America & Its Moronic Foreign Policy

Labaik · 29-06-2021 10:00pm #1

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.

29-06-2021 10:03pm

Labaik wrote: »

Nothing ever changes with the U.S war machine.

An evergreen sentiment if ever there was one.

Timberrrrrrrr · 29-06-2021 10:35pm

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?

29-06-2021 10:42pm

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

29-06-2021 10:43pm

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 · 29-06-2021 10:48pm

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.

29-06-2021 10:50pm

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 · 29-06-2021 10:57pm

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 · 29-06-2021 10:59pm

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 · 29-06-2021 11:00pm

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.

29-06-2021 11:03pm

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.

29-06-2021 11:04pm

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 · 29-06-2021 11:05pm

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 · 29-06-2021 11:05pm

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 · 29-06-2021 11:05pm

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 · 29-06-2021 11:07pm

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

29-06-2021 11:10pm

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 · 30-06-2021 11:47am

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 · 30-06-2021 12:19pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It was illegal. It wasn't congressionally approved.

What approvel did they need

Gatling · 30-06-2021 12:23pm

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

Elmer Blooker · 30-06-2021 12:36pm

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 · 30-06-2021 3:23pm

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 · 30-06-2021 3:28pm

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 · 30-06-2021 3:48pm

America loves foreign wars fixing other countries.

MontgomeryClift · 30-06-2021 4:03pm

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 · 30-06-2021 4:11pm

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 · 30-06-2021 4:24pm

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 · 30-06-2021 4:27pm

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 · 30-06-2021 8:42pm

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 · 30-06-2021 9:47pm

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 · 30-06-2021 9:53pm

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.

America & Its Moronic Foreign Policy

Comments