Double Talk in DC

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: underwerks

Unless I miss my guess, the way you write about this, you better head for a bunker because you just told us that tomorrow, random CIA drone Jones could just up and decide you know too much and drone you where you stand.

Zero accountability, right? Whoever and whenever, wherever? Right?

As usual your interpretation is completely off the mark. No one is saying that drones are going to be used to kill Americans on American soil, how you got that from anything is beyond me.

I’m saying that the drone program has been handed over to the CIA for the stated purpose of less transparency, which is a fact. And yes, that includes zero public accountability.

Do you disagree with that?

a reply to: underwerks

Ah, so now we cannot use drones for military purposes unless the public votes on it?

Zero accountability and can be used whenever, wherever, etc., implies there is nothing preventing what you now say can't happen.

a reply to: The GUT

Yeah like is this a good time to send a lovely vase to Los Angeles. Or Hawaii or a US base in Japan.
You know... while trump is looking the other way.

a reply to: underwerks

It’s nice to agree. This and it’s outcome rests solely on him.

Yep.

So I expect that, when Iran backs down, you will give President Trump full credit.

Good times!

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: timidgal

They'll claim imminent danger like that border crisis last spring that required deploying troops to the southern border.
What was he distracting us from then? The Mueller investigation must have uncovered something important that week.

Did you just short circuit? Since you know so much, what exactly did Mueller "Uncover" back then that he didn't include in his Report of which you read all of it I'm sure. Maybe you could ask Rachel what it was.

I know it's been a rough 24 hours for you with your best friends meeting Hellfire. I'll try to be sympathetic to you in your time of mourning.

a reply to: pavil

I sometimes think Silly has an alterna-Q world going on.

originally posted by: Sillyolme

originally posted by: CitizenZero
Excuse my misinformed ass but is the war in Iraq technically over? I know there is the advisory and patrolling roll, but does that mean the war there is over?

War was declared by allied forces in March of 2003 after congress had given W the go ahead in Dec 2002.
The early invasion to disarm the government lasted a little over a month and that part of the war as declared over in May of 2003. Of course the civil wars that erupted kept us there until the withdrawal of troops in 2011.
There are still US soldiers there as we know but I do not think we are officially at war any longer.
There are still troops in Germany, Turkey and Japan but I am pretty sure WWII is over.

And I would never say that about a fellow member.

Already answered in a previous post.

It is now being reported that terrorist acts were imminent, and this assassination was a direct response to that credible threat, based on info from our intelligence agencies.

Does that, in any way, alter your view?

a reply to: Sillyolme

He reads like an adult with ADD.

Tsk, tsk. Mocking people with disabilities.


You are so mean..........

At least you didn't say anything about his sex or race. You are making progress.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: underwerks

Ah, so now we cannot use drones for military purposes unless the public votes on it?

What military purposes? The military and its safeguards has been taken out of the loop, now it’s on the CIA.

The new authority – said to have been granted shortly after Mr Trump’s inauguration – takes drone strikes out of the sole control of the military, sparking fears about accountability.

Under the drone policy of the Obama administration, the CIA could find a suspect, but the armed forces would carry out the actual strike.

Unlike the Pentagon, the CIA does not need to disclose drone strikes — or any resulting civilian casualties.

Link

The military not being a part of it anymore is the problem. Maybe you should read the article to have an idea of what you’re talking about.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: underwerks

It’s nice to agree. This and it’s outcome rests solely on him.

Yep.

So I expect that, when Iran backs down, you will give President Trump full credit.

Good times!

TheRedneck

Backs down from what?

a reply to: TheRedneck

Democrats did not get an opportunity to capitalize on taking out that Iranian general.

that's why they're pissed.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Yeah that’s what it is. It’s not the same old Middle East neocon regime change that was talked about during the Bush years coming to fruition.

It’s not like Donald Trump is different or anything like that.

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: DBCowboy

Yeah that’s what it is. It’s not the same old Middle East neocon regime change that was talked about during the Bush years coming to fruition.

It’s not like Donald Trump is different or anything like that.

Time will tell.

*shrugs*

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: underwerks

It’s nice to agree. This and it’s outcome rests solely on him.

Yep.

So I expect that, when Iran backs down, you will give President Trump full credit.

Good times!

TheRedneck

Backs down from what?

Boy, even you didn't get that clear message? Why are Iranian Backed Shia Miltias attacking US Forces?

Iran will get the message eventually. Of that I am Sure.

a reply to: Mach2

Can't wait for Sillys answer to that.

a reply to: underwerks

Backs down from what?

War.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: Mach2

Can't wait for Sillys answer to that.

Don't hold your breath.

Unless you consider non sequiturs as actual answers.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: timidgal

One of those is as CiC of the armed forces. It's a bit hard to do that if you have to check every decision you want to make through the Congress.

Sure the branches are separate but equal, but that doesn't mean every one has to gain the permission of every other one before acting in any small way. If that were the case, at what point does the SCOTUS have to confirm their rulings with the Congress or the Executive for example?

I agree with you in principle, but we're talking about military action which puts our troops and country in greater harm's way. I think that conducting a military action against another country raises the bar quite a bit and yes, POTUS should be required to have the situation accessed by Congress.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: timidgal

This general has been plotting against us for years. He has planned and overseen the attack of 100's of our military troops. POTUS was fully briefed last April. Why the wait?

I am confused now... again. You wanted this man taken out, but because we took him out now, it's a bad thing? This is similar to what the Congressional Democrats are saying. Is there some approved timeline or procedure that we have to follow no matter the danger it might pose to our soldiers? Can you link me to that?

TheRedneck

There's no need for confusion. POTUS was fully briefed about this individual by the Justice Dept. nine months ago. He was considered the no. 2 bad guy at that time. Nine months would have provided more than enough time for POTUS to brief Congress on this guy.

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: Sillyolme

originally posted by: CitizenZero
Excuse my misinformed ass but is the war in Iraq technically over? I know there is the advisory and patrolling roll, but does that mean the war there is over?

War was declared by allied forces in March of 2003 after congress had given W the go ahead in Dec 2002.
The early invasion to disarm the government lasted a little over a month and that part of the war as declared over in May of 2003. Of course the civil wars that erupted kept us there until the withdrawal of troops in 2011.
There are still US soldiers there as we know but I do not think we are officially at war any longer.
There are still troops in Germany, Turkey and Japan but I am pretty sure WWII is over.

And I would never say that about a fellow member.

Already answered in a previous post.

It is now being reported that terrorist acts were imminent, and this assassination was a direct response to that credible threat, based on info from our intelligence agencies.

Does that, in any way, alter your view?

Could you provide a link to this new information?