Sidechat logo
Download TikTok Instagram X
Sidechat icon
Join communities on Sidechat Download
US Politics icon
🍺
US Politics 5w

og_beer

 Note about this entire Maduro situation: defensible does not mean good. Sure you can defend trump’s kidnapping by pointing out how bad Maduro was, but it doesn’t change the fact it was illegal, unconstitutional, and sets a very dangerous legal precedent
US Politics icon
US Politics 5w
“Maduro’s regime failed because of US sanctions” Venezuela’s inflation rate spiked 1,300,000% before US sanctions even hit. He’s also responsible for one of the biggest displacement crises in the world, fucker needed to go.
comment

13
upvote 42 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous 5w

America has literally done this before. There is no “setting” of precedent. It’s already been set

upvote 3 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous 5w

Ends justify the means in certain cases, however I agree that it’s a dangerous precedent

upvote -1 downvote
🍺
Anonymous replying to -> #1 5w

Ends do not justify the means. If that were true why did bush go through congress to invade Iraq and capture Sadam Hussein? When apparently indicting him was enough justification?

upvote 0 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> og_beer 5w

Ends justify the means. Because you can’t successfully invade Iraq and capture Saddam Hussein within 90 days, logistically impossible. Venezuela isn’t comparable to 2000’s Iraq militarily, we just made them look puny with one of the greatest military operations of all time (Operation Iraqi Freedom)

upvote 0 downvote
🍺
Anonymous replying to -> #1 5w

So you admit it’s a military operation that required congressional approval? Which Trump didn’t receive? Making it unconstitutional? Meaning he should be impeached for violating the constitution without just cause because we had enough time to get congressional approval to attack a harsher military in the past so Trump breached the constitution for literally nothing? Thanks for agreeing!

upvote 1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> og_beer 5w

Operation Iraqi Freedom did, because the objectives could not be accomplished within 90 days. Within the War Powers Act, Trump *technically* acted within his bounds if he cares to stretch the provisions defined. I agree how it went down exactly wasn’t the greatest, but the results of the operation are certainly great. Disposed of a dictator was that pretty universally despised by his own people and has effectively set a nation back economically by 40 years or so. Can’t act like I’m upset in that

upvote 0 downvote
🍺
Anonymous replying to -> #1 5w

“If you just ignore the act and change its meaning completely he was actually totally valid.” Youre right this is definitely a good and safe thing :)

upvote 1 downvote
🍺
Anonymous replying to -> #1 5w

Like I said. Defensible does not mean good. You can defend it without saying it’s a good thing

upvote 1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> og_beer 5w

I didn’t say it was a safe thing, I just said the provisions can technically be warped in such a way.

upvote 1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> og_beer 5w

The results of the operation were good; the legal and moral optics are not.

upvote 1 downvote
🍺
Anonymous replying to -> #1 5w

Cool so we all agree! You can defend the act but agree it was not a good one. Thanks for arguing for the sake of arguing

upvote 1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #2 5w

I’m saying, there’s absolutely no where in the world you can go that the American military cannot get to if they think you’re worth the trouble.

upvote 6 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> og_beer 5w

You started the argument and just assumed my position lol

upvote 0 downvote