Okay. So we aren't at war.
But I see a plethora of threads are gonna spew out on this one.
And that usually happens because someone is trying to defend a weak stance and are relying on keyboard bombardment of threads.
I wonder who does that?
So, it ain't war. You can stop stating that.
You have ANOTHER THREAD where you are refusing to address the point you made justifying the action because of something by the DOJ. (PS - you should really answer the guys questions that are trying to define the legality of the action.)
So, i'll just move that line of thought over hear. Yes. We have done such actions before. I will forsake giving my opinion in *this* reply since i've already stated it elsewhere (see what the problem of having multiple threads addressing the same thing? But hey, it is up to you to search if you want to know.) And as I will predict now, USA is pretty good at achieving a direct action. But we SUCK at the end game.
Moving along to your picture.
You got your two favourite whipping boys, billy and barack.
The former, all the actions listed were not done alone. They were with the cooperation of multiple international treatys and agreement of a coalition. I will say that Somalia, the mission was changed midstream and the troops were unprepared.
The latter, though a bombing happened at a civilian place, the target was US troops in said place. The other two definitely tie into when baby DubYou had to hit back for his daddy. So, you can say it would not have happened if righties didn't do what they are known to do.
BTW, what rule is this since I don't see the rule in the GL (no minors, RW identity revealed, sexual image thing.)
And OS, keeping it at a straight bringing to "justice" thing can fly. But stepping beyond that is illegal. Since your handle deals with it, show us the law(s) on the book that says we can take over their economy and such.
To all those who scream that President Trump needs Congressional Approval to start a war in regards to the Capture of Venezuela Maduro
