RE: Trump Had “Ample Constitutional Authority To Take Out Soleimani”
Don't know whether I'd call it "ample", but I sure wish they'd at least tell us the real justification for it now instead of the runaround tap dance they're doing. And by us, I'm mostly referring to congress.
And again, FTR, any "hate" is not because of the guy getting dead, it's because this administration can't seem to be trusted with presenting even a rudimentary fact.
RE: Trump Had “Ample Constitutional Authority To Take Out Soleimani”
(01-10-2020 02:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: The real justification is that he is a target of opportunity and they had the opportunity.
And they've had it before...and they've not made this claim as the reason. At least not yet.
What we've heard so far, with not one shred of proof put forth:
1. There was an imminent threat.
2. There were multiple imminent threats.
3. They were planning to take out our embassy.
4. They took him out because he killed an American.
And I'm sure I'm probably missing a couple others.
RE: Trump Had “Ample Constitutional Authority To Take Out Soleimani”
(01-10-2020 03:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:
(01-10-2020 02:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: The real justification is that he is a target of opportunity and they had the opportunity.
And they've had it before...and they've not made this claim as the reason. At least not yet.
What we've heard so far, with not one shred of proof put forth:
1. There was an imminent threat.
2. There were multiple imminent threats.
3. They were planning to take out our embassy.
4. They took him out because he killed an American.
And I'm sure I'm probably missing a couple others.
Did the opportunities before involve him NOT being in Iran? Serious question.
RE: Trump Had “Ample Constitutional Authority To Take Out Soleimani”
But a question Owl, if we had the opportunity to take out Putin or KJU or Duterte or whoever is currently running Venezuela, or some of the thugs running countries in Africa or any other dictator currently with blood on their hands, should we do that and not worry about any repercussions?
RE: Trump Had “Ample Constitutional Authority To Take Out Soleimani”
(01-10-2020 02:57 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: Don't know whether I'd call it "ample", but I sure wish they'd at least tell us the real justification for it now instead of the runaround tap dance they're doing. And by us, I'm mostly referring to congress.
And again, FTR, any "hate" is not because of the guy getting dead, it's because this administration can't seem to be trusted with presenting even a rudimentary fact.
Why? This "ample/immediate" argument is one I simply dont find relevant. I suspect there was an immediate threat---but why does it matter? Do we really have any doubt that he was going to take out other Americans eventually? Look at it this way---Had Clinton taken out Bin Laden when he had the chance we dont have 911.
We knew the target killed many Americans in the past and was planning to do so in the future. We knew his location and had the opportunity to take him out. Frankly, to me, it would have been irresponsible to not take the kill shot when we had it given what we know and his past history. As for repucussions---what are they? iran might behave badly? Iran might sponsor terrorism? Iran might try to kill Americans? Hell---they are already doing all of that. The reality is there was zero down side to crippling iran's ability to act badly, sponsor terrorism, and kill Americans. JMHO.
(This post was last modified: 01-10-2020 03:18 PM by Attackcoog.)
RE: Trump Had “Ample Constitutional Authority To Take Out Soleimani”
(01-10-2020 03:09 PM)VA49er Wrote:
(01-10-2020 03:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:
(01-10-2020 02:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: The real justification is that he is a target of opportunity and they had the opportunity.
And they've had it before...and they've not made this claim as the reason. At least not yet.
What we've heard so far, with not one shred of proof put forth:
1. There was an imminent threat.
2. There were multiple imminent threats.
3. They were planning to take out our embassy.
4. They took him out because he killed an American.
And I'm sure I'm probably missing a couple others.
Did the opportunities before involve him NOT being in Iran? Serious question.
RE: Trump Had “Ample Constitutional Authority To Take Out Soleimani”
(01-10-2020 03:14 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:
(01-10-2020 03:09 PM)VA49er Wrote:
(01-10-2020 03:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:
(01-10-2020 02:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: The real justification is that he is a target of opportunity and they had the opportunity.
And they've had it before...and they've not made this claim as the reason. At least not yet.
What we've heard so far, with not one shred of proof put forth:
1. There was an imminent threat.
2. There were multiple imminent threats.
3. They were planning to take out our embassy.
4. They took him out because he killed an American.
And I'm sure I'm probably missing a couple others.
Did the opportunities before involve him NOT being in Iran? Serious question.
I just want congress told the actual reason, it's not that much to ask frankly.
I don't really need to know but I would think it had to do with the recent embassy situation and knowing he was involved, again. His name may have popped back up to the top of the list and he was taken out.
RE: Trump Had “Ample Constitutional Authority To Take Out Soleimani”
(01-10-2020 03:14 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:
(01-10-2020 03:09 PM)VA49er Wrote:
(01-10-2020 03:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:
(01-10-2020 02:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: The real justification is that he is a target of opportunity and they had the opportunity.
And they've had it before...and they've not made this claim as the reason. At least not yet.
What we've heard so far, with not one shred of proof put forth:
1. There was an imminent threat.
2. There were multiple imminent threats.
3. They were planning to take out our embassy.
4. They took him out because he killed an American.
And I'm sure I'm probably missing a couple others.
Did the opportunities before involve him NOT being in Iran? Serious question.
I just want congress told the actual reason, it's not that much to ask frankly.
The article explains why. We didnt have the balls to take him out. Prior administrations let him run from country to country training people to kill Americans and did nothing. Thats hardly a policy to be proud of. Bad actors have little reason to stop their behavior if their victims remain submissive and there are no consequences to their actions.
RE: Trump Had “Ample Constitutional Authority To Take Out Soleimani”
(01-10-2020 03:11 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: But a question Owl, if we had the opportunity to take out Putin or KJU or Duterte or whoever is currently running Venezuela, or some of the thugs running countries in Africa or any other dictator currently with blood on their hands, should we do that and not worry about any repercussions?
I’ll answer and the answer is yes. If they are openly attacking our sovereign property absolutely. This terrorist was also outside of his own country against your precious UN orders meeting with another known terrorist. What about that do you not understand?
RE: Trump Had “Ample Constitutional Authority To Take Out Soleimani”
(01-10-2020 02:57 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: Don't know whether I'd call it "ample", but I sure wish they'd at least tell us the real justification for it now instead of the runaround tap dance they're doing. And by us, I'm mostly referring to congress.
And again, FTR, any "hate" is not because of the guy getting dead, it's because this administration can't seem to be trusted with presenting even a rudimentary fact.
this news media can't seem to be trusted with presenting even a rudimentary fact.
Most liberals never heard or understood the story of the boy who cried wolf.
RE: Trump Had “Ample Constitutional Authority To Take Out Soleimani”
(01-10-2020 03:11 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: But a question Owl, if we had the opportunity to take out Putin or KJU or Duterte or whoever is currently running Venezuela, or some of the thugs running countries in Africa or any other dictator currently with blood on their hands, should we do that and not worry about any repercussions?
This guy is a general, not a dictator. He is not an ayatollah. He's not the prime minister of Iran.
And we did try to take out Ghaddaffi. Killed several members of his family, but he escaped. He learned to quit supporting terrorism.
Then Obama overthrew his government and now Libya is a lawless, impoverished state giving terrorists free run.
(and we've taken out, one way or another, a number of dictators from the 30s to the 70s.)
(This post was last modified: 01-10-2020 03:29 PM by bullet.)
RE: Trump Had “Ample Constitutional Authority To Take Out Soleimani”
(01-10-2020 03:16 PM)VA49er Wrote:
(01-10-2020 03:14 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:
(01-10-2020 03:09 PM)VA49er Wrote:
(01-10-2020 03:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:
(01-10-2020 02:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: The real justification is that he is a target of opportunity and they had the opportunity.
And they've had it before...and they've not made this claim as the reason. At least not yet.
What we've heard so far, with not one shred of proof put forth:
1. There was an imminent threat.
2. There were multiple imminent threats.
3. They were planning to take out our embassy.
4. They took him out because he killed an American.
And I'm sure I'm probably missing a couple others.
Did the opportunities before involve him NOT being in Iran? Serious question.
I just want congress told the actual reason, it's not that much to ask frankly.
I don't really need to know but I would think it had to do with the recent embassy situation and knowing he was involved, again. His name may have popped back up to the top of the list and he was taken out.
Totally get all that, so why can't they just say that to congress then instead of no consistent message?
RE: Trump Had “Ample Constitutional Authority To Take Out Soleimani”
(01-10-2020 03:25 PM)bullet Wrote:
(01-10-2020 02:57 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: Don't know whether I'd call it "ample", but I sure wish they'd at least tell us the real justification for it now instead of the runaround tap dance they're doing. And by us, I'm mostly referring to congress.
And again, FTR, any "hate" is not because of the guy getting dead, it's because this administration can't seem to be trusted with presenting even a rudimentary fact.
this news media can't seem to be trusted with presenting even a rudimentary fact.
Most liberals never heard or understood the story of the boy who cried wolf.
And that has exactly what to do with the administration not providing congress with the proper reasoning?
So you'd trust this if it were HRC as president and her administration providing 3 or 4 different reasons with no evidence to support it?
RE: Trump Had “Ample Constitutional Authority To Take Out Soleimani”
(01-10-2020 03:28 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:
(01-10-2020 03:16 PM)VA49er Wrote:
(01-10-2020 03:14 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:
(01-10-2020 03:09 PM)VA49er Wrote:
(01-10-2020 03:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: And they've had it before...and they've not made this claim as the reason. At least not yet.
What we've heard so far, with not one shred of proof put forth:
1. There was an imminent threat.
2. There were multiple imminent threats.
3. They were planning to take out our embassy.
4. They took him out because he killed an American.
And I'm sure I'm probably missing a couple others.
Did the opportunities before involve him NOT being in Iran? Serious question.
I just want congress told the actual reason, it's not that much to ask frankly.
I don't really need to know but I would think it had to do with the recent embassy situation and knowing he was involved, again. His name may have popped back up to the top of the list and he was taken out.
Totally get all that, so why can't they just say that to congress then instead of no consistent message?
Doesn't that give you pause?
Remember the WMD fiasco?
Remember, you guys don't trust the government?
No.
We know who this guy is.
That's like Congress throwing a fit because we hit Osama bin Laden without consulting them. They didn't. Because Republicans aren't nuts (at least not the vast majority).
RE: Trump Had “Ample Constitutional Authority To Take Out Soleimani”
(01-10-2020 03:28 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:
(01-10-2020 03:16 PM)VA49er Wrote:
(01-10-2020 03:14 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:
(01-10-2020 03:09 PM)VA49er Wrote:
(01-10-2020 03:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: And they've had it before...and they've not made this claim as the reason. At least not yet.
What we've heard so far, with not one shred of proof put forth:
1. There was an imminent threat.
2. There were multiple imminent threats.
3. They were planning to take out our embassy.
4. They took him out because he killed an American.
And I'm sure I'm probably missing a couple others.
Did the opportunities before involve him NOT being in Iran? Serious question.
I just want congress told the actual reason, it's not that much to ask frankly.
I don't really need to know but I would think it had to do with the recent embassy situation and knowing he was involved, again. His name may have popped back up to the top of the list and he was taken out.
Totally get all that, so why can't they just say that to congress then instead of no consistent message?
Doesn't that give you pause?
Remember the WMD fiasco?
Remember, you guys don't trust the government?
Doesn't really matter to me; however, given the hell the D's have put Trump through since 2016 I'd imagine the admin just didn't want to deal with it. I don't really blame them. Like Trump mentioned in his Ohio rally (the first one I've watched in its entirety, btw) he pointed to that very reason. He was more diplomatic (in his own way of course) by saying by the time Congress would have decided to do anything the moment would be passed and he would have missed the opportunity to take the dude out. Makes sense to me. We ALL know that if he had went to Congress first they would have stonewalled.
RE: Trump Had “Ample Constitutional Authority To Take Out Soleimani”
(01-10-2020 02:57 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: Don't know whether I'd call it "ample", but I sure wish they'd at least tell us the real justification for it now instead of the runaround tap dance they're doing. And by us, I'm mostly referring to congress.
And again, FTR, any "hate" is not because of the guy getting dead, it's because this administration can't seem to be trusted with presenting even a rudimentary fact.
No you don't and you wouldn't give a s hit either way. The only tap dancing is coming from those fckin losers on Team Treason trying to justify how killing one of the world's worst terrorists is a bad thing. Stop rolling their balls in your mouth and think for yourself and maybe put America first every once in a while.
I just want congress told the actual reason, it's not that much to ask frankly.
I don't really need to know but I would think it had to do with the recent embassy situation and knowing he was involved, again. His name may have popped back up to the top of the list and he was taken out.
Totally get all that, so why can't they just say that to congress then instead of no consistent message?
Doesn't that give you pause?
Remember the WMD fiasco?
Remember, you guys don't trust the government?
No.
We know who this guy is.
That's like Congress throwing a fit because we hit Osama bin Laden without consulting them. They didn't. Because Republicans aren't nuts (at least not the vast majority).
Nobody was asking them to consult congress before as that's not their job.
(This post was last modified: 01-10-2020 03:38 PM by Redwingtom.)
RE: Trump Had “Ample Constitutional Authority To Take Out Soleimani”
(01-10-2020 03:36 PM)BuffaloTN Wrote:
(01-10-2020 02:57 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: Don't know whether I'd call it "ample", but I sure wish they'd at least tell us the real justification for it now instead of the runaround tap dance they're doing. And by us, I'm mostly referring to congress.
And again, FTR, any "hate" is not because of the guy getting dead, it's because this administration can't seem to be trusted with presenting even a rudimentary fact.
No you don't and you wouldn't give a s hit either way. The only tap dancing is coming from those fckin losers on Team Treason trying to justify how killing one of the world's worst terrorists is a bad thing. Stop rolling their balls in your mouth and think for yourself and maybe put America first every once in a while.
Sorry, too busy thinking about my step son who will be deployed for the next 9 months next door to the middle east, to entertain your fantasies about sucking balls.
/
Trump Had “Ample Constitutional Authority To Take Out Soleimani”
