Thread

he's referring to the military operation specifically, not the strategic or moral implications

Indeed… and the point is, all the above were initially thought of as quick, clean operations.

wasn’t aware that they were

Not all of us. Some of us will never praise the atrocities committed by the powers that be. Some of us have thinking brains and loving hearts.

what do you expect in a world of competing geopolitical interests? That everybody sit down and talk it out? grow up

No Americans is the point. One could Argue they didn't want opposition deaths either, ideally, but I mean that's pretty impressive for a battle ops view.

Grown ups see evil and call it out while the rest of you clap as if watching an action movie.

what is the delusion here?

No losses part. But no doubt it was successful, 🇺🇸 is exceedingly good at bombing countries with oil for their own profit.

the report said no US lives lost, which is what he was referring to here. Hard to argue that’s delusional

:P wish he used those words. He didnt tho. No usa lives lost makes sense.

> freedom, property rights are just stories those hypocrite influencers sell to fill their pockets. incoherent > when it comes standing up against the empire that has been colonising & plundering the world, suddenly property rights & freedom has no meaning. what do you expect? for everyone in the entire world to just get along and play nice? > fuck those hypocritical parasites, bitcoin was created to help people to escape from the horrors of US empire and now we have so called bitcoin influencers licking the boots of the empire & justify the gangster regime. fucking sick. hyperbolic and inaccurate. there is no justification of the "gangster regime" in this post. bitcoin was not created to help people escape the horrors of the US empire.

does constitution apply to interactions with other countries?

It absolutely does, especially when matters of war are concerned.

was this a matter of war?

Ask the Secretary of “War”.

all I know is that he said FAFO. I don't know if he said it was an act of war. I don't think it was an act of war. Also, when was the last time they actually went through the constitutional process for matters of war (I don't think it should be that way, I'm just saying). Lastly, to answer my own question and invalidate your original statement, the constitution applies to domestic affairs and not international ones

Nothing is invalidated. Even Bush went to Congress for consent in Iraq. He lied to get it, obviously. Now the president doesn’t even bother to do that, which is authoritarian by nature.

Congress has abdicated its role. That's not the president's fault.

I don’t think one negates the other.

Sure it does. If Congress doesn't care to do its job, and the people don't care to hold them to it, the republic is over.

Bombing another country is making war on them, duh! The US made war on Iran, too, when it bombed them a few months ago.

Congress not holding the president accountable is also an example of losing our Constitution.

It sure does. But that happened once the bureaucratic "expert" class was created.

again, not an act of war

I’m not one to give the Feds the benefit of the doubt.

did the US bomb venezuela??

i agree with you on one thing, that was a very boring conversation. But you insist on consistently making false, idealistic, and fantastical claims so i wanted to call that out

incoherent and pointless post

go back to smoke your opium then

hahah ok

You sound really happy with your life.

and you are better because you say bad words about people and things that you think are bad. good job

Yes, very happy with my life. You also sound very happy with your life and very good at observations.

Not better. Just not a hypocrite who says anything for money. Thank you for telling me “good job”.

or what?