So it looks like the armchair warriors are back.
- Thread starter Mac1958
- Start date
Mac1958
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #302
My positions on the issues are in the link here, at the end of the second line of my sig: 2. >>> For the liars who pretend I claim to be a centrist/moderate/impartial/unbiased/fence-sitter: Come on Jake, man up, just this once.
Some are quite original, such as line 4 of my sig: 4. >>> Band Aids, Borders, Burritos & Bejing
Just sitting there, all this time. All you have to do is ask, instead of *****, *****, *****.
*****, *****, *****.
.
bigrebnc1775
][][][% NC Sheepdog
When you deflect the shit is just going to bounce right back on you
Obama’s covert drone war in numbers: ten times more strikes than Bush
Obama embraced the US drone programme, overseeing more strikes in his first year than Bush carried out during his entire presidency. A total of 563 strikes, largely by drones, targeted Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen during Obama’s two terms, compared to 57 strikes under Bush. Between 384 and 807 civilians were killed in those countries, according to reports logged by the Bureau.
The use of drones aligned with Obama’s ambition to keep up the war against al Qaeda while extricating the US military from intractable, costly ground wars in the Middle East and Asia. But the targeted killing programme has drawn much criticism.
The Obama administration has insisted that drone strikes are so “exceptionally surgical and precise” that they pluck off terror suspects while not putting “innocent men, women and children in danger”. This claim has been contested by numerous human rights groups, however, and the Bureau’s figures on civilian casualties also demonstrate that this is often not the case.
The White House released long-awaited figures last July on the number of people killed in drone strikes between January 2009 and the end of 2015, an announcement which insiders said was a direct response to pressure from the Bureau and other organisations that collect data. However the US’s estimate of the number of civilians killed – between 64 and 116 – contrasted strongly with the number recorded by the Bureau, which at 380 to 801 was six times higher.
That figure does not include deaths in active battlefields including Afghanistan – where US air attacks have shot up since Obama withdrew the majority of his troops at the end of 2014. The country has since come under frequent US bombardment, in an unreported war that saw 1,337 weapons dropped last year alone – a 40% rise on 2015.
Kosh
Quick Look Over There!
Can you stop pretending that you are some type of moderate when you clear are not?
But thanks for proving that you ignored the illegal wars of Obama and side with the far left!
The far left only anti war when they have an (R) next to their name!
Kosh
Quick Look Over There!
Yet you made a thread about one side and not the other!
You may point it out, but your OP says you are a partisan hack!
See you ignore the fact that Obama was a warmonger and the far left sat silent while he ran his illegal wars!
Mac1958
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #308
Line 2 of my sig is for wingers like you. Here, I gleefully eviscerate a Regressive Lefty: 2. >>> For the liars who pretend I claim to be a centrist/moderate/impartial/unbiased/fence-sitter: Come on Jake, man up, just this once.
You don't like my OP, so you deflect. I'm certainly used to that here.
.
Kosh
Quick Look Over There!
Yes you hyper partisan!
Your links are meaningless, your Op proves that they are!
And Jake was fake anyway, just like you!
ThunderKiss1965
Diamond Member
Middle East Monitor - Media Bias/Fact Check
I'm not even going to look at your 2nd link using Zionized is very telling.
Kosh
Quick Look Over There!
No you don't but you like to think you did!
Otherwise you would have made a thread about it!
JoeB131
Diamond Member
By the same logic, they are entitled to assassinate any American high ranking officer or official that happens to be in the War Zone.
Did you guys really think this through?
Here's the real problem. If we make Iraq choose between us and Iran, they'll pick Iran.
Tijn Von Ingersleben
Gold Member
- Feb 5, 2018
- 8,558
- 2,593
- 290
- Banned
- #315
The left/right paradigm doesn't apply to Jews as they control both narratives.
playtime
Diamond Member
- Aug 18, 2015
- 65,046
- 57,591
- 3,645
& if we refuse to leave - then we become occupiers.
playtime
Diamond Member
- Aug 18, 2015
- 65,046
- 57,591
- 3,645
we left because iraq wanted us out & were going to subject our troops to their court system if trouble arose instead of the military taking care of their own. so we packed up - but because the area was still unstable - -their parliament voted & agreed to forego the threat of using their judicial system in lieu of having a much reduced US force within their borders.
Kosh
Quick Look Over There!
More far left religious dogma!
Yes they wanted us out, when they want us to stay!
If we did leave then we would not have troops there now.
However Obama did create ISIS in the process!
What you wanted more terrorists running free!
playtime
Diamond Member
- Aug 18, 2015
- 65,046
- 57,591
- 3,645
lol- WHAT?
The Constitution of the United States divides the war powers of the federal government between the Executive and Legislative branches: the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces (Article II, section 2), while Congress has the power to make declarations of war, and to raise and support the armed forces (Article I, section 8). Over time, questions arose as to the extent of the President's authority to deploy U.S. armed forces into hostile situations abroad without a declaration of war or some other form of Congressional approval. Congress passed the War Powers Resolution in the aftermath of the Vietnam War to address these concerns and provide a set of procedures for both the President and Congress to follow in situations where the introduction of U.S. forces abroad could lead to their involvement in armed conflict.
Conceptually, the War Powers Resolution can be broken down into several distinct parts. The first part states the policy behind the law, namely to "insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities," and that the President's powers as Commander in Chief are exercised only pursuant to a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization from Congress, or a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States (50 USC Sec. 1541).
The second part requires the President to consult with Congress before introducing U.S. armed forces into hostilities or situations where hostilities are imminent, and to continue such consultations as long as U.S. armed forces remain in such situations (50 USC Sec. 1542). The third part sets forth reporting requirements that the President must comply with any time he introduces U.S. armed forces into existing or imminent hostilities (50 USC Sec. 1543); section 1543(a)(1) is particularly significant because it can trigger a 60 day time limit on the use of U.S. forces under section 1544(b).
War Powers | Law Library of Congress
donny was REQUIRED to notify congress with in 48 hrs of that strike
he did not
donny was required to give a specific reason with verifiable evidence
he did not
only that it was an 'imminent threat'
it was determined that it was not & he et al have since backed off that 'reason'
going so far as to tell those congress critters that they should not question the order.
Last edited:
playtime
Diamond Member
- Aug 18, 2015
- 65,046
- 57,591
- 3,645
i told why we left & i told you why there are a few troops remaining. the rest is just regurgitated rw pablum.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Americans Dying For Israel Is Not In Americas Best Interests- Started by skews13
- Replies: 4
-
Trump is preparing for an epic defeat in the mid-terms!- Started by Astrostar
- Replies: 6
-
-
