So it looks like the armchair warriors are back.

[pknopp]

Same shit every time. These fuckers know they are being lied to but the thrill of living vicariously through those who sacrifice their lives (why I don't know) is just so appealing.
Yet ANOTHER war for the small hatted ones.

Thats really stupid

trump is peacefully putting pressure on iran through economic sanctions

and they are lashing out by attacking tankers, saudi oil fields, American contractors, and our embassy in Iraq

Yes...we are completely innocent...completely. We haven't done ANYTHING to deserve this.

International geopolitics does not depend on one side being squeaky clean and the other side being totally evil

but iran comes pretty close to the later

How many countries has Iran invaded? How many have we?

Did Iran overthrow our government or did we help overthrow theirs?

Iran is not capable of invading anyone. Perhaps a better question your traitor hide should ask, if you were honest, but you're not, is how many innocent people have Iranian terrorists butchered world wide.

It's hard to condemn someone when you are the worse offender of something.

 

[Mac-7]

Thats really stupid

trump is peacefully putting pressure on iran through economic sanctions

and they are lashing out by attacking tankers, saudi oil fields, American contractors, and our embassy in Iraq

Yes...we are completely innocent...completely. We haven't done ANYTHING to deserve this.

International geopolitics does not depend on one side being squeaky clean and the other side being totally evil

but iran comes pretty close to the later

How many countries has Iran invaded? How many have we?

Did Iran overthrow our government or did we help overthrow theirs?

Iran is not capable of invading anyone. Perhaps a better question your traitor hide should ask, if you were honest, but you're not, is how many innocent people have Iranian terrorists butchered world wide.

It's hard to condemn someone when you are the worse offender of something.

You are mistaken

We are not worse than the crazy mullahs and muslim wackos in iran

 

[playtime]

Provide some proof and I'll comment. And please, no Alex Jones.

Common knowledge. Considering your ignorance of basic information, I'll pass on engaging you further on the topic. If you care to educate yourself, you can get back to me and we can discuss the matter further.

Of course. I wasn't holding my breath.

You guys just make it up as you go.
.

Remain ignorant.

Yes he is proven to be ignorant

He ignores real science

//////

UK study claims men have higher average I.Q. than women
Saturday, August 27, 2005

In a study accepted for publication by the British Journal of Psychology, Dr. Paul Irwing (Manchester Business School, Senior Lecturer in Organizational Psychology) and Prof. Richard Lynn (University of Ulster, Professor Emeritus) conclude that men are on average five points ahead on IQ tests. The study also found that men outnumbered women in increasing numbers as intelligence levels rise. There were twice as many with IQ scores of 125, a level typical for people with first-class degrees. When scores rose to 155, a level associated with genius, there were 5.5 men for every woman.

/////

This war coming quickly is men against women and the men will win easily and stop the unwise from voting

oh good god - you're back? you keep popping up like a bad toe fungus that won't go away.

 

[bendog]

Yes...we are completely innocent...completely. We haven't done ANYTHING to deserve this.

International geopolitics does not depend on one side being squeaky clean and the other side being totally evil

but iran comes pretty close to the later

How many countries has Iran invaded? How many have we?

Did Iran overthrow our government or did we help overthrow theirs?

Iran is not capable of invading anyone. Perhaps a better question your traitor hide should ask, if you were honest, but you're not, is how many innocent people have Iranian terrorists butchered world wide.

It's hard to condemn someone when you are the worse offender of something.

You are mistaken

We are not worse than the crazy mullahs and muslim wackos in iran

We change from day to day.

 

[Correll]

Nope! I led you to showing the GOP will question their own, unlike the far left which will never do that!

The only lie here is that any strikes are unconstitutional after the Obama years!

^Caught in a lie so what do you do? Lie some more.

Nope! Just led you to where I wanted you to go, the far left easy to do that with!

All it did was show the GOP will question their own, unlike the far left, that means you!

It was two senators. Mark Meadows was on his knees as were most Republicans.

However your claim was that the whitehouse was keeping Congress updated and you called me a liar. Well, I didn't lie, the whitehouse isn't being open with Congress and that is a problem.

Why would congress need to know the details about an operation inside of a war zone, that has been a war zone for many years?

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.

It is an enemy in the war zone, where war is being waged against us. What more do you need to know?

 

[Correll]

It's been weird, watching the same people who made excuses for the wars Bush got us into, turn into anti-neocon doves when Trump came down the escalator.

How could these people have turned on a dime like that?

But now, Trump blows up a bad guy and they're back at full force. Welcome back, we missed ya! But could you at least make up your mind, one way or the other?
.

I don't want another war. But the guy was in a war zone, in a country he was directing hostile military operations against, and directing operations AGAINST US, killing our people.


He was a completely valid target.


If Iran chooses to pretend that their people engaging in warfare against us, are somehow supposed to be safe while doing so, that is their choice, to be insane.

where's the evidence that he was an imminent threat? a contractor was killed & we retaliated & killed 25 of theirs. then donny not only pushed the envelope - he damn well shoved the whole paper company off a ledge & now it looks like every service member around the world is in their sites. good job - i feel safer now.... don't you?

of course you do cause donny says you are.

As I said, in the post you "replied to",


if Iran wants to believe that their people in a fucking war zone, in a country that they are invading, and terrorizing, that are waging war against US, killing our people,


if Iran wants to be shocked and upset that some of those people were targeted?


That is their choice to be insane.

Why would the Iraqi government invite our sworn enemy (and supposedly theirs) to our country? I mean their country.....yea, their country....

And then why would the Iraqi government dare refute our master by saying Soleimani was there on a peace keeping mission??

then vote to try to expel US troops from our country?? I mean their country...yea, their country...

Iraqi PM reveals Soleimani was on peace mission when assassinated, exploding Trump’s lie of ‘imminent attacks’

Because they are bat shit crazy? And have to live with the bat shit crazy people in their country?

 

[Correll]

I don't want another war. But the guy was in a war zone, in a country he was directing hostile military operations against, and directing operations AGAINST US, killing our people.


He was a completely valid target.


If Iran chooses to pretend that their people engaging in warfare against us, are somehow supposed to be safe while doing so, that is their choice, to be insane.

Always an excuse to send others into war.

THey are already in a war.

Congress met and passed a declaration of war?

Save your partisan hackery for the tourists.

ummmm the link i provided containing just that is from.... now read very slowly.............

the


library


of

















CONGRESS.

And it is a rule that has been completely ignored for generations now. Pretending it is what you are upset about now, is complete bullshit.

 

[Correll]

^Caught in a lie so what do you do? Lie some more.

Nope! Just led you to where I wanted you to go, the far left easy to do that with!

All it did was show the GOP will question their own, unlike the far left, that means you!

It was two senators. Mark Meadows was on his knees as were most Republicans.

However your claim was that the whitehouse was keeping Congress updated and you called me a liar. Well, I didn't lie, the whitehouse isn't being open with Congress and that is a problem.

Why would congress need to know the details about an operation inside of a war zone, that has been a war zone for many years?

As he well knows. Libs just say shit.

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.

Congress abdicated that power when they passed the use of force law and turned over the decision to the President.

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk

 

[Correll]

they would rather stay warm & comfy in that basket of deplorables, being spoon fed the pablum that keeps them ignorant rather than hurt their brain learning real facts.

What "real facts" would that be?? ....

that donny is an impulsive man baby - - - who thinks he 'knows more than the generals' , didn't even know it was a war crime to hit cultural & religious sites.

tell me something - - did you automatically believe it when you were told that hussein's army took little kuwaiti babies outa their incubators to die? how about the mushroom cloud? yellow cake? how'z about the USA were gonna be liberators & be greeted with flowers? were they facts that turned out to be true?

So, it would be "grown up" to let the Iranians conduct operations inside of Iraq, killing our people, instead of fighting back, because it might upset the Iranians who believe that they should be allowed to kill us safely?


MMm, yeah, no, I'm not going to accept that. If that is the world we live in, we need to change it, right fucking now.

Hey tough guy...

The US lost an unnamed contractor at the start of this to what seems to be a rogue miltia (backed by Iran, might not have full control)

White House response was to kill 25 and wound 55 people

Iran led response was to have a non lethal violent protest to cause damage to US Embassy but NOT invade the main compound and be non lethal.

White House response was to kill Iran No.2 leader..

Iran performed a missile attack on a Compound after giving a warning to them to evacuate

What we see here is White House escalating with every response. Iran won this one as US have got invited to leave Iraq, it is what Iran wanted all along. Even if US stays Iran has won the optics and looks like the stable people trying to deescalate and US being the dangerous ones. Iraqis will do the work for Iran on this one, Iran has actually asked its militias not to attack US soldiers.

Will the White House take responsibility for increasing tensions and thus putting US Soldiers in far more dangerous environment. Will accept the responsibility for the death of US soldiers.

Got it. There propaganda considerations to the operation. YOu choose to support the enemies version of events.


Me? I'm fine with the US military killing enemies in a war zone. I'm not too concerned about the details or the spin our enemies put on it.


If Iraq wants US gone, and thinks that cuddling up to the Islamic terrorists is going to make things better?


Fine. THey can reap that harvest all by their own selves.

 

[lennypartiv]

How many countries has Iran invaded? How many have we?
Did Iran overthrow our government or did we help overthrow theirs?

Irrelevant.

 

[JoeB131]

I supported taking out Saddam and sons, but I didn't support the occupation management and rebuilding of Iraq.

Just curious, did you complain when Obama helped assassinate Qaddafi and worked to overthrow the governments of Egypt, Syria, Israel and God-only-knows who else?

Here's the problem with this little bit of "OH MY GOD THERE'S A BLACK MAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE". (which is really what all anti-Obama Arguments boil down to... your crazy racism.)

Those government had civil wars/strife because their own people were sick of the shit. In many ways, Obama was just following what we've said we've always wanted for the Middle East- democracy.

Then we found out if we let them vote, the one thing they all agree on is how much they hate us and the Zionists.

If you think Qaddaffi fell because of anything Obama did, you are delusional.

 

[pknopp]

How many countries has Iran invaded? How many have we?
Did Iran overthrow our government or did we help overthrow theirs?

Irrelevant.

Hardly. It's the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[Mac1958]

How many countries has Iran invaded? How many have we? Did Iran overthrow our government or did we help overthrow theirs?

Irrelevant.

Hardly. It's the pot calling the kettle black.

Yeah, but we're special.

 

[pknopp]

I supported taking out Saddam and sons, but I didn't support the occupation management and rebuilding of Iraq.

Just curious, did you complain when Obama helped assassinate Qaddafi and worked to overthrow the governments of Egypt, Syria, Israel and God-only-knows who else?

Here's the problem with this little bit of "OH MY GOD THERE'S A BLACK MAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE". (which is really what all anti-Obama Arguments boil down to... your crazy racism.)

Those government had civil wars/strife because their own people were sick of the shit. In many ways, Obama was just following what we've said we've always wanted for the Middle East- democracy.

Then we found out if we let them vote, the one thing they all agree on is how much they hate us and the Zionists.

If you think Qaddaffi fell because of anything Obama did, you are delusional.

Nothing happens in Libya without the U.S.

 

[JoeB131]

Nothing happens in Libya without the U.S.

Actually, do you know when I knew Qadaffi was done? When his African Mercenaries started going home when he couldn't pay them anymore. Had nothing to do with the US. His own people weren't willing to fight for him, so he had to outsource.

 

[pknopp]

Nothing happens in Libya without the U.S.

Actually, do you know when I knew Qadaffi was done? When his African Mercenaries started going home when he couldn't pay them anymore. Had nothing to do with the US. His own people weren't willing to fight for him, so he had to outsource.

He is still there if not for the US. We saw Libya as a good place to run arms.

 

[JoeB131]

He is still there if not for the US. We saw Libya as a good place to run arms.

Okay, now you are getting to crazy paranoid.... so there's no point talking to you.

 

[pknopp]

He is still there if not for the US. We saw Libya as a good place to run arms.

Okay, now you are getting to crazy paranoid.... so there's no point talking to you.

Odd, that is exactly what happened.

 

[JoeB131]

Odd, that is exactly what happened.

Again, you need to stop listening to Alex Jones

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

It's been weird, watching the same people who made excuses for the wars Bush got us into, turn into anti-neocon doves when Trump came down the escalator.

How could these people have turned on a dime like that?

But now, Trump blows up a bad guy and they're back at full force. Welcome back, we missed ya! But could you at least make up your mind, one way or the other?
.

so what would you do about the Islamist attacking our Iraq embassy?