Biden airstrikes. A good idea?

Supreme_War_Pig · 2021-06-30T05:43:55.859Z

zantax:

party-free:

And the story explains further:

Kirby said that President Joe Biden, who authorized the strikes, “directed further military action to disrupt and deter” attacks on U.S. facilities and personnel in Iraq.

“We are in Iraq at the invitation of the Government of Iraq for the sole purpose of assisting the Iraqi Security Forces in their efforts to defeat ISIS,” he said. “The United States took necessary, appropriate, and deliberate action designed to limit the risk of escalation - but also to send a clear and unambiguous deterrent message.”

Using the anti ISIS AUMF to bomb the sectarians fighting, ISIS, good move Joe. Makes perfect Biden sense. whisper help me

The AUMF is NOT anti ISIS, and is anti terrorist. They may well be fighting ISIS, but they also rocket attacked us.

zantax · 2021-06-30T05:49:13.466Z

Supreme_War_Pig:

zantax:

party-free:

And the story explains further:

Kirby said that President Joe Biden, who authorized the strikes, “directed further military action to disrupt and deter” attacks on U.S. facilities and personnel in Iraq.

“We are in Iraq at the invitation of the Government of Iraq for the sole purpose of assisting the Iraqi Security Forces in their efforts to defeat ISIS,” he said. “The United States took necessary, appropriate, and deliberate action designed to limit the risk of escalation - but also to send a clear and unambiguous deterrent message.”

Using the anti ISIS AUMF to bomb the sectarians fighting, ISIS, good move Joe. Makes perfect Biden sense. whisper help me

The AUMF is NOT anti ISIS, and is anti terrorist. They may well be fighting ISIS, but they also rocket attacked us.

Oh please, the aumf nothing to do with isis, heh so funny

Ben_Natuf · 2021-06-30T13:00:05.425Z

Supreme_War_Pig:

The AUMF is NOT anti ISIS, and is anti terrorist. They may well be fighting ISIS, but they also rocket attacked us

this is not true, the aumf covers terrorist groups and states that aid and abed al quaida. not all terrorists. the only thing that could cover against iran sponsored militias is the inherent right of self defense for forces under attack.

Supreme_War_Pig · 2021-06-30T15:14:45.209Z

zantax:

Supreme_War_Pig:

zantax:

party-free:

And the story explains further:

Kirby said that President Joe Biden, who authorized the strikes, “directed further military action to disrupt and deter” attacks on U.S. facilities and personnel in Iraq.

“We are in Iraq at the invitation of the Government of Iraq for the sole purpose of assisting the Iraqi Security Forces in their efforts to defeat ISIS,” he said. “The United States took necessary, appropriate, and deliberate action designed to limit the risk of escalation - but also to send a clear and unambiguous deterrent message.”

Using the anti ISIS AUMF to bomb the sectarians fighting, ISIS, good move Joe. Makes perfect Biden sense. whisper help me

The AUMF is NOT anti ISIS, and is anti terrorist. They may well be fighting ISIS, but they also rocket attacked us.

Oh please, the aumf nothing to do with isis, heh so funny

ISIS didn’t exist when the AUMF was written. It is inaccurate to say that it is anti ISIS.

Ben_Natuf · 2021-06-30T15:32:21.003Z

whether or not they existed is irrelevant. the aumf covers all organizations and states that aid or abet them. Isis qualifies

Cratic3947 · 2021-06-30T15:34:14.807Z

Oh, look the DNC/Admin sent our troops back into Syria and now we are bombing unknown people to “keep our troops safe”. No one really knows why!
And the DNC media won’t ask, so…

Gosh, Seems many in the left’s leadership need to kill people. Look what they did to Libya! Just like their history shows…

YOSUP · 2021-06-30T16:22:45.768Z

altair1013:

I’m not completely sure why he did it. But any time we can send some Iranian assets into the loving arms of Allah, I’m for it. I hope the casualties among jihadis were sky high.

U.S. launches airstrikes against Iran-backed militias in Iraq, Syria (nbcnews.com)

If it leads to a new war after four years of no war! I’m against it!

Supreme_War_Pig · 2021-06-30T16:50:49.987Z

[quote=“Ben_Natuf, post:90, topic:239487, full:true”]
whether or not they existed is irrelevant. the aumf covers all organizations and states that aid or abet them. Isis quamisinformation.

I don’t dispute any of this.

The AUMF was characterized in the post as “anti ISIS”, which it is, but only tangentially.

I was correcting that misinformation.

Supreme_War_Pig · 2021-06-30T16:52:46.484Z

Cratic3947:

Oh, look the DNC/Admin sent our troops back into Syria and now we are bombing unknown people to “keep our troops safe”. No one really knows why!
And the DNC media won’t ask, so…

Gosh, Seems many in the left’s leadership need to kill people. Look what they did to Libya! Just like their history shows…

Our troops never left Syria, and we were responding to an attack. There is literally nothing in your post that is true.

Cratic3947 · 2021-06-30T17:46:52.565Z

Supreme_War_Pig:

Cratic3947:

Oh, look the DNC/Admin sent our troops back into Syria and now we are bombing unknown people to “keep our troops safe”. No one really knows why!
And the DNC media won’t ask, so…

Gosh, Seems many in the left’s leadership need to kill people. Look what they did to Libya! Just like their history shows…

Our troops never left Syria, and we were responding to an attack. There is literally nothing in your post that is true.

The sock Puppet admin sent more troops in to Syria. You already know that. Now the DNC admin is bombing people. That’s true!

It’s also true you don’t really know why we are bombing/killing people. Just like Libya. Is war the answer now?

Supreme_War_Pig · 2021-06-30T18:27:41.320Z

Cratic3947:

Supreme_War_Pig:

Cratic3947:

Oh, look the DNC/Admin sent our troops back into Syria and now we are bombing unknown people to “keep our troops safe”. No one really knows why!
And the DNC media won’t ask, so…

Gosh, Seems many in the left’s leadership need to kill people. Look what they did to Libya! Just like their history shows…

Our troops never left Syria, and we were responding to an attack. There is literally nothing in your post that is true.

The sock Puppet admin sent more troops in to Syria. You already know that. Now the DNC admin is bombing people. That’s true!

It’s also true you don’t really know why we are bombing/killing people. Just like Libya. Is war the answer now?

What exactly is your beef here? Do you object to us counterstriking terrorists?

Ben_Natuf · 2021-06-30T18:33:39.531Z

Supreme_War_Pig:

What exactly is your beef here? Do you object to us counterstriking terrorists?

what terrorists? these were iranian backed militias, which likely deserve their date with allah, what terrorist acts did they do? in what way have they aided or abetted al quaida?

Supreme_War_Pig · 2021-06-30T18:40:32.373Z

Ben_Natuf:

Supreme_War_Pig:

What exactly is your beef here? Do you object to us counterstriking terrorists?

what terrorists? these were iranian backed militias, which likely deserve their date with allah, what terrorist acts did they do? in what way have they aided or abetted al quaida?

They attacked U.S. troops.

The AUMF is very broad, and in my opinion needs to be revoked and redone. Is that what you are getting at?

Ben_Natuf · 2021-06-30T18:49:37.862Z

attacking the armed forces of an enemy is not a terrorist act, its an act of war. whats overly broad is how we define “terrorists”. These guys may in fact be terrorists, but they are not terrorists covered in the aumf. which would be why the administration is pushing the idea of this being a “defensive” attack. inherent right of soldiers serving abroad to self defense. not covered by the aumf, covered by international law.

what is overly broad about authorizing force against organizations and states that aid or abet al quiada?

Supreme_War_Pig · 2021-06-30T19:22:45.599Z

Ben_Natuf:

attacking the armed forces of an enemy is not a terrorist act, its an act of war. whats overly broad is how we define “terrorists”. These guys may in fact be terrorists, but they are not terrorists covered in the aumf. which would be why the administration is pushing the idea of this being a “defensive” attack. inherent right of soldiers serving abroad to self defense. not covered by the aumf, covered by international law.

what is overly broad about authorizing force against organizations and states that aid or abet al quiada?

Four presidents, across both parties have stretched the AUMF far beyond the limits of AQ and the Taliban. Yet now it is a problem? C’mon man.

Also, I’d be more likely to accept your argument, but I know you are acting in bad faith. There is NO doubt in my mind that if Biden had not responded, you would be here calling Biden weak.

Disclaimer: the use of you and your is in the general sense, and not directed at any specific poster

Ben_Natuf · 2021-06-30T19:41:19.828Z

thats a real weak disclaimer… lol

trump used it against isis, which is covered by the text.
bush used it against the taliban and al quaida, also covered by the text
obama used it against aq, isis and the taliban, all covered by the text

lybia is not covered. nor are iranian militias. iranian militias and their iranian overlords are covered by international law and the inherent right of soldiers abroad to self defense including preemptive strikes. lybia wasn’t covered by anything except politics

in short, there is no problem with this attack providing the militia groups attacked had attacked US forces, which i have no reason to doubt. all i’m saying is it is not covered by the aumf.

Supreme_War_Pig · 2021-06-30T20:55:25.859Z

Ben_Natuf:

thats a real weak disclaimer… lol

trump used it against isis, which is covered by the text.
bush used it against the taliban and al quaida, also covered by the text
obama used it against aq, isis and the taliban, all covered by the text

lybia is not covered. nor are iranian militias. iranian militias and their iranian overlords are covered by international law and the inherent right of soldiers abroad to self defense including preemptive strikes. lybia wasn’t covered by anything except politics

in short, there is no problem with this attack providing the militia groups attacked had attacked US forces, which i have no reason to doubt. all i’m saying is it is not covered by the aumf.

Disclaimer: I am not one of those weenies who will run to the mods over the use of “you”, but you never know who will be. I appreciate your sense of humor.

AUMF: okay, fair enough. I think the point is that it is broadly written, and lawyers have stretched it’s letter, if not it’s spirit.

But now I wish to test your consistency: in light of what you have written above, would you agree that the strike on Solemeni was also outside the AUMF?

Ben_Natuf · 2021-06-30T21:08:35.725Z

of course it was outside the aumf, it was covered by international law regarding defense of forces abroad, same thing covering this one. under international law a nation has the right to defend its forces abroad including preemptive and retaliatory strikes against the actors who attack those forces, elements acting in support of those actors and states that harbor aid or abet them.

Supreme_War_Pig · 2021-06-30T22:30:21.543Z

Ben_Natuf:

of course it was outside the aumf, it was covered by international law regarding defense of forces abroad, same thing covering this one. under international law a nation has the right to defend its forces abroad including preemptive and retaliatory strikes against the actors who attack those forces, elements acting in support of those actors and states that harbor aid or abet them.

Okay, well done and thank you.

I think I now have a handle on your FP outlook.

Ben_Natuf · 2021-06-30T22:47:41.526Z

likely not.

i recognize what is, what the law is, and why it is. that does not mean i agree with all aspects of whats done in its name.

i don’t want us fighting any unnecessary wars. that doesn’t mean i will refuse to recognize either the legality or illegality of any military use of force. sometimes its not lawful, but i may support the reason for it. sometimes it is lawful and maybe i don’t support the reason for it.