Justification isnt needed. Just ask Obama. It was a legit and needed kill.
Translation: Justification isn't needed... it was justified. Also, 'but Obama'.
ok then!
And you didn't think that was at all non-sensical and/or ridiculous?
the people in those meeting have the clearances to view the intell, there is no legitimate reason to withhold the intel from someone who has the clearances with a 'trust us, we know better than you', especially with the way clearances were granted to Ivanka and Jared.That sounds like an absolute mess... Do you think there are any valid intelligence reasons why they aren't releasing more information in these meetings?
I'm thinking more like taxidermy, viagra won't raise the dead.I think most will require some Viagra to stand firm.
Blind trust in our elected leaders will be the death of this country. Looking through history at similar examples I don't believe turned out well.Don't appreciate the call-out. I rarely post to rationalize my vote in yes/no questions. 98% of this forum is at least left leaning at this point and even sensible right leaning posts get jumped upon and insulted.
The madness I saw during President Obama's tenure in right wing forums is on full display here. Conspiracy theories fly about in every thread, and even a few people I really respect here get caught up in some ridiculous ones.
I can't stand President Trump as a human being. But I choose to respect our leaders and hope that they have our best intentions at heart. I trusted Presidents Obama, Bush, Clinton, and Bush senior when they made important military decisions, and I trust our intelligence organizations. I know people who work/have worked in these positions and I find them trustworthy people. I have friends in the military who are heavily impacted by these choices and I watch them trust their leaders with their lives.
This thread is full of theories and speculation on why this trust might be unfounded. It is lacking in evidence and proof and seems highly emotional. That's not to say that there aren't good points. Most of you believe this administration to be horribly corrupt so I totally understand not trusting them with this.
But I do. Mainly because I don't really have any choice in the matter, and I know from history that there are plenty people out there who want to destroy America. I appreciate an aggressive, proactive approach to these people and organizations.
Actually it isn't that hard. @ultimatebob did it and his answer was respected. Agree or disagree.Sorry man, but I disagree. I mean look at my post now. There are three of you that want to convince me that "trusting leadership" is wrong when various leaders make decisions that you unknowingly trust every single day. I didn't want to post here for this very reason. It takes a lot of time to make a post that stands up to the criticism of everyone on this board, and even then it's not like it will change anyone's mind.
Blind trust in our elected leaders will be the death of this country. Looking through history at similar examples I don't believe turned out well.
Lessons not learned I guess
You've missed my points sadly. We can spin our wheels here on theorizing about what actually went down, or we can wait to make our conclusions. I'm just choosing to wait. Of course I'm suspicious. It's certainly possible that our president is trying to start a war simply to distract from his impeachment. But it really does me no good to waste my time thinking about or discussing it. If that's fun for you, great...
I'm not motivated to go out, protest, and try to change the system. I still have faith in the constitution and believe it or not I genuinely believe most of the people in DC want what's best for the country. So go ahead, call me naive or blind. You are welcome to rail against the system and our leadership as much as you like. But please don't call me out anymore. You can PM me if you're truly interested in what I have to say.
with the 2 new things that came out prior to your last post about Barr and Pompeo saying it was not an imminent threat and the WH not warning the embassies that there was an imminent threat would you change your vote and will you still give your same level of trust in this administration.
That also goes all the others who voted yes.
Obama was covered by the AUMF. There was no imminent threat so justification was neededJustification isnt needed. Just ask Obama. It was a legit and needed kill.
Obama was covered by the AUMF. There was no imminent threat so justification was needed
However it is answer, which was my actual point.You've missed my points sadly. We can spin our wheels here on theorizing about what actually went down, or we can wait to make our conclusions. I'm just choosing to wait. Of course I'm suspicious. It's certainly possible that our president is trying to start a war simply to distract from his impeachment. But it really does me no good to waste my time thinking about or discussing it. If that's fun for you, great...
I'm not motivated to go out, protest, and try to change the system. I still have faith in the constitution and believe it or not I genuinely believe most of the people in DC want what's best for the country. So go ahead, call me naive or blind. You are welcome to rail against the system and our leadership as much as you like. But please don't call me out anymore. You can PM me if you're truly interested in what I have to say.
Guess what? Read myselfI suggest you read this. Trump is covered by AUMF as well.
edit: I do recognize many are questioning that.
Guess what? Read myself
2001 AUMF was for 9/11 (Bin Laden)
2002 AUMF eas against Iraq (Saddam Hussein)
It has been wrong to use the 2001 AUMF for anybody absent Al-Quida/Bin Laden. If you recall Obama tried to get Congress to grant him a new AMUF but Republicans refused. National security be damned.ok
In the fifteen years since the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) was enacted on September 18, 2001, the Taliban has been removed from power but not eliminated; Osama Bin Laden has been killed and the senior leaders of Al Qaeda as of 9/11 have been captured, killed, or driven underground, although Al Qaeda remains a threat; numerous Al Qaeda affiliates have sprung up around the globe, most notably in Iraq, Yemen, Syria, and Somalia; and most ominously, the Islamic State has arisen from the ashes of Al Qaeda in Iraq to become what the Director of National Intelligence has described as “the preeminent terrorist threat” against the United States “because of its self-described caliphate in Syria and Iraq, its branches and emerging branches in other countries, and its increasing ability to direct and inspire attacks against a wide range of targets around the world.”
Despite massive changes in the geographical scope of the conflict that began on 9/11, the strategy and tactics employed, and the identity of the enemy, the AUMF remains the principal legal foundation under U.S. domestic law for the president to use force against and detain members of terrorist organizations. The AUMF is already the longest operative congressional authorization of military force in U.S. history, and, as of fall 2016, there was no immediate prospect that Congress would move to repeal or update it. With the continued vibrancy of Al Qaeda, its associates, and the Taliban, and with the 2014 presidential extension of the AUMF to cover military operations against the Islamic State, the AUMF is likely to be the primary legal basis for American uses of force for the foreseeable future.
It has been wrong to use the 2001 AUMF for anybody absent Al-Quida/Bin Laden. If you recall Obama tried to get Congress to grant him a new AMUF but Republicans refused. National security be damned.
If thats the case, then Obama's 500+ drone attacks were unlawful.
Then impeach him.
Then impeach him.
That would have made congress critters accountable. They wanted no part of that.It has been wrong to use the 2001 AUMF for anybody absent Al-Quida/Bin Laden. If you recall Obama tried to get Congress to grant him a new AMUF but Republicans refused. National security be damned.