Stupid Watergate - or how to impeach Donald Trump.

Is Trump not the commander and chief of the military? I know congress has the ability to declare war, and they control the purse strings, but from my understanding of the military they are under the direct control of the commander and chief. So while he cannot declare war, he can pretty much do everything else and just not call it a war..... now imagine he also has direct control of all those nukes too...…….

So, straight from the US armed forces website
"Exactly who is in charge?

The President of the United States is the Commander in Chief, who is responsible for all final decisions. The Secretary of the Department of Defense (DoD) has control over the military and each branch - except the Coast Guard, which is under the Dept. of Homeland Security."

https://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/us-military-overview.html
 
Last edited:
The President can order the military into action for up to 60 days(plus a 30 days downturn) until he needs to ask Congress for further support like staying someplace longer etc.
 
Gonzo

There is a difference between nuke use.

A. It is 5:00AM. The military wakes the president. It has been verified that nukes have been launched at the U.S. The president is then told he has 5 minutes to make a decision to launch. In this scenario, it is all up to the president.

B. The president calls the military, ordering a first strike. The military establishment, from Sec Def, Joint chiefs, security advisor, ask the president why he wants to order a strike. If the president cannot make a compelling argument, it won't happen.

Iran

It wasn't a good idea but Bitch bamas weakness caused it with his JCPOA.

1. Obama PAID Iran to return our hostages. He says it was already owed to Iran. Thing is, it was owed to the SHAHs Iran, not to those religious nut job Khomeinies.

2. No ANYTIME ANYWHERE inspections. We have to give advanced warning and receive authorisation.

3. Sunset provisions. Iran isn't giving up shit. They go back to what they do in 10 years. In the meantime, they get IMMEDIATE sanctions relief and billions to funnel into their proxies in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, etc At best, we are renting de nuclearization.

4. Flush with cash and faced with a little bitch of a president, the Iranians roll full force into Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. All their proxies get a massive reenforcement in men and material. Iran has lots of cash to buy fancier Russian and Chinese hardware.

5. In 10 years, a much richer, less sanctions Iran, uses all that wealth to kick their nuke plan into overdrive. At least with N. korea, if they have nukes, they are not as good and limited, because they do not have the fund to build more and better.

All of the above takes a MASSIVE toll on not only our forces but our allies as well.

I love how America is expected to fucking stand down and we get all this attention but the other countries, nary a fucking word. Again, when your the biggest dog in the game, everyone else hates and gets all jellie.

The Iranians have been pushing us for YEARS, knowing our president was more interesting in cementing his legacy with JCPOA, then letting it be known to the rest of the world, we ARE the exception. Do not FUCK with us.
 
Last edited:
DarkCorp said:
Gonzo

There is a difference between nuke use.

A. It is 5:00AM. The military wakes the president. It has been verified that nukes have been launched at the U.S. The president is then told he has 5 minutes to make a decision to launch. In this scenario, it is all up to the president.

B. The president calls the military, ordering a first strike. The military establishment, from Sec Def, Joint chiefs, security council, ask the president why he wants to order a strike. If the president cannot make a compelling argument, it won't happen.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. But I was only bringing up the nukes to show that him ordering a drone strike is small stuff compared to what his theoretical power is. People seem worried about his tweets again.
 
DarkCorp said:
I love how America is expected to fucking stand down and we get all this attention but the other countries, nary a fucking word. Again, when your the biggest dog in the game, everyone else hates and gets all jellie.
Click to expand...

Aren't we supposed to be better than those nations you named? Just a crazy idea I know but eh, I am a bit special.

But let us leave "DEATH TO AMERICA" out here for a moment. With every action taken here, by any administration, be it Bush, Obama or Trump you have always to ask your self one thing.

Does it make America more save?

The killing of Soleimani well the consequences of it are still not clear yet. Will Iran back down? Will it mean more attacks? Maybe even open hostilities? Or just increased terrorist attacks. Which means there are now more risks than before. Hate Soleimani or not but he was a stabile factor which the intelligence agencies around the world knew. Now the question is who will follow him and will they be more or less crazy? This makes the situation in the middle east more unpredictable. Like a full escalation of conflicts in the middle east with Iraq becoming the battlefield for a proxy war between the US and Iran which will without a doubt mean more American soldiers and some civilians coming home in body bags. You can now call this hate against America or what ever. But the fact remains that Trump might have now dragged the US, willingly or unwillingly, into another conflict while also driving Iran and even Irak closer to Russia and all of this while he sold out one of the longest American Allies in the middle east, the Kurds, to the Turks. Which basically gave Syria also to Russia. Foreign policy particularly in the middle east is a 3D Chess game - the kind that Spock plays. And every move every decision you do has consequences.

So even if you follow your own logic here, that the United States has to remain the top dog, for what ever reason, you should see many of the decisions by this administration critically. You will not stop being a patriot because of it! Believe me.

GonZo_626 said:
Is Trump not the commander and chief of the military? I know congress has the ability to declare war, and they control the purse strings, but from my understanding of the military they are under the direct control of the commander and chief. So while he cannot declare war, he can pretty much do everything else and just not call it a war..... now imagine he also has direct control of all those nukes too...…….

So, straight from the US armed forces website
"Exactly who is in charge?

The President of the United States is the Commander in Chief, who is responsible for all final decisions. The Secretary of the Department of Defense (DoD) has control over the military and each branch - except the Coast Guard, which is under the Dept. of Homeland Security."

https://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/us-military-overview.html
Click to expand...
This depends entirely on what you consider an "act" of war or aggression and also an "imminent" threat. As far as I remember the president has only authority to do something when American lives are in direct or indirect danger with international terrorism and the nations that support such terrorist groups. The Trump administration for example claims they killed Soleimani based on future attacks. But so far they have not yet offered any more detailed information on this. The legality of this strike is not as crystal clear as it might seem! And I doubt that we will get any information here and no one will push for any investigation or charges anyway. Or you would have to actually review every drone strike of the last 15 years. The legality is another problem of drone strikes by the way which was also already an issue with the Bush and Obama administration. In their current form they represent a judge, jury and executioner which is particularly questionable when you consider something that might happen in the future like the planning of terrorist attacks. What's also interesting is that for the last 2 or 2 and a half years the President and Republicans doubted the intelligence community on every turn criticising everything (as they should in my opinion by the way) but now they are trustworthy sources again and sited as the reason for why the president is considering them in his decisions and we're not even told why. This is of course very convenient. Particularly in an election year.

As far as I understand it while the President is the commander in chief he is neither a King nor a Dictator that can do what ever he wants. Like ordering a drone strike on the Kremlin for meddling in the US election for example which could also be seen as an aggression by the way. I am sure you wouldn't agree with such action though considering the response it most probably cause by the Kremlin which might be nuclear. However the power Congress gave to the president after 9/11 is staggering when you look at it in detail.​

There is just one law that underpins the whole basis for the US being at war with al Qaeda and its cronies that has been even remotely scrutinised by Congress. The Authorisation for the Use of Military Force Act was drafted by the Bush White House in the week after the 9/11 attacks.

At its heart is a sixty-word sentence that gives the US president the power to “use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organisations, or persons” that he or she determines was behind or helped the people who carried out the attacks. It was passed into law by Congress on September 16 with only one dissenting vote.

The AUMF’s scope gave the president a free hand. It has no time or geographical limits; it technically allows the president to fight a perpetual global war. It also empowers the president to go after individuals as well as nation states.

(...)

AUMF is so broad that it allows the President to target new enemies without the usual authorisation from Congress. The scope has grown from just the Taliban and al Qaeda - AUMF is now being used to justify strikes against groups that did not exist when al Qaeda attacked the World Trade Centre and Pentagon.

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/explainers/legality-of-drone-warfare

I am not a legal scholar here and yes Congress gave the President a wide range of power after 9/11 in declaring military strikes - which is in my opinion a very questionable action particularly when you consider international laws. However the president can't just order his military to commit a drone strike in Iowa on suspicious citizens for example and I doubt that the congress would want to see the US commit war crimes either - which the specific targeting of cultural and civilian sites is as the US is still a member of the Geneva convention. Neither can he order something that could be seen as an declaration of war. Like well killing a high ranking official from a foreign nation, maybe? That's still up to debate but still the question is out there. Iran is a sovereign nation after all even if it supports terrorists. Particularly as the reason for Soleimanis presence in Irak is still rather iffy. It is not clear if it was official or not. I do not know how trustworthy those Information are but some claim he was actually invited. But who knows. Iraq has after all a very high Shia population which supports Iran. It is also interesting to note that Soleimani worked together with US officials in the past. Like in Afghanistan and also Irak when fighting Sunni extremists, Sunni make up roughly 10% of the Iranian population with the overwhelming majority being Shia. And believe it or not they hate each other more than they hate the US.
​
 
Last edited:
GonZo_626 said:
Is Trump not the commander and chief of the military? I know congress has the ability to declare war, and they control the purse strings, but from my understanding of the military they are under the direct control of the commander and chief. So while he cannot declare war, he can pretty much do everything else and just not call it a war..... now imagine he also has direct control of all those nukes too...…….

So, straight from the US armed forces website
"Exactly who is in charge?

The President of the United States is the Commander in Chief, who is responsible for all final decisions. The Secretary of the Department of Defense (DoD) has control over the military and each branch - except the Coast Guard, which is under the Dept. of Homeland Security."

https://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/us-military-overview.html
Click to expand...

The responsibility is obfuscated. Say the US starts a war in, say, Vietnam or Iraq or some place like that and million folks die. Will there be military court for the US war criminals? Of course not. The president "takes responsibility" but when their term ends, they are no longer guilty of anything they did during the presidency, e.g. LBJ, Nixon & Dubya.
 
Last edited:
To be fair no one would take responsibility in such a situation regardless who was in power. That's one of the benefits of being in power. And why everyone seeks ...

giphy.gif
 
There is no such thing as 'being better'. Geo politics will always be cut throat. It was like that 7000 years ago and hasn't changed since

Babylon, Ancient Egypt, Athens, Sparta, Persia, Macedon, Rome, Parthia, China, Mongolia, the old euro powers, Japan, Germany, SU and us.

Sticking our heads in the sand is never safe. The only reason you euros have that luxury is that the U.S. gets all the hate. Force the creation of a euro army to defend euro interests and watch how europe becomes a lot more selfish. Hell, the refugee and migrant crisis already has made countries that criticized us, do the same.

Kurds

I think we fucked up by miscalculating the fanaticism of the so called mild islamists. We tried to remedy that by backing a faction, which while effective, put us in the dog house with our NATO ally Turkey. Now I have no idea why we like Gulen so much, because our refusal to hand him over didn't make relations with the Turks better. Also on the shitty side is Turkeys desire for tech transfer with the Patriot System, which forced us to say no and them to go to the Russians. So yea that is on us.

Solemanei and Iran

What we should have done was maintain the status quo, pre Obama style. Carter fucked up and didn't reign in the Shah enough true. But the sanctions were working. The Ayatollahs will NEVER back down but we can keep them cash strapped via sanctions. We can keep the loonies isolated and unable to purchase modern weapons. That is why I blamed Obama. As soon as the Iranians sensed weakness, they struck. Had that not happened, we would not have needed to kill Solemanei.

And yes, Trump is a bit of a hypocrite because his courting of Kim Jong Un was a terrible mistake, but that might have been due to China.

I don't think Solemanei created that much stability. Every good that came from their ISIS contribution was undone by pushing Iranian influence in the region. What good is it when you kill ISIS yet arm Hezbollah, Hamas, and the militias that attack U.S. forces?
 
DarkCorp said:
There is no such thing as 'being better'. Geo politics will always be cut throat. It was like that 7000 years ago and hasn't changed since
Click to expand...
Yes but outside of this Machiavellian rationality of power you can still ask what the consequences of certain actions are. And you're right geo politics are often cut-throat politics. But maybe having at least some guidelines and moral compass that should be followed is beneficial and I will explain why. Like rules of engagement if you so will. Because here is the point. This is not merely an academic question that's only important in a few philosophical circles. This has very real and clear consequences even for the American people.

A government can not be two things at once. It can not be very corrupt on the geo political stage, promoting maybe even doing war crimes, while also being honest and following principles in domestic policies. If an individual is corrupt than it is corrupt in all of their decisions. So while you do have to compromise in some areas maybe you should not want a government that is compromising everything and that is at least aiming at being better than their adversaries. The United States is not Russia, or North Korea or Iran for exactly that matter because they at the very least try to follow a set or morals and ethics even if it means sometimes a disadvantage. They are build on a completely different principles. Like rule of law, the constitution, separation of power and holding those in power accountable. I know that someone can be extremely cynical about it in our day and age. But it is the reason why you can live a live with more freedom in the US compared to Iran. Exactly because you decide not to handle everything in a "cut throat" manner. What we're talking about are the core foundations of a society and the principles that also form their policies. Because you say, hold a moment, we are not Nazi Germany, or North Korea and we do not want people in power that act like they do. We want to be better!

What you describe here is yes, part of a reality. But at the end of the day it is about ideals, ideas and which ones are better. Even if they are not perfect.

DarkCorp said:
What we should have done was maintain the status quo, pre Obama style. Carter fucked up and didn't reign in the Shah enough true. But the sanctions were working. The Ayatollahs will NEVER back down but we can keep them cash strapped via sanctions. We can keep the loonies isolated and unable to purchase modern weapons. That is why I blamed Obama. As soon as the Iranians sensed weakness, they struck. Had that not happened, we would not have needed to kill Solemanei.
Click to expand...
The Iran-Nuclear deal was a masterpeace of modern diplomacy that actually worked even if it wasn't perfect. And do you want to know why I am so sure? Because Iran anounced the enrichment of Uranium over the agreed limit like as it was the next big thing. They wouldn't have done this if the deal wasn't working.
​
 
Mutant

I did crticise Trump? What is the problem? While Trump has fucked up on other things, the Iran being extra aggressive issue was caused by Obama style policies.

Crni

We still follow rules of law, to a point, and Trump may still feel the legal consequences of an assassination. That is exactly why I said the sanctions were working. It is a compromise on force. Had bammy not fucked that up, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. Obama literally gave Iran BILLIONS, for a deal that was un-enforcable. Iran then predictably sent all that money to their militias. It is no coincidence that Iran foreign policy went into overdrive after the JCPOA was signed.

JCPOA, everyone else BUT us benefitted. I told you, without ANYTIME and ANYWHERE, the inspection process will always be flawed. This sole point is why JCPOA wasn't worth it. We warn, they move shit somewhere else. All we are doing is allowing cheating. And what about sunset provisions?

They enriching more.

They were going to do it ANYWAY. If not immediately then 10 years later, but with a fuck ton more $$. Their announcement was merely a loud fuck you to us. The Iranians are no different than the N. Koreans. They see nukes as a vital part of their defense. Why else would they agree to sunset provisions but not full denuclearization?

The Iranians want the bomb, but unlilke N. Korea, they have no serious ally.

But yea, I can see how you being a German, can support it. Euro companies stood to make billions on contracts while you all let America deal with the fighting and dying. The Iranians sell you their cheap oil while funding their cash to militias and use it to buy new weapons. Europe already getting cozy with Russia with the Nord stream pipeline. Come to think of it, you euros are also pretty good at looking out for #1.
 
Last edited:
If they are going to do it anyway than nothing will stop them from doing it outside of a full scale invasion on Iranian territory which would end in a disaster. If even North Korea with all the sanctions can get a nuclear warhead do you really believe a country with more resources and a larger population will not achieve it? And Iran has allies, like well Russia.

If Iran wants a nuclear weapon they will get it. And at this point I even believe it will actually make the middle east less chaotic. What's the worst that could happen anyway with Iran as a nuclear power? That they will use nukes in the middle east? That's ridiculous. They are not idiots. They know that this will mean a total annihilation of their own nation the moment they push that button. What a nuclear weapon will give them is more leverage. Security. From Israel, Saudi Arabia but more importantly the United States. Actually I believe if Iran had access to nuclear weapons, that it will lead to a much more stabile middle east. Because now players like Saudi Arabia for example have to consider this in all their actions. Just as how the nuclear weapon pretty much stopped any conflict between Pakistan and India I believe it will make things more peaceful as well. Simply because those countries can not engage in open hostilities anymore.

DarkCorp said:
But yea, I can see how you being a German, can support it. Euro companies stood to make billions on contracts while you all let America deal with the fighting and dying. The Iranians sell you their cheap oil while funding their cash to militias and use it to buy new weapons. Europe already getting cozy with Russia with the Nord stream pipeline. Come to think of it, you euros are also pretty good at looking out for #1.
Click to expand...
Seriously now? Believe it or not but I respect your opinion and I enjoy discussing topics with you. But you're better than this bullshit. Do we really want to play this shitty game? I would rather compare my dick with yours than this stupidity of which nation was the bigger ass here and made a profit of all this. Don't insult your and my intelligence please. Neither Europe nor the US historically speaking has really made a good figure here. But I am tired of this kind of arguing.​
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top