#46 President Joe Biden

Merkin Baller

Were people asleep from 2001-2008? 

JFC

brianlux

dignin said:

People do realize that the US launched multiple attacks in Syria during the Trump admin right?

So the "unlike Trump" line is pretty ignorant.

I love it when people call me "ignorant".  It really motivates me to love myself and be a better person.

The Juggler

static111 said:

Bombs not Checks!

Wait...do you think you're not getting a stimulus check because of a minor air strike last night?

static111

Bombs not Student Debt Relief

static111

The Juggler said:

static111 said:

Bombs not Checks!

Wait...do you think you're not getting a stimulus check because of a minor air strike last night?

When are bombs minor?  What was even the justification? Because our team got attacked in Iraq? What even are we still doing in Iraq?  Can the US go a year without bombing during the most progressive administration?

Hobbes

Bombs not pineapples

static111

Imagine if we had an obscure rule backed by an old racist that caused us to justify the monetary expenditure of every bomb.

brianlux

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SGTRjrROVI

static111

brianlux said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SGTRjrROVI

At least they aren’t Trump bombs?...

The Juggler

static111 said:

The Juggler said:

static111 said:

Bombs not Checks!

Wait...do you think you're not getting a stimulus check because of a minor air strike last night?

When are bombs minor?  What was even the justification? Because our team got attacked in Iraq? What even are we still doing in Iraq?  Can the US go a year without bombing during the most progressive administration?

Sounds like you're under the assumption you voted for a pacifist who was literally going to hand you a check for 2 grand the day he took office. 

FiveBelow

Hobbes said:

Bombs not pineapples

I had that shirt.

mickeyrat

The Juggler said:

static111 said:

The Juggler said:

static111 said:

Bombs not Checks!

Wait...do you think you're not getting a stimulus check because of a minor air strike last night?

When are bombs minor?  What was even the justification? Because our team got attacked in Iraq? What even are we still doing in Iraq?  Can the US go a year without bombing during the most progressive administration?

Sounds like you're under the assumption you voted for a pacifist who was literally going to hand you a check for 2 grand the day he took office. 

bingo.

mickeyrat

4 yrs of that whining gimme back trump.

static111

The Juggler said:

static111 said:

The Juggler said:

static111 said:

Bombs not Checks!

Wait...do you think you're not getting a stimulus check because of a minor air strike last night?

When are bombs minor?  What was even the justification? Because our team got attacked in Iraq? What even are we still doing in Iraq?  Can the US go a year without bombing during the most progressive administration?

Sounds like you're under the assumption you voted for a pacifist who was literally going to hand you a check for 2 grand the day he took office. 

I’m under the assumption that I voted against trump. What about the post you quoted gave you any other assumption?

static111

mickeyrat said:

The Juggler said:

static111 said:

The Juggler said:

static111 said:

Bombs not Checks!

Wait...do you think you're not getting a stimulus check because of a minor air strike last night?

When are bombs minor?  What was even the justification? Because our team got attacked in Iraq? What even are we still doing in Iraq?  Can the US go a year without bombing during the most progressive administration?

Sounds like you're under the assumption you voted for a pacifist who was literally going to hand you a check for 2 grand the day he took office. 

bingo.

What is the justification for this imperialist bombing?

mickeyrat

 

How consistent is Biden’s Syria strike with his team’s criticism of Trump?

Biden administration conducts strike on Iranian-linked fighters in Syria

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin on Feb. 25 said he was confident the building targeted was used by the militia responsible for attacks against U.S. personnel. (AP)

By

Aaron Blake

Feb. 26, 2021 at 11:28 a.m. EST

Just a few weeks into his term, President Biden has dealt with a heavy burden that comes with the office: when and how to use military force overseas. The administration on Thursday conducted an airstrike in Syria that officials believe killed several Iran-linked fighters. The strike was defensive in nature and was “in response to recent attacks against American and coalition personnel in Iraq, and to ongoing threats,” said Pentagon spokesman John Kirby.

Support our journalism. Subscribe today.

Biden and other top administration officials had in the past been critical of how the Trump administration dealt with the use of force in the Middle East, leading to allegations of hypocrisy.

But how much basis is there for that?

One tweet circulated widely Thursday night into Friday morning, from now-White House press secretary Jen Psaki. When then-President Donald Trump struck Syria in April 2017 in response to Syria’s use of chemical weapons, she questioned the use of force.

“What is the legal authority for strikes?” Psaki said. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad “is a brutal dictator. But Syria is a sovereign country.”

Fox News and other conservative media used the tweet to allege a double standard, with Fox saying it wasn’t “appearing to age well” in light of Biden’s strike. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and other liberals who have pushed for getting out of the Middle East also spotlighted the tweet as an example of overzealous U.S. intervention and the potential lack of legal basis for the strike.

Now-Vice President Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.) raised similar questions after another Trump strike on Syria in 2018. This strike targeted chemical weapons facilities and was joined in by other Western allies.

“I am deeply concerned about the legal rationale of last night’s strikes,” said Harris, who was then a senator from California. “The president needs to lay out a comprehensive strategy in Syria in consultation with Congress — and he needs to do it now.”

One very important difference between these 2017 and 2018 strikes and the strike Thursday is the impetus. While those strikes were about chemical weapons — and raised valid concerns that even some Trump allies shared about whether the United States should get involved — Thursday’s are described as being specifically about defending Americans in the region.

The Biden administration will need to make its case about the legitimacy and proportionality of the strikes, but its stated justification is that this was a response to Iran-linked groups targeting military personnel and contractors in northern Iraq, killing a contractor and injuring a service member, along with other threats involving U.S. interests specifically.

There have long been questions about just how much power a president should have to carry out such strikes in the absence of a formal and specific authorization for the use of military force in Syria, but the situations aren’t totally analogous.

Psaki’s statement about Syria being a sovereign country would seem to apply here and will be worth an explanation, regardless of the impetus for the attack, but she’s also not the one responsible for creating policy.

Biden’s past comments came up as well. Fox’s story, for instance, suggested Biden’s 2019 remarks about Trump and Syria also hadn’t “aged well.” The offending tweet: citing Trump’s Syria policy and saying “his erratic, impulsive decisions endanger our troops and make us all less safe.”

Biden had previously tweeted, in June of that year, that “Trump’s erratic, impulsive actions are the last thing we need as Commander-in-Chief. No president should order a military strike without fully understanding the consequences.”

POTUS?” asked a Newsmax contributor and Trump adviser.

This is even more apples to oranges than the others. Biden’s case was less that the strikes weren’t legal or were a bad idea than that Trump had no real strategy. What’s more, the impetus wasn’t a U.S. strike on Syria, but rather a cyberstrike against Iran — combined with Trump having authorized a conventional military attack on Iran for shooting down a U.S. intelligence drone, but pulling it back at the last minute.

There is a clear difference between provoking Iran, a more formidable regional power than Syria and one the United States has sought to avoid directly provoking.

Biden also wasn’t raising objections from a noninterventionist perspective. It was quite the opposite. If you look at what Biden actually said about Trump’s Syria policy in that October 2019 speech, his objection was that Trump was leaving. He was criticizing Trump for a planned withdrawal from Syria, saying it amounted to abandoning U.S. Kurdish allies in the region.

“Don’t believe Trump’s con here; this is not American leadership,” Biden said. “And this is not the end of forever wars. It’s a recipe for more forever wars.”

Biden has also made clear that he believes in retaliation for the targeting of U.S. troops in Syria and elsewhere. When it was reported in 2019 that Russia had placed bounties on Americans in the region, Biden criticized Trump for not doing enough.

“Did you hear the president say a single word?” Biden said in August 2019. “Did he lift one finger? Never before has an American president played such a subservient role to a Russian leader.”

The Juggler

mickeyrat said:

4 yrs of that whining gimme back trump.

I'm quickly remembering why I am not a member of either of these political parties. lol

static111

mickeyrat said:

 

How consistent is Biden’s Syria strike with his team’s criticism of Trump?

Biden administration conducts strike on Iranian-linked fighters in Syria

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin on Feb. 25 said he was confident the building targeted was used by the militia responsible for attacks against U.S. personnel. (AP)

By

Aaron Blake

Feb. 26, 2021 at 11:28 a.m. EST

Just a few weeks into his term, President Biden has dealt with a heavy burden that comes with the office: when and how to use military force overseas. The administration on Thursday conducted an airstrike in Syria that officials believe killed several Iran-linked fighters. The strike was defensive in nature and was “in response to recent attacks against American and coalition personnel in Iraq, and to ongoing threats,” said Pentagon spokesman John Kirby.

Support our journalism. Subscribe today.

Biden and other top administration officials had in the past been critical of how the Trump administration dealt with the use of force in the Middle East, leading to allegations of hypocrisy.

But how much basis is there for that?

One tweet circulated widely Thursday night into Friday morning, from now-White House press secretary Jen Psaki. When then-President Donald Trump struck Syria in April 2017 in response to Syria’s use of chemical weapons, she questioned the use of force.

“What is the legal authority for strikes?” Psaki said. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad “is a brutal dictator. But Syria is a sovereign country.”

Fox News and other conservative media used the tweet to allege a double standard, with Fox saying it wasn’t “appearing to age well” in light of Biden’s strike. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and other liberals who have pushed for getting out of the Middle East also spotlighted the tweet as an example of overzealous U.S. intervention and the potential lack of legal basis for the strike.

Now-Vice President Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.) raised similar questions after another Trump strike on Syria in 2018. This strike targeted chemical weapons facilities and was joined in by other Western allies.

“I am deeply concerned about the legal rationale of last night’s strikes,” said Harris, who was then a senator from California. “The president needs to lay out a comprehensive strategy in Syria in consultation with Congress — and he needs to do it now.”

One very important difference between these 2017 and 2018 strikes and the strike Thursday is the impetus. While those strikes were about chemical weapons — and raised valid concerns that even some Trump allies shared about whether the United States should get involved — Thursday’s are described as being specifically about defending Americans in the region.

The Biden administration will need to make its case about the legitimacy and proportionality of the strikes, but its stated justification is that this was a response to Iran-linked groups targeting military personnel and contractors in northern Iraq, killing a contractor and injuring a service member, along with other threats involving U.S. interests specifically.

There have long been questions about just how much power a president should have to carry out such strikes in the absence of a formal and specific authorization for the use of military force in Syria, but the situations aren’t totally analogous.

Psaki’s statement about Syria being a sovereign country would seem to apply here and will be worth an explanation, regardless of the impetus for the attack, but she’s also not the one responsible for creating policy.

Biden’s past comments came up as well. Fox’s story, for instance, suggested Biden’s 2019 remarks about Trump and Syria also hadn’t “aged well.” The offending tweet: citing Trump’s Syria policy and saying “his erratic, impulsive decisions endanger our troops and make us all less safe.”

Biden had previously tweeted, in June of that year, that “Trump’s erratic, impulsive actions are the last thing we need as Commander-in-Chief. No president should order a military strike without fully understanding the consequences.”

POTUS?” asked a Newsmax contributor and Trump adviser.

This is even more apples to oranges than the others. Biden’s case was less that the strikes weren’t legal or were a bad idea than that Trump had no real strategy. What’s more, the impetus wasn’t a U.S. strike on Syria, but rather a cyberstrike against Iran — combined with Trump having authorized a conventional military attack on Iran for shooting down a U.S. intelligence drone, but pulling it back at the last minute.

There is a clear difference between provoking Iran, a more formidable regional power than Syria and one the United States has sought to avoid directly provoking.

Biden also wasn’t raising objections from a noninterventionist perspective. It was quite the opposite. If you look at what Biden actually said about Trump’s Syria policy in that October 2019 speech, his objection was that Trump was leaving. He was criticizing Trump for a planned withdrawal from Syria, saying it amounted to abandoning U.S. Kurdish allies in the region.

“Don’t believe Trump’s con here; this is not American leadership,” Biden said. “And this is not the end of forever wars. It’s a recipe for more forever wars.”

Biden has also made clear that he believes in retaliation for the targeting of U.S. troops in Syria and elsewhere. When it was reported in 2019 that Russia had placed bounties on Americans in the region, Biden criticized Trump for not doing enough.

“Did you hear the president say a single word?” Biden said in August 2019. “Did he lift one finger? Never before has an American president played such a subservient role to a Russian leader.”

So a minor strike against US assets in a different country, that is being occupied for reasons questionable at best, is more justifiable than striking because of the use of chemical weapons on thousands of Syrian citizens?

mickeyrat

 

Joe Biden Iran Explaining the News Tehran Syria Iraq

EXPLAINER: How US airstrike in Syria sends message to Iran

By ZEINA KARAM and BASSEM MROUE

Today

BEIRUT (AP) — A U.S. airstrike targeting facilities used by Iran-backed militias in Syria appears to be a message to Tehran delivered by a new American administration still figuring out its approach to the Middle East.

The strike was seemingly a response to stepped-up rocket attacks by such militias that have targeted U.S. interests in Iraq, where the armed groups are based. It comes even as Washington and Tehran consider a return to the 2015 accord meant to rein in Iran’s nuclear program.

The U.S. appears to have chosen the target, just across the border in Syria rather than in Iraq, carefully. It's a way for President Joe Biden to signal he will be tough on Iran while avoiding a response that could offset the delicate balance in Iraq itself or trigger a wider confrontation.

And it's yet another example of how Syria, mired in civil war for the past decade, has often served as a proxy battlefield for world powers.

MORE STORIES:

• Congress split on US strikes in Syria on Iran-backed militia
• US bombs facilities in Syria used by Iran-backed militia
• Conviction in landmark case over Syrian government torture

WHO ARE THE FORCES TARGETED BY THE US?

The U.S. airstrike — which took place Friday in Syria — targeted one of the most powerful Iran-backed militias in the Middle East known as Kataeb Hezbollah, or the Hezbollah Brigades. The group is part of the Popular Mobilization Forces, which includes an array of Iraqi militias.

The group was founded after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 that toppled dictator Saddam Hussein. It is different from Lebanon’s Hezbollah, but the two groups are strong allies. In recent years, Kataeb Hezbollah has played a major role in the fight against the Islamic State group as well as helping President Bashar Assad’s forces in Syria’s conflict.

The group was founded by Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, a veteran Iraqi militant who was closely allied with Iran and killed in a U.S. drone attack in Baghdad in January 2020 along with Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the commander of Iran’s elite Quds Force.

The U.S. has hit the group before: In December 2019, an American strike along the Syria-Iraq border killed 25 of its fighters and wounded dozens. Washington called it retaliation for the death of an American contractor in a rocket attack that it blamed on Kataeb Hezbollah.

___

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR RELATIONS WITH IRAN?

The attack is likely aimed at sending a message to Tehran that the U.S. will not tolerate attacks against American interests in the region, while leaving the door open for talks.

It comes as the Biden administration faces an uncertain road in its attempts to resurrect the 2015 Iran nuclear deal — which gave Tehran billions of dollars in sanctions relief in exchange for curbs on its nuclear program and that the Trump administration pulled out of.

Full Coverage:

 

Syria

In the meantime, relations with Iran have been further strained as the country's proxies become more assertive, with Iran-backed militias increasingly targeting U.S. interests and allies. That has rekindled worries that the standoff relations between the U.S. and Iran could end up being fought out in Iraq.

Already there are signs that Iraq is being used to fight a proxy war. Explosive-laden drones that targeted Saudi Arabia’s royal palace in the kingdom’s capital last month were launched from inside Iraq, a senior Iran-backed militia official in Baghdad and a U.S. official told The Associated Press this week.

___

WILL THIS TRIGGER A WIDER ESCALATION?

That is unlikely at this point.

Biden’s decision to attack in Syria does not appear to signal an intention to widen U.S. military involvement in the region, but rather to demonstrate a will to defend U.S. troops in Iraq while also avoiding embarrassing the Iraqi government, a U.S. ally, by striking on its territory.

Pentagon Spokesman John Kirby said the operation in Boukamal, Syria, sends an unambiguous message: “President Biden will act to protect American and coalition personnel. At the same time, we have acted in a deliberate manner that aims to deescalate the overall situation in eastern Syria and Iraq.”

A Syrian commentator based in Turkey, Abdulkader Dwehe, said the choice of Syria was a wise one.

“Responding in Iraq could open a front that may be hard to close,” he tweeted following the attack. “With the Boukamal strike, a valuable point, and a political message rather than a military one, have been made.”

___

FOLLOWING IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF OTHER US PRESIDENTS

In its first weeks, the new Biden administration has emphasized its intent to put its focus on the challenges posed by China — even as volatility and threats to U.S. interests persist in the Middle East.

But the operation proved the region is never far from a U.S. president’s agenda.

By striking Syria, Biden joins every American president from Ronald Reagan onward who has ordered a bombardment of countries in the Middle East.

cincybearcat

static111 said:

Bombs not Student Debt Relief

i might be for that.