2aHawaii
General Topics => Political Discussion => Topic started by: ren on January 07, 2020, 09:28:55 AM
-
I'd surmise that the Dems would accuse him of a missed opportunity. He was negligent. etc.
-
I'd surmise that the Dems would accuse him of a missed opportunity. He was negligent. etc.
Wasting the $$$ for operation of the drone and cost of the hellfire. . .
-
the dems statements and actions are all politically motivated
doesn't matter what Trump does, its wrong in their mind
they hate Trump so much that now they are on the terrorists side
-
the dems statements and actions are all politically motivated
doesn't matter what Trump does, its wrong in their mind
they hate Trump so much that now they are on the terrorists side
...
Yeah, I was just about to write the exact same thing. Trump could cure cancer and the haters will still hate him.
-
Sounds like you need me to issue you a tin foil hat.
Iran did say they would name names for where the billions they received from the US went.
-
The only group that should rejoice in this assassination are ISIS and Al-Qaeda; since the forces he controlled were instrumental in defeating those groups in Syria and Iraq.
With his demise, I can see how ISIS and Al-Qaeda are probably singing, "For He's a Jolly Good Fellow," in praise of Trump.
Good going USA!
-
The only group that should rejoice in this assassination are ISIS and Al-Qaeda; since the forces he controlled were instrumental in defeating those groups in Syria and Iraq.
With his demise, I can see how ISIS and Al-Qaeda are probably singing, "For He's a Jolly Good Fellow," in praise of Trump.
Good going USA!
Really?
I think ISIS and Al-Qaeda are sitting back going, "Whew!! Glad Trump wasn't coming after us again!"
Obama embolden our enemies. Trump is demonstrating strength and the resolve to use it.
You hate Trump and the USA. We all know that. Your snarky comments aren't clever.
-
Really?
I think ISIS and Al-Qaeda are sitting back going, "Whew!! Glad Trump wasn't coming after us again!"
Obama embolden our enemies. Trump is demonstrating strength and the resolve to use it.
You hate Trump and the USA. We all know that. Your snarky comments aren't clever.
Your response clearly shows how much you DO NOT KNOW about the whole situation and only wish to see an escalation of war in the Middle East by the US that will cost lots of US lives for ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
Oh, BTW, please CONTINUE WITH YOUR PERSONAL ATTACKS, as it shows to everyone that's the ONLY THING you can offer in this discussion.
-
Your response clearly shows how much you DO NOT KNOW about the whole situation and only wish to see an escalation of war in the Middle East by the US that will cost lots of US lives for ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
Oh, BTW, please CONTINUE WITH YOUR PERSONAL ATTACKS, as it shows to everyone that's the ONLY THING you can offer in this discussion.
What I know is in April, an Iranian official requested asylum in the US. In exchange, he handed over a large number of classified documents, including plans involving the militias under Soleimani's command. It's been said the attack on the Baghdad Embassy was part of those plans.
It was the next month when the US designated Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a foreign terrorist organization.
This was not a coincidence.
Congress has been briefed on the intelligence used to support the assassination. Some of their comments afterward lead me to believe many now have no problem with Trump's decision.
Soleimani was a military target, and it was 100% legit for Trump to order his termination. Don't believe me? Ask Obama's former DHS head.
Obama’s DHS Secretary Debunks Dems’ Claim
Trump Didn’t Have Authority To Kill Soleimani;
Now He’s Under Fire From Left
The secretary of the Department of Homeland Security under Barack Obama appeared on “Meet the Press”
Sunday to discuss President Trump’s decision to take out Iran’s top military leader, Qassem Soleimani, the
head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force, a U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization,
who the Pentagon says was “actively developing plans” for more attacks on Americans.
During the interview, former DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson torpedoed the Democrats’ talking point about Trump
supposedly needing congressional approval to order the strike on Soleimani. Whether or not you agree with
the Trump administration’s description of Soleimani as a terrorist,” Johnson explained, the president had
“ample domestic legal authority to take him out without additional congressional authorization.”
https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-obamas-dhs-secretary-debunks-dems-claim-trump-didnt-have-authority-to-kill-soleimani-now-hes-under-fire-from-left
I remember the 9-11 Commission gave part of the blame for the attack to President Clinton, who had more than one opportunity to kill Bin Laden but decided not to.
Imagine if the attacks Soleimani had planned were executed and thousands were killed. Imagine the finger-pointing in Trump's direction when it's learned he'd decided not to take the opportunity when he had it.
-
Oh, BTW, please CONTINUE WITH YOUR PERSONAL ATTACKS, as it shows to everyone that's the ONLY THING you can offer in this discussion.
[/b]
Cry me a river. Your anti-US, anti-Trump BS gets really old. Maybe post something positive once in a while, and everybody here won't click on a thread, see your name, and think, "Oh, fuck! Here he goes again!"
-
Your response clearly shows how much you DO NOT KNOW about the whole situation and only wish to see an escalation of war in the Middle East by the US that will cost lots of US lives for ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
Oh, BTW, please CONTINUE WITH YOUR PERSONAL ATTACKS, as it shows to everyone that's the ONLY THING you can offer in this discussion.
curious, what's your background in middle east affairs? Did you major in pol sci?
-
curious, what's your background in middle east affairs? Did you major in pol sci?
Part Hawaiian studies? Part European studies ? Part Asian studies ?
Maybe post something positive once in a while, and everybody here won't click on a thread, see your name, and think, "Oh, fuck! Here he goes again!"
Damn. There’s that mirror again.
-
curious, what's your background in middle east affairs? Did you major in pol sci?
For you Ren, I will answer your question.
I am a part Hawaiian and part a bunch of other ethnicities, who is an academically trained practicing economist. I am also a life-long amateur military historian, who has enjoyed learning about wars throughout the ages and the empires that have partaken in them.
When studying the timelines of World history to the present, there has been always one or more empires in power in some part of the Globe. After WWII, there were two empires, that of the Soviets and the Americans. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the American empire became the sole empire on the planet. However, a number of metrics that are used to measure empires have pointed out that the American empire is in decline. When I look at the problems the US has with Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, etc., I see them nothing more as nation states that knows the days of the American empire are numbered and are jockeying for position to fill the vacuum when that day happens.
What's your background?
-
For you Ren, I will answer your question.
I am a part Hawaiian and part a bunch of other ethnicities, who is an academically trained practicing economist. I am also a life-long amateur military historian, who has enjoyed learning about wars throughout the ages and the empires that have partaken in them.
When studying the timelines of World history to the present, there has been always one or more empires in power in some part of the Globe. After WWII, there were two empires, that of the Soviets and the Americans. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the American empire became the sole empire on the planet. However, a number of metrics that are used to measure empires have pointed out that the American empire is in decline. When I look at the problems the US has with Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, etc., I see them nothing more as nation states that knows the days of the American empire are numbered and are jockeying for position to fill the vacuum when that day happens.
What's your background?
I majored in business administration. I just see competition among the world powers. I don't perceive America as an Empire. Did you go to UH too?
-
Kuleana - It seems (just my opinion) that you look at many things through a pretty fine lens. As an economist one some issues, as a historian on some issues, proud Hawaiian, plus others. Don’t want to presume to know your whole background. But you seem to be quick to discount what others don’t understand. Just consider the possibility that there are other lenses to view the world that others may value and have some insight. Also consider that’s there’s a lot of information on the Iran issue that is not reported on the news.
-
Kuleana - It seems (just my opinion) that you look at many things through a pretty fine lens. As an economist one some issues, as a historian on some issues, proud Hawaiian, plus others. Don’t want to presume to know your whole background. But you seem to be quick to discount what others don’t understand. Just consider the possibility that there are other lenses to view the world that others may value and have some insight. Also consider that’s there’s a lot of information on the Iran issue that is not reported on the news.
lots of Iranian propaganda that is being consumed by American social media. 'Nom "nom
-
lots of Iranian propaganda that is being consumed by American social media. 'Nom "nom
Rose McGowan :facepalm:
-
I majored in business administration. I just see competition among the world powers. I don't perceive America as an Empire. Did you go to UH too?
When I say America is an empire, I justify that position primarily on the relative economic and military strength as well as geopolitical projection of the US and its closest peers. Looking back in history, Persia, Rome, the Mongols, the many dynasties of ancient China, Great Britain, etc. all ranked high on these metrics relative to the other nations during their time period.
As it stands, no other country today can match the US based on these metrics. Russia might come close militarily, but it does not have the economy. China has a rising economy, but its military is at least another 20+ years or so away from rivaling that of the America. There is no other nation that can geopolitically project power via things like foreign military bases (garrisons) and pro-American led foreign nations (vassal states) like the US, as of 2020.
BTW, I did my undergraduate at UHM and graduate school in the continental US.
-
Kuleana - It seems (just my opinion) that you look at many things through a pretty fine lens. As an economist one some issues, as a historian on some issues, proud Hawaiian, plus others. Don’t want to presume to know your whole background. But you seem to be quick to discount what others don’t understand. Just consider the possibility that there are other lenses to view the world that others may value and have some insight. Also consider that’s there’s a lot of information on the Iran issue that is not reported on the news.
Point Taken. :shaka:
-
It has been a few days now and the so-called imminent threat excuse to partake in the assassinations of not just Soleimani but other Iranian military leaders, as it is currently now being reported, is definitely in doubt. It appears the US made their decisions based on hasty generalizations rather than specific evidence, as evident in Secretary Pompeo's interview of this action.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/10/pompeo-spars-with-reporters-over-imminent-soleimani-threat-097175
Aside from the tragic downed airliner in Iran, things have slowed down a bit, which is a good thing. However, the killing of foreign nationals based on questionable overgeneralized information is dangerous and has set tragic precedents that the US may regret later.
-
It has been a few days now and the so-called imminent threat excuse to partake in the assassinations of not just Soleimani but other Iranian military leaders, as it is currently now being reported, is definitely in doubt. It appears the US made their decisions based on hasty generalizations rather than specific evidence, as evident in Secretary Pompeo's interview of this action.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/10/pompeo-spars-with-reporters-over-imminent-soleimani-threat-097175
Aside from the tragic downed airliner in Iran, things have slowed down a bit, which is a good thing. However, the killing of foreign nationals based on questionable overgeneralized information is dangerous and has set tragic precedents that the US may regret later.
It slowed down cause iran was going to name names in the deal.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
I will make it simple.
If Soleimani wasn't killed, he would still be alive.
-
Yes we do have an empire as long as the dollar is the world reserve currency and we can force everyone else to buy our debt. Now that several empires have come and gone people have finally figured out that it is a doomed situation, calling oneself an Empire is not very fashionable. For instance instead of the German empire we call it the EU, etc. As far as empires go America was definitely not one of the worst ones, but if/when China takes over the number one spot their style might involve a little less carrot and a lot more stick. At least here we make a big show about pretending to care about human rights, etc.
As far as Trump vaporizing Solemani there are a lot more fans than Isis and American Conservatives. Iran has been hijacked by a religious extremist regime for decades now and their population is starting to get a lot bolder about showing their disdain for the Ayatollah. New protests are firing up after the Ukrainian passenger plane was shot down by mistake and initially lied about, at least until it became clear they could not hide the truth any more. Also Trump is using back channel communications with the regime that have more of a diplomatic tone than what is going out over Twitter.
Geopolitics is extremely complicated and boiling it down to Right Vs Wrong is an attack on reason.
-
Yes we do have an empire as long as the dollar is the world reserve currency and we can force everyone else to buy our debt. Now that several empires have come and gone people have finally figured out that it is a doomed situation, calling oneself an Empire is not very fashionable. For instance instead of the German empire we call it the EU, etc. As far as empires go America was definitely not one of the worst ones, but if/when China takes over the number one spot their style might involve a little less carrot and a lot more stick. At least here we make a big show about pretending to care about human rights, etc.
With the level of education, communication between people at long distances, and free information via the Internet, it is impossible for the old models of empire to exist from now and in the future. The way the American empire operates today is a direct result of those new factors. Moreover, once the other relevant powers are ready and decide to dump the US Dollar, the US will most likely balkanize according to the divisions already seen in the country. Hence, I would go as far to say that the US is living on borrowed time as much as it funds itself on borrowed money.
As for China, I would not worry about them too much. Yes, they are going to regain their status of empire, however, unlike other empires, they will be more focused on keeping their own people under control and making money rather than conquering others.
-
As for China, I would not worry about them too much. Yes, they are going to regain their status of empire, however, unlike other empires, they will be more focused on keeping their own people under control and making money rather than conquering others.
That’s a huge mistake to not worry about China. Not only their perceived influence, but what the MSM doesn’t cover in terms of their influence and dealings. It’s what you don’t see...
-
That’s a huge mistake to not worry about China. Not only their perceived influence, but what the MSM doesn’t cover in terms of their influence and dealings. It’s what you don’t see...
I agree with you. At least for now. I believe the Chinese have been dealt a bigger blow by Trump than is readily known. Assuming they are no longer stealing our IP from our companies and assuming they are not able to readily steal our military technology as readily as they were, I believe they will start falling behind again in military technology and assets. Our budget is being used to advance our technological advantage. The Chinese are building new but stagnant technology that will be older and able to be defeated when they finally roll out their advanced technologies due to being cut off by Trump. Eventually, when China finds another way to steal our technology again, and they will, we will have to start worrying more about them again. But I agree, we should never stop worrying about them. That is why they are in the position they are now. We stopped paying attention to them and focussed on others.
-
With the level of education, communication between people at long distances, and free information via the Internet, it is impossible for the old models of empire to exist from now and in the future. The way the American empire operates today is a direct result of those new factors. Moreover, once the other relevant powers are ready and decide to dump the US Dollar, the US will most likely balkanize according to the divisions already seen in the country. Hence, I would go as far to say that the US is living on borrowed time as much as it funds itself on borrowed money.
As for China, I would not worry about them too much. Yes, they are going to regain their status of empire, however, unlike other empires, they will be more focused on keeping their own people under control and making money rather than conquering others.
I don’t want to get into a discussion regarding the “American empire” as I am sure you and I don’t agree on that. So I am going to stick to the one thing you mentioned here and that is the USD. The USD is backed by the US economy. We went off the gold standard and created the FED a long time ago. I don’t like the fact we went off the gold standard but I understand why we did. Also, I don’t necessarily agree with the FED tho I understand the idea behind it. The FED has too much power IMHO. And they are not voted into place. I also don’t like the fact that the dollar is backed by our economy. If we fall into a recession the world’s bad actors are going to do what they usually do and to bitch and moan about how the dollar dominates the world and how we should switch to their currency or one less valuable and less stable. Because let’s face it, even in a recession our currency is much weaker and less stable it is still stronger and and more stable than the next logical choices like the Yen or British Pound Sterling. Also, as the US economy goes, so does the rest of the world, generally speaking. The bad actors of the world have been trying for years to get the world to move to another currency. It will never happen unless the perfect storm happens. That would have to be a depression the likes the world has never seen, the stock market crashes for weeks and months on end, the confidence in the US economy crashes and the FED makes the wrong move before to help cause and afterwards in response to these happenings. I’m not saying this perfect storm cannot happen, just saying the chance of all of this happening at the same time is very unlikely. But it is not impossible. It only makes sense for the world to continue to use the strongest currency in the world. And our currency is the strongest by so far, no other currency comes close. It is also relatively stable.
The real issue, from my point of view only, for not switching from the dollar to another currency is that the world trusts that we will not manipulate our currency to change the value by unacceptable means. Meaning against the WTO/WBO/International rules and norms. All countries manipulate their currency one way or another including us. Those that are a part of international banking system abide by certain rules and accepted norms. The problem occurs when countries such as China and Russia manipulate their currencies to exact punishment on another country(s). In the same way China tried to do it in response to our tariffs. Trump called them out on it and the next day China undid their currency manipulation because they did it in a manner that is not accepted by international norms. They consider such immediate changes as illegal as it is considered to be unstable to the world’s currencies. Which is the reason the Yuan and the Ruble will never become the de facto currency standard. Can you imagine a bad actor having control over the value of the world’s accepted currency? Which is the argument for not going to the Yen or British Pound Sterling. It would be too easy for the bad actors of the world to gang up to try and destroy Japan’s or England’s economy in order to destabilize the world’s de facto currency and hence the world’s economies. Including the US’s economy. We won’t be switching anytime soon.
-
That’s a huge mistake to not worry about China. Not only their perceived influence, but what the MSM doesn’t cover in terms of their influence and dealings. It’s what you don’t see...
The reason why I do not worry about a China when she will regain her status as an empire is the fact that we have seen her historical behavior in her past with respect to her neighbors when she was an empire. The only time China truly exhibited a penchant for global conquest was during the era when the Mongols ruled China. Indeed, under Mongol leadership, the whole World saw what China could do if she wanted to rule the planet. Fortunately and, as a continuing lesson for wannabe empires, such reign will be temporary, more so today than in the past.
Case-in-point, when the Yuan Dynasty (Mongols) itself collapsed, the subsequent Ming Dynasty did not seriously attempt any actions of reclaiming those territories that belonged to the previous dynasty. If the contrary was the case, Mongol incursions notwithstanding, the Koreas and the majority of Southeast Asia would have become a part of China along time ago.
-
The basis of the American empire does not lie with its military machine, but with the US Dollar that is manipulated by the FED. The US via the FED is the NUMBER 1 manipulator of currencies as well as economies around the Globe.
Basic macroeconomics here:
If the FED decides to increase the money supply in the US via the interest rate options that it has, the value of foreign currencies AUTOMATICALLY adjusts to the new exchange rate. Hence, a country such as China that sells its products to the US, in this case, will have their products become more expensive overnight, since the value of the US dollar decreased and lost its purchasing power parity, resulting in a drop of exports that decreases China's GDP.
As you can see, this mechanism can theoretically be WEAPONIZED and has been used to attack China's exports to America in the past, in the explicit effort to make their items ARTIFICIALLY more expensive, and control their economic growth. However, China has responded to those moves with its centrally controlled monetary policy, whose aims were to maintain the existing US-China exchange rate to defend their exports to America.
Consequently, the accusation of China manipulating its currency is very misleading and is obviously propagandized in the US as unfair. Seeing that the US does the same currency manipulation, albeit, through the FED for its own geopolitical purposes, China is JUSTIFIED in its own monetary policy that is consistent with its own national interests.
The fact the US has currently resorted to tariffs exemplifies exactly what myself and other honest economists have said about Trump's trade war with China. It is the US who can't compete economically with China FAIRLY, despite its own currency manipulation and has to resort to tariffs to prop up its lack of economic competitiveness.
-
WOW. The truth gets more damning by the day.
It seems America's Secretary of Defense Esper, himself, did not see specific evidence that Soleimani was planning "Imminent Attacks" that necessitated his immediate assassination by US missile strikes in a foreign country without Iraqi government approval.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/defense-chief-didnt-see-specific-evidence-of-iranian-threat-to-embassies/ar-BBYSovw?li=BBnbcA1
-
WOW. The truth gets more damning by the day.
It seems America's Secretary of Defense Esper, himself, did not see specific evidence that Soleimani was planning "Imminent Attacks" that necessitated his immediate assassination by US missile strikes in a foreign country without Iraqi government approval.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/defense-chief-didnt-see-specific-evidence-of-iranian-threat-to-embassies/ar-BBYSovw?li=BBnbcA1
You're pushing a fake premise: that the only reason to take out a dangerous person that threatens our people is to prove "he was going to do it again tomorrow."
His history shows he's not about to stop the terrorism he's been visiting on the world for decades. We obtained intelligence in April 2019 from a defector that included classified documents on those terror networks and plans. To disclose details would risk SOURCES AND METHODS, which might logically include insiders who are helping the defector feed us current INTEL.
The US has a history of terminating foreign nationals who attack us. We killed Osama Bin Laden. Was he an "imminent threat?" In 1943, we killed the Japanese officer who planned the Pearl Harbor attack, Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, in "Operation Vengeance". Was he an "imminent threat?"
My point is, you are creating some "rule" under which the President must operate when deciding whether to eliminate an enemy of the US or not. Bill Clinton was given a large portion of the blame for the 9-11 World Trade Center attack because he chose more than once to not take out Bin Laden when presented with multiple opportunities. Bin Laden WAS an imminent threat. However, we had no way of knowing the timeline he was using. So, by your reasoning, we must catch these guys IN THE ACT before justifying our response.
Just because someone is not telegraphing their plans to us does not mean the threat is not imminent. It's so easy for people like you to make criticisms from your "Monday morning quarterback" vantage point. But, when the opportunity to take out a KNOWN and DESIGNATED TERRORIST who is GOING TO KILL AGAIN AND AGAIN (just a matter of when), the decision has to be made on the spot and inside often a very narrow window of opportunity.
He was orchestrating the attack on the Baghdad Embassy. Sounds like an imminent threat to US citizens existed, especially when our INTEL said he was targeting more US embassies. He's believed to have been behind the Benghazi attack that killed an ambassador and 3 other US diplomats. Believing he planned attacks on other embassies is not unreasonable.
-
You're pushing a fake premise: that the only reason to take out a dangerous person that threatens our people is to prove "he was going to do it again tomorrow."
His history shows he's not about to stop the terrorism he's been visiting on the world for decades. We obtained intelligence in April 2019 from a defector that included classified documents on those terror networks and plans. To disclose details would risk SOURCES AND METHODS, which might logically include insiders who are helping the defector feed us current INTEL.
The US has a history of terminating foreign nationals who attack us. We killed Osama Bin Laden. Was he an "imminent threat?" In 1943, we killed the Japanese officer who planned the Pearl Harbor attack, Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, in "Operation Vengeance". Was he an "imminent threat?"
My point is, you are creating some "rule" under which the President must operate when deciding whether to eliminate an enemy of the US or not. Bill Clinton was given a large portion of the blame for the 9-11 World Trade Center attack because he chose more than once to not take out Bin Laden when presented with multiple opportunities. Bin Laden WAS an imminent threat. However, we had no way of knowing the timeline he was using. So, by your reasoning, we must catch these guys IN THE ACT before justifying our response.
Just because someone is not telegraphing their plans to us does not mean the threat is not imminent. It's so easy for people like you to make criticisms from your "Monday morning quarterback" vantage point. But, when the opportunity to take out a KNOWN and DESIGNATED TERRORIST who is GOING TO KILL AGAIN AND AGAIN (just a matter of when), the decision has to be made on the spot and inside often a very narrow window of opportunity.
He was orchestrating the attack on the Baghdad Embassy. Sounds like an imminent threat to US citizens existed, especially when our INTEL said he was targeting more US embassies. He's believed to have been behind the Benghazi attack that killed an ambassador and 3 other US diplomats. Believing he planned attacks on other embassies is not unreasonable.
Do you realize what you truly arguing for?
By your logic, the US should attempt an assassination of President Putin of Russia. He is constantly being demonized by America as having orchestrated the independence of Crimea from America's ally Ukraine as well as the mastermind of the so-called meddling in the Presidential elections of the US. If one believes in the evidence used to justify these accusations, President Putin is clearly a present danger to the US and her allies.
Does this mean the US has the legal justification to assassinate him?
-
Do you realize what you truly arguing for?
By your logic, the US should attempt an assassination of President Putin of Russia. He is constantly being demonized by America as having orchestrated the independence of Crimea from America's ally Ukraine as well as the mastermind of the so-called meddling in the Presidential elections of the US. If one believes in the evidence used to justify these accusations, President Putin is clearly a present danger to the US and her allies.
Does this mean the US has the legal justification to assassinate him?
Bullshit --- literally bullshit.
Has Putin attacked the US and taken American lives? Has he taught militias like Hezbollah to use missiles and IEDs? Has he attacked even ONE US Embassy?
You're pushing ANOTHER fake premise: that all enemies of the US are the same.
You're delusional. And I say that with all due respect for delusional people everywhere.
-
Bullshit --- literally bullshit.
Has Putin attacked the US and taken American lives? Has he taught militias like Hezbollah to use missiles and IEDs? Has he attacked even ONE US Embassy?
You're pushing ANOTHER fake premise: that all enemies of the US are the same.
You're delusional. And I say that with all due respect for delusional people everywhere.
If anything, it is you who appears to be a paid shill to act as an apologist for any illegal military action abroad or police brutality against Americans domestically, in order to brainwash everyone in compliance of any un-American injustices that occur.
-
If anything, it is you who appears to be a paid shill to act as an apologist for any illegal military action abroad or police brutality against Americans domestically, in order to brainwash everyone in compliance of any un-American injustices that occur.
or, he has a valid opinion...
-
or, he has a valid opinion...
Could you clarify what opinion are you referencing?
Is it his delusional personal attacks of my person?
-
If anything, it is you who appears to be a paid shill to act as an apologist for any illegal military action abroad or police brutality against Americans domestically, in order to brainwash everyone in compliance of any un-American injustices that occur.
Prove what "military action" Trump has taken that was "illegal."
Even the MSM has admitted Trump taking out Soleimani was 100%, undeniably legal.
Obama, on the other hand, droned American citizens while overseas. No imminent threat reported.
-
Prove what "military action" Trump has taken that was "illegal."
Even the MSM has admitted Trump taking out Soleimani was 100%, undeniably legal.
Obama, on the other hand, droned American citizens while overseas. No imminent threat reported.
What laws are you using to say the assassination of Soleimani was 100% legal? If American laws, that's pretty bias to me. Once more, it is becoming more and more clear every day that there was no "imminent threat" as was claimed.
Obama should have been brought up on war crimes as should Bush for their partaking in illegal wars of aggression.
-
What laws are you using to say the assassination of Soleimani was 100% legal? If American laws, that's pretty bias to me. Once more, it is becoming more and more clear every day that there was no "imminent threat" as was claimed.
Obama should have been brought up on war crimes as should Bush for their partaking in illegal wars of aggression.
The primary law that matters in the US -- our Constitution.
Ex-Obama DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson:
Trump had 'ample constitutional authority' to
take out Soleimani
Former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson defended President Trump's order to kill Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani via drone strike last week, as members of the House prepared to vote on a War Powers Resolution meant to restrict Trump's ability to take further military action without congressional approval.
"What I have said is that under existing [Justice Department] Office of Legal Counsel [OLC] opinions on the
president's constitutional authority to engage the armed forces without a congressional authorization, if you
read those opinions, he had ample constitutional authority to take out General Soleimani, if you regard that
as an isolated strike," Johnson said on "Your World" Thursday. "What these OLC opinions say is that the
president can take lethal force so long as it's short of war if it's in the important national interest. And this
and this operation was."
https://www.foxnews.com/media/former-obama-dhs-secretary-trump-had-ample-constitutional-authority-to-take-out-soleimani
-
Once more, it is becoming more and more clear every day that there was no "imminent threat" as was claimed.
Once more, that's not a requirement. It's so easy to pretend there was no imminent threat after he's dead because the threat was eliminated.
An armed person in a church killed a shotgun-wielding shooter, but not before two others were killed. This event will not be included in the list of mass shootings for one reason: the mass shooting was prevented.
Same thing with Soleimani. He was taken out before another attack. You seem to ignore the general's history and the fact that INTEL on his plans were acquired this year. Obviously our INTEL on him was damn good, since we knew where and when we could get him.
Unless you have evidence that refutes the stated threat existed, you're just whining out of your ass.
-
The primary law that matters in the US -- our Constitution.
Ex-Obama DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson:
Trump had 'ample constitutional authority' to
take out Soleimani
https://www.foxnews.com/media/former-obama-dhs-secretary-trump-had-ample-constitutional-authority-to-take-out-soleimani
The office of legal council is not the Supreme Court that has the final say as to what a US President does is legal or not. It is just a department that provides legal advice or opinions a US President can use as guidance determining whether what he or she is planning would be considered illegal. Hence, to hear a former Obama government official say the killing of Soleimani was legal is simply his opinion, and no way a matter of fact.
Let's not forget that it was the Office of Legal Council that signed off the infamous and universally hated "torture memos" to the CIA under the Bush Administration. Seeing how that department would willingly find a way to justify torture, tells everyone their capacity for human rights.
However, given your apologist attitude to anything evil America does, I would not be surprised to find that you are a defender of the CIA's torture program as well.
-
Once more, that's not a requirement. It's so easy to pretend there was no imminent threat after he's dead because the threat was eliminated.
An armed person in a church killed a shotgun-wielding shooter, but not before two others were killed. This event will not be included in the list of mass shootings for one reason: the mass shooting was prevented.
Same thing with Soleimani. He was taken out before another attack. You seem to ignore the general's history and the fact that INTEL on his plans were acquired this year. Obviously our INTEL on him was damn good, since we knew where and when we could get him.
Unless you have evidence that refutes the stated threat existed, you're just whining out of your ass.
Evidence has come out and continues to come out that there was no imminent threat to American assets to justify the killing of Soleimani. You selectively refuse to acknowledge that fact and focus attention that he is historically a bad guy and that is good enough of a reason to take his life.
Moreover, if you think killing Soleimani will somehow prevent any future hostility to Americans stationed and bring peace to the region, you are the one who must be delirious. You can bet the Middle East has become a far more dangerous place for Americans now more than ever.
-
The office of legal council is not the Supreme Court that has the final say as to what a US President does is legal or not. It is just a department that provides legal advice or opinions a US President can use as guidance determining whether what he or she is planning would be considered illegal. Hence, to hear a former Obama government official say the killing of Soleimani was legal is simply his opinion, and no way a matter of fact.
Let's not forget that it was the Office of Legal Council that signed off the infamous and universally hated "torture memos" to the CIA under the Bush Administration. Seeing how that department would willingly find a way to justify torture, tells everyone their capacity for human rights.
However, given your apologist attitude to anything evil America does, I would not be surprised to find that you are a defender of the CIA's torture program as well.
Funny how you omitted "illegal" from your list of adjectives describing the "torture memos". More opinions, but none of them legally binding on the President.
The Supreme Court does not make findings of legality on the President's actions unless someone challenges it. So, did Congress challenge Obama's actions? Nope. Can't now say Trump is wrong if Pelosi said Obama was acting legally.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bronsonstocking/2020/01/09/flashback-pelosi-said-obama-did-not-need-authorization-to-attack-libya-n2559285
You keep trying to make the case that Trump broke the law by taking Soleimani out. So far, you've offered no evidence that your opinion is true. You're only argument is that nobody has said it's legal that YOU think is authoritative.
Lawyers will tell you that anything that is not explicitly illegal is legal. We don't need the Supreme Court to say what Trump did was LEGAL when there's no law -- and no rational person in authority -- saying it was ILLEGAL.
-
Evidence has come out and continues to come out that there was no imminent threat to American assets to justify the killing of Soleimani. You selectively refuse to acknowledge that fact and focus attention that he is historically a bad guy and that is good enough of a reason to take his life.
Moreover, if you think killing Soleimani will somehow prevent any future hostility to Americans stationed and bring peace to the region, you are the one who must be delirious. You can bet the Middle East has become a far more dangerous place for Americans now more than ever.
That's not a "fact". It's an opinion. The Intelligence Community says different. They have the "facts."
What "evidence" are you referring to? Congress-critters mad because the INTEL briefers weren't supposed to debate the decision with elected officials? Not their function.
-
That's not a "fact". It's an opinion. The Intelligence Community says different. They have the "facts."
What "evidence" are you referring to? Congress-critters mad because the INTEL briefers weren't supposed to debate the decision with elected officials? Not their function.
That is the point. Where are these FACTS?
Many Congressmen as well as the Secretary of Defense this morning said that they did not get all of the FACTS in regards to the "imminent threat" claim, even after their supposed briefing on the matter.
-
That is the point. Where are these FACTS?
Many Congressmen as well as the Secretary of Defense this morning said that they did not get all of the FACTS in regards to the "imminent threat" claim, even after their supposed briefing on the matter.
So, your entire "Evidence has come out and continues to come out" is a LACK of evidence?
Gotcha.
-
So, your entire "Evidence has come out and continues to come out" is a LACK of evidence?
Gotcha.
His actual quote was:
“Evidence has come out and continues to come out that there was no imminent threat to American assets to justify the killing of Soleimani.”
You are Paraphrasing just like the MSM. At least quote to the period of the sentence.
Stop your usual shell game (distract/divert and re-direct followed by snide remark) and answer the guys question directly.
I can hear you now.
The facts are this guy was evil.......killed Americans.....
So when do we drone the Al Shabbab guys and Hezbollah guys and Yemen guys and all those other guys?
This was purely political to relations with Iran. IMO.
I’m not arguing with the decision but I think it was a purely political move.
Might be a genius move or an idiot move but political none the less.
But at least answer Kuleana’s direct question directly.
-
Trump Bump Presidents Approval Rating Skyrockets After Solemani Strike
https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-bump-presidents-approval-rating-skyrockets-after-soleimani-strike
Was the drone strike done for the reasons given or something more nefarious like approval rating or a genius move looking forward to election night? Argument at 3 2 1 ......
-
Trump Bump Presidents Approval Rating Skyrockets After Solemani Strike
https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-bump-presidents-approval-rating-skyrockets-after-soleimani-strike
Was the drone strike done for the reasons given or something more nefarious like approval rating or a genius move looking forward to election night? Argument at 3 2 1 ......
According to Sen. Pocahontas Warren, the timing is super important. it PROVES Trump used the termination of Soleimani and the tensions with Iran as a DISTRACTION FROM IMPEACHMENT -- nothing more, nothing less.
There are many in the press and in the DC beltway making the same comment. Of course, that requires us to believe Trump really thinks impeachment is bad for him. His poll numbers are as high now as they were when he was inaugurated -- the peak of his poll numbers at the time. Also, most people now answer the poll on who will win in 2020 with Trump vs "whoever the DNC nominates."
The more the Dems try to attack Trump, the more the American people get pissed at them for (1) not doing their real jobs we elected and are paying them for, and (2) the failed attempts one after another to obstruct Trump.
The War Powers resolution was a "Concurrent Resolution," which is the type used for things like supporting Soap Box Derby Day and
"Concurrent Resolution
a resolution adopted by both houses of a legislative assembly that does not require the signature of the chief executive and that does not have the force of law."
This move was meant to, once again, try to sling mud at Trump -- nothing more, nothing less. And this time it was while the Commander in Chief was busy working to defend the nation against a terroristic regime.
If that doesn't drive the point home that Democrats are only interested in power for their party, not the good of the entire nation, I don't know what will.
-
Barr says DOJ was consulted before Soleimani strike as Trump goes on defensive
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/barr-doj-consulted-soleimani-strike-trump-defensive
-
Barr says DOJ was consulted before Soleimani strike as Trump goes on defensive
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/barr-doj-consulted-soleimani-strike-trump-defensive
Pence also called pelosi, but she said she will call him back later
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
Barr says DOJ was consulted before Soleimani strike as Trump goes on defensive
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/barr-doj-consulted-soleimani-strike-trump-defensive
Trump gave the green light to take out Soleimani at the earliest opportunity in JUNE. I said JUNE!!
Kind of kills the accusation that the decision was impeachment-related, huh?
Pelosi was commenting, "Why now?" I hate these people who create fake narratives based on no facts.
-
Trump gave the green light to take out Soleimani at the earliest opportunity in JUNE. I said JUNE!!
Kind of kills the accusation that the decision was impeachment-related, huh?
Pelosi was commenting, "Why now?" I hate these people who create fake narratives based on no facts.
4D chess. The info about June wasn't given until later after the DNC made the move. Now they look stupid. Well more stupid if possible.
-
4D chess. The info about June wasn't given until later after the DNC made the move. Now they look stupid. Well more stupid if possible.
I find that Trump is a genius in the timing of his statements and in how much info he gives out at any particular moment.
He's been calling for a full trial with Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, Adam Schiff, the non-existent Whistle Blower, Schiff's Congressional staff, Nancy Pelosi and anyone else who might have knowledge of the genesis of this impeachment hoax.
This week, he tweeted out that he is now leaning toward accepting the advice almost everyone else has offered: get an acquittal as soon in the trial as possible, so as to not give the hoax any credibility at all.
He might REALLY be leaning toward a quick end, OR he might be demonstrating a reversal of his position just to get Pelosi to hurry up and send the articles. Once the opening statements are over, if there's no vote to dismiss, then his team can call anyone they want to testify since McConnell is in charge of the majority and wants Trump to have a fair trial.
It'll be interesting to see if he traps the Dems into publicly airing their corruption.
-
I find that Trump is a genius in the timing of his statements and in how much info he gives out at any particular moment.
He's been calling for a full trial with Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, Adam Schiff, the non-existent Whistle Blower, Schiff's Congressional staff, Nancy Pelosi and anyone else who might have knowledge of the genesis of this impeachment hoax.
This week, he tweeted out that he is now leaning toward accepting the advice almost everyone else has offered: get an acquittal as soon in the trial as possible, so as to not give the hoax any credibility at all.
He might REALLY be leaning toward a quick end, OR he might be demonstrating a reversal of his position just to get Pelosi to hurry up and send the articles. Once the opening statements are over, if there's no vote to dismiss, then his team can call anyone they want to testify since McConnell is in charge of the majority and wants Trump to have a fair trial.
It'll be interesting to see if he traps the Dems into publicly airing their corruption.
Pelosi fell into the trap. I would say she will not hand the impeachment docs to the senate. Because now everyone's dirty laundry will be in the open. And since there is no set standard of when she has to hand it over, she can just leave it on her desk for all eternity. The DNC run fake news already said that trump was impeached (we know he isn't yet). So that's all the DNC wanted to get votes and to keep TDS sufferers on their side.
Trump wins again.
-
I find it hilarious that the fakestream media is still trying to pull the "Soleimani was a gut boi" and especially that "trump brought us to the brink of war"
the US troops on that base were either flown off the base or in bunkers TWO AND A HALF hours before the attack began because they were warned by the Iraqis
not two and a half hours warning, but more like 4-5 hours warning at least to get everyone safe
then the Iraqis sent "we're done, its all good" messages to the US VIA THREE DIFFERENT COUNTRIES
that sure doesn't sound like THE BRINK OF WAR! to me...
-
Trump gave the green light to take out Soleimani at the earliest opportunity in JUNE. I said JUNE!!
Kind of kills the accusation that the decision was impeachment-related, huh?
Pelosi was commenting, "Why now?" I hate these people who create fake narratives based on no facts.
You want facts? Here they are.
Please listen to REPUBLICAN retired army Lt. Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, who served as former Secretary of State Colin Powell's Chief-of-Staff, to hear his take on the assassination of Soleimani, the American Empire, as well as his contention that the US currently is a country that has made imperial war its sole business.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYHRlK3VYbI
Enjoy! :shaka:
-
You want facts? Here they are.
Please listen to REPUBLICAN retired army Lt. Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, who served as former Secretary of State Colin Powell's Chief-of-Staff, to hear his take on the assassination of Soleimani, the American Empire, as well as his contention that the US currently is a country that has made imperial war its sole business.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYHRlK3VYbI
Enjoy! :shaka:
Pure opinion.
Why do you believe party affiliation in any way dictates one's opinions? Your group-think, tribalistic mindset is typical. It's how the Liberals in education and media have been programming you.
You want me to take anything an "anchor" for a YT channel called Democracy Now! wearing a leather biker jacket seriously? :rofl:
This video has nothing to do with the FACTS. He's using emotional appeals.
Again .... one man's opinion who has no access to the information the President has.
-
Pure opinion.
Why do you believe party affiliation in any way dictates one's opinions? Your group-think, tribalistic mindset is typical. It's how the Liberals in education and media have been programming you.
You want me to take anything an "anchor" for a YT channel called Democracy Now! wearing a leather biker jacket seriously? :rofl:
This video has nothing to do with the FACTS. He's using emotional appeals.
Again .... one man's opinion who has no access to the information the President has.
Your transparent attempt to discredit the information shared in the above link is YOUR OPINION.
Once more, former Lt. Colonel Wilkerson's ASSESSMENT on this situation has more CREDIBILITY and probably better access to the FACTS than YOU or ANYONE ELSE on this forum does.
If anything, your fanatical devotion to the imperial wars of the US just proves what Wilkerson was describing, there unfortunately exists an element in America who believes in nothing but endless wars.
-
Your transparent attempt to discredit the information shared in the above link is YOUR OPINION.
Once more, former Lt. Colonel Wilkerson's ASSESSMENT on this situation has more CREDIBILITY and probably better access to the FACTS than YOU or ANYONE ELSE on this forum does.
If anything, your fanatical devotion to the imperial wars of the US just proves what Wilkerson was describing, there unfortunately exists an element in America who believes in nothing but endless wars.
My opinion? - nope.
My analysis is based on sound reasoning -- that the individual you think is talking "facts" about the Trump administration is actually offering an OPINION as well. He has no inside information. After he retired, he no longer had a need to know regarding any classified intelligence.
I'm a former Air Force officer and DoD contractor. We IT professionals have access to EVERYTHING, because we need to. I've been in facilities most people don't know exist.
Not everyone was born and raised on this rock. Some of us were actually in the middle of the things you only read about -- or in your case, imagine to have happened.
-
1) You want facts? Here they are.
Please listen to REPUBLICAN retired army Lt. Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, who served as former Secretary of State Colin Powell's Chief-of-Staff, to 2) hear his take on the assassination of Soleimani, the American Empire, as well as his contention that the US currently is a country that has made imperial war its sole business.
SNIP
Enjoy! :shaka:
Couldn't listen to the whole thing . . . ::)
Seems like you like "his TAKE" and see that as "facts". . .
Maybe I should start a YT channel. . . I have spoken. . .
-
I'm a former Air Force officer and DoD contractor. We IT professionals have access to EVERYTHING, because we need to. I've been in facilities most people don't know exist.
Like silo's under malls. #tinfoil
-
Like silo's under malls. #tinfoil
I can neither confirm nor deny. :geekdanc:
-
I can neither confirm nor deny. :geekdanc:
BRB, grabbing more tin foil from Longs.
-
BRB, grabbing more tin foil from Longs.
We know.
Don't forget to pick up some milk. You're almost out.
-
Like silo's under malls. #tinfoil
Not the malls. The former pineapple fields in Kunia. That's why the planes were circling over Ren's place. . . :o
-
My opinion? - nope.
My analysis is based on sound reasoning -- that the individual you think is talking "facts" about the Trump administration is actually offering an OPINION as well. He has no inside information. After he retired, he no longer had a need to know regarding any classified intelligence.
I'm a former Air Force officer and DoD contractor. We IT professionals have access to EVERYTHING, because we need to. I've been in facilities most people don't know exist.
Not everyone was born and raised on this rock. Some of us were actually in the middle of the things you only read about -- or in your case, imagine to have happened.
You make it sound like you have open access to all the classified information the US Government has on file. :wtf:
I seriously doubt your claim to having privy to such information and will not waste any time asking you to prove something that you do not possess.
You simply will give the "oh, that's top-secret" excuse to your gullible faithful on this forum that will readily accept your lies.
For those of us with higher order critical thinking skills, we know better. :thumbsup:
-
Couldn't listen to the whole thing . . . ::)
Seems like you like "his TAKE" and see that as "facts". . .
Maybe I should start a YT channel. . . I have spoken. . .
Maybe you should listen to the whole segment that is not more than 15 minutes long or so.
Wilkerson make claims that are backed with facts that he had full access too.
-
Maybe you should listen to the whole segment that is not more than 15 minutes long or so.
Wilkerson make claims that are backed with facts that he had full access too.
I'll try to listen to the rest tomorrow. The video just reeked of cheap propo though that I couldn't sit through all the way at lunch.
Then again, is he "making claims" or conveying facts? Having full access to information doesn't tell me much if I have no way of vetting his claims. Just like you mentioned above, even if I was privy to or had access to sensitive/classified information, I wouldn't have a good way to back it up.
-
You make it sound like you have open access to all the classified information the US Government has on file. :wtf:
I seriously doubt your claim to having privy to such information and will not waste any time asking you to prove something that you do not possess.
You simply will give the "oh, that's top-secret" excuse to your gullible faithful on this forum that will readily accept your lies.
For those of us with higher order critical thinking skills, we know better. :thumbsup:
I don't really care what you believe.
You have no idea.
-
I don't really care what you believe.
You have no idea.
Who cares what you believe?
If you are not going to spill it, then STFU!
-
Who cares what you believe?
If you are not going to spill it, then STFU!
You seem mad.
You mad, bro? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
You make it sound like you have open access to all the classified information the US Government has on file. :wtf:
I seriously doubt your claim to having privy to such information and will not waste any time asking you to prove something that you do not possess.
You simply will give the "oh, that's top-secret" excuse to your gullible faithful on this forum that will readily accept your lies.
For those of us with higher order critical thinking skills, we know better. :thumbsup:
says the guy that says there are ICBM silos on Oahu...
-
says the guy that says there are ICBM silos on Oahu...
Always personal attacks and insults. Get ready to receive what you dish out. :thumbsup:
BTW - Go clean someone's teeth.
-
says the guy that says there are ICBM silos on Oahu...
I found some in Kunia
-
Always personal attacks and insults. Get ready to receive what you dish out. :thumbsup:
BTW - Go clean someone's teeth.
for all your education, you have a different interpretation of "always" and "personal attacks and insults" than most
I rarely post comments to you, and pointing out something that you have claimed to be true is not is certainly not an "attack" nor "insult"
-
Always personal attacks and insults. Get ready to receive what you dish out. :thumbsup:
BTW - Go clean someone's teeth.
How is feeding you your own posted comments an attack? Are you now admitting the ICBM silos assertion was false? Or do you feel all disagreements with your opinion are personal attacks? If the latter, that's a very victimized, Liberal snowflake point of view.
-
says the guy that says there are ICBM silos on Oahu...
Since I have never seen silos on Oahu, or not seen the silos, it's Schrodingers Cat all over again.
-
for all your education, you have a different interpretation of "always" and "personal attacks and insults" than most
I rarely post comments to you, and pointing out something that you have claimed to be true is not is certainly not an "attack" nor "insult"
You made your point clear on many occasions, but you continually persist in making the SAME POINT over and over again.
It's no longer an issue of making a point in your identical posts to me, you are PROVOKING ME.
Hence, you want to play?
LET'S PLAY!
-
How is feeding you your own posted comments an attack? Are you now admitting the ICBM silos assertion was false? Or do you feel all disagreements with your opinion are personal attacks? If the latter, that's a very victimized, Liberal snowflake point of view.
There is a BIG DIFFERENCE between offering a rebuttal to something I recently posted and posting a response that does not address the issue being discussed.
-
You made your point clear on many occasions, but you continually persist in making the SAME POINT over and over again.
It's no longer an issue of making a point in your identical posts to me, you are PROVOKING ME.
Hence, you want to play?
LET'S PLAY!
so what do you call your repeated posts about the illegal occupation of Hawaii?
you've made your point clear on many occasions, but you continually persist in making the same point over and over again...
-
so what do you call your repeated posts about the illegal occupation of Hawaii?
you've made your point clear on many occasions, but you continually persist in making the same point over and over again...
When I post it in a discussion, it is within the context of the issues being discussed in that respective thread, along with justification why it is being mentioned.
Your repeated one-liner responses are nothing, but taking cheap shots at me; something I almost never have done to you.
-
You made your point clear on many occasions, but you continually persist in making the SAME POINT over and over again.
It's no longer an issue of making a point in your identical posts to me, you are PROVOKING ME.
Hence, you want to play?
LET'S PLAY!
Quit lying; you are two-faced Republican supporter who is also an Obama admirer; your words remember.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
You're such a blatant hypocrite. :popcorn:
-
There is a BIG DIFFERENCE between offering a rebuttal to something I recently posted and posting a response that does not address the issue being discussed.
Not when the point being made is RELEVANT and meant to draw attention to your lack of critical thinking.
-
You're such a blatant hypocrite. :popcorn:
Any subjective statement I have made to you has ALWAYS been in response to YOUR PERSONAL ATTACKS.
-
Any subjective statement I have made to you has ALWAYS been in response to YOUR PERSONAL ATTACKS.
Your continuous shouting and whining is duly noted.
:wacko: :popcorn: :popcorn:
-
Not when the point being made is RELEVANT and meant to draw attention to your lack of critical thinking.
"My lack of critical thinking?"
First of all, your opinion.
Second, you are the one who starts personal attacks, NOT ME.
-
"My lack of critical thinking?"
First of all, your opinion.
Second, you are the one who starts personal attacks, NOT ME.
"You started it!!!"
Are you still in kindergarten?
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
-
Since I have never seen silos on Oahu, or not seen the silos, it's Schrodingers Cat all over again.
Jumping in here late.
Nuke silos in HI? No way.
I was stationed in Minot ND.
5th bomb wing. I was crawling around nukes on B52's at age 18.
Lot's of my buddies were SP's at the Weapons storage area,
I've been in there.
I know what America does to protect Missile silos like the
91st Missile wing.
I also know some things that have gone wrong
when they were guarding those silos and aircraft.
There are no silos in HI.
The subs may have weapons, but they can move out pretty
quick.
As far as I have seen only Guam has Nuke storage.
This is common knowledge.
Want to find out if there are Nukes around, penetrate the perimeter.
You will have 18 year old's with automatic weapons and dogs
jumping up and down on you, if you survive the initial contact.
-
I can personally attest to what happens when you even approach the munition magazines in Guam. I took a wrong turn and drove up to a gate to one of the magazines at Andersen. Yup, no fooling around there. And that wasn’t even the nuke magazine... not that there are nukes on Guam. Might tip the island over...
-
Jumping in here late.
Nuke silos in HI? No way.
I was stationed in Minot ND.
5th bomb wing. I was crawling around nukes on B52's at age 18.
Lot's of my buddies were SP's at the Weapons storage area,
I've been in there.
I know what America does to protect Missile silos like the
91st Missile wing.
I also know some things that have gone wrong
when they were guarding those silos and aircraft.
There are no silos in HI.
The subs may have weapons, but they can move out pretty
quick.
As far as I have seen only Guam has Nuke storage.
This is common knowledge.
Want to find out if there are Nukes around, penetrate the perimeter.
You will have 18 year old's with automatic weapons and dogs
jumping up and down on you, if you survive the initial contact.
Thanks for the info. :shaka:
-
I can personally attest to what happens when you even approach the munition magazines in Guam. I took a wrong turn and drove up to a gate to one of the magazines at Andersen. Yup, no fooling around there. And that wasn’t even the nuke magazine... not that there are nukes on Guam. Might tip the island over...
I spent over 16 months on Anderson. I know what you speak of.
Navy base weapons area was even scarier.
Marines are very good shots and very motivated.
-
I spent over 16 months on Anderson. I know what you speak of.
Navy base weapons area was even scarier.
Marines are very good shots and very motivated.
Most of my projects were at Andersen, but have been to NBG many times.
Ever been to Bangor in WA? It’s not secret that they have nuke magazines there. Hear lots of stories of anti-nuke protests and attempted gate runners. Attempted being the key word. We have offices on that installation that I’ve visited. I was there a few days after a lockdown because some guy stole a car with a baby in the back seat and tried to run the main gate. 😳
-
Jumping in here late.
Nuke silos in HI? No way.
I was stationed in Minot ND.
5th bomb wing. I was crawling around nukes on B52's at age 18.
Lot's of my buddies were SP's at the Weapons storage area,
I've been in there.
I know what America does to protect Missile silos like the
91st Missile wing.
I also know some things that have gone wrong
when they were guarding those silos and aircraft.
There are no silos in HI.
The subs may have weapons, but they can move out pretty
quick.
As far as I have seen only Guam has Nuke storage.
This is common knowledge.
Want to find out if there are Nukes around, penetrate the perimeter.
You will have 18 year old's with automatic weapons and dogs
jumping up and down on you, if you survive the initial contact.
In Norfolk, I was able to use my credentials to get my wife and her family aboard the USS Iowa for a tour before it was decommissioned. My father-in-law was a Marine on the Iowa during the assault on Iwo Jima. He was in a launch ready to go ashore when the call came in that the beach was secure and to stand by. Luckily, he was not one of the Marines to hit the beach and never make it home.
We passed one section my father-in-law said was where he bunked, but there were signs and guards warning of "Use of Deadly Force Authorized." I'm guessing that's where the Tomahawk cruise missiles were kept. Our guide simply said that's the one area of the ship we were prohibited from seeing.
Our escort told us he was one of the survivors from the turret explosion in 1989. He reached in his wallet and pulled out 2 NSN labels from powder charges used to test fire the big guns after the damage was repaired, and he gave one to my father-in-law.
Anyway, if you're closer to certain areas than you should be, you'll figure it out pretty damn abruptly. :shake:
-
:stopjack:
-
Or theyre so secret and dont want to draw attention? Zero guards and in plain sight. Malls...reverse pshychology.
Scheodingers cat still applies to hawaii
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk