Jeffries said the administration has so far “failed to make its case … for this war of choice in the Middle East,” and unless President Donald Trump provides a “compelling rationale,” he’s “going to have a difficult case to make on Capitol Hill.”
Our house minority leader is out there saying trump give us a reason to give you money for these aggressive actions. Just like 1st time he attacked Iran and after Venezuela, and what they did when Bush was attacking Iraq and Afghanistan
The articles of NATO have been called upon for defence only one time, and since no country was found responsible there has never been a NATO response and NATO has never attacked anyone.
NATO is the world’s largest defence pact and it’s biggest opponents are Russia and China who want to expand their borders with military aggression.
All three were NATO operations. So was Iraq part 1. And even when articles of defense aren’t called, NATO allows countries like America and France to use their resources and bases to carry out its own wars of imperialism.
China
Do you believe NATO needs to defend itself from a country on the other side of the planet?
Correct, America, France, etc have attacked other nations. NATO has not. NATO is a group of 32 nations wherein if one of them is attacked then they all come to the defence of that member. To be anti-NATO is to be pro-war.
When Iraq was invaded several NATO member strongly opposed it, and now that Iran is being attack the USA is being denied logistics support from many nations.
It’s one thing to oppose NATO, it’s another to not only oppose NATO but also the entire UN. Both of those links are UN Resolutions. You’re easily the most pro-war mf on this platform.
I’m not the one trying to argue for a war with Iran or ignore that both parties yes both this time are more than happy to attack Iran.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/hakeem-jeffries-wont-commit-iran-war-funding-defense-department-rcna262271
Our house minority leader is out there saying trump give us a reason to give you money for these aggressive actions. Just like 1st time he attacked Iran and after Venezuela, and what they did when Bush was attacking Iraq and Afghanistan
You 100% argue for war, I’ve seen you post anti-NATO shit all the time.
Please show me where I’m arguing for war. Also curious if you confused me with a different user
I definitely would recognize you.
So nothing?
You’re not really worth my time, tbh.
So your go to move is just calling people names or whatever you are currently doing?
Lmao
So yes
Anti-NATO is anti-war, see Libya, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia.
The articles of NATO have been called upon for defence only one time, and since no country was found responsible there has never been a NATO response and NATO has never attacked anyone.
NATO is the world’s largest defence pact and it’s biggest opponents are Russia and China who want to expand their borders with military aggression.
All three were NATO operations. So was Iraq part 1. And even when articles of defense aren’t called, NATO allows countries like America and France to use their resources and bases to carry out its own wars of imperialism.
Do you believe NATO needs to defend itself from a country on the other side of the planet?
Correct, America, France, etc have attacked other nations. NATO has not. NATO is a group of 32 nations wherein if one of them is attacked then they all come to the defence of that member. To be anti-NATO is to be pro-war.
When Iraq was invaded several NATO member strongly opposed it, and now that Iran is being attack the USA is being denied logistics support from many nations.
The resolution NATO used to justify bombing Libya: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1973
NATO troops in Afghanistan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Security_Assistance_Force https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolute_Support_Mission
It’s one thing to oppose NATO, it’s another to not only oppose NATO but also the entire UN. Both of those links are UN Resolutions. You’re easily the most pro-war mf on this platform.
Do you think bombing Libya was the anti-war position? When the UN supports it, the UN has adopted a pro-war position.