rob feature
Noob
werd
"Iran Attacks US Bases: War Hawks Cheer/ Trump to Make Statement"
- Thread starter Grinder
- Start date
werd
rob feature
Noob
rob feature
Noob
.jpg)
rob feature
Noob
.jpg)
So what was your point exactly? Are you trying to say that Trump was to "blame" for this "chain of events" or are you trying to say something else? Again, I noted a "chain of events" as well - parents have kid, kid later murders someone - does that mean that the parents are somehow to "blame" for the murder? Of course not - and you know it. Just because an action kicks off a "chain of events" does NOT mean that the initial action is to "blame" for every event that comes after it - that is just silly.
Let's be real here - there is no amount of "evidence" that would satisfy you and your TDS. The Trump administration has already explained why they did it. Do you want them to come to your house and show you the evidence first hand? Even then, you *still* wouldn't accept it. So just face it - you will NEVER accept *anything* that Trump does. TDS is real.
I've noticed that a lot of people love to talk without actually saying anything. The try to discuss a topic without actually agreeing *or* disagreeing with a decision that someone else made - this way they can't ever be "wrong" or have the discussion used against them in the future.
I saw a Tom Steyer interview this morning where he was asked whether or not he would have authorized the strike on that terrorist and he talked in circles without answering the question at all. Typical. Complain about something that was done but then neither agree or disagree with it when asked about it.
I would hope they don't take the impeachment serious. A precedent needs to be set that impeachment is not a political weapon. Personally I'm confused why it doesn't require a super majority to get out of the House. If a president is truly deserving of impeachment, then a 2/3rd majority would be easily accomplished and would ensure it is not a political attack.
Our gov't knew Bin Laden was planning an attack but Clinton decided not to take him out when they had the chance. Just think how things would be different now if Clinton would have done his sworn duty then. This jihadist movement and war on terror would not even exist. A 5th grader understands these things but the Trump Derangement Syndrome crowd and the sheep can't comprehend it. It's amazing how dumb people can be.
rob feature
Noob
I'm saying that his actions led to this.
TDS? Yeah, I've heard the explanation. But again he has not presented evidence of an imminent threat. Just saying it does not make it so. I'm not trying to say the guy he killed was a nice fella. Sounds like he was a real POS actually. But to assassinate foreign leadership, a president needs either evidence of an imminent threat or permission of Congress. Looks like he had neither
And I'll start giving Trump credit for the few good things he has done when his supporters acknowledge all the bad things he does.
rob feature
Noob
facts
rob feature
Noob
Well, we agree that impeachment should not be used as a political weapon. But Congress should also be able to approach the subject from an impartial perspective and that certainly isn't happening.
rob feature
Noob
Capturing Osama bin Laden had been an objective of the United States government since the presidency of Bill Clinton. Shortly after the September 11 attacks it was revealed that President Clinton had signed a directive authorizing the CIA (and specifically their elite Special Activities Division) to apprehend bin Laden and bring him to the United States to stand trial after the 1998 United States embassy bombings in Africa; if taking bin Laden alive was deemed impossible, then deadly force was authorized. On August 20, 1998, 66 cruise missiles launched by United States Navy ships in the Arabian Sea struck bin Laden's training camps near Khost in Afghanistan, missing him by a few hours. In 1999 the CIA, together with Pakistani military intelligence, had prepared a team of approximately 60 Pakistani commandos to infiltrate Afghanistan to capture or kill bin Laden, but the plan was aborted by the 1999 Pakistani coup d'état; in 2000, foreign operatives working on behalf of the CIA had fired a rocket-propelled grenade at a convoy of vehicles in which bin Laden was traveling through the mountains of Afghanistan, hitting one of the vehicles but not the one in which bin Laden was riding.
souce
souce
You're right. The democrats most certainly did not approach it impartially.
rob feature
Noob
Nor have the Republicans. Do we agree there as well?
We had many opportunities to kill Bin Laden. We had real time surveillance on him for awhile. We even had our special ops forces watching him in one of his training compounds ready to strike but Clinton declined. It wasn't until later when Bin Laden was nearing final stages of 9/11 planning that he moved into the caves of Tora Bora that Clinton agreed to strike. We missed him. He could have been killed before quite easily. Maybe he was tipped off, who knows. When a country decides to have discussions and talks to target someone that takes times and word can get back to the target. Bottom line is you don't sit and wait for someone to attack you when you know they are planning that. Otherwise it could be too late.
rob feature
Noob
rob feature
Noob
Nowadays it's almost impossible to find someone impartial, but someone has to check the president's powers when he's out of line. It is clear that the party that our current president represents has no interest in ensuring that he operates within the law.
No, actually, it was the actions of the terrorist that led to this. You have it backwards. You act like Trump "fired the first shot" here - this "battle" has been going on for years - and we (the US) just respond to what the terrorists do in order to stop them. It's absolutely amazing to me how some people act like the US is the "bad guy" here. ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS. If Obama would have done the EXACT same thing, you would not be complaining. That is what they call TDS, my friend. You let your hatred for someone that you've never even met cloud your judgement so badly that you are complaining about taking out a terrorist.
Again, what would you "accept" as "evidence"? The US government is not going to let you in on all of the national security details that go into decisions like this. They can't even trust other government officials with this type of information, yet you want them to trust the public with this "evidence". Again, RIDICULOUS. No matter what evidence the Trump administration provided, you still wouldn't accept it.
Have fun with your TDS - I'm done replying to this silly threads that are just meant to bash the Trump administration and the USA. I cannot continue to participate in this garbage. I come here for car audio information, not Trump-bashing.
Enjoy.Thankfully we have the entire democratic congress, the justice dept and a powerful team of Trump hating lawyers that has made sure he has been operating within the law. No crimes from any of them.