crkinnh

Actually, in the US we have something called the 5th Amendment. You do not have to talk to investigators here, regardless of whether you are a cop or not. However, you are right in the fact that you would likely be in a cell by now (that is unless you went home on bail).

I'm almost willing to bet the other officer was just taken off-guard by being approached at their car  and overreacted.  Seriously, shooting a gun in your partner's face!  This is NEVER advised, taught, or even mentioned in training.  Why?  It's stupid and reckless!  If this had been a reported shots fired call, someone with a gun, or some type of extreme situation, I could maybe understand it.  This was a concerned citizen calling in, and she became a victim because of a trigger happy cop.  I can't help but wonder if this officer has severe PTSD or some other mental illness.  Not even a day 1 police officer would be stupid enough to do what this one did.

Baton Rouge is now one year ago and its still sad, RIP brother in blue 

Just like most medias like Fox News and all. Medias aren't objective whatsoever, they'll always pick the stories that suit their agendas.

The TDH does have a point though, the police only started to "militarize" in order to match what the criminals have, don't want to roll up on a riot in just a regular police car. It's better to be safe than sorry. 

I was confused for a second considering how long ago it was, but yeah surprisingly you're right. I'm just as surprised as you are.

Still no sort of rebuttal to your extensive comment on the media portraying the refugees as being a positive addition? 
 
Interesting.
 

Infowars, mostly the Alex Jones Show is fear mongering. PJW is alright most of the time, sometimes he can twist the truth a little but atleast he doesnt fear monger. Alex Jones has been saying WW3 is about to happen the second he came out of the uterus.

Please don't watch infowars. It's a huge piece of stinkin' alt right garbage. If you want a real conservative news source, look into the DailyWire.

In my view, it's the stranglehold that left-leaning controlling interests have on some of the bigger mainstream media outlets (for instance, the BBC is now so PC and left-biased that it's essentially a propaganda station) that reinforces this view of 'yes, this thing happened but we're downplaying it so as to not offend certain groups'. We all know what's happening, but we're not allowed to express these opinions on mainstream sites for a notional fear of offence. Political correctness is almost a tool to keep the media churning out stories that spin the truth to whatever tune the controlling interest likes, and frankly most people are getting wiser to this. Just like when they used to -and in some cases still do- whip up some spin story to demonize one group or another to add to the whole mess.

Most main stream media outlets are biased and will do anything to get there message out. This is very sad because now you don't know what is real anymore because everyone is to worried about being political correct and getting there agenda through the mass audience. I would recommend sources like Infowars and Mark Dice or even Lou Dobbs on Fox news although these are primarily Republican news sources they give you the facts.

America should stop getting involved in other people's problems and stop being the world's police unless it is a threat to the US.

I don't either but I'm called retarded when I say anything against them, lol.

They're both the ultimate appeal to authority and argumentum ad populum, I don't like 'em.

Then don't quote the UN yourself? 

I'm not going to debate the philosophy of political affiliation with you man, lol. That'll be an endless discussion.
They were alleged to have conducted a chemical weapons attack by the same UN that says they destroyed all of their chemical weapons. Which is also the same UN that said it is definitely a possibility that they may not have actually destroyed all of their nuclear weapons; and could still have the capabilities to create more. This UN doesn't seem like much of a reliable source, friend.
 

That's something I can get behind, just make them a territory rather than a state, I don't want them to vote.

I'm going to answer this for him because I automatically know his thinking more than likely. If he's coming at this from a neocon perspective, which I was one at one point, then he's going to say that all of these countries go against the interests of the US and Europe. He's going to want to go to war with Syria because they are a dictatorship, regardless of whether or not they are the best government in Syria as of now. He's going to want to go to war with Russia because they "are aggressive", which is really because they are being backed into a corner, and their economy is being destroyed. He might say because there was "aggression in Crimea" too, despite the fact that they had an election there which won by a landslide (without any problems in bribery or shadiness).
He's almost guaranteed to say we should go to war with North Korea. I can't even blame him there, it's bound to happen sooner or later, but now it might be because of the nuclear program that directly threatens South Korea, Australia, Japan, and the US (as well as our territories in the Pacific). 
 
Note: just realized he meant the soldiers not him, but oh well, my point stands

I was talking about civilians. Don't know about the US, but here you won't ever hear someone say "Damn I'm so excited to go to war, can't wait to see dead soldiers on TV". Mostly because like the majority of the European countries, we have faced war on our own soil. But I'm pretty convinced that no civilian would beg for war even in Japan. No one wants to see their husband, sons, father, brothers sent to the frontline to be slaughtered. So no, civilians didn't deserve to be nuked. Their government refused to surrender, not them.
 
To make my point easier to understand, imagine that, let's say, the US and North Korea go to war. You're sent to battle, as a soldier. Thing is, the US refuse to surrender after years of conflict. So North Korea drops a nuke on Los Angeles or San Franciso, killing hundreds of thousands of people. Would you say that people living in LA and SF deserved to be nuked? If yes, then I definitely can't understand your point, if not, then you can understand mine.
 
As for soldiers begging for war, they're part of the reason why most people think soldiers are just dumb killing machines, waiting to murder their fellow human beings like animals.
 
War is not fun. War isn't like in video games. Look at how many veterans are scarred for life, both physically and psychologically.

Not being hypocritical isn't being centrist, it's being intellectually honest.
For a libertarian, you're sounding very Neocon to me. The Syrian Government hasn't done anything bad to us, they represent no threat to us, and they also will at least keep out the rise of terrorism in their country should they stay in power (which at this rate is the case). They still have yet to have a chemical attack that actually can be proven to be carried out by them as opposed to the rebels. This last supposed attack has yet to provide any slice of evidence it was the Syrian Government. The doctor who attested it was the Syrian Government, well, he is a terror suspect in the UK. The White Helmets also handled the bodies and wounded in ways inconsistent with chemical warfare, oh and wore dust masks. This makes me doubt the claims very seriously, if this did actually occur, those who responded would be dead.
 
Oh and this aside, comparing this situation to the Japanese is a major false equivalence.

Just because a bunch of people support something doesn't mean it was the right thing to do, though. To determine if it was, you've to take a bunch of factors in the equation:
 
-> Was it needed for the international community to react to this chemical strike? Yeah, of course. It's an atrocious thing to do to anyone (putting aside the hypocrisy of the coalition that itself killed a bunch of people as well).
 
-> Was it needed for the US to immediately go for a military action when no one knew exactly who did that and why? Definitely not, there was other means to take things in hands.
 
Just because it's a regime the US happen to dislike doesn't mean they should skip steps and immediately go all militaristic over them. Just like everything else, an investigation has to be conducted to determine who is to blame for this, and once it is determined, then we can take sanctions.

By tipping off the Syrian and Russian governments in advance to warn them of our attack it did nothing except project an image to the rest of the world and his critics save for those two. 
Now, I never understood this logic. I was vehemently against Obama, but even then like now I understood the difference between military action, war, and conflict. My views on military conflict and the powers of the commander in chief has always been consistent, therefore I can say even though I oppose this expensive firework show, he did not require the consent of Congress.
 
The president has the sole power in our government to command the military, therefore has the power to order it as he sees fit so as long as it is a constitutional action.  The reason he did not require Congressional approval was because this was not an action of war, rather conflict. We are not at war with Syria, this was a one off attack. Even conflict is different than war in that it is between a non state entity, is not a prolonged conflict with a state, or against a state (usually not prolonged) without the extended powers of a declaration of war (as such is limited).

By tipping off the Syrian and Russian governments in advance to warn them of our attack it did nothing except project an image to the rest of the world and his critics save for those two. 
Now, I never understood this logic. I was vehemently against Obama, but even then like now I understood the difference between military action, war, and conflict. My views on military conflict and the powers of the commander in chief has always been consistent, therefore I can say even though I oppose this expensive firework show, he did not require the consent of Congress.
 
The president has the sole power in our government to command the military, therefore has the power to order it as he sees fit so as long as it is a constitutional action.  The reason he did not require Congressional approval was because this was not an action of war, rather conflict. We are not at war with Syria, this was a one off attack. Even conflict is different than war in that it is between a non state entity, is not a prolonged conflict with a state, or against a state (usually not prolonged) without the extended powers of a declaration of war (as such is limited).

Where was YOUR outcry, dude? Did you ever criticize Obama for being too aggressive with foreign policy? For killing too many civilians? And how about the fact that the Trump administration still hasn't provided proof that Syria did the chemical weapons attack? He bombed before he had proof, or doesn't have proof. Which is worse?
 
And I didn't support Hillary Clinton because she's a war hawk funded by people who profit from war. Why are you looking to Hillary Clinton to justify Trump's judgement? If she had sound judgement, why didn't you vote for her? Your argument makes absolutely no sense. Its just chunks of regurgitated right wing talking points.

In most cases, yes. But not this one.
 
Thousands upon thousands of civilians have been murdered in Syria since the war began, and the west barely bat an eye. But now 70 are killed, and its all over the news and the government launches dozens of Tomahawk missiles to retaliate. Come on dude, use common sense. Don't you remember Iraq, how the media carried carried water for the Bush administration and lied us into war? The US warned Russia before launching the missiles, didn't target the runway, and only targeted planes that were being repaired. This was a clear show of force. $70 million of taxpayer money so Trump can look like a tough guy. I mean for fucks sake, Trump's botched raid in Yemen killed 8 children. Are we really supposed to believe that the Trump administration was so emotionally impacted by Assad's chemical act that we just HAD to act? No, dude. That's propaganda. Trump was the one who ADVOCATED for murdering civilians on the campaign trail. And speaking of the campaign trail, Trump promised he wouldn't get us in any more messes in the middle east. Where the fuck are all the Trump supporters angry that he lied?