(12-04-2025 10:06 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(12-04-2025 09:05 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-04-2025 07:38 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(12-02-2025 10:41 AM)Roxie Wrote:  

(12-01-2025 10:29 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  Wow. Who'd a thought in a war against Narco-Terrorists some Narco-Terrorists would be killed? Kill em all, let God sort em.

No official war has been declared dumb***.

Exactly what war did Obama declare when he killed about 6000 people with drones, including 400 collateral damage, dumb***? And some were American citizens.

Were you here then complaining about that? We must have missed you somehow.

Try the AUMF. Numbnuts.

Didn’t complain because there was an actual underlying authorization for the use of force. That is A, U, and F for above.

Now the schtick is “WHADDABOUT <something Obama>”. At least the comment has moved for once away from Biden. Still the same tired schtick. And better yet, rife with an apparent crucial lack of understanding that AUMF was in effect.

I addressed this in an earlier thread on this topic. The AUMF was for al-Qaeda. Not ISIS or al-Shabaab, or JNIM, or whatever other terrorist org you want to lump in that we've attacked over the years. The arguments that an AUMF were needed for AQ and CT actions was predicated on the belief that the President needed Congressional approval for long term, extended military action against combatants.

Obama absolutely used similar strikes against designated entities not included in the AUMF, so if you're going to rest your laurels on the AUMF then this isn't something you can have both ways. Therefore its relevant to establish a pattern of fact moreso than whataboutism. Moreover, Trump like Obama with the expansion of his targeted operations relied on Article II of the Constitution (which defines the powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief) as a standalone authority for limited military actions, particularly when those actions were intended to defend U.S. national interests and were considered to be "short of traditional war."

This is not a winnable argument to suggest that the current President doesn't have the authority to conduct targeted special operations such as this when every other President has used it to some degree without an AUMF or a Declaration of War.

lol ... which is the beauty of the 'irony corner' he painted himself into by using "WHADDABOUT..." ... at least he's good at some of summin' ...

(12-04-2025 01:04 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(12-04-2025 10:06 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(12-04-2025 09:05 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-04-2025 07:38 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(12-02-2025 10:41 AM)Roxie Wrote:  No official war has been declared dumb***.

Exactly what war did Obama declare when he killed about 6000 people with drones, including 400 collateral damage, dumb***? And some were American citizens.

Were you here then complaining about that? We must have missed you somehow.

Try the AUMF. Numbnuts.

Didn’t complain because there was an actual underlying authorization for the use of force. That is A, U, and F for above.

Now the schtick is “WHADDABOUT <something Obama>”. At least the comment has moved for once away from Biden. Still the same tired schtick. And better yet, rife with an apparent crucial lack of understanding that AUMF was in effect.

I addressed this in an earlier thread on this topic. The AUMF was for al-Qaeda. Not ISIS or al-Shabaab, or JNIM, or whatever other terrorist org you want to lump in that we've attacked over the years. The arguments that an AUMF were needed for AQ and CT actions was predicated on the belief that the President needed Congressional approval for long term, extended military action against combatants.

Obama absolutely used similar strikes against designated entities not included in the AUMF, so if you're going to rest your laurels on the AUMF then this isn't something you can have both ways. Therefore its relevant to establish a pattern of fact moreso than whataboutism. Moreover, Trump like Obama with the expansion of his targeted operations relied on Article II of the Constitution (which defines the powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief) as a standalone authority for limited military actions, particularly when those actions were intended to defend U.S. national interests and were considered to be "short of traditional war."

This is not a winnable argument to suggest that the current President doesn't have the authority to conduct targeted special operations such as this when every other President has used it to some degree without an AUMF or a Declaration of War.

lol ... which is the beauty of the 'irony corner' he painted himself into by using "WHADDABOUT..." ... at least he's good at some of summin' ...

I, for one, love seeing the Drunk Patent Lawyer get pwned yet again. So that's...0-211 now? He's as inept as the Washington Generals when they play the Harlem Globetrotters.

I honestly cannot recall a single case where he came out on top in the end. It's astonishing, actually.

(12-04-2025 01:10 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I honestly cannot recall a single case where he came out on top in the end. It's astonishing, actually.

Being a lawyer, he gets paid if he wins or loses most of the time. Pretty nice gig if you think about it.

(12-04-2025 10:30 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Never thought I'd see the day when the Republican party totally abandoned all critical thinking skill in subservience of an orange tin-pot wannabe dictator, yet here we are.

Says the guy that takes it hook, line, and sinker.

(12-04-2025 11:03 AM)Roxie Wrote:  

(12-04-2025 10:55 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  The Left thinks when the word "war" is used it is literal. Lame. Our government is on a "mission" to kill foreigners in the Narcotics trade that has killed exponentially more Americans than the Terrorists could only dream of. That is why they are called Narco-"Terrorists". Is that better? The US hasn't declared "War" since WWII, but we have been killing our "enemies" and other country's enemies since then, and will continue when the next Democrat POTUS is in office.

They are called narco terrorists to justify murder.

So you're for people bringing drugs into this country.. Cool cool.

(12-04-2025 10:06 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(12-04-2025 09:05 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-04-2025 07:38 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(12-02-2025 10:41 AM)Roxie Wrote:  

(12-01-2025 10:29 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  Wow. Who'd a thought in a war against Narco-Terrorists some Narco-Terrorists would be killed? Kill em all, let God sort em.

No official war has been declared dumb***.

Exactly what war did Obama declare when he killed about 6000 people with drones, including 400 collateral damage, dumb***? And some were American citizens.

Were you here then complaining about that? We must have missed you somehow.

Try the AUMF. Numbnuts.

Didn’t complain because there was an actual underlying authorization for the use of force. That is A, U, and F for above.

Now the schtick is “WHADDABOUT <something Obama>”. At least the comment has moved for once away from Biden. Still the same tired schtick. And better yet, rife with an apparent crucial lack of understanding that AUMF was in effect.

I addressed this in an earlier thread on this topic. The AUMF was for al-Qaeda. Not ISIS or al-Shabaab, or JNIM, or whatever other terrorist org you want to lump in that we've attacked over the years. The arguments that an AUMF were needed for AQ and CT actions was predicated on the belief that the President needed Congressional approval for long term, extended military action against combatants.

And the Bush, Obama, and Biden administrations called for and used the AUMF as the basis for the long series of drone attacks, especially with the 'aiding' nad 'supporting' language in it. Did they expand it too broadly? Maybe, maybe not. But the AUMF has broadening language in it.

And no, hate to tell you, there is NO language in the AUMF the solely delineates AQ. None.

Quote:Obama absolutely used similar strikes against designated entities not included in the AUMF,

Hate to tell you there are no specific designated entities in the AUMF.

Quote:so if you're going to rest your laurels on the AUMF then this isn't something you can have both ways.

Not trying to have it both ways. The previous administrations tolled back to the AUMF for their continued ME - related strikes. Using the 'aided' language in it. Add granted, the further in time the more attenuated that claim back was. But they still cited to *some* ground of authority for continued actions.

As opposed to simply writing them off as a series of 'onesies' under Art 2 authority.

Quote:Therefore its relevant to establish a pattern of fact moreso than whataboutism.

I havent denoted whataboutism. I commented on one being tossed out.

Quote:Moreover, Trump like Obama with the expansion of his targeted operations relied on Article II of the Constitution (which defines the powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief) as a standalone authority for limited military actions, particularly when those actions were intended to defend U.S. national interests and were considered to be "short of traditional war."

Actually, in testimony before Congress, the Obama administration almost always relied on the pre-existing AUMF as opposed to bald Art. 2 authority. And I will grant you that the plausibility of that claim decreased the further in time and targeted groups were.

In short pretty much every action in Iraq, or in Afghanistan fell under that claim. And the majority of ISIS strikes did as well. As did the majority of strikes in the Southern portion of the Saui peninsula.

Quote:This is not a winnable argument to suggest that the current President doesn't have the authority to conduct targeted special operations such as this when every other President has used it to some degree without an AUMF or a Declaration of War.

I would agree with one, 2, 3, or 4 strikes. Not so much the more it is continuously being used. If you want to portray 20 strikes in a two month time frame as limited Art 2 enforcement -- have at it. I think that description pretty empty at the current time.

I think it potentially possible that the current strikes may be covered as an allowable use of military force. However, the Trump regime has deemed even the legal basis for such strikes as some highly guarded state secret. Which I find highly problematic.

(12-04-2025 03:06 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(12-04-2025 11:03 AM)Roxie Wrote:  

(12-04-2025 10:55 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  The Left thinks when the word "war" is used it is literal. Lame. Our government is on a "mission" to kill foreigners in the Narcotics trade that has killed exponentially more Americans than the Terrorists could only dream of. That is why they are called Narco-"Terrorists". Is that better? The US hasn't declared "War" since WWII, but we have been killing our "enemies" and other country's enemies since then, and will continue when the next Democrat POTUS is in office.

They are called narco terrorists to justify murder.

So you're for people bringing drugs into this country.. Cool cool.

False assumption there dunn.

You find everything about Trump highly problematic. And you turn out to be wrong consistently.

Not to mention, TibL has beat you like a drum for months now.

(12-04-2025 01:04 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(12-04-2025 10:06 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(12-04-2025 09:05 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-04-2025 07:38 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(12-02-2025 10:41 AM)Roxie Wrote:  No official war has been declared dumb***.

Exactly what war did Obama declare when he killed about 6000 people with drones, including 400 collateral damage, dumb***? And some were American citizens.

Were you here then complaining about that? We must have missed you somehow.

Try the AUMF. Numbnuts.

Didn’t complain because there was an actual underlying authorization for the use of force. That is A, U, and F for above.

Now the schtick is “WHADDABOUT <something Obama>”. At least the comment has moved for once away from Biden. Still the same tired schtick. And better yet, rife with an apparent crucial lack of understanding that AUMF was in effect.

I addressed this in an earlier thread on this topic. The AUMF was for al-Qaeda. Not ISIS or al-Shabaab, or JNIM, or whatever other terrorist org you want to lump in that we've attacked over the years. The arguments that an AUMF were needed for AQ and CT actions was predicated on the belief that the President needed Congressional approval for long term, extended military action against combatants.

Obama absolutely used similar strikes against designated entities not included in the AUMF, so if you're going to rest your laurels on the AUMF then this isn't something you can have both ways. Therefore its relevant to establish a pattern of fact moreso than whataboutism. Moreover, Trump like Obama with the expansion of his targeted operations relied on Article II of the Constitution (which defines the powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief) as a standalone authority for limited military actions, particularly when those actions were intended to defend U.S. national interests and were considered to be "short of traditional war."

This is not a winnable argument to suggest that the current President doesn't have the authority to conduct targeted special operations such as this when every other President has used it to some degree without an AUMF or a Declaration of War.

lol ... which is the beauty of the 'irony corner' he painted himself into by using "WHADDABOUT..." ... at least he's good at some of summin' ...

Funny, I pointed out a whadabout. Didnt use one. Maybe try and reread it.

Pointing one out is different from using one?

(12-04-2025 11:39 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(12-04-2025 10:55 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  The Left thinks when the word "war" is used it is literal. Lame. Our government is on a "mission" to kill foreigners in the Narcotics trade that has killed exponentially more Americans than the Terrorists could only dream of. That is why they are called Narco-"Terrorists". Is that better? The US hasn't declared "War" since WWII, but we have been killing our "enemies" and other country's enemies since then, and will continue when the next Democrat POTUS is in office.

Yep. News flash. We never declared war on Vietnam.

News flash. We had the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. Good grief.

(12-04-2025 03:12 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Pointing one out is different from using one?

Yes actually.

(12-04-2025 03:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-04-2025 03:06 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(12-04-2025 11:03 AM)Roxie Wrote:  

(12-04-2025 10:55 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  The Left thinks when the word "war" is used it is literal. Lame. Our government is on a "mission" to kill foreigners in the Narcotics trade that has killed exponentially more Americans than the Terrorists could only dream of. That is why they are called Narco-"Terrorists". Is that better? The US hasn't declared "War" since WWII, but we have been killing our "enemies" and other country's enemies since then, and will continue when the next Democrat POTUS is in office.

They are called narco terrorists to justify murder.

So you're for people bringing drugs into this country.. Cool cool.

False assumption there dunn.

The day you and your ilk stop charactering the right for things, I'll stop. Til then stay in your lane.

You'd think Ofer would sit this one out after being wrong so many darn times, but he just can't help himself. It's hilarious to see.

(12-04-2025 03:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-04-2025 11:39 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(12-04-2025 10:55 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  The Left thinks when the word "war" is used it is literal. Lame. Our government is on a "mission" to kill foreigners in the Narcotics trade that has killed exponentially more Americans than the Terrorists could only dream of. That is why they are called Narco-"Terrorists". Is that better? The US hasn't declared "War" since WWII, but we have been killing our "enemies" and other country's enemies since then, and will continue when the next Democrat POTUS is in office.

Yep. News flash. We never declared war on Vietnam.

News flash. We had the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. Good grief.

It wasn't a formal declaration of war. What I said is correct. Good grief. You're always wrong.

(12-04-2025 03:17 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  You'd think Ofer would sit this one out after being wrong so many darn times, but he just can't help himself. It's hilarious to see.

(12-04-2025 03:16 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(12-04-2025 03:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-04-2025 03:06 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(12-04-2025 11:03 AM)Roxie Wrote:  

(12-04-2025 10:55 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  The Left thinks when the word "war" is used it is literal. Lame. Our government is on a "mission" to kill foreigners in the Narcotics trade that has killed exponentially more Americans than the Terrorists could only dream of. That is why they are called Narco-"Terrorists". Is that better? The US hasn't declared "War" since WWII, but we have been killing our "enemies" and other country's enemies since then, and will continue when the next Democrat POTUS is in office.

They are called narco terrorists to justify murder.

So you're for people bringing drugs into this country.. Cool cool.

False assumption there dunn.

The day you and your ilk stop charactering the right for things, I'll stop. Til then stay in your lane.

*characterizing *till

When "she" can't come back with a rebuttal, "Roxie" turns into a grammar Nazi. Typical.

(12-04-2025 03:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-04-2025 11:39 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(12-04-2025 10:55 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  The Left thinks when the word "war" is used it is literal. Lame. Our government is on a "mission" to kill foreigners in the Narcotics trade that has killed exponentially more Americans than the Terrorists could only dream of. That is why they are called Narco-"Terrorists". Is that better? The US hasn't declared "War" since WWII, but we have been killing our "enemies" and other country's enemies since then, and will continue when the next Democrat POTUS is in office.

Yep. News flash. We never declared war on Vietnam.

News flash. We had the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. Good grief.

News flash, the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was not a formal declaration of war.