Do They Think Americans Care ...

[Billy_Kinetta]

... about their arbitrary restrictions?

U.S. 'Self-Defense' Argument For Killing Soleimani Meets Skepticism | HuffPost

 

[Care4all]

one way is against the law,
the other way, would not be....

yep, many Americans don't give a hoot, we agree there...

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

one way is against the law,
the other way, would not be....

yep, many Americans don't give a hoot, we agree there...

SO when Obama droned a US citizen and his family killing children and women, without due process, that was okay but when President Trump drones a known terrorist who has killed 1000s of US soldiers that is wrong... You are so fucked up.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

one way is against the law,
the other way, would not be....

yep, many Americans don't give a hoot, we agree there...

International law that gives our enemies advantage over us should be dispensed with.

 

[deannalw]

... about their arbitrary restrictions?

U.S. 'Self-Defense' Argument For Killing Soleimani Meets Skepticism | HuffPost

Some Americans care or put up a show of caring, but most of us don't care if they care.

 

[Care4all]

one way is against the law,
the other way, would not be....

yep, many Americans don't give a hoot, we agree there...

International law that gives our enemies advantage over us should be dispensed with.

Are we in a treaty, for that International law where it took 2/3's of the Senate voting yea, to make it valid or was it some other means that we became part of the International law on this, do ya know???

One would be a lot harder to pull out of, than the other, is what I am thinking?

Either way though, the law should be followed as long as we are still signatories of the law, and should not break it..... until we legally get out of our obligation, imho....you know..not be a lawless nation, as it seems we are becoming, daily....

 

[White 6]

one way is against the law,
the other way, would not be....

yep, many Americans don't give a hoot, we agree there...

International law that gives our enemies advantage over us should be dispensed with.

Are we in a treaty, for that International law where it took 2/3's of the Senate voting yea, to make it valid or was it some other means that we became part of the International law on this, do ya know???

One would be a lot harder to pull out of, than the other, is what I am thinking?

Either way though, the law should be followed as long as we are still signatories of the law, and should not break it..... until we legally get out of our obligation, imho....you know..not be a lawless nation, as it seems we are becoming, daily....

1. This is the Trump administration. He hasn't seen a treaty he can't break just by saying we're out.
2. The article inferred he had broken the status of troops in country with Iraq. I would love for Iraq to ask us officially to leave. If they do, we should jump at the chance and say we're out of here, don't call us
3. I am not concerned about the international legality of taking out that swine. He should have stayed in his country, not on the battlefield in the country where we are stationed.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

one way is against the law,
the other way, would not be....

yep, many Americans don't give a hoot, we agree there...

International law that gives our enemies advantage over us should be dispensed with.

Are we in a treaty, for that International law where it took 2/3's of the Senate voting yea, to make it valid or was it some other means that we became part of the International law on this, do ya know???

One would be a lot harder to pull out of, than the other, is what I am thinking?

Either way though, the law should be followed as long as we are still signatories of the law, and should not break it..... until we legally get out of our obligation, imho....you know..not be a lawless nation, as it seems we are becoming, daily....

Either way though, the law should be followed as long as we are still signatories of the law, and should not break it..... until we legally get out of our obligation, imho

Is there a law that says we can't kill a terrorist?
Post it here.

 

[Care4all]

one way is against the law,
the other way, would not be....

yep, many Americans don't give a hoot, we agree there...

International law that gives our enemies advantage over us should be dispensed with.

Are we in a treaty, for that International law where it took 2/3's of the Senate voting yea, to make it valid or was it some other means that we became part of the International law on this, do ya know???

One would be a lot harder to pull out of, than the other, is what I am thinking?

Either way though, the law should be followed as long as we are still signatories of the law, and should not break it..... until we legally get out of our obligation, imho....you know..not be a lawless nation, as it seems we are becoming, daily....

Either way though, the law should be followed as long as we are still signatories of the law, and should not break it..... until we legally get out of our obligation, imho

Is there a law that says we can't kill a terrorist?
Post it here.

Did you read the link in the op?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

one way is against the law,
the other way, would not be....

yep, many Americans don't give a hoot, we agree there...

International law that gives our enemies advantage over us should be dispensed with.

Are we in a treaty, for that International law where it took 2/3's of the Senate voting yea, to make it valid or was it some other means that we became part of the International law on this, do ya know???

One would be a lot harder to pull out of, than the other, is what I am thinking?

Either way though, the law should be followed as long as we are still signatories of the law, and should not break it..... until we legally get out of our obligation, imho....you know..not be a lawless nation, as it seems we are becoming, daily....

Either way though, the law should be followed as long as we are still signatories of the law, and should not break it..... until we legally get out of our obligation, imho

Is there a law that says we can't kill a terrorist?
Post it here.

Did you read the link in the op?

Nothing in the link said it's illegal to kill a terrorist.

 

[Care4all]

one way is against the law,
the other way, would not be....

yep, many Americans don't give a hoot, we agree there...

International law that gives our enemies advantage over us should be dispensed with.

Are we in a treaty, for that International law where it took 2/3's of the Senate voting yea, to make it valid or was it some other means that we became part of the International law on this, do ya know???

One would be a lot harder to pull out of, than the other, is what I am thinking?

Either way though, the law should be followed as long as we are still signatories of the law, and should not break it..... until we legally get out of our obligation, imho....you know..not be a lawless nation, as it seems we are becoming, daily....

1. This is the Trump administration. He hasn't seen a treaty he can't break just by saying we're out.
2. The article inferred he had broken the status of troops in country with Iraq. I would love for Iraq to ask us officially to leave. If they do, we should jump at the chance and say we're out of here, don't call us
3. I am not concerned about the international legality of taking out that swine. He should have stayed in his country, not on the battlefield in the country where we are stationed.

it's only internationally illegal, IF WE SIGNED some sort of international treaty or agreement to it.... and yes, he was a swine... but the law is the law, and we signed it, if we did, for a reason... and for all I know, we didn't break it....if we play Gumby and can contort the law enough....

I have not delved in to the issue

 

[K9Buck]

one way is against the law,
the other way, would not be....

yep, many Americans don't give a hoot, we agree there...

International law that gives our enemies advantage over us should be dispensed with.

Are we in a treaty, for that International law where it took 2/3's of the Senate voting yea, to make it valid or was it some other means that we became part of the International law on this, do ya know???

One would be a lot harder to pull out of, than the other, is what I am thinking?

Either way though, the law should be followed as long as we are still signatories of the law, and should not break it..... until we legally get out of our obligation, imho....you know..not be a lawless nation, as it seems we are becoming, daily....

So you're suddenly a stickler for following the law even though you didn't give a fuck about the law when Hillary, Barry, the FBI, CIA and IRS were breaking them on a routine basis. Thanks for the laugh.

 

[Care4all]

one way is against the law,
the other way, would not be....

yep, many Americans don't give a hoot, we agree there...

International law that gives our enemies advantage over us should be dispensed with.

Are we in a treaty, for that International law where it took 2/3's of the Senate voting yea, to make it valid or was it some other means that we became part of the International law on this, do ya know???

One would be a lot harder to pull out of, than the other, is what I am thinking?

Either way though, the law should be followed as long as we are still signatories of the law, and should not break it..... until we legally get out of our obligation, imho....you know..not be a lawless nation, as it seems we are becoming, daily....

So you're suddenly a stickler for following the law even though you didn't give a fuck about the law when Hillary, Barry, the FBI, CIA and IRS were breaking them on a routine basis. Thanks for the laugh.

they were not breaking them on a routine basis, those are voices in your head.

And if you believed they were and are all upset about it, as it appears you were and are..

Where are you NOW with this president and admin, continually breaking our laws??

 

[White 6]

one way is against the law,
the other way, would not be....

yep, many Americans don't give a hoot, we agree there...

International law that gives our enemies advantage over us should be dispensed with.

Are we in a treaty, for that International law where it took 2/3's of the Senate voting yea, to make it valid or was it some other means that we became part of the International law on this, do ya know???

One would be a lot harder to pull out of, than the other, is what I am thinking?

Either way though, the law should be followed as long as we are still signatories of the law, and should not break it..... until we legally get out of our obligation, imho....you know..not be a lawless nation, as it seems we are becoming, daily....

1. This is the Trump administration. He hasn't seen a treaty he can't break just by saying we're out.
2. The article inferred he had broken the status of troops in country with Iraq. I would love for Iraq to ask us officially to leave. If they do, we should jump at the chance and say we're out of here, don't call us
3. I am not concerned about the international legality of taking out that swine. He should have stayed in his country, not on the battlefield in the country where we are stationed.

it's only internationally illegal, IF WE SIGNED some sort of international treaty or agreement to it.... and yes, he was a swine... but the law is the law, and we signed it, if we did, for a reason... and for all I know, we didn't break it....if we play Gumby and can contort the law enough....

I have not delved in to the issue

The underlying rules of war are still the underlying rules of war, even in an undeclared cold war. In the middle east we have been undeclared asymmetric war since we chose to get involved and drastically further destabilize that region. If they hit asymmetrically as is their only viable tactic to effect a response is deserved and indeed required. This was just a luckily convenient response. They knew we would do something. The whole world knew we would do something. Nothing to be alarmed about. It was baked into the pie. You don't get a ticket every time you speed. The cops (if there are any) sometimes pay it no mind. 80 mph in a 70 mph zone is against the law, but not alarmingly unusual. As long as our goof doesn't decide to go 95, thinking the rest of the world will come up to speed, this will all calm back down to the normal level of mayhem in that region. You can expect more. They will hit back somewhere, sooner or later in the region. Then we will again respond. It is a target rich environment. The target list for both sides wide to the point of being undependable. I would relish being asked by Iraq to leave, giving us an honorable reason to do so and reducing the number of our softest targets, but it will not happen. The rhetoric Trump used of hitting back with the symbolic number of 52 targets for 1 is just more of his BS rhetoric. We don't pick our target lists that casually. Our military strategist are far more pragmatic than that, as they can afford to be, due to the disparity in size and capability. Symbolism is for the weak and bellicose to rally the frightened.