If someone says Trump didn't have authority to act W/O congress,

[rayg]

The president’s actions irked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who complained that Trump did not have the authority to take the action.

But Speaker Pelosi is wrong.

The AUMF was passed in 2002. The declaration allows the president to use the armed forces as “necessary and appropriate” to “defend U.S. national security against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.”

Democrats wanted to repeal the act in July 2019 but never took action.

Therefore President Trump’s actions on Thursday were not only appropriate and necessary, Trump’s actions were also legal.

Barack Obama used the 2002 AUMF in 2014 to attack ISIS in Iraq. He had also launched more than 2,800 on Iraq and Syria without congressional approval.

Note again the Dem's wanted to appeal the act in 2019

[barretcreek]

These treasonous s.o.bs would have whined and cried about bumping off Heydrich if they had been around.

[togor]

For some reason the Republican Congress did not want to explicitly endorse action against ISIS. Not sure why as it seemed like a no-brainer.

So would the 2002 law authorize offensive actions against the Iranians? Either on or off Iranian soil? Where's the line?

[lyman]

For some reason the Republican Congress did not want to explicitly endorse action against ISIS. Not sure why as it seemed like a no-brainer.

So would the 2002 law authorize offensive actions against the Iranians? Either on or off Iranian soil? Where's the line?

going by what Rayg posted,,, the border,

[togor]

going by what Rayg posted,,, the border,

That kinda makes sense, no authorization for ops on Iranian soil.

[RED]

That kinda makes sense, no authorization for ops on Iranian soil.

Hello!!! Baghdad is not on Iranian soil.

[lyman]

Hello!!! Baghdad is not on Iranian soil.

RED,

don't go confusing him with facts,,

[togor]

I thought we all knew that. Some are a bit slow to follow the threads, apparently.

Worth pointing out then that Trump has threatened targets on Iranian soil (indirectly) via Twitter. So the rationale that it was lawful since the strike was on Iraqi soil is a miss.

[lyman]

I thought we all knew that. Some are a bit slow to follow the threads, apparently.

Worth pointing out then that Trump has threatened targets on Iranian soil (indirectly) via Twitter. So the rationale that it was lawful since the strike was on Iraqi soil is a miss.

apples,, oranges, re the past strike,

since it happened on Iraqi soil,


if Trump decides to strike Iran , then surely he will have his reasons, and may let us know after it is done,


would you rather we do nothing if they strike against one of our assets or citizens, in a foreign land or domestic?


eta,, this post on twatter?

[togor]

"would you rather we do nothing" is the logic of escalation, and escalation always turns out great. Escalation with Saddam was awesome.

- - - Updated - - -

Added: I thought we ditched the Kurds because we decided doing nothing (leaving these problems to others in the region) was better. Maybe not?

[Gun Smoke]

Too much "nothing" has already happened.

That's why "something" is happening now but only because we have a president that will act.

Time will prove that obama was the best president the muslims ever had.

[lyman]

"would you rather we do nothing" is the logic of escalation, and escalation always turns out great. Escalation with Saddam was awesome.

- - - Updated - - -

Added: I thought we ditched the Kurds because we decided doing nothing (leaving these problems to others in the region) was better. Maybe not?

you did not answer the question,,,,,

[togor]

It's a silly question. Countries are always doing something. By torching the prospects of diplomacy (when he killed the nuke deal), Trump has limited his own options at a time when options are the thing he needs most. Question to you is: is assassinating a high official an appropriate response to property damage on Iraqi soil?

[lyman]

so killing an American contractor and injuring others is property damage?

[togor]

so killing an American contractor and injuring others is property damage?

Rocket attacks on the militias were for that, yes?