The Right Side of the News

Many call that waging war. Not all of them leftists.Whatever Congress did to Johnson is irrelevant to the assassination, Ukraine, Trump’s impeachment, or any of the many crimes he and his administration have committed.Morally, you may oppose laws you dislike. And accept any consequences.

Calling it waging war does not make it waging war. War has to be formally declared and there are many kinds of interventions short of war.AbE: We on the right knew there was no danger of war, and thought it weird and even funny to see the hysterics on the Left about how it was going to bring on war. I'm glad to see that Erica Kasraie also knew there was no danger of war. Even if Iran had been stupid enough to retaliate in a way that killed Americans Trump would simply have ordered a new operation against them that woujld have ended it. As Kasraie said, going up against our powerful military would be a bad move.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Calling it not waging war does not make it not waging war. You are saying that Trump can take any military action he can and as long as we don't call it waging war it's OK to not involve Congress?Where does it say war must be formally declared? He could nuke Moscow and it wouldn't be war? DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE LAW OFWAR MANUAL
:

quote:

---

Different Definitions of War for Different Legal Purposes. There is no single legal definition of war, hostilities, or armed conflict, and the definition of these terms has varied in both domestic and international law. In domestic law, war,hostilities, and armed conflict have been interpreted differently depending on the specific legal context at issue.

​

For example, under the Constitution, Congress has the power to declare war. Thus, war might be interpreted to determine whether a military operation constitutes war in this sense.

​

Similarly, the War Powers Resolution states certain requirements that are triggered when U.S. forces are introduced into hostilities.75 Other statutes may require a determination that conduct has occurred [w]hen the United States is at war or during time of war.

​

Under international law, war, hostilities, and armed conflict may also be interpreted with different purposes in mind. A state of war can affect what duties States that are not participating in the conflict have under the law of neutrality. A state of war can affect whether peacetime treaties between two States continue to apply. Most importantly for the purposes of this manual, the terms war and armed conflict are used to describe when jus in bello rules apply

---

Yeah, you and your pals have access to all the intelligence and analysis required for a definite determination. Tell the Vietnamese how stupid it would be to go up against the US. Tell the Taliban. Tell ISIS. Tell the Somali militants.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Well, sure, if you narrow the definition of war enough it's easy to "know" there is no danger of war. No doubt the Nazis "knew" there was no danger of war when they invaded Poland - because they never declared war. No doubt the Japanese "Knew" there was no danger of war when they bombed Pearl Harbor - because they never declared war. No war, just World Intervention Two.

You're a broken record of the same false claims. You've only been able to say "fake news," never to show it. The testimony of the Trump administration witnesses before the House Intelligence Committee are available on video for anyone to view, even you. You don't even have to be able to see it. Just listen. You sit in a position of extreme bias, prejudice and ignorance. Over and over again you project your own faults and failures onto others. I would never laud assassination, abuse of power, obstruction of justice, lying, misogyny, racism, xenophobia, polluting the environment, denigrating anyone and everyone who disagrees, vengefulness, etc. I'm on record as objecting to Reagan's foolishness (e.g., trees pollute more than cars and ketchup is a vegetable) as much as Clinton's mendacity ("It all depends upon what the meaning of the word is is.)"Neither I nor any of the other contributors to thread are the subject of this thread. Please stop making reference to us. People should only post when they have facts or rational arguments to contribute. The truth is already out. Here's how you and the Republicans in Congress are looking for the truth: That's because we can cite quotes and videos and tweets and images. You should try it sometime. Is there any argument so stupid you won't make it? Do you really think that's the only image taken that day? Can you construct a rational explanation for why someone created a sign saying "God hates" with a big blotch of black below? Here are the images again. Please explain how they should actually be in the opposite order: And the National Archives has admitted they doctored the image. This is from the Fox News article National Archives apologizes for blurring anti-Trump signs in Women's March photo: 'We made a mistake' | Fox News:

quote:

---

The National Archives on Saturday apologized for blurring out signs in a photograph of the 2017 Women’s March in Washington, D.C., showcased at the museum -- saying it would review policies and replace the image.

​

We made a mistake, it said in a statement.

---

Your instincts for truth and fallacy are terrible. It isn't because news of the Iranian protests are hard to find (I'll try to find a Fox News version after I finish typing this) but because your faculties are failing and you can't find anything. Here's a link to a Fox News video for you: Protests in Iran continue for second straight day over accidental shoot down of Ukrainian airliner | On Air Videos | Fox News.But why did you feel the need to find news about the Iranian Protests against their government for downing an airliner? No one disputes this. It doesn't change the fact that Iranians also hate America, especially after the assassination of Soleimani.Also consider that if it's okay for our government to declare a general of a country with whom we are not at war a terrorist and assassinate him, then it's okay for other governments to do the same to us. As Trump himself rhetorically asked, "You think our country's so innocent?" Countries who would like to declare the United States an outlaw terrorist nation would be able to muster plenty of evidence.The Trump assassination of Seleimani does appear, at least from the publicly available intelligence, to have convinced Iran to try to be more temperate in choosing its terrorist targets. They understand now, as we already know here at home, that Trump is rash and impulsive.--Percy

The fact is that the Iranian population in general does not hate America and they do happen to be the same Iranians who are protesting the downing of the Ukrainian airplane. What I found is the videos by the American Iranian woman Erica Kasraie which I posted for you and hope you get to soon, because what she is saying is what I keep hearing. I'm not making any of this up. I'm a single voice at EvC but there are millions who are saying the same thing out there that hardly ever gets reported here or only reported to be debunked. Millions and millions, Percy.From my conservative sources I heard what a good thing it was that Trump took out the terrorist, I heard that the crowds mourning him were a propaganda setup by the Iranian government, eventually I started hearing how there were protestors out there thanking Trump, and this is what Ms. Kasraie says too, and she calls herself a watcher of the Middle East. I also heard how the Left was trying to claim that Trump acted against his Constitutional powers but that what he did was exactly what other Presidents have done and that it was completely within his Constitutional powers. The gist is that we should be thanking him and praising him for what he did but the Left won't do that because of who he is. Everybody praised Obama for taking out Bin Laden in pretty much the same way, but no, if it's Trump he's turned into a criminal.And just for the record I hardly ever hear Fox News. I don't have a TV and whatever I hear is usually sound bites from it on the conservative talk shows.Hope you get to the lady's videos soon, she's saying what I've been saying and doing a much better job of it.AbE: BY THE WAY you say I'm always talking about fake news but never able to demonstrate it. Weird to me of course because it's so pervasive you are swimming in it and repeating it yourself all the time, but anyway Ms. Kasraie says the outpouring of mourning for Solameini was orchestrated by the Islamic state, so the line that it was real mourning for a beloved general must qualify as fake news. But only if you believe her of course.She also calls the media a propaganda organ or something like that./abeOh and I really don't care about your photos, they have nothing to do with this discussion. Trump had nothing to do with it anyway. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Listen to the videos I posted. But you shouldn't have to. Just on the face of it this is ridiculous. This guy is known for his murdering of Americans and others based on the Islamic jihadi point of view of the current Iranian government, which is NOT supported by a majority of Iranians. But even if it was we are certainly within our rights to kill a murderer of Americans. And if they retaliate and kill more then we'd be right to do more damage to them. So what? They'll always spin even our righteous acts that way and most of them ARE righteous. What you "know" is just the usual propaganda. He did not act rashly at all, and he usually doesn't even when the Left accuses him of it. Taking out Solemaini was a well intelligenced well planned operation against a terrorist. And there was something really disgusting about all the alarmist fears on the Left of how this was going to bring on war. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

All you've quoted from me concerns my lament that so many hate Trump without a cause. At least in those quotes I don't refer to EvC and I'm referring really to the whole Leftist mentality I know is out there, NOT to EvC.And of course you accuse me of all the perfidies the Left always accuses the right of so let me give you the other point of view just for the record: It was justice, not assassination. Trump has never abused his power, that's all a bogus accusation by the Left. But the House certain absued ITS power. Trump has never committed this either. In fact he isn't even accused of it. They got smart and realized he hadn't, so they changed their articles of impeachmet to "obstruction of Congress" which is a weird idea that they made up and makes no basis for impeaching him.Hillary DID however commit obstruction of justice when she destroyed all the evidence of her classified emails, and her husband WAS impeached for actual obstruction of justice, one of eleven felonies he was accused of. This is said so often I don't even know what it means and even if Trump gets things wrong it's not necessarily lying. And in this recent exchange here you started out calling him a liar for what he tweeted to the Iranian people about supporting them and I believe I've answered that accusation more than sufficiently; no lie at all, just political propaganda against him. Ridiculous. Marxist political correctness, bunch of lies intended to intimidate and denigrate their opponents. Political spin that is open to discussion but won't be discussed because according to the Left they are simply right and any opposition is just wrong because it isn't what they think. He answers some of the ridiculous accusations against him by people who hate him and say things about him that are comkpletely false, but it's his defending himself you attack. No idea what this refers to but as usual I think of the vengefulness on the Left against him for simply having won the election against Hillary. It's been nothing but a vendetta trying to take him out ever since. Total non sequitur.

Where was the judge and jury, the witesses, etc ...?Or do you mean like typical KKK Vigilanti type "justice"? Trumps obstruction of justice is/was worse than Clinton's, who actually allowed witnesses and documents to be viewed by the impeachment process. No Faith, it was obstruction of the articles in the constitution that give the House oversight of the President -- it's actually a worse charge than obstruction of justice, and it covers his refusal to allow witnesses or provided requested documents.The trial start tomorrow. We'll see how fair the Senate is, and how much they want to look at the truth.Enjoy

I mean like TYPICAL AMERICAN justice, the kind we've always practiced in such situations that nobody ever objected to until Trump did it. Did anyone call taking out Bin Laden "assassination" of a rightful foreign official? Did anyone object when Obama didn't get Congressional approval?It was the Democrats in jthe House that refused to allow the Presdident due process.You guys can twist and turn anything upsxide down.What "oversight" of the President? They do not have the right to interfere in his Constitutionally given powers, that's what separate of powers means and it is THEY who are violating it, not Trump. Not only did these House fascists interfere in Trump's lawful actions, and absurdly try to criminale them, but now they are trying to tell the Senate what to do. Somebody needs to give then a good smackdown.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

well no cause Bin Laden wasn't a member of a foreign government. lie checks and balances faith, the president is not a king.

I didn't lie3 you lyinbg rat.

well then you should get your memory checked. You've had the impeachment process explained to you multiple times.

No, you should get your moral compass checked because the impeachment is nothing but a big fat sham and they DID make sure the Presdent's side did not get due proce3ss and even if your leftist sources don't know that my conservative sources do.

You do understand that the process in the House was the process put in place when the Replorables held the majority; don't you? It's been mentioned several times.