous decline in military-to-military engagements. And given the Trump administration’s dramatic reduction in staffing at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, it’s not clear whether it is willing to commit the resources and assume the risks necessary to pursue this sort of relationship.

Indeed, the most significant outcome of the present crisis may well be that the Trump administration decides that the U.S.-Iraq relationship is simply not worth maintaining. On this logic, the diplomatic and military presence in Iraq only gives Iran a source of leverage over the United States, undermining the administration’s top priority of putting pressure on Iran. Sacrificing the U.S.-Iraq relationship would risk serious harm to various long-standing U.S. interests in the Middle East, but it would arguably allow the United States to act with a far freer hand in targeting and pressuring Iran. Given the Trump administration’s myopic focus on Iran, this may—unfortunately—be a trade-off that some officials are willing to make.

I dunno about y'all but I think we should trust the guy who was furious that he was cut from a Canadian broadcast of a children's movie to manage the situation.

[triplehorn 2664]

15 minutes ago, Bruh Man said:

It would be nice if we could put all of the deplorables and blood thirsty neo-cons on the frontlines. 

Defending international Trump properties - our new frontlines.

[Chooky 13337]

4 hours ago, HenryJames said:

It makes sense when you view American foreign policy as whatever Trump thinks will help him get re-elected. There is no thinking beyond that.

I mean...

 

 

[TriStone 1724]

Just now, lemonlime said:

Like it even matters.  The Senate will never convict him.  Rule of law is dead.  

It does matter.  It would be the first concrete, irrefutable, not-based-on-hearsay/third-party-interpretation charge they'd have against him.  She should bring up new articles immediately. 

But she won't because, while her statement is technically true, it's also irrelevant.  He isn't required to "consult with Congress" on this decision.  He's only required to notify "the leaders of each of the two parties from both the Senate and House of Representatives, and the chairs and ranking minority members of both the Senate Committee and House Committee for intelligence."

Congress wasn't notified, but Pelosi was.

[Anastasis 23699]

In other Murcia news, LMT up 4%. 

[Js1 86929]

22 minutes ago, Bruh Man said:

It would be nice if we could put all of the deplorables and blood thirsty neo-cons on the frontlines. 

 

[Guest Lobo]

6 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Defending international Trump properties - our new frontlines.

NCO #1:  "Where they got deploying next?"

NCO #2:  "I was on golf courses, but now it looks like some civil unrest has me off to Kolkata.  If I can get my DLPT scores up, I can station through Bali next year."

NCO #1:  "Yeah, that's a nice posting.  I'll probably just liaison to the Marines, and get South Korea again.  It's a mixed-use development up there so anything can happen."  

NCO #2:  "Beats the sandbox, I suppose.  Still, somehow feels less honorable though."  

Edited January 3, 2020 by Lobo

[triplehorn 2664]

18 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

I doubt his commitment is anything more than a belief that escalating conflict with Iran will help his chances in the upcoming election.  What's disturbing is that he's probably not wrong in that calculation.

Of course.  Like I said, he got played.  You think he has the slightest clue who this guy was?  You think he’s any more capable of defining and ascribing geopolitical differences between Sunni and Shia Muslims than naming any 3 of Christ’s Apostles?  Answer: he can’t do either one.

[lemonlime 5503]

1 minute ago, TriStone said:

It does matter.  It would be the first concrete, irrefutable, not-based-on-hearsay/third-party-interpretation charge they'd have against him.  She should bring up new articles immediately. 

But she won't because, while her statement is technically true, it's also irrelevant.  He isn't required to "consult with Congress" on this decision.  He's only required to notify "the leaders of each of the two parties from both the Senate and House of Representatives, and the chairs and ranking minority members of both the Senate Committee and House Committee for intelligence."

Congress wasn't notified, but Pelosi was.

Assassinating a foreign official, from a country not included in the AUMF is illegal.  But trump will get away with it, and this is only the beginning.

[DixonHur 11940]

Don't worry guys, Jared's got this.

[Nivek 17330]

I am extraordinarily curious to hear what Israel thinks of this move, first thing I thought of this morning.  Obviously they got their own election and removal shit going on, but they have to be extremely concerned about this.  

David French isnt a real American, if he was his name would be David Freedom Fries.

[TriStone 1724]

9 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

Assassinating a foreign official, from a country not included in the AUMF is illegal.  But trump will get away with it, and this is only the beginning.

Illegal according to US law?  I'd need to see the specific law that a President is breaking when he or she authorizes a missile strike on the leader of a hostile force.

 

 

Edited January 3, 2020 by TriStone
reasons

[Js1 86929]

So this basically ends with Iran bombing the latke out of Israel, our 51st state? 

[Anastasis 23699]

3 minutes ago, Js1 said:

So this basically ends with Iran bombing the latke out of Israel, our 51st state? 

And us writing a check for a few more trillion. 

[lemonlime 5503]

7 minutes ago, TriStone said:

Illegal according to US law?  I'd need to see the specific law that a President is breaking when he or she authorizes a missile strike on the leader of a hostile force.

 

 

The president can't declare war on his own.  There was no declaration of war, or authorization in the AUMF, for actions of war against Iran.  The president on his own can't decide that Iran is a "hostile force."

[CowboyFred 1162]

3 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

The president can't declare war on his own.  There was no declaration of war, or authorization in the AUMF, for actions of war against Iran.  The president on his own can't decide that Iran is a "hostile force."

YES, BUT CAN YOU CITE THE SPECIFIC LAW?!?!?!?!?!/tristone

Edited January 3, 2020 by CowboyFred

[wildcat09 29556]

You know you guys are trying to argue with a troll, right?

[Anastasis 23699]

They ain’t impeaching anybody over a drone strike. Congress has abdicated their responsibility in this matter and will not Dare set a precedent that would constrain the next CIC. 

[The Royal We 3090]

^^^^ This.

[wildcat09 29556]

3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

They ain’t impeaching anybody over a drone strike. Congress has abdicated their responsibility in this matter and will not Dare set a precedent that would constrain the next CIC. 

Don't think it was a drone strike but this is obviously correct. No Congressman wants to be put on the record voting for or against a war, much easier politically for them to just let POTUS do what he wants and see where the chips fall after.

[triplehorn 2664]

25 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

This seems relevant:

I dunno about y'all but I think we should trust the guy who was furious that he was cut from a Canadian broadcast of a children's movie to manage the situation.

Keep in mind these escalations commenced following May 2018 when Trump unilaterally pulled out of the international Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, aka the Iran nuclear deal.

One thing about Iran’s assassinated No. 2 man behind their Supreme Leader described in the New Yorker article is that he was a pragmatist, sensitive to the implications of collective world view on their actions and those of proxies like Assad where No. 2 deterred him from use of chemical weapons on one occasion.  
 

Our best strength has been and always will be one of non-violent pressure with international consensus and cooperation.  Trump abandoned that with the Iran deal pullout and now we’re dealing with sustained incremental violence in their backyard without international support or an acknowledged legal consensus within our own government.

[hayden_horn 11401]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

They ain’t impeaching anybody over a drone strike. Congress has abdicated their responsibility in this matter and will not Dare set a precedent that would constrain the next CIC. 

this is completely correct. and while i am not a fan of the both sides posting style, democrats have allowed republican warhawks to run roughshod all over, starting with the first desert shield/storm with the elder bush, then afghanistan and the inevitable iraq war waged by the younger bush. obama continued unsanctioned action with his drone strikes, which are a red mark against his presidency, in my opinion. 

congress is cowardly when it comes to war. my boss once gave me a pep talk about the "power of no." it's okay to say no to people. congress needs to fucking stand up and say no to this president.

[huge 3824]

55 minutes ago, DalTxHornFan said:

David French (no fan of Trump, quite possibly the most never Trumper ever) lays out the constitutional case for this action quite clearly here in this 6 post thread:

 

Anyone care to comment on this?  Or are we sure it was illegal?  Do we really know?  Is that what really matters?

[TriStone 1724]

11 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

The president can't declare war on his own.  There was no declaration of war, or authorization in the AUMF, for actions of war against Iran.  The president on his own can't decide that Iran is a "hostile force."

A President can make war for 30 days without any authorization from Congress.  That's the way it's been for my entire life?  Did that change?

[TriStone 1724]

13 minutes ago, CowboyFred said:

YES, BUT CAN YOU CITE THE SPECIFIC LAW?!?!?!?!?!/tristone

My bad.  It's illegal because lemonlime says it is.  I apologize for my impertinence.

[Anastasis 23699]

9 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Don't think it was a drone strike but this is obviously correct. No Congressman wants to be put on the record voting for or against a war, much easier politically for them to just let POTUS do what he wants and see where the chips fall after.

Four missiles from a Reaper is what I read. 

[hayden_horn 11401]

3 minutes ago, TriStone said:

A President can make war for 30 days without any authorization from Congress.  That's the way it's been for my entire life?  Did that change?

Quote

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

look at nixon, on the right side of history. china detente and the veto of this stupid act.

[InkaUtexas 26796]

22 minutes ago, Js1 said:

So this basically ends with Iran bombing the latke out of Israel, our 51st state? 

With Dubai taking a few collateral hits. 

[Beantown Express 2.0 6586]

8 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Keep in mind these escalations commenced following May 2018 when Trump unilaterally pulled out of the international Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, aka the Iran nuclear deal.

One thing about Iran’s assassinated No. 2 man behind their Supreme Leader described in the New Yorker article is that he was a pragmatist, sensitive to the implications of collective world view on their actions and those of proxies like Assad where No. 2 deterred him from use of chemical weapons on one occasion.  
 

Our best strength has been and always will be one of non-violent pressure with international consensus and cooperation.  Trump abandoned that with the Iran deal pullout and now we’re dealing with sustained incremental violence in their backyard without international support or an acknowledged legal consensus within our own government.

This is a Bingo!  By pulling out of the nuclear deal and putting sanctions on Iran we have hurt them to the point that they started to lash out and now we are at a possible tipping point leading to full out war.  None of this happens if we stay in that deal.  Trump is a expert at causing a problem and then trying to solve it.

[wildcat09 29556]

4 minutes ago, huge said:

Anyone care to comment on this?  Or are we sure it was illegal?  Do we really know?  Is that what really matters?

I'm not familiar enough with the relevant law but my initial impression is that French's analysis is shitty and does little more than beg the question. The article I quoted earlier has some better legal analysis but at the end of the day it's all pretty much useless. SCOTUS won't involve itself in a dispute between Congress and the President regarding war powers, the President will always assert inherent Article 2 powers, and as numerous people have already pointed out, Congress has for decades abdicated its authority in this realm and isn't likely to reclaim it here. So even if it is illegal by the letter of law, it might as well be legal since nobody is willing to do anything about it.

[SquishMitten 10493]

This scares the shit out of me, and I don’t see any way that it has anything but a really bad outcome. And I’ve been a Trump hater from the beginning. However, I don’t see how it’s illegal unless there are things I’m unaware of (e.g., someone mentioned he had to notify certain ranking members of Congress, but maybe only notified some of them). I don’t know enough about the specifics to say how “illegal” that makes it.

Point being, I don’t see any reason Trump needed further congressional approval. We’re authorized to be in Iraq. He was in Iraq. He is designated as the leader of a terrorist organization. Depending on the veracity of Pompeo’s claims (taken with a huge grain of salt) he may have been in the late stages of planning a large attack on US interests.

Yes, he may have been the second most powerful man in Iran, but he was still just a soldier. The idea that this was the equivalent to Iran assassinating Pence seems completely misguided. Now, if we’d have assassinated their President (the second most powerful “political” member of their government), I’d agree with the Pence analogy. But again, he was a soldier. A better analogy would be Iran taking out our highest ranking general in Iraq. Yeah, that would be bad and we’d rightfully be pissed, but we would have to admit that he was still a soldier on the field of battle and therefore a legitimate military target. As long as our attacks remain on military targets on Iraqi soil, they’re fair game.

Under a proper administration, I’d at least have some hope that there was a real goal in mind. Unfortunately, I doubt there is any semblance of a plan. A really big part of me thinks something in Trump’s brain remembers all his previous tweets about Obama starting a war to get re-elected. That he said it so many times, his brain tells him that it’s a foregone conclusion that staring said war = re-election. Like his base, it was repeated enough that he believes it to be true, regardless of the fact he was the one who invented the lie in the first place. 

TLDR: Trump’s a brain dead idiot, but this specific action wasn’t blatantly unconstitutional...yet

[Biff Tannen 46060]

2 minutes ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

Trump is a expert at causing a problem and then trying  pretending to solve it.

fixed

[Anastasis 23699]

9 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

this is completely correct. and while i am not a fan of the both sides posting style, democrats have allowed republican warhawks to run roughshod all over, starting with the first desert shield/storm with the elder bush, then afghanistan and the inevitable iraq war waged by the younger bush. obama continued unsanctioned action with his drone strikes, which are a red mark against his presidency, in my opinion. 

congress is cowardly when it comes to war. my boss once gave me a pep talk about the "power of no." it's okay to say no to people. congress needs to fucking stand up and say no to this president.

You can run that thread straight back at least 5 decades.  It is the ultimate #bothsides issue. 

[triplehorn 2664]

goddammit.  fucking wankin' wagger

 

 

[Fozzz 152]

Taking a page from Obama's playbook.

 

[Biff Tannen 46060]

I mean, we knew that already didn't we?