Wars

MilesAway

Bongalong
Seth, these resolutions were created days after 9/11. They have been abused by our government, many times since then. Do you think that these resolutions gives the US the authority to topple governments, to kill and arrest citizens of sovereign countries, to suspend due process for all police actions abroad, to pay mercenaries and rebels to fight proxy wars, to lend out our military to help other countries, to sale arms for favors, or to steal the assets and resources of sovereign countries?

The devil is always in the details of the resolutions. Not in the intent!
First thing I thought about 9-11 was that they picked a weak President.
 

DonDeeHippy

Active member
United Nations Security Council resolution 1368, adopted unanimously on 12 September 2001, after expressing its determination to combat threats to international peace and security caused by acts of terrorism and recognising the right of individual and collective self-defense, the Council condemned the September 11 attacks in the United States.[1]

The Security Council strongly condemned the attacks in New York City, Washington D.C. and Pennsylvania and regarded the incidents as a threat to international peace and security. It expressed sympathy and condolences to the victims and their families and the United States government.

It was proposed by the French ambassador to the UN Jean-David Levitte.

The resolution called on all countries to co-operate in bringing the perpetrators, organisers and sponsors of the attacks to justice and that those responsible for supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organisers and sponsors would be held accountable.[2] The international community was called upon to increase efforts to suppress and prevent terrorist activities through co-operation and implementation of anti-terrorist conventions and Security Council resolutions, particularly Resolution 1269 (1999).

Resolution 1368 concluded with the Council expressing its readiness to take steps to respond to the attacks and combat all forms of terrorism in accordance with the United Nations Charter.[3]

United Nations Security Council resolution 1378, adopted unanimously on 14 November 2001, after reaffirming all resolutions on the situation in Afghanistan, including resolutions 1267 (1999), 1333 (2000) and 1363 (2001), the Council affirmed that the United Nations would play an important role in the country and called for the establishment of a transitional administration leading to the formation of a new government.[1]

The Security Council recognised the urgency of the situation in Afghanistan, particularly in Kabul, and supported efforts to combat terrorism according to resolutions 1368 (2001) and 1373 (2001). It condemned the Taliban for allowing Afghanistan to be used as a base and safe haven for Al-Qaeda, other groups and Osama bin Laden and violations of international law.[2] The preamble of the resolution welcomed the declaration by the Six plus Two group and the intention of convening a meeting involving all Afghan processes.[3]

The resolution supported the efforts of the Afghan people to establish a new and transitional administration leading to the formation of a government that would be fully representative, respect human rights and its international obligations and facilitate the delivery of humanitarian assistance.[4] It called on the Afghan forces to refrain from reprisals and respect human rights and international humanitarian law.[5]

The Council affirmed a central role for the United Nations in Afghanistan to establish the transitional administration.[6] It called on Member States to provide support towards the establishment of the transitional administration and government, humanitarian assistance and long-term assistance with regard to social and economic reconstruction and the rehabilitation of the country. Finally, Member States were urged to ensure the security of areas of Afghanistan no longer under Taliban control, particularly Kabul, and protect civilians, transitional authorities and all international personnel.
Looks like the quote and article I found was wrong.......they did have backing....:truce
 

MilesAway

Bongalong
doesn't change the fact you think he is great......
Not on climate change or the virus: he fucked up when he hinted at it being a conspiracy! That was back circa March... I've always said that!!

That's unforgiveable and he lost way back then... Climate Change: everyone knows Republicans just let the markets rip so denialism over that is expected but when it comes to a global pandemic then people actually care about that stuff!
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
There is no such thing as a straw man question. This is NOT what a straw man argument is. If we are declaring a war on terrorism/terrorists, then what is our goal? Why are we preemptively killing and arresting labelled terrorist from all over the world? If we are not acting like the world policeman, then why are we policing terrorists? What are we afraid of, that that might happen?
You can't be serious. I'm surprised that you would ask that question.

I define "being the world's policeman" as sticking our military noses into internal conflicts in countries that are no threat to us. Responding to an attack on our country or a close ally is self defense.

Do our actions clearly express our motives. Clearly we are trying to stop the spread of terrorism, and therefore terrorists, from taking over the world.
Can an organization like Al Qaeda harm us? Of course. They have proven it. Should we defend against that? Yes, we should. Does that mean that we think that if we don't, terrorists will take over the world? Of course not. Nobody is saying Al Qaeda or ISIS is able to "take over the world".

Does 5 American deaths/year due to Islamic extremism(mostly abroad) constitute a national threat? I agree that the President should have the power(as Commander in Chief), to deploy our military, to protect us from any SNEEK ATTACKS, or any IMMINENT ATTACKS, by any foreign NATION. But Not against any individual's threats, any group's threats, any ideological, perceived, imaginary, declared, or any conceivable threats from thousands of miles away. Or, for any of those convenient threats that serves only the government's own agenda. And, certainly when our war of self-defense is responsible for the deaths of so many innocent civilians. For decades, presidents have abused this loophole, SPECIFICALLY, because it allows them to avoid Congressional approval. Just like executive orders do.
Shell, this whole paragraph doesn't really make sense. Our war against Al Qaeda is authorized by Congress, consistent with the Constitution's empowerment of Congress to declare war.

I guess the sanctioning and trade embargo of Iran since 1995 by the US should just be ignored? These actions have indirectly caused the death of thousands of women and children, from the lack of food and medical needs. I guess abandoning the Iran nuclear treaty, and imposing even stricter sanctions should also be ignored? How about the Israeli-American cooperative, and blatant murdering of Iran's top military commander(Qasem Soleimani), without congressional approval. Should this also be ignored? Even, when Trump's own defense secretary tells him, that there is no intelligence that supports the idea, that Soleimani was planning to attacking 4 US Embassies. I guess we should just give this atrocity a pass, right? How about Trump telling the Iranian leaders, that he has targeted 52 of their cultural and historical sites, thus committing war crimes as well? But hey, another pass by the "Trumpanses", right? I guess completely surrounding Iran with US military bases, and sending in spy-drones over their air space would not be considered real provocation, right?
My point was that Trump could have responded to the Iranian missile attack, but he didn't. Trump then stated that he didn't want a war with Iran (consistent with many other statements he has made about wars in the middle east), and he proved it by not responding. He let it ride. He let Iran have the last word.

In fact America has done everything it can(including murder) to give Iran no choice but to go to war.
Of course Iran has a choice. It is not in Iran's interest to have a war with the U.S.



I certainly never said or implied that you have stated, that we went after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan under the guise of self-defense. These are MY words, not yours. If I gave you that impression, then I apologies. It was not intentional. But it IS my OPINION, that you have implied or stated that everything we do in this war on terrorism, is justified by calling it self-defense.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq was not self defense. Neither was our war against Libya. Neither was our war against the Syrian government. Our war against AQ, and later ISIS, was self defense.

Why can't we work with these governments harboring terrorists within their country?
Why don't you ask them? Ask Iran why it harbors Al Qaeda leaders. Ask Pakistan who we've worked with for a long time why they harbored bin Laden. We asked the government of Afghanistan to arrest and turn over bin Laden after 9/11, and they wouldn't do it. And my gut tells me that Pakistan is harboring Ayman al-Zawahiri, Al Qaeda's #1, and one of the few original conspirators who were behind 9/11. And, truth be known, we work with friendly governments all over the world on terrorism.

Why do we need to have boots on the ground, or risk American lives?
In some cases it's the only way. But there is a difference between conducting a military counter-terrorism operation and a military occupation of a country. I support the former, and I am opposed to the latter.

And again, what is this imminent and immediate threat to our sovereignty, that justifies a claim of self-defense? This threat is thousands of miles away. If you really want to win this war on terrorism, just leave those countries in the Middle East, and stop killing their citizens. IMHO.
It was not a threat to our sovereignty that got this war going in 2001. It was the mass murder of thousands of our people. That was ample reason to respond in self defense. You say the threat is thousands of miles away, but it wasn't on 9/11, now was it?

I think that Tulsi was referring to strengthening intelligence, mutual global cooperation's, terrorist data base sharing, and joint operations for credible immediate threats. Not all-out military interventionism, covert operations, regime change campaigns, and US paid proxy wars. We really missed our greatest opportunity for a safer and more peaceful world. Biden will continue more interventionist regime changing. He is after all a corporate stooge, and will do what the money tells him to do.
I interpret Tulsi's remarks differently than you do. I think she knows the difference between the right use of our military and the wrong use of it. I agree with you that we missed out on an opportunity to elect a great president. The Democrats denigrated her and kicked her to the curb. What I think they most hated about her was her independence of thought. I think she has morals, strong character, courage, and high intelligence, and I don't think those things are what they were looking for in a president. So we got Biden - a 5 decades long swamp creature, corrupt, of low morals and character, and willing to go along with whatever he's told. *sigh*

Ah well ... When Trump got elected I told my liberal friends to calm down, don't be hysterical, and that their turn would come again. Now it has, and I'm following my own advice. I will criticize, but I will not become hysterical over this idiot. America will go on, and conservatives will get a do-over sooner or later.

Seth :Salute 🇺🇸
 
Last edited:

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
In some cases it's the only way. But there is a difference between conducting a military counter-terrorism operation and a military occupation of a country. I support the former, and I am opposed to the latter.
I don't think the people in those countries, would see any distinction at all. Occupational or Operational, are just more military euphemisms, that describes only OUR perspective, not from THEIR perspective. We are just Americans on their soil, ignoring their laws. They are not foreigners on our soil, ignoring our laws.

I can see that we are just going around in circles. I don't believe that any country, for any reasons, has the right to go into another country, to arrest and kill its citizens period! I believe that there are limits to what actions can be justified as being in self-defense. Since Saddam Hussein has been dead for 14 years, and Osama bin Laden for over 9 years, we are NO LONGER waging a war with those two in self-defense. We are now just waging a war on every terrorists on the planet, and on every country that defends or conceals them.

I don't get it! You were a cop. You of all people should know what constitutes a claim of self-defense. And time is a vital requirement. You can't get stabbed in the pub on one day, come back and kill the person on the next day, and still claim that it was in self-defense, right? So using 9/11 to justify a self-defense claim NOW, is just ridiculous. I even outlined all of the statutory requirements for self-defense, and you simply ignored them. Was the planned execution of Soleimani your example of self-defense? Even if your own Secretary of Defense tells you that there is no imminent threat?

I believe that a war on terrorism/terrorists is an unwinnable war. And, the only people who will benefit from this war, are the war profiteers, big business, and hate groups. It will be an endless war, just like regime change wars. How do we stop a religious ideology, or a foreign way of life? We can't. If fact, winning would be losing. The more people we arrest and kill, the more hatred we would foster. The more atrocities we commit, the more people we would alienate. It is a lose-lose scenario. Just get out!!

I believe that ignoring the sovereignty of countries, only creates a very dangerous precedence. And, if other countries adopted this same strategy, it will only make the world a more hostile place to live(like the Australian gemsmith example you ignored). Imagine, having dinner with the family. But next door is a known Islamic sleeper cell. Unfortunately, the French drone missile took out the entire block. Oops! No more grandchildren for you!!

I believe the if any country/nation launches missiles at us, put ground troops on our soil, surrounded our country with bases, or makes any clearly defined overt attack on our allies or our interests, then a self-defense claim would be justified. So, WHAT are these imminent, immediate, and clearly perceivable threats to our US citizens? So, what exactly are these attacks, that we have been defended against for 20 years? Remember 5 people/year, justifying hundreds of billions of dollars in resources.

I believe that the best thing we can do to end the illusion of a war on terrorism, is to just get out of these countries, and let them solve their own internal problems. I believe that we all should stop believing everything that you are being told, by the government. We can't win a war on drugs within our own borders, so how can we win a war on terrorism outside of our borders?

If you feel that America has the right to ignore national sovereignties, national borders, kill and arrest foreign citizens, ignore protocols, to police all terrorism groups, or all radical religious ideologies, from all over the world, then that is your opinion. It certainly isn't mine.

"Of course Iran has a choice. It is not in Iran's interest to have a war with the U.S.". What a callous remark. How far do you think we should push them, until their survival is more important than their interests? How many more of their citizens have to die, before they have no choice but to fight back? But you are right(although irrelevant), that it is not in their interest to commit suicide. But, it is Russia and China, that might object to US intervention. Which now can become a big deal!
 
Last edited:

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
Well, I suppose it may seem like we're going around in circles. I prefer to think of it as a robust exchange of views. I like the fact that we can do that without childlike personal attacks and that we stick to the issues. And I find it interesting that, although most of our words are centered around what we disagree on, there are areas where we agree.

I don't think the people in those countries, would see any distinction at all. Occupational or Operational, are just more military euphemisms, that describes only OUR perspective, not from THEIR perspective. We are just Americans on their soil, ignoring their laws. They are not foreigners on our soil, ignoring our laws.

I can see that we are just going around in circles. I don't believe that any country, for any reasons, has the right to go into another country, to arrest and kill its citizens period! I believe that there are limits to what actions can be justified as being in self-defense. Since Saddam Hussein has been dead for 14 years, and Osama bin Laden for over 9 years, we are NO LONGER waging a war with those two in self-defense. We are now just waging a war on every terrorists on the planet, and on every country that defends or conceals them.
I'm going to draw a parallel with domestic law. As law-abiding citizens we enjoy many rights, privileges, and freedoms. However, if we commit crimes, we may lose those freedoms. So what we see is that our rights and freedoms are conditional, not absolute. And among the crimes we may commit are crimes where we obstruct justice, hide criminals, destroy evidence, effectively becoming an accessory after the fact. When we do those things, we compromise the assurance of our own personal sovereignty, don't we?

The parallel I'm drawing is with Pakistan and Pakistan's decision to harbor bin Laden and the U.S. decision to enter Pakistan and go get him. Another parallel would be Iran's choice to give safe haven to al-Masri, Al Qaeda's #2 commander. The details are murky, but it is believed that Osama's son, Hamza, who was in line to become Al Qaeda's leader, was also killed by a U.S. operation somewhere either in Afghanistan or (again) Pakistan, sometime between 2017 and 2019. I suspect it was Pakistan, and a decision was made in the U.S. government not to embarrass the Pakistani government by releasing the details. And I strongly suspect that Pakistan is harboring Ayman al-Zawahiri, Al Qaeda's leader.

Now I don't know how it squares with international law, but the case can be made that when you harbor international terrorists, you may run the risk of having your sovereignty violated by the enemy of those terrorists. The decision to harbor those terrorists was a deliberate choice. It was an unfriendly act that served to allow those terrorists to continue their operations against our country and other countries. It was also an act that served to thwart justice for the 3000 innocent Americans that were mass murdered. That choice violated all norms of respectful and civilized behavior. In Pakistan's case, it was a betrayal of our friendship. It is abundantly clear that if the U.S. had not gone into Pakistan and dealt with bin Laden, that he would never have been held accountable for his crimes.

So I'm not going to lose any sleep over getting bin Laden in Pakistan or al-Masri in Iran. If a country chooses to act like an international outlaw, it may expect to be treated like one.


I don't get it! You were a cop. You of all people should know what constitutes a claim of self-defense. And time is a vital requirement. You can't get stabbed in the pub on one day, come back and kill the person on the next day, and still claim that it was in self-defense, right? So using 9/11 to justify a self-defense claim NOW, is just ridiculous. I even outlined all of the statutory requirements for self-defense, and you simply ignored them. Was the planned execution of Soleimani your example of self-defense? Even if your own Secretary of Defense tells you that there is no imminent threat?
The pub analogy doesn't fit. The analogy is that someone threatens your family. Then one day they kill one of your children. Then on another day they kill another one of your children. Then on another day they kill your spouse, and they vow that they will continue to attack you and your family into the future.

I have discussed Soleimani at length in this thread and don't wish to rehash it all, but I don't think the Secretary of Defense told the President that there was no imminent threat.

I believe that a war on terrorism/terrorists is an unwinnable war. And, the only people who will benefit from this war, are the war profiteers, big business, and hate groups. It will be an endless war, just like regime change wars. How do we stop a religious ideology, or a foreign way of life? We can't. If fact, winning would be losing. The more people we arrest and kill, the more hatred we would foster. The more atrocities we commit, the more people we would alienate. It is a lose-lose scenario. Just get out!!
I don't think the win is with AQ waving a white flag. I think the win is in disrupting them, discouraging them, forcing them to question the efficacy of attacking the United States, losing confidence in their own leaders, and making it harder to find safe harbor. By doing these things, they become less capable and less of a threat to our country. Have you noticed that you almost never hear about Al Qaeda anymore? That is not because we cowered and caved in after 9/11. It is because we fought back with perseverance and lethality.

I believe that ignoring the sovereignty of countries, only creates a very dangerous precedence. And, if other countries adopted this same strategy, it will only make the world a more hostile place to live(like the Australian gemsmith example you ignored). Imagine, having dinner with the family. But next door is a known Islamic sleeper cell. Unfortunately, the French drone missile took out the entire block. Oops! No more grandchildren for you!!
If Australia had an AQ sleeper cell in Australia, Australia's domestic law enforcement would take care of them. Now if that AQ cell had carried out terrorist attacks on France and was planning to continue them, and Australia decided to just shelter them and let them continue with their terrorism, maybe France would drop a missile on them. Would you blame France for that, or would you blame Australia's government for that?

"Of course Iran has a choice. It is not in Iran's interest to have a war with the U.S.". What a callous remark. How far do you think we should push them, until their survival is more important than their interests? How many more of their citizens have to die, before they have no choice but to fight back? But you are right(although irrelevant), that it is not in their interest to commit suicide. But, it is Russia and China, that might object to US intervention. Which now can become a big deal!
I don't think of it as callous; I think of it as realistic. Look ... I don't want to push Iran, but, by the same token, I don't Iran to push us either. It's a two-way street, not a one-way street.
 
Last edited:

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
I have discussed Soleimani at length in this thread and don't wish to rehash it all, but I don't think the Secretary of Defense told the President that there was no imminent threat.

After Trump used the military to murder Soleimani, his own Republican senate passed a resolution, to limit Trump from taking any more military actions against Iran. Without him getting Congressional approval first. Clearly, this madman doesn't give a shit about a war with Iran. Or, the American lives that his war would cost. Obama killed a 16 yo American in Yemen, and Trump killed his 8 yo sister. Screw due -process, or even being charged with a crime first. Kill first, then justify later! We are no better than the fanatical groups that we are fighting. Bush took credit for the death of Saddam Hussein, and Obama for the death of Gaddafi and Osama bin Laden. Now Trump murders Soleimani, to join the same group of murderous leaders. Also claiming self-defense.

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/30...emen-trump-just-killed-his-8-year-old-sister/

No constitutional rights are absolute. But we are NOT talking about if these rights are absolute or conditional. Our basic Constitutional individual rights can not be violated, simply because they are NOT absolute. That is a logical fallacy. The analogy for justifying self-defense was the most obvious I could find. You cannot wait a day after a crime was committed against you, to respond, and still call it self-defense! Remember the "cooling off period" applies? The crime must be provable, actual, imminent, and immediate, to claim self-defense. The rules that I outlined earlier, becomes even MORE significant, when they are applied to nations and countries. We can't simply create our own legal justification, to justify any mandate to ignore the sovereignty of other countries. You don't seem to see just how dangerous a precedent we are setting. It fact, you don't seem to care. Your mantra seems to be, "Do as we tell you, or move out of our way," There is a political ideology, that also practices this same mantra.

Inmates may loose their freedoms, but they don't loose their other rights under the Constitution. Claiming that if a person in America can loose their freedom by committing a crime, then an entire country can loose their sovereignty by committing a crime(harboring, obstruction, accessory after the fact) is just ridiculous. Countries/nations are not human things(like corporations, banks, etc.). They can't loose their sovereignty or freedoms. This is a non-sequitur argument. But to suggest that these countries will give up their own sovereignty, if America decides they have committed a crime, is just borderline psychotic.

Countries/nations are under no obligations to give-up anyone. America is also under no obligations to give up all the political asylum seekers it has granted asylum to, right? Should other countries ignore our sovereignty, and overtly kill or kidnap our asylum seekers as well? Maybe their country's-of-Origin, should also think like you, and claim that our criminality voids our sovereignty? This is the same indoctrinated mob madness, that leads very smart people, into trying to rationalize very irrational behavior. There is no self-defense. There is only an impotent Congress and State Department, that still allows threatening countries, vengeance and vigilantism to stay on the table.

If Australia had an AQ sleeper cell in Australia, Australia's domestic law enforcement would take care of them. Now if that AQ cell had carried out terrorist attacks on France and was planning to continue them, and Australia decided to just shelter them and let them continue with their terrorism, maybe France would drop a missile on them. Would you blame France for that, or would you blame Australia's government for that?
I would obviously blame the French Government for that!! Are you really saying, that if Australia refused to cooperate in arresting an AQ sleeper cell, that had committed acts of violence in France, that France would be justified in dropping a missile on them in Australia? And, you seriously claim that this makes the world a safer place? How about this. Provide all the evidence first. Arrest and detain. Then extradite to France if warranted. But if Australia decides that there is not enough evidence, then respect their right to say no. How about this course of action? Or, is your bloodlust driven only by the killing first, and the due process second?

Have you any idea how many terrorist groups there are on this planet? And we are declaring war on terrorism? Isn't 20 years, and thousands of lost lives enough to learn, that we are wasting our time? But, of course the people keeping this war going are the same people with no skin in the game. It is not THEIR money they are wasting, or THEIR lives that are in harms way. So, all the credit, and none of the work.


In addition to this, the Taliban, Isis, and Al Qaeda, are even stronger today than in 9/11. The only thing more insane about this war of terrorism, are the people who actually defend it! No matter how many people die needlessly. No matter how there is no end game. They only believe that we are all in a state of constant self-defense. This is the exact state of fear and apprehension, that any terrorist could ever hope to achieve. How many more years and lives will it take, before we wake up?

We have finally accepted that prohibition has failed. That the war on drugs have failed. That the war to stop the spread of Communism was unwinnable. And now we are going to police all terrorists? We will never learn, as long as there are people always willing to rationalize stupid decisions. If you want to end this war, just get out. Stop killing their people and get out of their country. You are just creating MORE terrorist, better equipped terrorists, and more determined terrorists. Remember, we couldn't even beat the Viet Cong.


I don't think of it as callous; I think of it as realistic. Look ... I don't want to push Iran, but, by the same token, I don't Iran to push us either. It's a two-way street, not a one-way street.
Iran and Libya have both been sanctioned by the US since 1996. Iran had even stricter sanctions imposed on them, since the US walked out of their own nuclear agreement with them. I doubt if they are in any position to push back on their bullies. Iran has done nothing to me, and is no threat to me. So, there is no two way street. We simply provoke countries that can't fight back. The US is pulling all the strings. Thank God that Trump's own party chooses not to start a real world war over Trump's ego. Or, to becoming SA's and Israel's bitch, and fight Iran as their proxy.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
After Trump used the military to murder Soleimani,
I don't consider it murder. I am satisfied in the knowledge that Soleimani had been complicit in the deaths of many U.S. troops in the past and that he was effectively in command of the Shiite militias who had attacked our troops shortly before his death. He was a soldier, and he was engaging the battle of his (or his government's) choice. When he landed in Baghdad, he wasn't even met by Iraqi government officials; he was met by Shiite militia commanders. Let's face it. He wasn't there on a good will tour. My belief was that he was in Iraq to meet with the Shiite militia leaders to discuss plans to attack U.S. forces and to further undermine the relationship between the U.S. and the government of Iraq, a relationship that Tehran disapproves of. He went there in person because other forms of communication can be intercepted by U.S. intelligence.

his own Republican senate passed a resolution, to limit Trump from taking any more military actions against Iran. Without him getting Congressional approval first.
Which was fine with me. It should always be that way. I want those cowardly pissants in Congress to go on record. I want them to do their duty rather than shirk it and hide from it.

Clearly, this madman doesn't give a shit about a war with Iran. Or, the American lives that his war would cost.
I disagree with both statements, and I believe his record backs me up.

Obama killed a 16 yo American in Yemen, and Trump killed his 8 yo sister. Screw due -process, or even being charged with a crime first. Kill first, then justify later! We are no better than the fanatical groups that we are fighting. Bush took credit for the death of Saddam Hussein, and Obama for the death of Gaddafi and Osama bin Laden. Now Trump murders Soleimani, to join the same group of murderous leaders. Also claiming self-defense.
I don't lump all of the deaths of various people into one category of "murder"....

Osama bin Laden - Killed by U.S. forces, in an act of defense of the country, in a war authorized by Congress
Saddam Hussein - hung by the Iraqis after his trial
Gaddafi - Although he was shot by a Libyan militia member, he was effectively assassinated by Obama after, on his orders, Gaddafi's motorcade was struck and stopped by hellfire missiles fired by U.S. drones. This war was not in our national defense and not authorized by Congress, and so I would agree that the killing of Gaddafi was a murder committed by Barack Obama.
Syria - A civil war within the confines of Syria, threatening none of its neighbors, Obama, with the strong backing of Hillary Clinton, embarked on a proxy war against the Syrian government using the CIA to train and arm the rebels. Once again, Congress sat mute, as if they didn't even exist. The outcome of Obama's and Clinton's war was hundreds of thousands dead, destroyed cities, and at least a million refugees.
Baghdadi - blew himself up as U.S. Special Forces closed in on him. Hell, that guy was everybody's enemy.
Hamza bin Laden - Killed by U.S. forces in the war against Al Qaeda, authorized by Congress.
Anwar al-Awlaki - Having dual U.S.-Yemeni citizenship, killed in a drone strike in the war against Al Qaeda, in which he was in a leadership position, authorized by Congress. As far as his American citizenship goes, I don't think this would be any different than killing an American who joined the Nazis and fought with them in WW2. I think of him as a traitor who joined the enemy. And I disrespect him for putting his two children on the battlefield. Both were killed in U.S. operations aimed at other people, neither killing being by the specific intent to kill them. When our troops go into battle they don't take their children with them. He shouldn't have either. I love children, and when I think of those two children, I am truly sorry they got killed.

No constitutional rights are absolute. But we are NOT talking about if these rights are absolute or conditional. Our basic Constitutional individual rights can not be violated, simply because they are NOT absolute. That is a logical fallacy. The analogy for justifying self-defense was the most obvious I could find. You cannot wait a day after a crime was committed against you, to respond, and still call it self-defense! Remember the "cooling off period" applies? The crime must be provable, actual, imminent, and immediate, to claim self-defense. The rules that I outlined earlier, becomes even MORE significant, when they are applied to nations and countries. We can't simply create our own legal justification, to justify any mandate to ignore the sovereignty of other countries. You don't seem to see just how dangerous a precedent we are setting. It fact, you don't seem to care. Your mantra seems to be, "Do as we tell you, or move out of our way," There is a political ideology, that also practices this same mantra.
Well, I tried to explain it to you with an analogy. I'll try it again. You have friendly relations with your neighbor. Unfortunately, another neighbor hates that neighbor and therefore they hate you too. He tells you to leave the neighborhood, or else he'll kill your family. One day, the neighbor that hates both of you kills one of your children. In this analogy, there are no police to turn to. On another day, he kills another one of your children. Then on another day, he kills your remaining children and promises to kill you and your spouse in the future unless you pull up and get out. Now, do you get a gun, trespass on his property and kill him at his house, or do you just leave the neighborhood?

Inmates may loose their freedoms, but they don't loose their other rights under the Constitution. Claiming that if a person in America can loose their freedom by committing a crime, then an entire country can loose their sovereignty by committing a crime(harboring, obstruction, accessory after the fact) is just ridiculous. Countries/nations are not human things(like corporations, banks, etc.). They can't loose their sovereignty or freedoms. This is a non-sequitur argument. But to suggest that these countries will give up their own sovereignty, if America decides they have committed a crime, is just borderline psychotic.
First of all, I have a point of view, and just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it "borderline psychotic". There are many rather uncomplimentary words and phrases I could use to describe your point of view, but so far, I simply don't want to. There are all kinds of comment boards and forums I could go to if I just want to have a food fight with someone if I wanted to. Thing is, I don't want to.

Now, getting back to this paragraph I quoted, I am not talking about a country that harbors terrorists "losing" their sovereignty or that they "give up their sovereignty". What I am saying, however, is that a country may expect another country to act in its own self defense if they are sheltering terrorists as they plan and launch attacks on their country. In the hypothetical we used about France and Australia, if Australia was effectively abetting attacks on France, planned and launched from Australia by a terrorist organization, Australia could not complain if France launched an attack on those terrorists in Australia. In that case, Australia's territorial sovereignty would be violated, not "lost" or "given up".

Countries/nations are under no obligations to give-up anyone. America is also under no obligations to give up all the political asylum seekers it has granted asylum to, right? Should other countries ignore our sovereignty, and overtly kill or kidnap our asylum seekers as well? Maybe their country's-of-Origin, should also think like you, and claim that our criminality voids our sovereignty? This is the same indoctrinated mob madness, that leads very smart people, into trying to rationalize very irrational behavior. There is no self-defense. There is only an impotent Congress and State Department, that still allows threatening countries, vengeance and vigilantism to stay on the table.
The problem with your comparison is that the typical asylum seeker to the U.S. is not a trained and committed terrorist.

I'll agree with you that Congress chooses to be impotent. It really isn't impotent, but, sadly, it chooses to be. This is an area of agreement between us.

I would obviously blame the French Government for that!! Are you really saying, that if Australia refused to cooperate in arresting an AQ sleeper cell, that had committed acts of violence in France, that France would be justified in dropping a missile on them in Australia? And, you seriously claim that this makes the world a safer place? How about this. Provide all the evidence first. Arrest and detain. Then extradite to France if warranted. But if Australia decides that there is not enough evidence, then respect their right to say no. How about this course of action? Or, is your bloodlust driven only by the killing first, and the due process second?
I actually agree with you here. In any case where the criminal justice system can be used to deal with international terrorists, with countries cooperating with each other, I'm all for it. It's a far better alternative than using the military. The problem, of course, is that most terrorists do not base themselves in countries where that is possible. They base themselves in countries that have sympathetic governments (Afghanistan pre-9/11, Pakistan, Iran as examples), or in places where there is little or no government control (Somalia, Yemen, Libya). Our options in those cases are to submit to the terrorists' demands, or to answer them with our military.

Osama bin Laden wanted us to stop supporting Israel and to get our troops out of Saudi Arabia. So he bombed our embassies in Africa in the 1990s, and, not getting what he demanded, launched the 9/11 attacks. Now after 9/11, we could have simply folded and let Osama bin Laden dictate U.S. foreign policy, and just left him alone. Sorry, Shell, but I just don't think submitting to the likes of Osama bin Laden, fearful and with our tail between our legs, is in the DNA of Americans. And extradition from Afghanistan was not possible. As we would find out later, our Pakistani "friends" were not really our friends either. Our choices were to submit or to respond with the military.

Have you any idea how many terrorist groups there are on this planet? And we are declaring war on terrorism? Isn't 20 years, and thousands of lost lives enough to learn, that we are wasting our time? But, of course the people keeping this war going are the same people with no skin in the game. It is not THEIR money they are wasting, or THEIR lives that are in harms way. So, all the credit, and none of the work.
But regardless of how many terrorist groups there are in the world, I am only interested in dealing with the ones that are a threat to us or our closest, longstanding allies. The others may be bad an all, but I don't care about them.

Furthermore, I am acutely aware of whose skin is in the game, and this is why I feel so strongly about not getting involved in useless, unnecessary wars.

Put briefly, where you and I disagree, fundamentally, is what is necessary and what isn't.

In addition to this, the Taliban, Isis, and Al Qaeda, are even stronger today than in 9/11. The only thing more insane about this war of terrorism, are the people who actually defend it! No matter how many people die needlessly. No matter how there is no end game. They only believe that we are all in a state of constant self-defense. This is the exact state of fear and apprehension, that any terrorist could ever hope to achieve. How many more years and lives will it take, before we wake up?
The taliban, AQ, and ISIS have all learned what we do when they attack us, however.

Iran and Libya have both been sanctioned by the US since 1996. Iran had even stricter sanctions imposed on them, since the US walked out of their own nuclear agreement with them. I doubt if they are in any position to push back on their bullies. Iran has done nothing to me, and is no threat to me. So, there is no two way street. We simply provoke countries that can't fight back. The US is pulling all the strings. Thank God that Trump's own party chooses not to start a real world war over Trump's ego. Or, to becoming SA's and Israel's bitch, and fight Iran as their proxy.
No. It is a two-way street. Iran must not attack our small contingent of soldiers in Iraq through their proxy militias. In exchange, we will have no reason to punch back. That is the two-way street.

Seth
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
I don't consider it murder. I am satisfied in the knowledge that Soleimani had been complicit in the deaths of many U.S. troops in the past and that he was effectively in command of the Shiite militias who had attacked our troops shortly before his death. He was a soldier, and he was engaging the battle of his (or his government's) choice. When he landed in Baghdad, he wasn't even met by Iraqi government officials; he was met by Shiite militia commanders. Let's face it. He wasn't there on a good will tour. My belief was that he was in Iraq to meet with the Shiite militia leaders to discuss plans to attack U.S. forces and to further undermine the relationship between the U.S. and the government of Iraq, a relationship that Tehran disapproves of. He went there in person because other forms of communication can be intercepted by U.S. intelligence.

I doesn't matter what you want to consider Murder as. All assassination's are murders by definition. All the legal requirements(men's rea, intent, malice aforethought, special circumstances, etc.) define this action as Murder. The fact that it was committed in another country, outside of US jurisdiction, makes this crime even more egregious. Soleimani WAS in Iraq to confer with the military there, to get rid of the US troops there. He WAS in Iraq to provoke a US attack, that would refocus public anger away from Iran, and onto the US. But one thing you keep ignoring! WE ARE THERE IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY, AND ARE NOT WELCOME!!! Saddam and bin Laden have been dead for years. Why are we still on foreign soil? What about all the deaths, damages, atrocities, and other human rights violations, we and our paid rebels have committed in Iraq and Afghanistan? If any country did the same in America, we would be responding in the same way. We simply need to get out of these countries. We have no legal or moral right to occupy these country.

I would normally say provide the evidence(not just speculations, and silly straw man arguments), that demonstrates that our actions were only in self-defense. But clearly even the government couldn't provide any to the UN. They know that most people are stupid, loyal, and blind. And, will will believe anything that the government tells them. Especially, if it is packaged well. As long as we can frame/spin it, that we have been attacked by crazy religious people living with camels, they will eat it up. Just like we did with the WMD lies. And later the default, "well Saddam was a brutal dictator anyway.". We even told people that the Syrian leader was gassing his own people, or that our war ship was being attacked in the gulf of Tonkin. Just lies for the gullible. The government is doing the same thing with Soleimani, except it is AFTER THE FACT!!! And, you are doing exactly what the government wants. Give them a pass on blatant and premeditated murder/assassination? So, lets hear what the immediate and imminent reason was? More than 10 people lost their lives that day, and Mike Pompeo couldn't hold back the laughter when asked this question. Homicidal fuck!

I disagree with both statements, and I believe his record backs me up.
Really, what records? His tax, bankruptcy, or his failed business records? Do you think he cares about the banks, lending institutions, contractors, employees, students, and even his own siblings, that he has defrauded and stole from? Do you think he cares what will happen to them? Do you think he has any remorse for taking Soleimani's life, or the 9 other Iraqi citizens? Or is, "Well they shouldn't have been with him.", a good enough excuse? Or, "They must be guilty by association.", right? In the Viet Nam war, it took the body-bag count, and disfigured sons, daughters, husbands, and wives to end the war. Maybe that is what it will take for this insane war on terrorism to end.

We are talking about a man who claimed that going bankrupt, only shows how smart you are in business! A proud misogynist, a business fraud, and a chronic liar We are talking about a person with absolutely zero respect for people and society in general. So, YES, his ego wouldn't give a shit about starting a war(until it was too late), or care about the lives of those that would fight it.

Having dual U.S.-Yemeni citizenship, killed in a drone strike in the war against Al Qaeda, in which he was in a leadership position, authorized by Congress. As far as his American citizenship goes, I don't think this would be any different than killing an American who joined the Nazis and fought with them in WW2. I think of him as a traitor who joined the enemy. And I disrespect him for putting his two children on the battlefield. Both were killed in U.S. operations aimed at other people, neither killing being by the specific intent to kill them. When our troops go into battle they don't take their children with them. He shouldn't have either. I love children, and when I think of those two children, I am truly sorry they got killed.
US Press secretary Sean Spicer said, that "no American citizen would ever be targeted", when asked about Obama's drone policy in this war on terrorism. That was a blatant lie. Does any rational human being, think that any explosion would NOT kill anyone near the target? Therefore, collateral damage should always be expected, right? So why all the silly excuses? Do you think that these targets KNEW that they are going to be blown up, and when? How dare they bring their children and family members with them to also be blown-up. How selfish they must be? How dare they try to make us feel guilty for killing their loved ones. Or, the killing of anybody who was not the target. They are not Americans, so who cares, right? This is pure hypocrisy and blood lust. We are in their country killing their people, and expecting them to thank us.

What congressional approval are you talking about? Do you mean the DOJ decision, that legally allowed Obama to kill American citizens abroad, without any due process, any legal discourse, any trial, or having even committed a crime? They only need to be designated as a terrorist to be targeted in this war on terrorists. And, you still claim that this would make the world a safer place??? I just don't see it.

Well, I tried to explain it to you with an analogy. I'll try it again. You have friendly relations with your neighbor. Unfortunately, another neighbor hates that neighbor and therefore they hate you too. He tells you to leave the neighborhood, or else he'll kill your family. One day, the neighbor that hates both of you kills one of your children. In this analogy, there are no police to turn to. On another day, he kills another one of your children. Then on another day, he kills your remaining children and promises to kill you and your spouse in the future unless you pull up and get out. Now, do you get a gun, trespass on his property and kill him at his house, or do you just leave the neighborhood?
Maybe you should use an analogy that actually fits the legal requirements for self-defense?!! Maybe you should give an example of terrorists killing our children each day, because they hate our neighbor?! And, we must kill the terrorists before they can kill any more of our children? Maybe you should give an example of terrorist TRESPASSING on American soil, and killing the children of its citizens every day? If you want to spin a narrative, that convinces you that we must kill all Islamic terrorists, because we are justified by this state of continuous self-defense, then be my guest. I don't agree with you. How long do you think we should keep killing and dying in this so-called war? 20-50 more years? Indefinitely? How long?!!

First of all, I have a point of view, and just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it "borderline psychotic". There are many rather uncomplimentary words and phrases I could use to describe your point of view, but so far, I simply don't want to. There are all kinds of comment boards and forums I could go to if I just want to have a food fight with someone if I wanted to. Thing is, I don't want to.

Now, getting back to this paragraph I quoted, I am not talking about a country that harbors terrorists "losing" their sovereignty or that they "give up their sovereignty". What I am saying, however, is that a country may expect another country to act in its own self defense if they are sheltering terrorists as they plan and launch attacks on their country. In the hypothetical we used about France and Australia, if Australia was effectively abetting attacks on France, planned and launched from Australia by a terrorist organization, Australia could not complain if France launched an attack on those terrorists in Australia. In that case, Australia's territorial sovereignty would be violated, not "lost" or "given up".
What do you think I mean by a countries sovereignty? Sovereignty, "is the full right and power of a governing body over itself, without any interference from outside sources or bodies.". It is the exercise of power by the state. The power for the state to be independent and self-governing. When other governments accuse the state of criminal offences, attack and kill their citizens, occupy their land, steal their resources, ignore their laws and cultures, then those countries are ignoring the state's sovereignty. We don't have this right, regardless of how just our intentions are.

My statement was, "But to suggest that these countries will give up their own sovereignty, if America decides they have committed a crime, is just borderline psychotic.". Let's just ignore that I preference my comments with, "Countries/nations are under no obligations to give-up anyone.", and "Countries/nations are not human things(like corporations, banks, etc.). They can't loose their sovereignty or freedoms.". What do you think I am referring to here? So, if you are NOT suggesting that countries would give up their own sovereignty, then a border-line psychosis doe not apply. Right?

The problem with your comparison is that the typical asylum seeker to the U.S. is not a trained and committed terrorist.

I'll agree with you that Congress chooses to be impotent. It really isn't impotent, but, sadly, it chooses to be. This is an area of agreement between us.
Since we are talking about asylum seekers, I doubt if they would be trained and committed terrorists. But again you missed the point. What if the country of origin wanted them back because they were collaborators or saboteurs for the US? Should these countries also be allowed to ignore OUR sovereignty as well? They can make the exact same argument as we can. They can claim that WE are harboring terrorists as well. And, have THEIR courts give them the power to drone attack OUR asylum seekers. If there is some collateral damage, too bad. It's their own fault!! Right?? Our soldiers don't bring their children into battle right?

Osama bin Laden wanted us to stop supporting Israel and to get our troops out of Saudi Arabia. So he bombed our embassies in Africa in the 1990s, and, not getting what he demanded, launched the 9/11 attacks.
Really? I thought bin Laden blamed the US for all the deaths in Somalia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Lebanon, sanctions against Iraq, forming alliances with SA and Israel, and selling arms to rebels, and engaging in regime-change wars in the Middle East. But, I can certainly see how anyone looking for excuses for the US actions abroad, would believe that this one man, was driven by religious hatred and jealousy, and simply decided to attack the most powerful country on the planet. And, with 19 hijackers willing to commit suicide for him, just because he didn't like our relationship with two countries. Sounds about right to me. Really??

The taliban, AQ, and ISIS have all learned what we do when they attack us, however.
What part of these terrorist groups are stronger than ever now, don't you understand? Or, is your blind bloodlust limited only to, "kill them, kill them all, and anyone else who gets in the way."? You do realize, that if Russia, China, and Iran decide to join forces against the US, WE'RE DONE FOR!!! Together, they have more nukes, more missiles, more, ships, more men and armament than the US. So provoking the 14th most powerful military(Iran), is NOT a good idea. Fortunately, these countries are mindful of the consequences of what their actions would have on the world. America is only driven by profit! What other country is patrolling the oil-fields in Syria, and stealing their oil? I never thought I would ever be ashamed of being an American!


No. It is a two-way street. Iran must not attack our small contingent of soldiers in Iraq through their proxy militias. In exchange, we will have no reason to punch back. That is the two-way street.
Iran is doing everything to avoid a conflict with the US. And, if not for congressional intervention, Trump would have us already at war with Iran. Russia and China would support Iran to protect their own assets there. But eventually, they would become their allies. The war will be conventional at first, but once the US fails against a larger navy, a larger ground force, more conventional missiles, and the combined military technologies of all 3 countries, Nuclear weapons will then be used. And with America's nukes(5,800), against Russian's(6,375) and China's(320) nukes, only the world would be the "biggest loser". And, don't expect Israel and SA to help. Remember, the US is their bitch.

We are the provocateur's! We are the country on their soil. We are the country that is surrounding their country. And We are the country telling their citizens and government, NOT to fight back? I think the Germans did the same to the French resistance. This is NOT just a pissing contest between a narcissistic sociopath with power, and a rational adult. There IS no two-way street here! It is just, "do as I say or else". "If you don't do what we tell you, then you are provoking us". Why can't you see this, before it becomes too late?? Being right, AT ALL COSTS??
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
I doesn't matter what you want to consider Murder as. All assassination's are murders by definition. All the legal requirements(men's rea, intent, malice aforethought, special circumstances, etc.) define this action as Murder. The fact that it was committed in another country, outside of US jurisdiction, makes this crime even more egregious. Soleimani WAS in Iraq to confer with the military there,
Shiite militia, not the official Iraqi government military

to get rid of the US troops there. He WAS in Iraq to provoke a US attack, that would refocus public anger away from Iran, and onto the US.
His manner of provoking a U.S. attack was to first carry out an unprovoked attack on our troops. Well, he succeeded at provoking a U.S. attack, but I doubt it was what he expected. But he was a soldier, and that was the risk he took.

But one thing you keep ignoring! WE ARE THERE IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY, AND ARE NOT WELCOME!!!
In Iraq, we are not welcome by some, and we are welcome by others. After Soleimani was killed, the Iraqi Parliament passed a resolution calling for the complete withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, but that resolution is non-binding on the Iraqi Prime Minister. Our troops are there upon his authority and invitation. They train Iraqi troops and provide counter-terrorism missions (basically just mopping up ISIS cells).

Saddam and bin Laden have been dead for years. Why are we still on foreign soil? What about all the deaths, damages, atrocities, and other human rights violations, we and our paid rebels have committed in Iraq and Afghanistan? If any country did the same in America, we would be responding in the same way. We simply need to get out of these countries. We have no legal or moral right to occupy these country.
We do not "occupy" Iraq any more than we "occupy" Germany or UK or Japan.

I would normally say provide the evidence(not just speculations, and silly straw man arguments), that demonstrates that our actions were only in self-defense.
We know that Shiite militias take their orders from Tehran, and we know those orders originate with or flow through Soleimani's QUDS organization. We know that it was a Shiite militia that killed an American in Iraq in an unprovoked rocket attack on the American base. We know that Soleimani went to Baghdad to meet with top Shiite militia leaders shortly after that attack, and he was killed. So a strong case can be made that the strike was in self defense. But it also served to send a message to Tehran about the safety of our troops in Iraq and our embassy in Baghdad. "Hands off."

And I would like to point out that Iran has got no business sending its military general in charge of extra-territorial operations and clandestine operations to Iraq, unless it is to meet with the Iraqi government. At least U.S. troops are there on the invitation of the Iraqi government.

But clearly even the government couldn't provide any to the UN. They know that most people are stupid, loyal, and blind. And, will will believe anything that the government tells them. Especially, if it is packaged well. As long as we can frame/spin it, that we have been attacked by crazy religious people living with camels, they will eat it up. Just like we did with the WMD lies. And later the default, "well Saddam was a brutal dictator anyway.". We even told people that the Syrian leader was gassing his own people, or that our war ship was being attacked in the gulf of Tonkin. Just lies for the gullible. The government is doing the same thing with Soleimani, except it is AFTER THE FACT!!! And, you are doing exactly what the government wants. Give them a pass on blatant and premeditated murder/assassination? So, lets hear what the immediate and imminent reason was? More than 10 people lost their lives that day, and Mike Pompeo couldn't hold back the laughter when asked this question. Homicidal fuck!
As you know by now, I don't give our government a pass on very much.

Let me tell you a true story, and you will see the parallel. Years ago, my son, who was 12 or 13 at the time was on a soccer team. There was a boy on the team who started a pattern of aggressively picking on him during practice. He was deliberately tripping him and "slide tackling" him at will, for fun, not as a part of the game. I picked my son up after practice one day, and he told me about it. I told him to tell his coach. I picked him up next time, and he told me that the kid did it again, and he told the coach about it, and the coach did nothing about it ... just blew him off. So I told my son, he would just have to take care of it himself. "You mean hit him, Dad?" I answered him that if his coach wouldn't do anything about it, he would have to do something himself. A couple days later, after his next practice, I saw the offending boy walk off the field and he walked right by me. I saw a big reddened area on his cheek and puffy eyes like he had been crying. My son told me that that day, he had told that kid to stop tripping him and slide tackling him, and the kid had done it again, and my son said he slugged him in the face and knocked him down.

That boy never picked on my son again.

Sometimes you just have to stand up for yourself. Sometimes you just have to send a message.

Now, I would just as soon withdraw all our troops from Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. Particularly in Afghanistan, there would be consequences to that decision, but I don't think those people or that country is worth any more loss of lives of our service members. As I said before, you cannot build a beautiful statue out of sand.

But I am not the President, and I don't get to decide. But! As long as they are there, even if I don't like it, I will stand up for our right to punch back whenever its needed so that those service members don't become anyone's punching bag.

This is the real world we're talking about, with real bullets and death, not some academic exercise in international law or criminal law or other legalistic interpretation of what is allowed or proper.

I see the strike on Soleimani as little different than my boy punching that kid in the face. It wasn't to escalate a fight, but to send a message. I see it as self defense and sending a message.

Really, what records? His tax, bankruptcy, or his failed business records? Do you think he cares about the banks, lending institutions, contractors, employees, students, and even his own siblings, that he has defrauded and stole from? Do you think he cares what will happen to them? Do you think he has any remorse for taking Soleimani's life, or the 9 other Iraqi citizens? Or is, "Well they shouldn't have been with him.", a good enough excuse? Or, "They must be guilty by association.", right? In the Viet Nam war, it took the body-bag count, and disfigured sons, daughters, husbands, and wives to end the war. Maybe that is what it will take for this insane war on terrorism to end.
One thing about Trump is that on national policy that guy has been very open and consistent. He has never liked our involvement in these wars in the middle east ... "neverending wars" he has called them. After Soleimani was killed, Iran hit a U.S. base in Iraq with missiles, and Trump chose not to respond, in large part I think because no U.S. service members were killed. He let Iran have that last word, and he was true to himself, avoiding an escalating conflict that could have become a full on war. I think all this talk about Trump wanting to go to war with Iran is utter bullshit. Now that he has lost the election, he is reducing our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, again, doing what he always has wanted to do. Now, having lost the election, he doesn't worry about what the defense establishment thinks, the Republicans, or the Democrats, or the media. We are seeing him being consistent with his many prior statements about those deployments.

US Press secretary Sean Spicer said, that "no American citizen would ever be targeted", when asked about Obama's drone policy in this war on terrorism. That was a blatant lie. Does any rational human being, think that any explosion would NOT kill anyone near the target? Therefore, collateral damage should always be expected, right? So why all the silly excuses? Do you think that these targets KNEW that they are going to be blown up, and when? How dare they bring their children and family members with them to also be blown-up. How selfish they must be? How dare they try to make us feel guilty for killing their loved ones. Or, the killing of anybody who was not the target. They are not Americans, so who cares, right? This is pure hypocrisy and blood lust. We are in their country killing their people, and expecting them to thank us.
I don't expect Al Qaeda to thank us. But I do expect war fighters to not bring their kids onto the battlefield. Awlaki should have left his kids in the U.S. when he went to Yemen to wage jihad. When my son was in Iraq, his patrol was ambushed. During the firefight, one of the insurgents jumped into a pick-up and tried to escape. The Marines stopped it with their gunfire. The insurgent wasn't hit and surrendered. His boy, about 10-12 years old, had been hit and was dead in the truck. I asked my son why the guy brought his son to the ambush, and to this day, he doesn't know. It is one of many unpleasant memories from those days.

What congressional approval are you talking about? Do you mean the DOJ decision, that legally allowed Obama to kill American citizens abroad, without any due process, any legal discourse, any trial, or having even committed a crime? They only need to be designated as a terrorist to be targeted in this war on terrorists. And, you still claim that this would make the world a safer place??? I just don't see it.
I was talking about the AUMF of 2001.

Maybe you should use an analogy that actually fits the legal requirements for self-defense?!! Maybe you should give an example of terrorists killing our children each day, because they hate our neighbor?! And, we must kill the terrorists before they can kill any more of our children? Maybe you should give an example of terrorist TRESPASSING on American soil, and killing the children of its citizens every day? If you want to spin a narrative, that convinces you that we must kill all Islamic terrorists, because we are justified by this state of continuous self-defense, then be my guest. I don't agree with you. How long do you think we should keep killing and dying in this so-called war? 20-50 more years? Indefinitely? How long?!!
The neighbor we like that the other neighbor doesn't like is Israel. The killing of our children represent the attacks on our embassies in Africa and the bombing of the USS Cole, all of which killed many. The final killing of our remaining children is represented by the 9/11 attacks, at which point we finally got our gun, went to the killer's house, and killed him.

What do you think I mean by a countries sovereignty? Sovereignty, "is the full right and power of a governing body over itself, without any interference from outside sources or bodies.". It is the exercise of power by the state. The power for the state to be independent and self-governing. When other governments accuse the state of criminal offences, attack and kill their citizens, occupy their land, steal their resources, ignore their laws and cultures, then those countries are ignoring the state's sovereignty. We don't have this right, regardless of how just our intentions are.

My statement was, "But to suggest that these countries will give up their own sovereignty, if America decides they have committed a crime, is just borderline psychotic.". Let's just ignore that I preference my comments with, "Countries/nations are under no obligations to give-up anyone.", and "Countries/nations are not human things(like corporations, banks, etc.). They can't loose their sovereignty or freedoms.". What do you think I am referring to here? So, if you are NOT suggesting that countries would give up their own sovereignty, then a border-line psychosis doe not apply. Right?
Well, now ... Would you agree that Al Qaeda violated our sovereignty when it attacked our embassies in Africa and when it carried out the 9/11 attacks?

What part of these terrorist groups are stronger than ever now, don't you understand? Or, is your blind bloodlust limited only to, "kill them, kill them all, and anyone else who gets in the way."? You do realize, that if Russia, China, and Iran decide to join forces against the US, WE'RE DONE FOR!!! Together, they have more nukes, more missiles, more, ships, more men and armament than the US. So provoking the 14th most powerful military(Iran), is NOT a good idea. Fortunately, these countries are mindful of the consequences of what their actions would have on the world. America is only driven by profit! What other country is patrolling the oil-fields in Syria, and stealing their oil? I never thought I would ever be ashamed of being an American!


Bloodlust has nothing to do with it. I hate war. I hate unnecessary wars even more. But I also believe in standing up when forced to.

If Russia and China engage a nuclear war with the U.S., we're all done for - Russia, China, and the U.S. While an extremely remote possibility that everyone would commit mutual suicide, it is one important reason why I did not want Hillary Clinton to be our president.

We are the provocateur's! We are the country on their soil. We are the country that is surrounding their country. And We are the country telling their citizens and government, NOT to fight back? I think the Germans did the same to the French resistance. This is NOT just a pissing contest between a narcissistic sociopath with power, and a rational adult. There IS no two-way street here! It is just, "do as I say or else". "If you don't do what we tell you, then you are provoking us". Why can't you see this, before it becomes too late?? Being right, AT ALL COSTS??
See what I put in red? This was exactly the policy of Obama and Clinton (Libya, Syria).

I hope Biden, who was a part of that administration, doesn't act the same way ... I hope.

Seth :oldman 🇺🇸
 
Last edited:
Top