• pelespirit@sh.itjust.worksM
    262·
    21 hours ago

    Hey guys, there is a lot of troll baiting in this thread. You’ve been doing a great job of not falling for it, so I’m not going to lock it. Newbies to this thread, check the times of when it was made and if it brings up the distant past a lot, those are good clues. Leave one comment at most to save everyone’s sanity.

  • Blackmist@feddit.ukEnglish
    11·
    17 hours ago

    Sorry, you can only be impeached for getting a beej (although that was creepy af from an intern) or wearing a tan suit.

    Starting wars just won’t do it.

      • HugeNerd@lemmy.ca
        1·
        11 hours ago

        “Himself”. Hilarious. The plan from Israel has been in motion for decades. By this time next year, Iran will be covered in US bases, completely de-militarized, and a puppet installed. Zelensky will then be able to get the good weapons again.

  • anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    16·
    22 hours ago

    I see two outcomes:

    • Congress introduces articles
    • Impeached, but fails ratification in senate

    or

    • Congress introduces articles
    • Some terrible tragedy befalls us or Israel
    • Articles fail and congress backs the war full-throated

    There is no version of this that ends in removal, and even impeachment wouldn’t be anything more than performative outrage.

    The majority of sitting representatives have been waiting for an acceptable excuse to bomb Iran for decades. The only objection any of them have is doing so without manufacturing consent from voters first, but we’ve already seen how this plays out with Afghanistan. They’ll drum up dubious evidence of WMD’s and launch their entry, and then spend 20 years trying to ‘get out’ while securing Iran’s material resources on the way.

    The only difference this time is that Iran has almost 5x the population and 100x the GDP of Afghanistan in 2001, plus an actual organized military base with proper advanced weapons manufacturing. There’s a reason we’ve waited this long to actually do this, and it isn’t because we were busy doing other things. It’s because this isn’t a war we can win without pulling everyone else into it (or at the very least without isolating them from global trading partners).

    It’s not a morbid joke to call this a WWIII softlaunch.

  • ViatorOmnium@piefed.socialEnglish
    52·
    1 day ago

    That ship has sailed decades ago. The US hasn’t been officially at war since 1945, and the congress has for all intents and purposes gave up on that power.

    • falynns@lemmy.world
      23·
      1 day ago

      The speed Congress gave up their constitutional powers to avoid repurcusions for having opinions and voting for them is crazy. But I guess being able to give yourself a raise every year for doing nothing is tempting.

      • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        51·
        22 hours ago

        The actual purpose of congress is to violently enforce capitalism by rubber stamping imperialism, policing, prisons, etc.

      • ViatorOmnium@piefed.socialEnglish
        91·
        1 day ago

        To be fair to the US Congress (AFAIK) no one as been formally at war since 1945 - and unless I’m forgetting anything it would actually make the US Congress the last ones to declare war on anyone.

        Since WW2 everything is framed as a peacekeeping mission (when approved even if only implicitly by the UN Security Council), a civil war, helping the legitimate government in a civil war (US in Vietnam or Soviet Union in Afghanistan for example), or when every other excuse fails a pre-emptive special military operation (US in Iraq, Russia in Ukraine, Israel in all of their neighbours + Iran).

        • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
          63·
          1 day ago

          And this is a good thing. Declarations of war makes war a legitimate thing. In the past it was a noble and goodly thing to do, all of the correct paperwork has been submitted and so now it’s good and proper for you to go over there and kill those people that have different uniforms.

          Also a declaration of war means going from 0 to 100 on everything. There’s no escalation and also no de-escalation. Probably not a good thing to instantly go 0 to 100 once nuclear weapons became a thing.

          People often decry how war is no longer a legitimate thing because there’s no longer declarations of war. The reality is, war never was a legitimate thing. Declarations of war were just powerful people making the act of sending people out to kill and be killed seem legitimate.

          Yes, the “special operations” and “coalitions of the willing” stuff is bullshit. But so were declarations of war. It’s better you think about whether a military action is actually needed rather than believing a war is proper simply because the people in power did the paperwork correctly.

          • ViatorOmnium@piefed.socialEnglish
            12·
            1 day ago

            Declarations of war are bad, but they were made hard to do in modern states. Almost every single countries have rules and procedures in place to make sure a hot head can’t do it over the weekend.

            “Special Military Operations” undid all those efforts by putting all the powers back in the hands of a single person.

  • PunkRockSportsFan@fanaticus.socialEnglish
    246·
    24 hours ago

    The corruption of our nation is absolute.

    The president is a Nazi.

    Thr people working for him are Nazis.

    They are carrying out a Nazi agenda.

    They are illegally starting wars illegally kidnapping Americans and illegally using our own armed forces against us.

    The time for resistance is passed.

    It’s time for survival.