America & Its Moronic Foreign Policy

Labaik

Iraq’s Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhemi has condemned the overnight US air attack on Iran-backed armed groups in Iraq and Syria which a monitor said killed at least seven fighters.

In a statement on Sunday, the US military said it targeted operational and weapons storage facilities at two locations in Syria and one location in Iraq in response to drone attacks against the US personnel and facilities in Iraq.

The attacks came at the direction of US President Joe Biden, the second time he has ordered retaliatory attacks against Iran-backed militia since taking office five months ago.

We condemn the US air attack that targeted a site last night on the Iraqi-Syrian border, which represents a blatant and unacceptable violation of Iraqi sovereignty and Iraqi national security,” said a statement from the Iraqi PM’s office.


https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2021/6/28/iraq-pm-slams-us-raids-as-flagrant-violation-of-sovereignty?__twitter_impression=true



A new administration, but nothing ever changes with the U.S war machine.

Labaik

Labaik wrote: »

Nothing ever changes with the U.S war machine.

An evergreen sentiment if ever there was one.

Timberrrrrrrr

Labaik wrote: »

Iraq’s Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhemi has condemned the overnight US air attack on Iran-backed armed groups in Iraq and Syria which a monitor said killed at least seven fighters.

In a statement on Sunday, the US military said it targeted operational and weapons storage facilities at two locations in Syria and one location in Iraq in response to drone attacks against the US personnel and facilities in Iraq.

The attacks came at the direction of US President Joe Biden, the second time he has ordered retaliatory attacks against Iran-backed militia since taking office five months ago.

We condemn the US air attack that targeted a site last night on the Iraqi-Syrian border, which represents a blatant and unacceptable violation of Iraqi sovereignty and Iraqi national security,” said a statement from the Iraqi PM’s office.


https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2021/6/28/iraq-pm-slams-us-raids-as-flagrant-violation-of-sovereignty?__twitter_impression=true



A new administration, but nothing ever changes with the U.S war machine.

I have no.love for American foreign policy but if the bombing was in retaliation for strikes against them and killed rebel fighters then wheres the issue?

The United States military is the greatest terrorist organisation on earth and has been for two centuries.

Timberrrrrrrr

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I have no.love for American foreign policy but if the bombing was in retaliation for strikes against them and killed rebel fighters then wheres the issue?

It was illegal. It wasn't congressionally approved.

The Yanks seem to have forgotten that part of their beloved constitution.

ulster

Labaik wrote: »

Iraq’s Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhemi has condemned the overnight US air attack on Iran-backed armed groups in Iraq and Syria which a monitor said killed at least seven fighters.

In a statement on Sunday, the US military said it targeted operational and weapons storage facilities at two locations in Syria and one location in Iraq in response to drone attacks against the US personnel and facilities in Iraq.

The attacks came at the direction of US President Joe Biden, the second time he has ordered retaliatory attacks against Iran-backed militia since taking office five months ago.

We condemn the US air attack that targeted a site last night on the Iraqi-Syrian border, which represents a blatant and unacceptable violation of Iraqi sovereignty and Iraqi national security,” said a statement from the Iraqi PM’s office.


https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2021/6/28/iraq-pm-slams-us-raids-as-flagrant-violation-of-sovereignty?__twitter_impression=true



A new administration, but nothing ever changes with the U.S war machine.

It's great that this has got absolutely nothing to do with Ireland.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

It was illegal. It wasn't congressionally approved.

The Yanks seem to have forgotten that part of their beloved constitution.

Which part of the constitution are you referring to and why is it relevant?

How was it illegal?

What about this American attack, meant it should have received congressional approval?

Labaik

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I have no.love for American foreign policy but if the bombing was in retaliation for strikes against them and killed rebel fighters then wheres the issue?

Would the Brits have got away with a few air strikes on bases in Dundalk over IRA attacks which killed British civilians or servicemen?

Overheal

Deleted User wrote: »

It was illegal. It wasn't congressionally approved.

In fact, it was, even though figures like Ron Paul really spun it otherwise in the early 2000s. The Authorized Use of Military Force Act of 2001 (AUMF) is still in full effect, and the commander in chief is so authorized to carry out such attacks on such targets in the ongoing 'war on terror:'

That the President is authorized to use all
necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed,
or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,
or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent
any future acts of international terrorism against the United States
by such nations, organizations or persons.

https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ40/PLAW-107publ40.pdf

The House has passed a bipartisan resolution this month to finally rescind AUMF, but the Senate has not taken it up yet and the White House indeed hasn't signed it.

Smee_Again

Labaik wrote: »

Would the Brits have got away with a few air strikes on bases in Dundalk over IRA attacks which killed British civilians or servicemen?

Would’ve been an improvement if they’d bombed parts of Muirhevnamor.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Which part of the constitution are you referring to and why is it relevant?

How was it illegal?

What about this American attack, meant it should have received congressional approval?

Article 1, Section 8.

The same part of the Constitution that got the US into the Second World War.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

In fact, it was, even though figures like Ron Paul really spun it otherwise in the early 2000s. The Authorized Use of Military Force Act of 2001 (AUMF) is still in full effect, and the commander in chief is so authorized to carry out such attacks on such targets in the ongoing 'war on terror:'

That the President is authorized to use all
necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed,
or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,
or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent
any future acts of international terrorism against the United States
by such nations, organizations or persons.

https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ40/PLAW-107publ40.pdf

The House has passed a bipartisan resolution this month to finally rescind AUMF, but the Senate has not taken it up yet and the White House indeed hasn't signed it.

Absolutely not.

That's like saying the Patriot Act is constitutional. Again, it's not.

dasdenny

Labaik wrote: »

Would the Brits have got away with a few air strikes on bases in Dundalk over IRA attacks which killed British civilians or servicemen?

Probably, if they spun it right

Overheal

Deleted User wrote: »

Article 1, Section 8.

The same part of the Constitution that got the US into the Second World War.

The necessary and proper clause, to be more specific. In effect, Congress reserves the right to pass whatever laws it wants, including giving a broad authorization of war power to the US military and to the President, which in turn came from Congress' power to declare wars. This didn't limit the ability of Congress to cede its war powers to the executive branch, it can surrender whatever powers it so chooses so long as they aren't bolted down in black and white text, ie. the duty of congress in the election of a President.

Labaik

Smee_Again wrote: »

Would’ve been an improvement if they’d bombed parts of Muirhevnamor.

Once they left the road out of it intact.

McGinniesta

I gave your oul one some "foreign policy" last night.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Article 1, Section 8.

The same part of the Constitution that got the US into the Second World War.

You left out the clause, which is quite important unless you are trying to say this attack has something to do with taxation or borrowing

also, don't forget to answer:

How was it illegal?

What about this American attack, meant it should have received congressional approval?

blanch152

Deleted User wrote: »

Absolutely not.

That's like saying the Patriot Act is constitutional. Again, it's not.

Legislation is constitutional, until it is not.

Essentially, a law is constitutional once it has passed Congress and been signed into law by the President, until such time, if ever, as the courts declare it is unconstitutional.

Gatling

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It was illegal. It wasn't congressionally approved.

What approvel did they need

Gatling

Could be worse op , the blacksea and illegal occupation of parts of Ukraine comes to mind

Elmer Blooker

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I have no.love for American foreign policy but if the bombing was in retaliation for strikes against them and killed rebel fighters then wheres the issue?

Most likely a smokescreen, a diversionary tactic used as cover to send jihadist extremists and weapons from Iraq into Syria.

Overheal

Deleted User wrote: »

Absolutely not.

That's like saying the Patriot Act is constitutional. Again, it's not.

According to whom? The Supreme Court of the United States didn't seem to thing so when they have got a swing at it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holder_v._Humanitarian_Law_Project

Overheal

Gatling wrote: »

What approvel did they need

It falls under the War Powers Act for the most part, it frees the CIC to carry out quick decisions as long as they properly inform Congress within a given time frame. That happened here, the WH chose to respond to the attacks first rather than try and ask for an act of congress which can take, hours at best, to days, even if there is bipartisan agreement. In this case the retaliatory strikes fell under the national emergency provision, troops were being attacked overseas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

biko

America loves foreign wars fixing other countries.

MontgomeryClift

Sunday 27th was the the beginning of The Three Weeks.

The people who run the US time these attacks to coincide with events in the Jewish calendar.

It's an ethno-religious struggle for them, so these acts of war are not going to make much sense to outsiders.

Overheal

MontgomeryClift wrote: »

Sunday 27th was the the beginning of The Three Weeks.

The people who run the US time these attacks to coincide with events in the Jewish calendar.

It's an ethno-religious struggle for them, so these acts of war are not going to make much sense to outsiders.

The United States timed and coordinated the attacks on, themselves?

My best understanding of these incidents is they were both direct retaliations against strikes by opposition forces. I don't see how your assertion can be true. At best I can see how the opposition force might have timed their attack to coincide with that calendar, but cannot fathom how the defending force is guilty of that.

MontgomeryClift

Overheal wrote: »

The United States timed and coordinated the attacks on, themselves?

My best understanding of these incidents is they were both direct retaliations against strikes by opposition forces. I don't see how your assertion can be true. At best I can see how the opposition force might have timed their attack to coincide with that calendar, but cannot fathom how the defending force is guilty of that.

There will always be some militia or other they can attack or say they attacked.

The attack on Syria on February 25th coincided with Purim.

Overheal

MontgomeryClift wrote: »

There will always be some militia or other they can attack or say they attacked.

The attack on Syria on February 25th coincided with Purim.

Mea culpa: you mean this attack?

https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-syria-iran-middle-east-iraq-47774c2b5a6862353c8c6751738e7ba0

If so yes, the US airstrikes happened before the rocket attack on the US forces.

Labaik

Overheal wrote: »

The United States timed and coordinated the attacks on, themselves?

My best understanding of these incidents is they were both direct retaliations against strikes by opposition forces. I don't see how your assertion can be true. At best I can see how the opposition force might have timed their attack to coincide with that calendar, but cannot fathom how the defending force is guilty of that.

Defending force as in America? If so, defending what?

RulesOfNature

Deleted User wrote: »

It was illegal. It wasn't congressionally approved.

The Yanks seem to have forgotten that part of their beloved constitution.

Yes you are right. The executive branch, by the consitution, cannot commit crimes. Therefore, if they commit it, it is not a crime.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory

This is how they justified Guantanamo Bay.

Kermit.de.frog

Deleted User wrote: »

The United States military is the greatest terrorist organisation on earth and has been for two centuries.

Yet the only reason the western world enjoys democracy today is due to the very power America can project around the globe.

Very easy for an Irish person from a country that contributes less than zero to the security of the western world, risks absolutely nothing and hides behind the cowardice of "neutrality" to make trite statements about the country that guarantees the freedoms you enjoy, putting their own soldiers on the line day in day out, even though you have no appreciation of that fact.

Labaik

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Yet the only reason the western world enjoys democracy today is due to the very power America can project around the globe.

Very easy for an Irish person from a country that contributes less than zero to the security of the western world, risks absolutely nothing and hides behind the cowardice of "neutrality" to make trite statements about the country that guarantees the freedoms you enjoy, putting their own soldiers on the line day in day out, even though you have no appreciation of that fact.

America's foreign policy guarantees the freedoms we enjoy how exactly?

Kermit.de.frog

Labaik wrote: »

America's foreign policy guarantees the freedoms we enjoy how exactly?

For Europe you have to look at Russia. It is not Germany or France or Britain that has Aegis destroyers with nuclear capable missiles in the Mediterranean. It is not the latter that provides the missile interception sites in Poland or Romania. It's the United States that bares the true weight of providing Europe's defense shield and that is the only reason the Russian army doesn't take the Baltic States and all of Ukraine as a first step.

Similarly in Asia the only reason Taiwan survives as a separate entity from China to this day is because of the US Pacific defense strategy and they also provide the same missile interception capability for South Korea, Japan as well as Taiwan.

If/when China strikes for Taiwan (and they will some day), the west will have a choice, who are the ones going to fight?

Will Ireland or even Europe send a single soldier when it all kicks off?

Thought not...we'll let the yanks do it - as usual, and you'll sit back and say "I protest!"

Das Reich

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The United States military is the greatest terrorist organisation on earth and has been for two centuries.

But can't say this here as Irish people would be offended.

Feisar

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

For Europe you have to look at Russia. It is not Germany or France or Britain that has Aegis destroyers with nuclear capable missiles in the Mediterranean. It is not the latter that provides the missile interception sites in Poland or Romania. It's the United States that bares the true weight of providing Europe's defense shield and that is the only reason the Russian army doesn't take the Baltic States and all of Ukraine as a first step.

Similarly in Asia the only reason Taiwan survives as a separate entity from China to this day is because of the US Pacific defense strategy and they also provide the same missile interception capability for South Korea, Japan as well as Taiwan.

If/when China strikes for Taiwan (and they will some day), the west will have a choice, who are the ones going to fight?

Will Ireland or even Europe send a single soldier when it all kicks off?

Thought not...we'll let the yanks do it - as usual, and you'll sit back and say "I protest!"

You can’t handle the truth! Son we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it you? You Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility that you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have the luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know, that Santiago’s death while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence while grotesque, and incomprehensible, to you, saves lives. You don’t want the truth because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on that well, you need me on that wall! We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something, you use them as a punchline. I have neither the time, nor the inclination to explain myself, to a man who rises and sleeps, under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and than questions the manner in which I provide them! I’d rather you just said ‘thank you’, and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don’t give a damn, what you think you are entitled to!

FTA69

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I have no.love for American foreign policy but if the bombing was in retaliation for strikes against them and killed rebel fighters then wheres the issue?

Sorry but I think you’re missing the key question about what f*cking right do the Americans have to be in Iraq in the first place?

Is it not remotely odd to you that this shower have military bases all over the world for their own self-serving reasons?

Kermit.de.frog

FTA69 wrote: »

Sorry but I think you’re missing the key question about what f*cking right do the Americans have to be in Iraq in the first place?

Is it not remotely odd to you that this shower have military bases all over the world for their own self-serving reasons?

Would you rather it was China or Russia who had these capabilities all over the world? Someone is going to have the baton one way or another. At least the United States is a western democracy.

Feisar

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Would you rather it was China or Russia who had these capabilities all over the world? Someone is going to have the baton one way or another. At least the United States is a western democracy.

Western democracy is a stretch as regardless of who’s in the White House big corporations rule the roost. I’d say at least they are Western.
Imagine if a country with Sharia Law types had that global capacity?

FTA69

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Would you rather it was China or Russia who had these capabilities all over the world? Someone is going to have the baton one way or another. At least the United States is a western democracy.

Didn’t care much for the auld democracy when they were funding right wing death squads in Nicaragua and trying to topple democratically elected governments in South America did they?

Kermit.de.frog

Feisar wrote: »

Western democracy is a stretch as regardless of who’s in the White House big corporations rule the roost. I’d say at least they are Western.
Imagine if a country with Sharia Law types had that global capacity?

That's the great contradiction. Some bemoan the power the US has around the world and their faults yet no answer will be forth coming when asked "if not them, who?"...

...because the only answers are not compatible with their own opinions.

markodaly

Deleted User wrote: »

The United States military is the greatest terrorist organisation on earth and has been for two centuries.

So, in 1821 the United States military was the biggest terrorist organization on earth?
About 6 European empires existed back then...

People Loooooove to hyperbole stuff about the US, and they mostly don't have a notion.

Melanchthon

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I have no.love for American foreign policy but if the bombing was in retaliation for strikes against them and killed rebel fighters then wheres the issue?

Here after Suleimani was killed you were very active in the thread against it.
Suleimani was way more involved in strikes against Americans than a few random rebel fighters could have ever been.

Is it literally Trump did it = I disagree

Biden did it = I agree.

And oh all those massively negative consequences for the US that killing Suleimani was going to be bring about seem strangely absent.

Timberrrrrrrr

Melanchthon wrote: »

Here after Suleimani was killed you were very active in the thread against it.
Suleimani was way more involved in strikes against Americans than a few random rebel fighters could have ever been.

Is it literally Trump did it = I disagree

Biden did it = I agree.

And oh all those massively negative consequences for the US that killing Suleimani was going to be bring about seem strangely absent.

Yea I was quite vocal in that thread, do you know why?

Let's look at the difference.

Rebel fighters shoot at American bases/assets, Americans find out where they are and using precision guided missiles take out the bases = Legal(ish) pissès off the Iraqis to some extent but no real harm done.


Suleimani was invited to Iraq by the government, the Americans took it upon themselves to assassinate him on Iraqi soil also killing Iraqi soldiers = state terrorism, they literally broke international law and almost caused a war.

So to flip your words back at you, it seems to me that your stance is

Trump did it = I agree

Biden did it = I disagree

Kermit.de.frog

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

For Europe you have to look at Russia. It is not Germany or France or Britain that has Aegis destroyers with nuclear capable missiles in the Mediterranean. It is not the latter that provides the missile interception sites in Poland or Romania. It's the United States that bares the true weight of providing Europe's defense shield and that is the only reason the Russian army doesn't take the Baltic States and all of Ukraine as a first step.

Except, of course, Russia has little interest in expanding beyond their traditional borders, and even then, there's little benefit in doing so anymore. The taking of territory has become far too costly for a modern nation, since it's essentially impossible to wipe out the local population. While, Eastern Europe has something to fear from Russia, Western Europe doesn't.. because Russia wouldn't gain anything from taking us on, even if they were successful. Russia isn't a true threat, in any case, because their military isn't the beast that it once was. The advance of technology, but also, the availability of weaponry for small groups to engage in guerrilla style warfare means that Russia would be seriously hurt by any kind of occupation.

Waging war is one thing. Occupation is another. The simple fact is that it's just not worth the expense for Russia, and Europe isn't a threat to them.

Similarly in Asia the only reason Taiwan survives as a separate entity from China to this day is because of the US Pacific defense strategy and they also provide the same missile interception capability for South Korea, Japan as well as Taiwan.

China could take Taiwan and it wouldn't affect any of our freedoms. It's Asia, not anywhere near our own borders, and a China with Taiwan incorporated wouldn't affect our freedoms.

If/when China strikes for Taiwan (and they will some day), the west will have a choice, who are the ones going to fight?

Will Ireland or even Europe send a single soldier when it all kicks off?

Hopefully none. It's not our war. Nor should it be.

Thought not...we'll let the yanks do it - as usual, and you'll sit back and say "I protest!"

Yup, let the Yanks do it, because they've invested so much effort into the region. In any case, there's a very good chance that the US wouldn't get involved.

Remember the quote you responded to?

"Originally Posted by Labaik, America's foreign policy guarantees the freedoms we enjoy how exactly?"

You gave a list of scenarios, none of which are a threat to our freedoms. So, how does the US protect our freedoms?

Kermit.de.frog

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

That's the great contradiction. Some bemoan the power the US has around the world and their faults yet no answer will be forth coming when asked "if not them, who?"...

...because the only answers are not compatible with their own opinions.

Did you ask the question and wait for answers?

Why does there have to be anyone? If not them, why the assumption that some nation has to take the top spotlight, but who else is around?

China is a paper tiger with mostly a outdated military, with serious problems being able to project itself. China would struggle against Japan or S.Korea in any kind of conflict even without US involvement. So, what's the threat? That they would play around in Asia, and Africa, the same way that the US has played around in the M.East, S.America, and Africa?

None of the M.Eastern nations are a threat beyond their own region. Russia, isnt much of a threat either with it's buckling economy, massive inefficiencies, and corruption.

The truth is that things would probably continue as before. Few westerners seriously care about the dozens of wars ongoing around the world.

ancapailldorcha

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

That's the great contradiction. Some bemoan the power the US has around the world and their faults yet no answer will be forth coming when asked "if not them, who?"...

...because the only answers are not compatible with their own opinions.

Who says it has to be anyone? Territorial expansion is now largely pointless thanks to the rise of international trade and financial services. Much quicker and easier to buy what you need. You still have exceptions like Putin's invasion of Crimea but they're now aberrations as opposed to the norm.

The US lost its unalloyed reputation as the good guy when it began dabbling in the affairs of other nations after World War 2. The invasions of Afganistan and Iraq have been nothing but disastrous for both those nations and for the world as a whole.

The idea that we should be slavishly fawning over American power is so daft I'm surprised when I see people doing it at all, let alone on an Irish site.

TefalBrain

ulster wrote: »

It's great that this has got absolutely nothing to do with Ireland.

Ireland plays a huge role in the logistic support of the US war machine through it's base in Shannon so we do in fact have skin in the game.