(01-10-2020 06:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 06:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 05:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 02:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 02:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The Democratic response to the 'droning':

Yes, he was a murderer, and a terrorist, and was responsible for the deaths of hundreds (if not thousands) of US personnel and civilians, and was most likely planning to kill more United States citizens and military....... but.....

That position is not a weird one to have. The possibility of taking out Soleimani has apparently been on the table for multiples presidents, and the action wasn't taken because of the potential consequences. And, from what I've heard, that option was put out there as a way to encourage POTUS' to take a more measured approach.

Maybe that decision was wrong to delay the action, but not being supportive of the decision because of the potential repercussions is well within the bounds of logic and patriotism.

I mean, what you are saying is that you are seemingly at some level comfortable with allowing not just an individual to continue to murder US servicemen, but allowing a terrorist exporting state to do the same.

And from that, you must see how the position of the opposition to the droning actually seems to be fairly copacetic in allowing a directed murdering of US personnel.

Edited to add: Not a single Democratic member of the Senate has lent their support to a Republican-driven congressional effort to praise the U.S. military and intelligence community members who helped carry out the successful strike that killed Iranian terror leader Qassem Soleimani. The resolution is structurally identical to the 2011 Senate resolution praising former president Barack Obama for the operation that killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Yay team!

I mean, what you’re saying, is that at some level, you don’t care about ramifications or consequences of your actions and that we should not think about strategy when carrying out military operations. That, if a US citizen is killed, we should not worry about anything besides exacting revenge with force and bloodshed.

When the number is hundreds or thousands of Americans, you mean. At least have your argument fit the facts instead of reverting to your 'edge-case' thingy that you default to so often.

Please note where I said *a single* citizen lad.

In the case when the shitbucket has killed hundreds, or thousands -- yeah thats a pretty gd strong case. Apparently the entire Democratic party is willing to bend over and show their behinds in the case of this particular shitbucket.

Please note where I said I was OK with allowing a terrorist to kill servicemen?

Fun game we got here.

All you said was servicemen - so would me indicating that, at some level, you’re saying you don’t care about ramifications of avenging two or more servicemen be better?

In short, it’s stupid to try and paint me as a terrorist sympathizer because I argue that we should always be strategic with our use of force, and that those who don’t agree with this specific use of force aren’t immediately terrorism sympathizers.