• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Trump live updates: President expands ‘narco’ boat strikes to Pacific Ocean as 8th boat is struck

Vambram

Born-again Christian; Constitutional conservative
Site Supporter
Dec 3, 2006
8,495
6,052
61
Saint James, Missouri
✟447,735.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
If your argument is that it's OK because you've done it before and the evidence that you produce is shown to be wrong, then You do realise that don't have an argument any more? Notwithstanding that the argument itself is fallacious (I'll assume that I really don't have to explain why).
The evidence I showed is not wrong.
 
Upvote 0

Gene2memE

Newbie
Oct 22, 2013
4,706
7,280
✟351,940.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private

I suppose that you might think these files are also a distortion?

Do you even read your own sources?? Nothing in that document indicates direct strikes by the US military. There isn't anything beyond logistics, training, intelligence and equipment support for South American governments.

P7:

"Under the Andean strategy, which was initially developed without input from the target countries, "US military involvement was to be limited to providing logistical support, equipment, and training to host nation armed forces, unless direct military assistance was specifically requested."

P8:

" ... in 1981, when lawmakers amended the Posse Comitatus Act of 1897, which restricts US armed forces personnel from participating in
law enforcement activities ... The amendment allows the military to provide equipment, information, training, and advice to law enforcement agencies, but it retains the prohibition on military participation in search, seizure, and arrests. "



I challenge you to read paged 30-33 and see if you agree with the conclusions of the report.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: wing2000
Upvote 0

wing2000

E pluribus unum
Site Supporter
Aug 18, 2012
25,648
21,616
✟1,792,302.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

wing2000

E pluribus unum
Site Supporter
Aug 18, 2012
25,648
21,616
✟1,792,302.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The evidence I showed is not wrong.

Your evidence demonstrates the US military provided logistical support and training to Bolivia in 1986. Is that what the US Navy is doing off the coast of Venezuela?
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
24,275
16,611
72
Bondi
✟393,610.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The evidence I showed is not wrong.
There was nothing in your linked 'evidence' to show what you claimed. Your claim is, therefore, wrong. Feel free to post anything that does support it.
 
Upvote 0

Vambram

Born-again Christian; Constitutional conservative
Site Supporter
Dec 3, 2006
8,495
6,052
61
Saint James, Missouri
✟447,735.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
There was nothing in your linked 'evidence' to show what you claimed. Your claim is, therefore, wrong. Feel free to post anything that does support it.
I already have. Feel free to ignore it if you wish to do so.
 
Upvote 0

Vambram

Born-again Christian; Constitutional conservative
Site Supporter
Dec 3, 2006
8,495
6,052
61
Saint James, Missouri
✟447,735.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Beats me. How about you state what point you are making with the referenced files.
The point that Trump ain't the first POTUS to use the military to fight against the narco cartels.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
24,275
16,611
72
Bondi
✟393,610.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I already have. Feel free to ignore it if you wish to do so.
I didn't ignore. I read it. But I'm not sure that you have. It contains nothing about the US taking armed action against cartels. And I found this:

'This strategy temporarily became entangled in a dispute over policies adopted by the Peruvian and Colombian governments - with strong US encouragement - to shoot down
planes of suspected drug traffickers.

When Colombia announced in early 1994 that it too, like Peru, would adopt a shoot-down policy, some US officials in Washington became concerned that the policy would violate international law. After the US Justice Department ruled that "US officials who knowingly provide information that leads to the shooting down of civilian aircraft could be subject to criminal prosecution," DOD halted the sharing of "real-time" aircraft tracking information with Colombia and Peru in May
1994.'

Trump is not supplying information to allow others to illegally kill people. He's actually doing it himself.

My guess is that you didn't even know that information was in there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wing2000
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
24,275
16,611
72
Bondi
✟393,610.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The point that Trump ain't the first POTUS to use the military to fight against the narco cartels.
Other presidents used the military to train non Americans and supplied them with equipment and info (see quote in post above). That's not what you said, is it...
 
Upvote 0

Vambram

Born-again Christian; Constitutional conservative
Site Supporter
Dec 3, 2006
8,495
6,052
61
Saint James, Missouri
✟447,735.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Other presidents used the military to train non Americans and supplied them with equipment and info (see quote in post above). That's not what you said, is it...
Other presidents were weak in the war against narco terrorists cartels that are killing hundreds of thousands of Americans.
 
Upvote 0

Vambram

Born-again Christian; Constitutional conservative
Site Supporter
Dec 3, 2006
8,495
6,052
61
Saint James, Missouri
✟447,735.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I didn't ignore. I read it. But I'm not sure that you have. It contains nothing about the US taking armed action against cartels. And I found this:

'This strategy temporarily became entangled in a dispute over policies adopted by the Peruvian and Colombian governments - with strong US encouragement - to shoot down
planes of suspected drug traffickers.

When Colombia announced in early 1994 that it too, like Peru, would adopt a shoot-down policy, some US officials in Washington became concerned that the policy would violate international law. After the US Justice Department ruled that "US officials who knowingly provide information that leads to the shooting down of civilian aircraft could be subject to criminal prosecution," DOD halted the sharing of "real-time" aircraft tracking information with Colombia and Peru in May
1994.'

Trump is not supplying information to allow others to illegally kill people. He's actually doing it himself.

My guess is that you didn't even know that information was in there.
My guess is that you are wrong to assume stuff about me.
 
Upvote 0