Jesse Ventura Calls For The Arrest Of Donald Trump

originally posted by: Zelun
a reply to: Allaroundyou

Ugh. I respectfully decline to eat the dog poop, though I'm happy to pick it up and put in the proper receptacle.

I'm detecting that your concern is the expense of carrying out a military operation. Those missiles get decommissioned when they get too old. You've already paid for them. I think they were put to good use.

I'm also detecting that you don't think the operation was effective. It was EXTREMELY effective. It proved that Syria's missile defense is pathetic and ineffective. And, here's the kicker, NOBODY DIED! So we told Assad that a) you may not operate with impunity, massacring your population and b) consider yourself on notice, bud.

To be perfectly honest I did not think of the situation in that manner. I appreciate the difference of opinion and may or may not choose to see it that way.

A 'strike' is not declaring war on a country, tho I am sure the country in question could claim it is being attacked.

Many Presidents have ordered them, and Congress has never had to sign off on one as the president is not declaring war.

You can't 'arrest the president' in the sense a police officer can arrest you. It doesn't work that way because of the interference it would have with the executive branch of government in fulfilling its duties, according to the DOJ in 1973 (the only time it has come up for a question). However, there isn't technically a rule saying it can't happen.

Get off your high horses, D and R Presidents are all responsible for such type actions, it's nothing new. Mr. Ventura is just trying to remain relevant, and get some spotlight. He's a washed up old man with delusions of grandeur. He's purely grandstanding.

He also gets no respect from me, either.

a reply to: Zelun

I guess that depends on how one views people, the human cost is well, I guess it depends who you ask, we serfs are cannon fodder and will be used accordingly .

I'm happy to see you get the bigger picture, these wars are about resources, so knowing that, I don't understand why you buy the story about Assad using chemicals on his own people, when clearly this has more to do with stifling Russias interests and keeping resources all under the guise of rescuing Syrians. Further to that bombing Syria is very detrimental to its people so we're aren't making the place any better, we are making it considerably worse.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Trump has a weak response for Syria compared to Obama.
Sir Obombsalot dropped an average of 3 bombs per hour on foreign countries in 2016, most of them on Iraq and Syria.
Guardian

a reply to: Southern Guardian

By the way, Syria occured in part due to the distabilization of Iraq, caused by the Iraq war which, I'd bet my bottom dollar, people like yourself happily supported back then as well.

Syria's civil war started after the fall of Mubarak in Egypt. After Syrians started protesting Assad, he open fired on them. That's when Obama and Clinton announced that they would be using Facebook to encourage Syrians to start their own Arab Spring to get rid of Assad.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Many here will give Trump a pass on this, even though he has violated the constitution, they won't care if he violates the constitution unless it's an attack on the 2nd amendment .

We see that you missed the link in the original post concerning the "War Powers Resolution".

a reply to: Southern Guardian

That was a really interesting article, thanks! Some things that popped out for me, both pro and con:

And significantly, a UN resolution to extend its term was vetoed by Russia, Syria's strongest ally, at the UN Security Council.

Why would Russia oppose the only UN org capable of assessing blame in an attack? I have some ideas why, but I'll start with the most innocent:
a) The UN is not providing facts, they are operating under biased political pressure to assess blame against Russia if at all possible.

Troubling. If this is true then our whole system of governance is f'd. This would make Russia an underdog character, bullied on the world stage. If a UN-sanctioned investigatory body cannot be trusted to operate in an un-biased manner then nothing is true. Is that an assumption you're willing to make?

b) Russia has a vested interest in Syria, and while it did not carry out the attack it needs Syria to be indemnified, in order to secure it's interests in the area.

Probably the most likely scenario. Syria has carried out chemical attacks in the past, and the best predictor of future behavior is past performance. From your source:

It was the OPCW that oversaw the destruction of most of Syria's chemical weapons in 2013. That intervention came after the worst chemical attack of the war, when between 300 and 1,400 people were killed in a sarin attack near Damascus. The US threatened military retaliation at the time. Instead, the US, with Russian backing, convinced Syria to destroy its chemicals stockpile and sign up to the Chemical Weapons Convention for the first time.

"with Russian backing"

Both sides confirmed that Assad used chemical weapons indiscriminately. Probably a REALLY bad move for him, for exactly the situation we find ourselves in. There is no doubt that he has the capacity to massacre people indiscriminately, and nobody is disputing it. Not his allies, nor his enemies. Does that put Douma on him conclusively? Of course not. But it doesn't look good for the defense.

c) Douma was a false flag carried out by rebels, backed by the US, in order to foment anti-Assad sentiment and provoke the US into overt action.

God dammit. Such a transparent strategy you guys. What did you think you were going to accomplish, other than killing 70 people and getting your bleach factory blown up? You NEED BLEACH! You got Assad on the ropes, I'll give you that, but you've lost any semblance of sympathy in my mind. Peace be with you, don't ever call me again.

In any case, I definitely can see both sides of this one, but I suspect it's a mix, b) being the most likely truth to me. Where does the truth lay for you?

Best,
Z

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Good reply. I guess I would respond that not everything plays out on the geopolitical stage. There really are monsters out there that gas their own people, that need to be dealt with. We, as a sovereign nation, need to make sure that we don't compromise our own wellbeing while dealing with these people. Not everything is a zero-sum game. You really can help people while helping yourself. That's what I want our country to do, and I think, for the most part, we're doing it.

With Best Regards,
Z

He's right, but then this should be applied to all war criminals.
If the conversation is about arresting and jailing Bush, Obama, Trump, Blair and all the people involved in executing illegal attacks on foreign states, then great. Let's do it, but please spare me the Trump bad arguments.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

What an idiot that dude is,where was this douche when Obama was doing his misdeeds,another rambling fool with a little knowledge,appeasing the liberals

I'm all for it.But Jesse does the arresting wearing His feather boa..

I don't think we should have bombed Syria without evidence that showed conclusively and honestly that Syria's government did the chemical warfare. It seems that the people investigating the attack to that city said that Chlorine gas was definitely used in that attack. Now the UN did create a resolution that condemned it's use, but that does not mean they made it illegal to use, not classifying it as a banned gas like Sarin gas. But the investigators also said that there was no evidence to show which side actually dropped that bomb. It was dropped from the sky, no one was killed from the chemical release either.

If we bombed Syria for using this gas, then how come no law banning it's use in war has been created? We can use it but they can't? The gas is hard on the lungs and eyes and other stuff, but not many people die from it.

If the investigators could not identify who dispursed this gas, then we should have not bombed Syria.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Many here will give Trump a pass on this, even though he has violated the constitution, they won't care if he violates the constitution unless it's an attack on the 2nd amendment .

If I were a gun toting American I would have serious concerns right now about Trump, if this doesn't wake people up I don't know what will.

What Constitutional Amendment has Trump violated ?
Hint: none
Read and try to understand the Constitution , please
Dont go by what Nancy Pelosi or Maxine Waters tells ya..
Use your own powers of thought

Before you post.

a reply to: rickymouse

If the investigators could not identify who dispursed this gas, then we should have not bombed Syria.

Regardless of WHO dispersed the gas, the plan was to keep it from happening again by destroying the facilities that might have been creating it and storing it...

At a 10 p.m. televised Pentagon briefing, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the attack involved naval assets and manned aircraft. They would not name ships or aircraft, but said they struck three targets: a scientific research center in Damascus, a chemical weapons storage facility west of Homs and a storage facility and command post near Homs.

www.militarytimes.com...

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
...

The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period,....

so jesse spent all those years repeating what all of us already know, that most of congress is corrupt. only to now be the defender of congress? suddenly jesse thinks there is no swamp to drain? what convenient timing to turn on the truth movement, wonder how many he thinks he can mislead with this effort. certainly far fewer then he imagines.

trust the plan jesse.

originally posted by: Southern Guardian


The president isn't buying anything. He's the one being bought.

Trump is in this for the money? That sure seems odd. He had plenty of money before he was president. Remember, he stole it all from the poor during his time as a road bandit. You folks need to work on your stories.

a reply to: Deetermined

How is bombing Syria's government facilities going to stop the terrorists and moderate revolutionaries from using the gas and blaming it on Assad? I do not know who actually did that gas release and the report done by the chemical watchdogs also stated they did not know who did the bombing. They did identify it as chlorine, a gas that you do not need a research facility to create it.

I do not believe that the bombing we did was justified till after the investigation concluded that Syria's government was definitely responsible. This is just my opinion and I have no say so in anything in our countries government practices. I do have a right to have an opinion though, just as you do.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Obama owns Libya and Syria.

I don't know, Bolton seems to love, love, love the Libya model. So, either Libya was a grand neocon plan, or in Bolton's eyes, Obama did it right.

a reply to: rickymouse

How is bombing Syria's government facilities going to stop the terrorists and moderate revolutionaries from using the gas and blaming it on Assad?

Uh, the terrorists have been stealing everything from the Assad government that they can get their hands on, so getting rid of Assad's stash will keep both sides from using it.

They did identify it as chlorine, a gas that you do not need a research facility to create it.

This isn't the first chemical weapons attack that has happened in Syria and Chlorine isn't the only thing that's been recorded as being used since this battle started. Getting rid of any and all chemical weapons research and storage is only common sense.

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: Zelun

Sure, I'm happy to address that, thank you for asking.

I'm not being sarcastic or anything. I appreciate you taking the time to make your case and address my post.

I'm operating under the assumption that there was a chemical weapons attack on civilians using bleach, of all things, as the primary agent.

Key word here is assumption. The evidence is questionable at best. But even if we were to grant you that, again why are we getting involved? This may be a humans rights issue, the political matters in Syria on complex and involve multiple sides with no necessarily good or bad side. At the end of the day military involvement is based on financial and political interest, not of human rights. If you think this is why we bomb other countries abroad you're naive.

our President wasn't buying his bullsnip.

The president isn't buying anything. He's the one being bought.

Well...you cant have it both ways, so build the wall? I mean those coming in that aren't citizens are not our concern right? So either shoot them onsite, essentially defending our border, or just let them all in willy nilly right?

So you're saying it's an assumption that a gas attack happened? Why is that an assumption? Do you just take whatever news fits your narrative? Is it your belief that the world just isn't that bad?

These arguments are ridiculous, but the fact you're using Jesse Ventura as your basis just makes it funny.