Trump Vetoes Resolution to End US Involvement in Yemen

kona said:
No libertarian, non-interventionist, or anti-war person believes Trump on this anymore. The "I told you so" was appropriate in year one, not year three.

The haters here are preaching to the fox news crowd, which doesn't exist on this forum. And to be honest, non-interventionism was never important to them anyway.
Click to expand...

This is Obama's war and how can Trump be allowed to start a war with Iran if Obama can't have his war.
 
Firestarter said:
Yesterday Donald Trump used the second veto of his presidency against the resolution to stop US support for the war, genocide against Yemen.

0d0638c45d4cfdd0e0720200d9ed9fc6e4ecd804.png


Trump claims that the US is “not engaged in hostilities in or affecting Yemen” except “counterterrorism operations against [Al-Qaeda] in the Arabian Peninsula and ISIS”. Nor are any US military personnel “commanding, participating in, or accompanying” forces of the coalition operating in Yemen.
If so why would he block it as Al Qaeda is exempted?!?

Trump claims that the US only provides “limited support” to the coalition, “including intelligence sharing, logistics support, and, until recently, in-flight refueling” .
President Donald also pointed out that the resolution would hurt relations with foreign powers and "its efforts to curtail certain forms of military support would harm our bilateral relationships, negatively affect our ongoing efforts to prevent civilian casualties and prevent the spread of terrorist organizations such as al-Qa'ida in the Arabian Peninsula and ISIS, and embolden Iran's malign activities in Yemen".

Sen. Bernie Sanders tweeted:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called on Trump to:

Hundreds of thousands of Yemenis have already died due to starvation with another 90,000 as a direct result of the bombs: https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/...d-trump-veto-resolution-yemen-war/3491383002/
Click to expand...

That US/UK Support to the Saudi coalition is what is causing the genocide against Yemen.
Every weapons and bombs that had being dropped used by the Saudi coalition have being manufactured by the US military.

President Donald also pointed out that the resolution would hurt relations with foreign powers and "its efforts to curtail certain forms of military support would harm our bilateral relationships, negatively affect our ongoing efforts to prevent civilian casualties and prevent the spread of terrorist organizations such as al-Qa'ida in the Arabian Peninsula and ISIS, and embolden Iran's malign activities in Yemen".
Click to expand...
What a load of crap. The ongoing efforts is causing more civilian casualties. Iran's malign activities in Yemen? given by this logic i assume he means its ok if Shia civllians targeted as they are Iranians.
 
Imperial Presidency Wins Again: Trump's Veto Continues Yemen War

Apr. 17 - Yesterday, President Trump vetoed his second bill as president. S. J. Res. 7 directed the president to cease US military activities in support of the Saudi war on Yemen. His veto signifies that he intends to continue in a war that he may not have started but that he is escalating. The White House statement on the veto is full of fallacies and contradictions. We take that apart - and share some idea on what we can do next - in today's Liberty Report:

 
kona said:
The haters here are preaching to the fox news crowd, which doesn't exist on this forum. And to be honest, non-interventionism was never important to them anyway.
Click to expand...

I would say it's probably more important to them since Trump is far better on non-intervention than anybody else besides Rand.
 
kona said:
The haters here are preaching to the fox news crowd, which doesn't exist on this forum. And to be honest, non-interventionism was never important to them anyway.
Click to expand...

The Fox News/MAGA crowd definitely does exist on this forum. You're right about non-interventionism not being important to them though.
 
Superfluous Man said:
The Fox News/MAGA crowd definitely does exist on this forum. You're right about non-interventionism not being important to them though.
Click to expand...

No, he's wrong, and you're wrong. It's actually my number one issue and I care about it more than you.

If one President is going to withdraw 1,000 troops and another President is going to start another war, and we only have a choice between the two, I'll take the President who is going to withdraw 1,000 troops. That's how important it is to me. I didn't even consider Trump at all until he started talking about ending wars. The talk of ending wars by Trump didn't phase you, because you probably don't actually give a shit about ending wars. You only seem to care about hating on Trump.

If I have a choice to choose somebody who is going to withdraw all the troops, I would choose them.

You people, on the other hand, seem to prefer the candidate who is going to start more wars and not even consider withdrawing. At least my guy is fighting for withdrawing.
 
dannno said:
No, he's wrong, and you're wrong. It's actually my number one issue and I care about it more than you.

If one President is going to withdraw 1,000 troops and another President is going to start another war, and we only have a choice between the two, I'll take the President who is going to withdraw 1,000 troops. That's how important it is to me. I didn't even consider Trump at all until he started talking about ending wars. The talk of ending wars by Trump didn't phase you, because you probably don't actually give a $#@! about ending wars. You only seem to care about hating on Trump.

If I have a choice to choose somebody who is going to withdraw all the troops, I would choose them.

You people, on the other hand, seem to prefer the candidate who is going to start more wars and not even consider withdrawing. At least my guy is fighting for withdrawing.
Click to expand...
You consider yourself part of the fox news crowd?
 
kona said:
You consider yourself part of the fox news crowd?
Click to expand...

No, you said that people defending Trump were preaching to the Fox News crowd, and non-interventionism was never important to the people defending Trump. Unless you meant non-interventionism was never important to the Fox News crowd, but I figured that was a given.
 
dannno said:
No, you said that people defending Trump were preaching to the Fox News crowd, and non-interventionism was never important to the people defending Trump. Unless you meant non-interventionism was never important to the Fox News crowd, but I figured that was a given.
Click to expand...
Go back and read what I said. HATERS, not defenders.
You got the second part right though.
 
dannno said:
Uh, ya, that's my entire point.. if Trump took a purely symbolic step toward ending military conflict, then all the anti-Trumpers are going to come out and whine and say it means nothing and he doesn't want to end military conflict. When he vetoes a bill that does the same thing, they also all come out to whine. In other words, they are whiners, and that is all they are good for.

The fact is he ordered 2,000 troops out of Syria recently and he hasn't started any wars with any new countries.. He has been fighting actual terrorists (ISIS) instead of funding them.. Which on the whole is a lot more than what we can say for our last two Presidents. He also wants to end the war in Afghanistan.

Obviously it isn't all we hoped for, but it is a lot better than having a President who doesn't push back against the deep state at all..
Click to expand...

That's what I love about you dannno, when you spin bullshit you don't fuck around.
 
dannno said:
No, he's wrong, and you're wrong. It's actually my number one issue and I care about it more than you.

If one President is going to withdraw 1,000 troops and another President is going to start another war, and we only have a choice between the two, I'll take the President who is going to withdraw 1,000 troops. That's how important it is to me. I didn't even consider Trump at all until he started talking about ending wars. The talk of ending wars by Trump didn't phase you, because you probably don't actually give a shit about ending wars. You only seem to care about hating on Trump.

If I have a choice to choose somebody who is going to withdraw all the troops, I would choose them.

You people, on the other hand, seem to prefer the candidate who is going to start more wars and not even consider withdrawing. At least my guy is fighting for withdrawing.
Click to expand...

You seem to forget that he is the commander in chief, not just some congressman or senator. "seem to"
 
TheCount said:
No, he didn't.
Click to expand...


Hmm could be a bad timestamp

Trump faces criticism from Republicans for Syria troop withdrawal ...


https://www.cbsnews.com/.../trump-faces-criticism-from-republicans-for-syria-troop-wit...

6 days ago - President Trump is pulling out the last 2000 American troops in Syria. They've been fighting against ISIS, and the president says they've done their job.




Everything I'm reading on the topic seems to indicate there is going to be a massive drawdown fairly soon, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PAF
Trump Told Congress He Was Building Up US Forces in Mideast To Protect Israel
Replies
13
Views
284
unknown
unknown
Swordsmyth
Trump Plans To Finally Withdraw US Troops From Syria, Israelis Say
2
Replies
27
Views
723
acptulsa
acptulsa
PAF
President Trump: Stop Bombing Yemen and Exit the Middle East!
Replies
1
Views
321
TheTexan
TheTexan
Snowball
US rumored to be "going in on the ground" against Yemen
Replies
10
Views
113
TheTexan
TheTexan
Swordsmyth
Trump has signed an executive order aiming to make healthcare costs more transparent
Replies
1
Views
105
TheTexan
TheTexan
Back
Top