Sure, Israel is committing genocide but its Iran that are the terrorists.
This is zionism
The United States Must Not Be Part of Israel's Unlawful War on Iran
- Thread starter oil&gas
- Start date
This is zionism
Once again those powers that were given by Congress in 2001 was Authorization to target al-Qaida and Taliban. Then in 2014 Operation Resolve extended it to target ISIS.
But as far as wars against Nations, only Congress has the power to declare such wars as per The Constitution. This attack on Iran could have resulted in an all out war.
So though Iran can be a State Sponsor of terrorism, neither the 2001 Authorization by Congress or 2014 Operation Resolve gives the President The green light to go ahead with the bombing of Iran without Congress Approval!!
Also remember that you were always calling out The Democrats for all those attacks on those designated terrorists under their watch. Now you seem to give Trump a free pass for a hit on a Nation. Especially as Trump promised no more wars under his watch. Even Marjorie Taylor Greene a passionate Trump supporter called him out for it:
1996, signed by Bill Clinton.
And Congress has always cheerleaded more war. What they did was give the decision making over the the President so they didn't have to be responsible for it. They didn't want to have to go back to their districts and have to justify a vote to attack.
And please, anytime they do an attack, it is in another nation, and is therefore an act of war. Trump is not doing anything that Obama didn't do in Libya, or Syria, or Mali, or other places.
They slap the terrorist label on and then use that as a pretext.
Of course the anti war people are calling him out. As they should. I am too. But to claim the Democrats have some sort of higher moral ground is false. They just aren't the ones doing it this time.
That's because neither of them is in charge. Nothing will change until the US electorate wakes up to who really calls the shots.
I agree. Bver, however, still thinks the Dems are all good guys.
You try to find excuses for The Republicans and always slam the Democrats. That is your record!!
There is no excuse for this atrack by the GOP president, approved by several serving members of both houses.....clear enough.
The means and precedent that gave them the ability to do so was approved by the Democrats, as well as the GOP. It was bipartisan.
If after this the Democrats decide to remove the law, then that would be a good thing. If they don't, they approve of it's use. It's that simple. They are just as responsible for the legislation.
So why do The Republicans not remove this law? The Democrats do not have control of either The House or The Senate. If they do not act on it are you then going to condemn them for it?
Last edited:
They should remove the law. They won't for the same reasons the Democrats won't. They want it.
Remember the Dems have held all the houses at least twice since . And it came in under Clinton.
It's not a my team/your team thing. They both are complicit.
Hang on.
Setting aside the discussion of "The War Powers act was bipartisan" or not....
"The military obeyed the orders. Therefore they were lawful."
What the fuck logic is that?
I don't think it is nearly as cut and dried as all that.Trump definitely went over and above The War Powers Constitution:
Trump 'went against the Constitution': Dem rep. reacts to U.S. strikes on Iran
"I think President Trump was wrong. He went against the Constitution." Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, joined Chris Jansing on MSNBC Reports to discuss the legality of President Trump’s move to launch military strikes on Iran.www.msnbc.com
There is certainly an argument to be made that he went beyond it, but there is also a fairly strong precedent that Congress won't push back hard if the air strikes stop quickly.
It's also largely irrelevant so long as Impeachment has no power. With no reasonable way to punish the President for transgressing, there is little reason for the President not to transgress.
You're making a crucial error here.
You're discussing what really happened and the actual laws and texts of the laws.
If you're going to debate Butler on things like this, you need to remember that he doesn't care about any of that.
It's all "What Butler feels to be true is true".
So I recommend if you are going to do this, you should ask him to back up everything he claims, as you have been doing.
Cite specific laws and bring up the text where you can, and insist he does the same.
Even if you agree with his point, it is a good practice to get into, so that he feels more obligated to actually back things up and not just believe whatever the Internet told him to believe.
Sometimes he will be correct, and then the two of you can continue on to an actual debate about the merits.
But you can never assume he is actually talking about anything real when it comes to the details.
He just doesn't think details matter - only the "greater truth" he is concerned with.
Presumably, in this case (from where I've gotten in the thread), that there has been a bipartisan drift since WWII allowing the President to have too much unilateral authority and Congress has abdicated too much power. (A position I basically agree with.) Even if you agree with this larger truth, it is worth it to make sure he actually is talking about real things when he talks about it.
Here's a perfect example of what I was mentioning earlier.
What is "[...] a bad law. Created before 9/11. And after Bosnia. To give the Presidency power to bypass congress. So they could use the military basically at will." ?
Curious whether you both think the same people are "in charge" or if it doesn't matter as long as everyone knows the Dems are not the good guys.
Not to mention american presidents have a long history of bombing other countries but saying its not a war. Like its just US policy to bomb people every once in a while.
Whether this was the end of the attacks on Iran or its a repeat of Israel bombing Saddam's reactor and the following WMD fears is another question. There is no exit strategy for Iran or Israel. Iran just put a major hold on cooperation with the IAEA which means it could be WMD 2.0 in a few months. And Netanyahu is still hoping the genocide will stop his corruption trial so might need another new war soon.
The dems are not the good guys. The reps are not the good guys. They're both owned by a foreign lobby.
Without going into specific laws.....
While it is largely true that the US is generally an aggressor and the Democrats were involved in Kosovo and Libya, and some other low key interventions via drone strikes etc in other places, the Republicans have undoubtedly been more hawkish and war prone to invasions, regime changes and long lasting, expensive and serious war often in violation of international law and possibly US domestic law.
To say they are just as bad as each other is just false equivalence.
