The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.
Disturbing chips in the armor
|
(01-15-2020, 08:47 PM)copycat Wrote:(01-15-2020, 09:17 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: I think it's a good question to ask, where do we draw the line on unrestricted Presidential authority to kill people. There are plenty of hypotheticals where we can say yes, and there are other hypotheticals where we should say no. As it stands now, it appears that any President can declare that the target posed a threat to our national security and have that person killed. Is that what we want? Can he kill a terrorist? Probably. Can he kill a person he deems to have supported terrorism? Maybe? Does that include leaders of other countries that he says have supported terrorists? Is this too much power to give a single person? I strongly opposed many of Obama's actions in the war theater, in particular the Libyan offensive. Libya did not attack the US and Gaddafi was not a threat to the US (or NATO). I also opposed his paying ransoms to terrorists. OTOH I had no problem with Obama taking out terrorists in drone attacks. Targeting the terrorist leaders while preventing civilian deaths as much as possible is exactly the way the US should respond to terrorism. Comparing a pinpoint response using a drone or missile with sending American children to die in Vietnam (or Iraq) is disingenuous. In this case, Iran has attacked the US, which is an act of war. Trump did not declare war on Iran and congress doesn't need to since the war has already been started by the enemy. There is a lot of discussion that the Constitutional requirement of congress to declare war was only meant to apply to a war the US starts. If a foreign country invades the US and starts bombing US cities we don't get to just claim we're not at war. Historically congress has responded anyway with a counter declaration of war in such cases. We're in a whole new realm when the ruling party in the House will put their hatred of the President above defending the US. "Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?" |
Users browsing this thread: |
The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.