MIGA: the art of the deal

@AverageJoe1 said
I say it is a legal war, considering it has been going on for 47 years, did you hear about Beirut?

Anyway it is legally contested You think it violates international law, and that Trump exceeds his authority. Did Iran violate international law at any time in those 47 years? That is a question.
I think conversely, I think it is self defense, and the Commande ...[text shortened]... kill infidels. All of Trump's citizens are infidels by Iran standards.
So.... a threat....to kill.

Did I miss Congress declaring war on Iran 47 years ago?

@no1marauder said
Did I miss Congress declaring war on Iran 47 years ago?

Trump has every right to declare military action without declaring war. There is a provisin in the constitutin. i am playing golf you could look it up

@AverageJoe1 said
? The Iranians, please? The issue? The threats? The japs, you say? You might not want to go there, as the Japanese killed over 2000 of our navy men in 1941 and during the last 47 years, the Iranians have killed over 2000 of our men in uniform.
So now I’ll call you to respond on what we did to the japs.???? and then tell us if we should do the same to the Iranians.
Sorry to put you on the spot, but you are indeed on the spot with this one

Again with this magic 47 number.

@AverageJoe1 said
Trump has every right to declare military action without declaring war. There is a provisin in the constitutin. i am playing golf you could look it up

No, there is no such provision in the Constitution. And both him and you keep saying "war" and that power was expressly taken away from the Chief Executive and entrusted to Congress.

Besides being stupid and reckless, this war is patently illegal.

In the 47 years of its existence, the Iranian Revolutionary Government and the US have generally been at odds, but both Republican and Democratic administration have negotiated binding agreements with them. The idea we've been at war with Iran since 1979 is something so patently ridiculous that AJ must have got it from a talking head on Fox News.

@AverageJoe1 said
I say it is a legal war, considering it has been going on for 47 years, did you hear about Beirut?

Anyway it is legally contested You think it violates international law, and that Trump exceeds his authority. Did Iran violate international law at any time in those 47 years? That is a question.
I think conversely, I think it is self defense, and the Commande ...[text shortened]... kill infidels. All of Trump's citizens are infidels by Iran standards.
So.... a threat....to kill.

Again with this magic 47 number.

@no1marauder said
No, there is no such provision in the Constitution. And both him and you keep saying "war" and that power was expressly taken away from the Chief Executive and entrusted to Congress.

Besides being stupid and reckless, this war is patently illegal.

In the 47 years of its existence, the Iranian Revolutionary Government and the US have generally been at odds, but both ...[text shortened]... e 1979 is something so patently ridiculous that AJ must have got it from a talking head on Fox News.

Well, yes, many people who know all bout this inside and out are interviewed, some with opposing opinion, like ours....So, since you ane I are not experts, we toss a few things around.
Like I might ask you if we should let the 'Beirut Massacre' just go by, give them a pass. You of course by your posts are saying that we should give them a pass. So I want to know why, but you go off like Soothfast. Boring stuff when it all has nothign to do with my questions,
We should let Iran alone, in effect forgiving them for the slaughter? you can say it was someone else, and that will pretty much wrap up the discussion, but I will put a win in my column. Or answer like a man. Like, your brother was in those baracks.

You cannot say the war is patently illegal. Boring. just saying that.

@AverageJoe1 said
Well, yes, many people who know all bout this inside and out are interviewed, some with opposing opinion, like ours....So, since you ane I are not experts, we toss a few things around.
Like I might ask you if we should let the 'Beirut Massacre' just go by, give them a pass. You of course by your posts are saying that we should give them a pass. So I want to know wh ...[text shortened]... her was in those baracks.

You cannot say the war is patently illegal. Boring. just saying that.

Are you really claiming we should go to war with Iran in 2026 because some of our troops got killed when they were invading Lebanon 43 years ago by a group of Lebanese who may have received aid from Iran?

What Fox News idiot told you to think that?

@no1marauder said
Are you really claiming we should go to war with Iran in 2026 because some of our troops got killed when they were invading Lebanon 43 years ago by a group of Lebanese who may have received aid from Iran?

What Fox News idiot told you to think that?

No Not Fox News All news, since it was a fact. You realize Sue reads this stuff. Do you also Let kids overhear your misinformation like you do with Suzianne?
Is nothing sacred ? This is the Forum!!!😖

Get this…”U.S. Marines in Beirut in 1983 were there as part of the Multinational Force in Lebanon, deployed with the consent of Lebanon’s internationally recognized government to help oversee the PLO withdrawal and support stabilization during the civil war. That made their presence lawful under international law because they were in the country at the host government’s request, not as an invading force. “

@Soothfast said
You forget entirely—as usual—Trump's original promises. One of those promises was to get the US out of foreign entanglements and concentrate on "Making America Great Again" and "America First."

They weren't promises, they were more, sort of, 'guidelines.'

-- Hector Barbossa, POTC

@AverageJoe1 said
No Not Fox News All news, since it was a fact. You realize Sue reads this stuff. Do you also Let kids overhear your misinformation like you do with Suzianne?
Is nothing sacred ? This is the Forum!!!😖

Get this…”U.S. Marines in Beirut in 1983 were there as part of the Multinational Force in Lebanon, deployed with the consent of Lebanon’s internationally recogniz ...[text shortened]... law because they were in the country at the host government’s request, not as an invading force. “

They were intervening in a civil war, like US marines in Saigon in 1967. That made them legitimate military targets and attacks against them could not be "terrorist" ones.

You dodged my question though. Are you really claiming that the Beirut attack in 1983 justifies war with Iran in 2026?

@no1marauder said
They were intervening in a civil war, like US marines in Saigon in 1967. That made them legitimate military targets and attacks against them could not be "terrorist" ones.

You dodged my question though. Are you really claiming that the Beirut attack in 1983 justifies war with Iran in 2026?

The Marines in Beirut were part of the Multinational Force, deployed with the Lebanese government’s consent as a peacekeeping mission after the PLO withdrawal. That’s very different from an invading army occupying a country. Their presence was legally authorized under international agreements, even if many Lebanese factions opposed it. 
…..and even if you Marsuder oppose it. Weak stuff today, Marsuder,
And attacking sleeping servicemembers in a barracks with a suicide truck bomb that also killed French troops and civilians is widely regarded as terrorism
And oh my gosh, my granny just pulled up some information that you and I discussed earlier. It seems that. U.S. courts later found Iran liable for materially supporting the Hezbollah-linked attackers.  In my book that means an Iran did the killing You said they did not. Whew. Chalk up another one for AvJoe.

@AverageJoe1 said
The Marines in Beirut were part of the Multinational Force, deployed with the Lebanese government’s consent as a peacekeeping mission after the PLO withdrawal. That’s very different from an invading army occupying a country. Their presence was legally authorized under international agreements, even if many Lebanese factions opposed it. 
…..and even if you Marsuder oppo ...[text shortened]... that means an Iran did the killing You said they did not. Whew. Chalk up another one for AvJoe.

You dodged the question AGAIN.

No, it isn't terrorism to attack military targets.

@no1marauder said
You dodged the question AGAIN.

No, it isn't terrorism to attack military targets.

Oooooohhhh Marauder….you let my granny defeat your comment with this nugget? (Gem, in law school parlance).
Give it up. The guys who were sleeping in their bed, dreaming of the girls back home,, they figured it to be terrorism. You demean them by not agreeing.

“”The October 23, 1983 truck bombing killed 241 U.S. servicemembers. It is widely regarded as a terrorist attack on a lawful peacekeeping deployment. “”

Give it up. Do you think Atlanta will get into the playoffs this year??

@AverageJoe1 said
Oooooohhhh Marauder….you let my granny defeat your comment with this nugget? (Gem, in law school parlance).
Give it up. The guys who were sleeping in their bed, dreaming of the girls back home,, they figured it to be terrorism. You demean them by not agreeing.

“”The October 23, 1983 truck bombing killed 241 U.S. servicemembers. It is widely regarded as a ter ...[text shortened]... ekeeping deployment. “”

Give it up. Do you think Atlanta will get into the playoffs this year??

One more time:

Are you really claiming that the Beirut attack in 1983 justifies war with Iran in 2026?

Not "widely regarded" by anybody who knows the correct definition of terrorism which is:

the unlawful use of violence or threats to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or government, with the goal of furthering political, social, or ideological objectives.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/terrorism

Use of violence against foreign military forces intervening in a civil war isn't "unlawful" according to the laws of war. Neither is it primarily motivated by "political, social or ideological objectives" rather than military ones. Finally, if US marines can be "terrorized" by the idea of someone trying to kill them in a combat zone, they should consider other careers such as accounting.

@AverageJoe1 said
Oooooohhhh Marauder….you let my granny defeat your comment with this nugget? (Gem, in law school parlance).
Give it up. The guys who were sleeping in their bed, dreaming of the girls back home,, they figured it to be terrorism. You demean them by not agreeing.

“”The October 23, 1983 truck bombing killed 241 U.S. servicemembers. It is widely regarded as a ter ...[text shortened]... ekeeping deployment. “”

Give it up. Do you think Atlanta will get into the playoffs this year??

The US was training and arming the Lebanese army which was at war with Muslim and Druze groups esp. after a Christian militia linked to Israel and the Lebanese President massacred over 700 civilians at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. That made them legitimate military targets and invaders as far as the majority of people (who were and are Muslims) were concerned.

So you can count that as an earlier war that a conservative Republican President got sucked into by Israel with deadly consequences for our troops.