|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 12 2016 00:23 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2016 00:14 JinDesu wrote:
Eh to be fair, I don't think Dangler's supports Trump. He just doesn't like Hillary and Obama. That's the problem with having only one sane party in the system: they can put up someone as bad as Hillary Clinton and you don't really have any choice because the opposition is literally insane. You could argue that there was the Bernie Sanders option but I don't think he had any real chance. Inertia, demographics, and socialism-phobia are a bitch. The Dems are becoming a worse party without any opposition to force them to shape up.
Oh yeah, I agree it'd be nice to have a healthy, functioning two party system.
|
On August 12 2016 00:20 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2016 23:59 zlefin wrote:On August 11 2016 23:56 Godwrath wrote:On August 11 2016 23:54 ticklishmusic wrote:
No immunity for the 5k was the issue That could had been negotiated if there was will for it. maybe not; surely oyu can understand that maybe Iraqis didn't like having foreign soldiers in their land that were immune from local prosecution no matter who they killed? also, the iraqi armry had gotten plenty of training ofr a long time. They didn't lose because of inadequate training; they fled because commanders were bribed, the gov't was lousily sectarian, and the troops didn't want ot die to defend that land, cuz they didn't care abou tit. Yes, that's why i said yes and no in the answer to Plansix, the goverment wasn't asking the US to keep soldiers on peacemaking duties (which would had been the ones where the soldiers would require that immunity), but rather as training coaches, which can easilly keep a low profile.
given the nature of anti-insurgency conflicts, battles can happen anywhere. And the US tends to not let anyone else try its soldiers for crimes. I'm not sure, btu the US would probably still demand immunity even for people just there as trainers. Also note that there were some defenses contractors and such still there for training. I dobut a few thousand US troops would've made much difference vs ISIS early on if they weren't allowed to fight it; as theres' been more than enough time for training to be done anyways.
|
Yep, i can't argue that if there wouldn't had been able to keep forces on peacekeeping duties things could had changed that much outside of outlandish assumptions.We are on a agreement there.
|
On August 12 2016 00:24 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2016 00:11 xM(Z wrote:On August 11 2016 23:58 KwarK wrote:
Obama would have been raked over the coals if one US serviceman had to spend one day in an Iraqi prison under Iraqi authority. And quite rightly so, he has an obligation to protect them and by letting them fall into foreign control he'd be responsible for their treatment. Treatment in the context of Abu Ghraib etc too.
Maybe you call it just smart politicking if you're on the right but whichever way you see it, Obama recognized that he had an obligation, or at least a perceived obligation, to protect the soldiers and he upheld it. If you don't want to give him credit you call him a cynic but you can't deny that if he had ordered them to stay and be subject to Iraqi justice you'd have attacked him for betraying them. that's a cop out(he could've made those(alleged) 5000 US soldiers diplomat attaches and give them immunity that way). why is it a cop out?: because right now, US soldiers brought to Middle East by Obama, die in Syria. so what happened between then and now?. he's not up for another reelection?. where did those principles and obligations go?. Yeah that's not how diplomatic immunity works.
http://www.news.com.au/national/australian-special-forces-enter-iraq-with-diplomatic-passports/news-story/fa60eceddc3d3a4a72d3956311ddc964 AUSTRALIAN Special Forces have entered Iraq without a formal Status of Forces Agreement and will instead travel on diplomatic passports that will give them the legal protections they need.
if Australia did it there's no doubt US could've done it too.
|
Norway28781 Posts
On August 12 2016 00:04 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2016 23:16 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think it's definitely possible to make the argument that Obama did not have to withdraw and that the decision allowed IS to thrive, but that in no way makes Trump's statement 'Obama FOUNDED ISIS' any less retarded. I'm seriously getting pretty sick of this absolute nonsense and how people are bending over backwards to try to make Trump intellectually palatable, but this is just stupid bullshit. The ridiculous exaggeration from the Trump camp is making it impossible to have any type of civil, political discourse and this is a case where the blame for the negative shift in the political climate almost solely rests on his shoulders, because when it comes to peddling bullshit, he is far guiltier than any other politician with any serious amount of traction from either side of the political aisle.
Really looking forward to the end of this election.. Chalk another one up for bravado. This election shows how many people in left and center-left simply prefer a media bending over backwards to cover for politicians like Clinton, Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and the like. It comes from men and women put forward with experts having ivy league school degrees. The tone is muted and frequently has the NPR vibe. But it is none the less stupid bullshit politely called political spin. So I'm having great trouble sympathizing with Trump's detractors as he goes two steps beyond sane policy statements to the absurd. You just don't like the brash, cocksure flavor of tripe, and would rather have the other kind. Secondly, you're more at home with admitted lies that error close to the left's worldview than the selfsame exaggerations from the right. The histrionics from you and others make this all the more hilarious ... trust me when I've seen the opposite--the Obama administration and fellow-travelers have made it impossible to have a civil political discourse and much of the blame for a bad shift in political climate rests on his shoulders.
See, I get where you're coming from. I get that sometimes world views just clash and it's difficult to find common ground. With me and you, I feel it's like that - I respect your intellect and there have been several occasions where I've read your posts and thought 'yeah, that actually is an example of leftist hypocricy, never thought of that before' or something to that effect. But even then, I think both our visions of what the world should ideally be like and our understanding of how it currently is and what made it that way are so different that it is difficult for us to reach political common ground. I can live with this - because even though I really disagree with you, I can see how your interpretation is valid, and I don't think you're just lying and making stuff up.
I also get that the left is guilty of spinning. But I do not agree that the degrees are comparable, and I also think tone actually matters. Trump's lies are beyond the type of spin-doctoring you see from top level politicians, he really has upped the game. I understand that people see Hillary as crooked, I understand why she's considered untrustworthy, and yeah, she has flat out lied on some occasions, but they're just.. they're not the same. Anti-Trump ads usually just feature him - sometimes unedited. Anti-Hillary/Obama attacks are conspiratorial and sometimes completely invented. Any other republican candidate, even Cruz, would not be attacked the way Trump is, and would not be accused of destroying the political discourse in the way he is.
Cherrypicking statistics is a bad thing (if you need to cherrypick then you probably should have adjusted your initial argument instead), saying that you were under gunfire when that obviously wasn't the case is a stupid lie, but it's not comparable to the type of Robert Stone 'Hillary is a murdering lesbian' bullshit Trump is either enabling or straight out saying. While I myself obviously think that my political opinions are better than yours, or I would change them, I don't think that leftists are inherently better than conservatives. In Norway, arguably my two favorite politicians both belong to the conservative party - even though I've never been remotely close to considering voting for them. I think Gary Johnson comes off as a more respectable and likable guy than Hillary, and one it's possible to have actual discourse with even when coming from different world views. But with Trump? I might as well argue with a loudspeaker quoting random sentences from Finnegans Wake or something.
|
On August 12 2016 00:38 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2016 00:24 KwarK wrote:On August 12 2016 00:11 xM(Z wrote:On August 11 2016 23:58 KwarK wrote:
Obama would have been raked over the coals if one US serviceman had to spend one day in an Iraqi prison under Iraqi authority. And quite rightly so, he has an obligation to protect them and by letting them fall into foreign control he'd be responsible for their treatment. Treatment in the context of Abu Ghraib etc too.
Maybe you call it just smart politicking if you're on the right but whichever way you see it, Obama recognized that he had an obligation, or at least a perceived obligation, to protect the soldiers and he upheld it. If you don't want to give him credit you call him a cynic but you can't deny that if he had ordered them to stay and be subject to Iraqi justice you'd have attacked him for betraying them. that's a cop out(he could've made those(alleged) 5000 US soldiers diplomat attaches and give them immunity that way). why is it a cop out?: because right now, US soldiers brought to Middle East by Obama, die in Syria. so what happened between then and now?. he's not up for another reelection?. where did those principles and obligations go?. Yeah that's not how diplomatic immunity works. http://www.news.com.au/national/australian-special-forces-enter-iraq-with-diplomatic-passports/news-story/fa60eceddc3d3a4a72d3956311ddc964 Show nested quote +AUSTRALIAN Special Forces have entered Iraq without a formal Status of Forces Agreement and will instead travel on diplomatic passports that will give them the legal protections they need. if Australia did it there's no doubt US could've done it too.
My understanding is that the US torturing and other less than ideal stuff is the reason why they are treated differently.
|
United States43814 Posts
On August 12 2016 00:38 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2016 00:24 KwarK wrote:On August 12 2016 00:11 xM(Z wrote:On August 11 2016 23:58 KwarK wrote:
Obama would have been raked over the coals if one US serviceman had to spend one day in an Iraqi prison under Iraqi authority. And quite rightly so, he has an obligation to protect them and by letting them fall into foreign control he'd be responsible for their treatment. Treatment in the context of Abu Ghraib etc too.
Maybe you call it just smart politicking if you're on the right but whichever way you see it, Obama recognized that he had an obligation, or at least a perceived obligation, to protect the soldiers and he upheld it. If you don't want to give him credit you call him a cynic but you can't deny that if he had ordered them to stay and be subject to Iraqi justice you'd have attacked him for betraying them. that's a cop out(he could've made those(alleged) 5000 US soldiers diplomat attaches and give them immunity that way). why is it a cop out?: because right now, US soldiers brought to Middle East by Obama, die in Syria. so what happened between then and now?. he's not up for another reelection?. where did those principles and obligations go?. Yeah that's not how diplomatic immunity works. http://www.news.com.au/national/australian-special-forces-enter-iraq-with-diplomatic-passports/news-story/fa60eceddc3d3a4a72d3956311ddc964 Show nested quote +AUSTRALIAN Special Forces have entered Iraq without a formal Status of Forces Agreement and will instead travel on diplomatic passports that will give them the legal protections they need. if Australia did it there's no doubt US could've done it too.
The host nation must consent to it and if they were refusing to allow US troops to stay without the end of immunity to prosecution then they wouldn't have allowed them to stay with immunity just because they got a special stamp on their passports. If you're not getting this then think of it this way. What is to stop us simply deposing the leadership of North Korea with an invasion of a few hundred thousand diplomatically immune soldiers? Why couldn't we just invade Nazi Germany with an elite group of soldiers with diplomat stamps on their passports so that the Nazis wouldn't be allowed to stop them?
Diplomatic immunity is a status granted by the host nation and it is the very status they were refusing to grant to the US soldiers.
|
On August 12 2016 00:41 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2016 00:38 xM(Z wrote:On August 12 2016 00:24 KwarK wrote:On August 12 2016 00:11 xM(Z wrote:On August 11 2016 23:58 KwarK wrote:
Obama would have been raked over the coals if one US serviceman had to spend one day in an Iraqi prison under Iraqi authority. And quite rightly so, he has an obligation to protect them and by letting them fall into foreign control he'd be responsible for their treatment. Treatment in the context of Abu Ghraib etc too.
Maybe you call it just smart politicking if you're on the right but whichever way you see it, Obama recognized that he had an obligation, or at least a perceived obligation, to protect the soldiers and he upheld it. If you don't want to give him credit you call him a cynic but you can't deny that if he had ordered them to stay and be subject to Iraqi justice you'd have attacked him for betraying them. that's a cop out(he could've made those(alleged) 5000 US soldiers diplomat attaches and give them immunity that way). why is it a cop out?: because right now, US soldiers brought to Middle East by Obama, die in Syria. so what happened between then and now?. he's not up for another reelection?. where did those principles and obligations go?. Yeah that's not how diplomatic immunity works. http://www.news.com.au/national/australian-special-forces-enter-iraq-with-diplomatic-passports/news-story/fa60eceddc3d3a4a72d3956311ddc964 AUSTRALIAN Special Forces have entered Iraq without a formal Status of Forces Agreement and will instead travel on diplomatic passports that will give them the legal protections they need. if Australia did it there's no doubt US could've done it too. My understanding is that the US torturing and other less than ideal stuff is the reason why they are treated differently.
There were also a few incidents of US troops committing crimes against Iraq citizens, including sexual assault and murder. Those troops faced the charges in US military courts, but I doubt that was received well in Iraq.
|
United States43814 Posts
On August 12 2016 00:41 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2016 00:38 xM(Z wrote:On August 12 2016 00:24 KwarK wrote:On August 12 2016 00:11 xM(Z wrote:On August 11 2016 23:58 KwarK wrote:
Obama would have been raked over the coals if one US serviceman had to spend one day in an Iraqi prison under Iraqi authority. And quite rightly so, he has an obligation to protect them and by letting them fall into foreign control he'd be responsible for their treatment. Treatment in the context of Abu Ghraib etc too.
Maybe you call it just smart politicking if you're on the right but whichever way you see it, Obama recognized that he had an obligation, or at least a perceived obligation, to protect the soldiers and he upheld it. If you don't want to give him credit you call him a cynic but you can't deny that if he had ordered them to stay and be subject to Iraqi justice you'd have attacked him for betraying them. that's a cop out(he could've made those(alleged) 5000 US soldiers diplomat attaches and give them immunity that way). why is it a cop out?: because right now, US soldiers brought to Middle East by Obama, die in Syria. so what happened between then and now?. he's not up for another reelection?. where did those principles and obligations go?. Yeah that's not how diplomatic immunity works. http://www.news.com.au/national/australian-special-forces-enter-iraq-with-diplomatic-passports/news-story/fa60eceddc3d3a4a72d3956311ddc964 AUSTRALIAN Special Forces have entered Iraq without a formal Status of Forces Agreement and will instead travel on diplomatic passports that will give them the legal protections they need. if Australia did it there's no doubt US could've done it too. My understanding is that the US torturing and other less than ideal stuff is the reason why they are treated differently.
The situation in 2014 is very different to the one when the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq was agreed upon. I'll believe the Iraqi government decided to compromise on the immunity from prosecution issue in 2014 even while being unwilling to to do in 2011.
|
"It happened in Phillip’s Jeep,” the complaint alleges. “Phillip was driving and Vincent was in the passenger seat. Phillip produced a pistol, put his right index finger on the trigger, and drove the barrel into Vincent’s knee cap.”
The .45-caliber pistol was loaded and the safety was off, the complaint said, noting that had the two hit a bump in the road, a bullet hole, at minimum, would have been the result.
The suit also claims that Phillip brandished a gun at the campaign’s regional director of Western North Carolina, whom initially Bordini reported the incident to. “He was terrified,” the suit said. “Vincent then spoke with Stuart Jolly, the Trump Campaign’s National Field Director, about the incident. Nothing happened. Vincent came to hear of at least four other individuals on whom Phillip had pulled a gun.”
Bordini also reported the encounter to then-campaign manager Corey Lewandowski in March by phone.
“In response, the Trump Campaign neither terminated nor suspended Phillip. In fact, at the time of filling, Phillip continues to work for the Trump Campaign,” according to the complaint.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/trump-staffer-gun-allegedly-pulled-lawsuit-226909
What the fuck lol
|
I think Trump is going to become the new metric for crazy/stupid things in politics. "I think this policy is at least 2.5 trumps out of 5 in substance".
|
Apparently he just resigned, which is a great sign. It only took him pulling a gun on five or more people, a lawsuit and national media attention.
Bet CNN will hire him.
|
What a terrible way to get off lol
I wonder if that's just the only way the dude can get hard.
What are the odds that they omitted that he was jacking it?
|
If we go back 500 pages or so, we'll find people confidently telling us that Trump knows how to surround himself with the right people to run a country...
|
On August 12 2016 01:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:
If we go back 500 pages or so, we'll find people confidently telling us that Trump knows how to surround himself with the right people to run a country...
Who says they're not the right people? If your goal is to shoot the country in the kneecap as it rides along in your Jeep this guy looks like the guy you want!
|
But remember the media is biased against Trump.
|
On August 12 2016 01:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:
If we go back 500 pages or so, we'll find people confidently telling us that Trump knows how to surround himself with the right people to run a country...
I doubt that a North Carolina campaign director would be up for a cabinet post.
|
What, they fired him? All he did was negotiate effectively. /s
That sort of thing could turn into a nothing burger if Trump just comes out and disavows the guy and his actions as wrong, but for some reason I don't think he will
|
On August 12 2016 01:34 Plansix wrote:
But remember the media is biased against Trump.
Did you hear anything about a hillary compaign aid pulling out a gun and having to resign yet? No? Well obviously it is because of media bias.
|
On August 12 2016 01:41 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2016 01:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:
If we go back 500 pages or so, we'll find people confidently telling us that Trump knows how to surround himself with the right people to run a country... I doubt that a North Carolina campaign director would be up for a cabinet post.
besides, really, how bad is holding a loaded gun to a persons knee.
he was just pointing out what COULD happen if you get in a car.
man every day I think this dumpster fire of a campaign can't get more ridiculous
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
