Kansas Crimson

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2020 11:46 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2020 11:08 am ...and now there's a through-line connecting Trump's distraction-by-assassination recklessness to the deaths of dozens of Canadians (along with a hundred or so additional civilians).

Wait.

So...Iran fucked up and shot down a civilian airliner by mistake, and that's Trump's fault?

Are you sure?

Unless you're saying the timing is entirely coincidental - that Iran's air defenses would have been set to hair-trigger anyway, and this would have happened no matter what - yes, I do think there's a causal connection between our assassination of Soleimani and the downing of this jet.

Escalated tensions have consequences; see Iran Air 655 - this sort of thing is hardly without precedent.

And if it does turn out to be the case (as it certainly appears) that the assassination (undertaken as it was) was not justified by anything more than, ultimately, Trump's self-interest...then I think there is a clear life-and-death consequence to that self-interest.

That's a stretch and I would imagine that, in any other circumstance, you would know that.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2020 12:07 pm That's a stretch and I would imagine that, in any other circumstance, you would know that.

I don’t think it’s a stretch at all to suggest that ramped up tensions increase the likelihood of accidents and misunderstandings.

Sure, but that still doesn't mean we are at fault for their blunder. They were far from innocent in the ramping up of tensions/escalations.

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2020 12:28 pm Sure, but that still doesn't mean we are at fault for their blunder. They were far from innocent in the ramping up of tensions/escalations.

I don't think I've said we're at fault.

I do think we contributed to an environment of increased risk, by killing Soleimani. If it turns out that killing Soleimani was ultimately done for Trump's personal benefit (and was not done to avert a grave and imminent threat), then I think there is a clear connection between Trump's self-interested actions/processes and the deaths of nearly a couple hundred civilians.

And it's not like we're without a live, festering example of Trump conducting international relations in a manner designed to aid him personally.

Fair enough.

Although, I think even without an imminent threat (when are our troops over there truly ever without some sort of imminent threat from various proxies?), Soleimani has done plenty over the years to deserve to be taken out. He's a terrible human and the world is better off without him. He made a career out of endangering our troops. That career is now over.

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2020 12:41 pm Fair enough.

Although, I think even without an imminent threat (when are our troops over there truly ever without some sort of imminent threat from various proxies?), Soleimani has done plenty over the years to deserve to be taken out. He's a terrible human and the world is better off without him. He made a career out of endangering our troops. That career is now over.

No doubt. But I do think we have (or are supposed to have, anyway) guardrails around what the executive branch can do without Congressional approval for good reasons.

When you've lost Mike Lee on this issue...yikes.

TDub wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 8:33 am He wasnt responding to the plane accident. If that ends up being caused by the Iranians then that is not "collateral damage" of our conflict. That is irresponsible use of an air defense system by Iran. IF that is the case you cant blame that on trump or America.

Guess it's time for this again.

Yeah the Mike Lee thing was as damning as it could be. I happened to be scrolling the channels last night and came upon Kevin McCarthy, House Minority Leader R from Cali, on Fox News. He basically called everyone a liar. The reports given by senior leaders was glowing and clear as could be. Person interviewing (Shut up and dribble girl) said it seems weird Mike Lee would lie about the hearing given to them. McCarthy then said, I don't know why anybody would lie.

That's when politics are stupid. You obviously have one of Trump's biggest supporters come out and say that the briefing was the biggest joke in his 7 or whatever years in Senate. But yet, another puppet for Trump takes Trumps side and calls everyone else a liar.

COUNTRY OVER PARTY. IT'S NOT THAT HARD.

Quit pleasing the Dear Fearless Leader of the USA. He messed up. His senior office messed up. And no one on that side will believe it because all they care about is pleasing Trump.

I'm not against the strike. And I do think Congress would have eventually approved it, when facts came out properly and due process was followed. But it wasn't and that's what stinks about the whole thing.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2020 12:48 pm

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2020 12:41 pm Fair enough.

Although, I think even without an imminent threat (when are our troops over there truly ever without some sort of imminent threat from various proxies?), Soleimani has done plenty over the years to deserve to be taken out. He's a terrible human and the world is better off without him. He made a career out of endangering our troops. That career is now over.

No doubt. But I do think we have (or are supposed to have, anyway) guardrails around what the executive branch can do without Congressional approval for good reasons.

When you've lost Mike Lee on this issue...yikes.

Yes. I don't like a single person having the power to do things of that nature without congressional approval. That is the most troubling thing to me about the entire situation.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2020 12:48 pm

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2020 12:41 pm Fair enough.

Although, I think even without an imminent threat (when are our troops over there truly ever without some sort of imminent threat from various proxies?), Soleimani has done plenty over the years to deserve to be taken out. He's a terrible human and the world is better off without him. He made a career out of endangering our troops. That career is now over.

No doubt. But I do think we have (or are supposed to have, anyway) guardrails around what the executive branch can do without Congressional approval for good reasons.

When you've lost Mike Lee on this issue...yikes.

First, the implicit denial of Iranian agency in your original assessment is real and it is odd, to say the least.

Consider a counter-example: The Russian conspiracy/Steele dossier is now, after two-plus years of investigation considered to be -- being generous -- less than definitive evidence of any sort of collusion.

Nevertheless, the Democrats -- whose presumed nominee was, for most of those two-plus years, Joe Biden -- pushed the collusion narrative over and over and over, with some proclaiming evidence of treason, and many insisting that it constituted grounds for removal from office. In light of all of this, Trump's personal and political defenses were set to hair-trigger anyway. It is, therefore, fair to say that the Democrats' investigations contributed to an environment of increased risk for Trump, leading him to seek advantage any way he could, including leveraging foreign aid to a country he believed had damaging information on Biden.

Escalated tensions have consequences. And the Democrats most certainly escalated tensions in Washington. Therefore, it's largely inarguable that there's a through-line connecting the Democrats' distraction-by-investigation recklessness and the Ukraine phone call.

All of which is to say that yes, I do think there's a causal connection between the Democrats' behavior and Trump's corruption.




Second, and more relevantly: there should be no "yikes" about Mike Lee demanding Congressional authority for military action. He has been consistent across this administration and the last in believing that the Executive branch is abusing its powers.

Third, and relatedly, at this point in his presidency, Trump is the only 21st century president NOT to have started a war in MENA and toppled a long-time enemy regime, leading to utter chaos. It's interesting (i.e. entirely predictable) that calls for Congress to reassert its Constitutional right/responsibility weren't treated as seriously back when SoS Clinton was chortling on national television about her successful efforts to promote regime change in a nation that had VOLUNTARILY surrendered its WMD.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2020 1:37 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2020 12:48 pm

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2020 12:41 pm Fair enough.

Although, I think even without an imminent threat (when are our troops over there truly ever without some sort of imminent threat from various proxies?), Soleimani has done plenty over the years to deserve to be taken out. He's a terrible human and the world is better off without him. He made a career out of endangering our troops. That career is now over.

No doubt. But I do think we have (or are supposed to have, anyway) guardrails around what the executive branch can do without Congressional approval for good reasons.

When you've lost Mike Lee on this issue...yikes.

First, the implicit denial of Iranian agency in your original assessment is real and it is odd, to say the least.

Consider a counter-example: The Russian conspiracy/Steele dossier is now, after two-plus years of investigation considered to be -- being generous -- less than definitive evidence of any sort of collusion.

Nevertheless, the Democrats -- whose presumed nominee was, for most of those two-plus years, Joe Biden -- pushed the collusion narrative over and over and over, with some proclaiming evidence of treason, and many insisting that it constituted grounds for removal from office. In light of all of this, Trump's personal and political defenses were set to hair-trigger anyway. It is, therefore, fair to say that the Democrats' investigations contributed to an environment of increased risk for Trump, leading him to seek advantage any way he could, including leveraging foreign aid to a country he believed had damaging information on Biden.

Escalated tensions have consequences. And the Democrats most certainly escalated tensions in Washington. Therefore, it's largely inarguable that there's a through-line connecting the Democrats' distraction-by-investigation recklessness and the Ukraine phone call.

All of which is to say that yes, I do think there's a causal connection between the Democrats' behavior and Trump's corruption.




Second, and more relevantly: there should be no "yikes" about Mike Lee demanding Congressional authority for military action. He has been consistent across this administration and the last in believing that the Executive branch is abusing its powers.

Third, and relatedly, at this point in his presidency, Trump is the only 21st century president NOT to have started a war in MENA and toppled a long-time enemy regime, leading to utter chaos. It's interesting (i.e. entirely predictable) that calls for Congress to reassert its Constitutional right/responsibility weren't treated as seriously back when SoS Clinton was chortling on national television about her successful efforts to promote regime change in a nation that had VOLUNTARILY surrendered its WMD.

Not even sure what I'm supposed to be aiming at here, but let's stick with the bolded item for the moment.

I have not reduced, and have not attempted to reduce, all of this down to __% of blame here, __% there, and __% dumb luck/happenstance.

As things sit right this second, we are - and Congress is being - asked to take this administration on faith that there was in fact an imminent threat that legally and ethically justified a very extreme step being taken unilaterally by the executive branch.

I don't know why any sane person would take this administration on faith about what was served for breakfast yesterday, let alone matters of importance.

And why does this all matter? Because the strike did raise the risk of something terrible happening, like the downing of a commercial airliner. And if the strike was undertaken illegally - if it was undertaken in an abuse of power in service of personal benefit - then Trump should have to face the consequences of the same. And that's true regardless of whether Iran is "more" to blame for the accident itself.

And if the strike was undertaken illegally

There is almost a zero chance of this being even remotely true. Just because Trump et al. used the "imminent danger" line in their public justification doesn't mean that actual imminent danger is necessary for this to have been a perfectly legal and justifiable strike. As I've noted before, all three of the post-9/11 AsUMF could be made to fit the action. Regardless of the immanence of another threat, Soleimani was responsible for the training and the arming of Iraqi militias and the deployment of Iranian-developed, armor-piercing IEDs. He was in violation of UN sanctions -- which restricted his foreign travel -- and he was in an zone of active combat, not in an official capacity, but as an enemy combatant commander and a co-belligerent along with the Shi'ite militias that had attacked our embassy.

The legality of the killing is, frankly, inarguable. And it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the immanence of another threat.


We can argue all day about the judiciousness or military benefit of the killing, but the legality is, again, a stretch I don't believe you'd make under other circumstances.

The more that I think about it, why was Tehran airport even open? Who authorized the takeoff? This took place after the missiles were fired. Whose decision was it to fly a passenger plane into the middle of an active combat area?

Additionally, why wouldn't the regime, which was firing the missiles, have knowledge of aircraft leaving its airport and flying through its airspace?

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2020 2:57 pm

Additionally, why wouldn't the regime, which was firing the missiles, have knowledge of aircraft leaving its airport and flying through its airspace?

I've been wondering this myself.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2020 2:57 pm The more that I think about it, why was Tehran airport even open? Who authorized the takeoff? This took place after the missiles were fired. Whose decision was it to fly a passenger plane into the middle of an active combat area?

Additionally, why wouldn't the regime, which was firing the missiles, have knowledge of aircraft leaving its airport and flying through its airspace?

You're overthinking this. Orange man BAD. Period. Full stop. End of story.

When you've lost Tom Nichols...

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2020 2:57 pm The more that I think about it, why was Tehran airport even open? Who authorized the takeoff? This took place after the missiles were fired. Whose decision was it to fly a passenger plane into the middle of an active combat area?

Additionally, why wouldn't the regime, which was firing the missiles, have knowledge of aircraft leaving its airport and flying through its airspace?

I agree that it's incredibly stupid. But it doesn't allay at all my strong suspicions that the outcome here results in some material part from Trump using military action to distract from political peril.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2020 4:24 pm

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2020 2:57 pm The more that I think about it, why was Tehran airport even open? Who authorized the takeoff? This took place after the missiles were fired. Whose decision was it to fly a passenger plane into the middle of an active combat area?

Additionally, why wouldn't the regime, which was firing the missiles, have knowledge of aircraft leaving its airport and flying through its airspace?

I agree that it's incredibly stupid. But it doesn't allay at all my strong suspicions that the outcome here results in some material part from Trump using military action to distract from political peril.

There is no political peril. Grimace Pelosi would like you to think there is, but none exists in reality.

fUCkinG trUMp!