| |
| ▲ | throw0101d 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | On the changes to US military organization and thinking post-WW2 (and the name change): > […] The United States has a Department of Defense for a reason. It was called the “War” Department until 1947, when the dictates of a new and more dangerous world required the creation of a much larger military organization than any in American history. Harry Truman and the American leaders who destroyed the Axis, and who now were facing the Soviet empire, realized that national security had become a larger undertaking than the previous American tradition of moving, as needed, between discrete conditions of “war” and “peace.” > These leaders understood that America could no longer afford the isolationist luxury of militarizing itself during times of threat and then making soldiers train with wooden sticks when the storm clouds passed. Now, they knew, the security of the country would be a daily undertaking, a matter of ongoing national defense, in which the actual exercise of military force would be only part of preserving the freedom and independence of the United States and its allies. * https://archive.is/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive... The author is a retired professor from the US Naval War College: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Nichols_(academic) | | |
| ▲ | reactordev 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Ah yes, the administration’s love of Axis of Allies, or is it allies of axis? They don’t know, they got distracted by the mustaches and the desire to conquer the world. | | |
| ▲ | spwa4 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | You do realize that the Axis (Nazi Germany, Japan) were attacking everyone with the explicitly stated goal of conquering the world (and subjecting it to the holocaust, we might add), and US stopped them, conquered Europe, North Africa, half the Pacific, and nothing has been able to stop the US military since. And the US ... retreated. We might add, the Soviets, the other axis, did not retreat. China did not retreat. Both of them started killing people to keep their conquests. I mean, there's no shortage of stuff that the US did wrong and US made mistakes. This was not one of them. | | |
| ▲ | cogman10 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The US did not retreat. We fought multiple wars to maintain our power and influence. We toppled multiple regimes to maintain puppet governments. Very much the same as the USSR and China have done. Vietnam, Korea, Iran, Iraq, Cuba, Guatemala, Haiti, etc. US conquest was quiet similar to British conquest. They didn't make their conquered people citizens (that'd make things tricky for exploitation) so instead they make sure the "democracies" they spread elected the right leaders who just so happen to align with US interests. There's a reason the US has military bases across the globe. It's not because they've retreated from their subservient states. | | |
| ▲ | adriand 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > The US did not retreat. We fought multiple wars to maintain our power and influence. We toppled multiple regimes to maintain puppet governments. Very much the same as the USSR and China have done. As much as I am critical of the US, until now the US did behave very differently from other superpowers. Consider the end of WWII. The US did not inflict reparations on the vanquished nations but rather, invested huge sums in their rebuilding, in the process making stalwart allies of them. These were not puppet governments, they became thriving democracies. This is not to excuse the many bad things the US has done in Latin America, Vietnam, etc. But there is really no comparison between US behaviour and that of the USSR (or of colonial European countries, for that matter). People in Soviet-controlled East Germany were quite keen to go to the west and did not perceive the presence of US military bases there as evidence of American totalitarianism. That, of course, has changed and now America is seen as a predatory hegemon. But that has not always been true. | | |
| ▲ | tharkun__ 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The US did not keep bases in all of West Germany though. There were different sectors. The US had essentially the South. There were also the British sector and French. The Soviets were the fourth sector but we all know how that one was quite different from the other three. While the French and British have mostly left, the US stayed. Though to be fair even the British still do have some bases it seems as NATO troups. But no more large garrison in many larger cities. The US on the other hand is still there with much larger force. Like think back to "Air Force One" (the movie with Harrison Ford) which used Ramstein Airbase in the movie (though they didn't actually film there) and that airbase has come up in the Iran conflict as a conflict of its own. Meaning Germany didn't want the US to use it as a hub for US operations (supply logistics) for the Iran war. | | |
| ▲ | adriand 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > The US on the other hand is still there with much larger force. To provide for European security! That’s the deal in terms of Europe and NATO and also specifically to handle Germany. The idea was that America would provide security to Europe including the nuclear umbrella, and one benefit - among many others - was that Germany would not need to have a powerful military. Can you perhaps guess why people might be concerned about a heavily armed Germany in the postwar period? Those same concerns are bubbling up in European capitals right now, as Germany rearms due to the loss of the US as a reliable partner. | | |
| ▲ | tharkun__ an hour ago | parent [-] | | Which is now out the window. And yes I definitely remember Colbert quite some time ago quipping about exactly that (paraphrased from memory): US no longer reliable NATO partner and nuclear deterrent. So Europe needs to step up. Let's have Germany have nukes. What could possibly go wrong! The obviously funny thing being, that the US has, for a long time and Trump doubled down, asked Europe including Germany to spend more on military. And the "moderate forces" in Germany are not an issue in that regard. Those are the ones not wanting Trump to use Ramstein airbase in a war he started. But would you want the AfD to come to power and wield those ramped up, potentially now nuclear, forces? The party that was ruled as "definitely extremist right wing aka neo nazi" in some federal states by Germany's own "Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution". Oh and also was that not the party a certain Elon Musk and Trump were trying to prop up? Which is doubly funny because of the AfD's alleged ties to Putin (sometimes more than alleged). | | |
| ▲ | adriand 40 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > But would you want the AfD to come to power and wield those ramped up, potentially now nuclear, forces? Totally! That’s what makes the situation doubly maddening. It would be one thing if these actions were bad for the world and good for the US. But they’re bad for the US too! I forget who it was that said this, and I’m sure my paraphrasing is bad, but I listened or read something I found chilling. It was something like, ordinary Americans are totally unprepared for the level of danger they will experience over the coming decades. The only reason Trump is able to destroy global institutions so easily is because Americans take their security for granted. But that security is the result of institutions developed in the aftermath of an utterly devastating war. Now those institutions are damaged and America’s friends are alienated, right when they are most needed to deal with China, Russia, AI, drones, cyber, nuclear, climate…talk about bad timing. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | eucyclos 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The US was preferable to the British who were preferable to the Spanish. Hopefully the next global hegemon is similarly preferable to the US. | |
| ▲ | thaumasiotes 36 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > As much as I am critical of the US, until now the US did behave very differently from other superpowers. Consider the end of WWII. The US did not inflict reparations on the vanquished nations but rather, invested huge sums in their rebuilding, in the process making stalwart allies of them. That is also how Rome routinely dealt with the border tribes that it defeated. It's not a new idea. That's just what superpowers do. | |
| ▲ | cogman10 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The US treated both Germany and Japan well. It did not and has not treated any other nation whose government it's meddled with well. That's my point. Edit Actually we probably could throw in South Korea into the nations the US has treated well after meddling. | | |
| ▲ | bdamm 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Spain, France, the entire iron curtain following 1992 dissolution of USSR, Taiwan, Phillipines, Costa Rica, Panama ... and speaking of central America, Venezuela isn't doing so bad either. Perhaps more expansive lists could be produced once the definitions of "meddled with" and "treated well" are more refined. |
|
| |
| ▲ | BobbyJo 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Vietnam and Korea were technically wars to stop conquest, no? | | |
| ▲ | cogman10 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Conquest from who? I generally take the word "conquest" to mean some outside force coming in and taking over. That didn't happen in either Vietnam or Korea. You could argue that the USSR used conquest to take over territories for the soviet union. However, that's not something really arguable about Vietnam or Korea. Vietnam, in particular, was the native population overthrowing their conquerors, the french, and then deciding they wanted to be communists. They got support from both the USSR and China, but they weren't ultimately under the umbrella of either regime. Now, I'd agree that Vietnam and Korea both had civil wars supercharged by the US, China, and Russia. But I disagree that these were wars where the US was stopping conquest. We see that in the modern state of Vietnam and North Korea. Vietnam, funnily, became a closer ally to the US than China after the war. Cuba is very much the same way. It wasn't conquered by an outside force. Yet they did ally with the USSR once the dust settled. They were still an independent nation from the USSR. |
| |
| ▲ | spwa4 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Let's compare with the Soviets and conclude the obvious: the US did retreat. | | |
| ▲ | psadauskas 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The US has over 128 military bases in 55 foreign countries. Russia has 12, mostly in former Soviet countries.
China has 3. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Russia has 12, mostly in former Soviet countries. China has 3 To be fair, you're comparing land powers–that tend to annex their holdings–with a maritime power, who tend to trade with and maintain favourable ports at their conquests/allies. So yeah, China doesn't have any foreign bases in Tibet. But that's because it annexed it in the 1950s. Put together, America obviously has a larger military than China or Russia. But before Russia became a rump, the Soviet Union could marshall military resources comparable to–and for one decade, in excess of–those of the United States for much of the post-War era. |
| |
| ▲ | MiiMe19 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Me looking for the soviet military bases rn EDIT: I completely misunderstood the context here, nevermind. | | |
| ▲ | spwa4 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I live in the Netherlands. The closest one was about 260 km from where I live. Of course, not any more. | | |
| ▲ | throw1234567891 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | To be fair, if you stand in the middle of The Netherlands, 260km in any direction and you end up outside of the country. Which base are you talking about? | |
| ▲ | MiiMe19 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I completely misunderstood the context of this discussion and revoke my mildly snarky comment. You are correct. | | | |
| ▲ | coldtea 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Was that on a country that went on a genocidal rampage just before and lost the war after killing millions all around Europe, which was decided to be divided in several parts, of which USSR got to control one, and which still developed into an independent country less than a decade later? | | |
| ▲ | spwa4 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes, but you're leaving out the other 9 countries the Soviet Union occupied, and immediately started killing the population to keep their conquests: Poland, Austria’s Soviet zone, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. By contrast, the US retreated. And also didn't start killing any population. | | |
| ▲ | cogman10 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > And also didn't start killing any population. Except for the populations in the global South. We spent a decade firebombing Vietnam and Cambodia. | |
| ▲ | coldtea 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | "Killing their population" as in executing some Nazi collaborators, of which there was no shortage in all, down to full cooperation? Like the ones involved in the Axis alliance and in the eastern front offensives that caused the deaths of millions of their own people? >And also didn't start killing any population. Yes, just Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, and anybody who leaned national sovereignity/left in the Latin America and later the middle east. |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | blks 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | US did not stopped Axis alone, Allies did. Even in Pacific Soviet participation was very important in defeating Japan. And the US did not retreat, it kept its military all across Europe (and the world), brought its nuclear weapons to Europe (not for the Europe, but for the US to be used with Europe as a launching pad). | |
| ▲ | 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | oblio 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think OP is talking about the current administration. | | | |
| ▲ | yndoendo 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Most simplistic would be _Divide and Conquer_ (Axis) vs _United we stand, divided we fall_ (Allie). This administration is going down the divide and conquer path. I recommend _Culture in Nazi Germany_ by Michael H Kater. [0] The current US administration has numerous similarities to 1930s Germany. The way they support banning books and the treatment of the LGBT+ community. Working to take over media organizations with proponent operatives, financial corruption, and _please the leader_ are also present in both. There are more ... read the book for them. [0] https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300253375/culture-in-naz... | | |
| ▲ | breppp 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | And a lot of dissimilarities, like the lack of mass executions of the disabled for example or a missing mass extermination plan of millions, maybe also kidnapping teenagers from the street and shipping them to brothels for soldiers, shooting babies? but apart from that exactly the same | | |
| |
| ▲ | 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | reactordev 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | My point was that this administration seems to like the axis plan more than the original US/Allied plan. I'm fully aware of which side was which. Tell that to Hegseth and Miller. | |
| ▲ | keybored 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | They didn’t even retreat from places like Italy because... the communists might be successful. So the CIA backed fascists to sabotage them. And the US ... retreated. harumph And interferred, and supported right-wing militias, and invaded countries by themselves, and supported coups, and so on. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | giancarlostoro an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > nobody can quite articulate, but it certainly has nothing to do with "defending" the country. It's not hard: * They're trying to build nuclear weapons, and they're one of the worlds leading sponsor of terrorism (if not the sole leader). * The country ran out of water, people started to protest their government, and were killed by the thousands (some say tens of thousands potentially more). Water is one of the most basic human needs, if they're willing to kill their own people protesting for the most basic human need, what would they do with Nuclear to the rest of the world? I feel like people don't understand the gravity of Iran with nuclear. Iran having nuclear will not end well for its citizens or the world. | |
| ▲ | jghn 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > The Department of Defense is the Department of War No, it is not, at least not technically. That would require an act of Congress, which hasn't happened. Despite what the idiots "in charge" seem to believe. | | |
| ▲ | Johnny555 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | But those idiots "in charge" are what matters, right? Since they set the tone for the department, and lately they sure are acting more like a DoW than a DoD. | | |
| ▲ | chrisco255 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Its quite laughable to pretend that DoD was never on the offense between 1948 and 2025. |
| |
| ▲ | chrisco255 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's effectively the same. The EO declares the Dept of War as a secondary title. Formally it still is the DoD. |
| |
| ▲ | avaer 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Should also keep in mind the secretary of war publicly stated the department's aim is "maximum lethality, not tepid legality". Politics aside, anyone in the supply chain shouldn't be surprised they have a role in illegal killings, because that's literally what they said they're doing. | |
| ▲ | giwook 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Great point. Labeling it as 'defense' instead of 'war' might be one of the more brilliant marketing tricks in the last century. No one likes war, everyone loves defense. Something something expanded surveillance under the guise of counter-terrorism post-9/11. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > No one likes war, everyone loves defense. Something something expanded surveillance under the guise of counter-terrorism post-9/11 It was renamed after WWII. In part because smart minds realised that war between industrialised civilisations had ceased to be an accretive endeavour since sometime between Napoleon and the Kaiser. | | |
| ▲ | chrisco255 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Have you heard about the Cold War that immediately ensued after WW2 between the world's two leading industrial nations? | | |
| ▲ | Aeolun 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Everyone involved was smart enough to realize it shouldn’t go hot. | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | Gigachad 12 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The reason is fairly clear. The king has dementia and has lost the plot. And so far no one has been able to declare him unfit. | |
| ▲ | louiereederson 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Are they war or defense products when they are used against your own citizens? | | |
| ▲ | lateforwork 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Neither... it is illegal when used against citizens | | |
| ▲ | nemomarx 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | What law are you thinking of? Some tools used in riot enforcements would be illegal to use in wars, so it actually seems to be the other way around to me. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > What law are you thinking of? Posse Comitatus [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act | | |
| ▲ | lovich 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | That sounds like some woke shit that doesn’t stand up to the rights of the President, unless that President is a Democrat. | | |
| ▲ | throw1234567891 an hour ago | parent [-] | | “Woke shit” signed into law in 1878. Maybe woke was what the world was like most of the time. | | |
| ▲ | lovich 29 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I was being sarcastic clanker and/or throwaway account. It’s obviously the law but this admin doesn’t respect the law, as they believe we’re in a post Constitutional era. It’s looks like they are manifesting their beliefs since so many people support them, both sides them, or decide it’s not that big a deal when the executive branch of the American government starts executing American citizens and trying to EO away the 14th amendment on farcical grounds. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | cptskippy 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | What if you're waging a war in the name of defense? | | |
| |
| ▲ | deepsun 9 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | One nitpick, legal name has never changed, it's still "Department of Defense". Trump has issued an order to call it by "war" name, but it never actually change its name. | |
| ▲ | rob74 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It certainly has nothing to do with defending the country the department is located in. | |
| ▲ | jfengel 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Quite a few joined when it was a defense contractor, at least in name. They could at least imagine that their jobs were for defense purposes. The name change is a harsh truth. | |
| ▲ | chrisco255 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The U.S. has been taking military action against other countries since its inception, whether it was named DoD or DoW. | |
| ▲ | elAhmo 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The name isn't changed. | | |
| ▲ | micromacrofoot 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | the current administration is using the war name, it doesn't matter what it technically is because they are using it to plainly state their ambitions for it |
| |
| ▲ | Forgeties79 43 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I was under the impression the name was not actually formally changed, just like how the “Department of government efficiency” was never actually a department but was just a rebranding of an existing department done totally by mouth (like a lot of nonsense this administration does) | |
| ▲ | deadbabe 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | They are war criminals participating in a war crime enterprise. | |
| ▲ | Lio 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > We're in a war in Iran for reasons that nobody can quite articulate, As a third party watching I just assumed it was a “dead cat”[1] to get people to stop talking about the Epstein files. Obviously the Iranian government are not good guys either but the timing of this war… it just looks very odd. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_cat_strategy | | |
| ▲ | lokar 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Also trump seems to have this weird thing about Obama. He is obsessed with him. He tore up the Obama Iran deal, and is now seeking a better solution. | | | |
| ▲ | cramsession an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Obviously the Iranian government are not good guys I'll believe this when it comes from someone other than the Epstein people. As it stands, the worst people in the world do not like Iran, so they're definitely doing something right. | |
| ▲ | FireBeyond 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There's the "hilarity" of Operation Epic Fury. E.F. Epstein Files. It's either someone's private joke or the most clueless name you could imagine (not to mention sounding like it was taken straight from a COD Lobby). | |
| ▲ | SmirkingRevenge an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's not really a distraction, it's just it's own stupid, horrible thing. The most sane reason for "why now" would be because Iran was in a relatively weak position (domestic unrest, severely weakened proxies due to Israel) and the hawks saw an opening That and Trump was more easily moved now that he's developed a taste for military shows of force after the Maduro thing. He probably thought it would make great content. The Iran hawks and Netanyahu probably didn't have to push him very hard |
| |
| ▲ | angry_octet 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Let's clarify further that they are working for the clown Gestapo known as ICE, and they are enabling them to violate judicial directives and Constitutional protections for an adminstration speed running American anarcho-fascism. Palantir used to be an effective augmentation to counter-insurgency and international terrorism. Karp has gleefully pivoted to enabling authoritarian pogroms in American cities, and if you keep working there you have blood on your hands. | |
| ▲ | tinfoilhatter 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think the reason is quite easy to articulate - Israel. | |
| ▲ | ekianjo 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > y changed the name and then immediately started taking military action against other countries the "department of defense" has been doing military actions against other countries forever. | |
| ▲ | gib444 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | War and defence are the same thing in the US, so the naming doesn't really matter. To go after enemies, real or otherwise, with overwhelming force (to also the scare the ones not bombed this time), is to "defend" the US. That is how they justify it to themselves. | |
| ▲ | TheCoelacanth 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Regardless of what the Trump administration will tell you, that's not it's name. The executive branch is not empowered to unilaterally change the name of a department. | | |
| ▲ | blipvert 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It’s not empowered to unilaterally declare war without approval from congress, either. But here we are. | | |
| ▲ | LadyCailin 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It’s not a war, it’s a special military operation. | | |
| ▲ | alpha_squared 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | You're mixing up the propaganda phrases, that's Russia's stance in Ukraine. Trump's is this is "an excursion", totally different things. | | |
| ▲ | input_sh 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | He called it a military operation between the comment above and yours at the press conference going on right now. He didn't call it a special one though. | |
| ▲ | blipvert 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | “an excursion” is even more mad. He heard the word “incursion” and thought that it sounded cool if he posted it | |
| ▲ | throw-the-towel 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | As a Russian emigrant, I feel this whole war is a severe case of déjà vu. It's as if the US government is going through a stolen Russian playbook, appropriating everything. "Special operation"? Check. "$EnemyCapital in 3 days"? Check. "We haven't even started yet"? Check. "Goodwill gestures"? Check. (It's actually a common joke on the Russian Internet. So common, in fact, that it has already stopped being funny.) | |
| ▲ | blipvert 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | “an excursion” is even more mad. He heard the word “incursion” and thought that it sounded cool |
|
| |
| ▲ | krapp 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The president isn't empowered to declare war, but as Commander in Chief he is empowered to send the military anywhere he wants and start whatever "conflict" he wants, for whatever reason he wants, including no reason whatsoever. After which Congress can retroactively declare it a war if they so choose. But the US hasn't fought a declared war since WW2, because declarations of war don't really mean anything when the missiles have already been fired and the bombs have already been dropped. I hate Trump as much as anyone with a moral core should, but the President's capacity for creating arbitrary military violence and expenditure has always been unchecked. | | |
| ▲ | stasomatic 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | If that’s true, that’s insane. Forgive me, I’m not a PolSci scholar. Nobody in the cabinet can speak up and overrule his whimsy? It always annoys me when the headlines are “Trump invaded this …” or “Trump slapped a tariff on…” while effectively it’s the US government that’s doing that, they are letting him to do as he pleases? Then the fault lies not with him. He’s not a king but surely seems to have absolute discretion if you believe the headlines. | | |
| ▲ | varjag 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | There was a widespread belief that U.S. government has an elaborate system of checks and balances but it was not evidence-based. Kind of Flat Earth period of American political science. | | |
| ▲ | ajam1507 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The checks and balance are between the 3 branches of government. If congress wanted to stop the war, they could. If the supreme court wanted to hand the power to start wars back to congress they could. Just because they don't, doesn't mean they aren't able. The real flat earth theory is thinking that unwritten rules and institutions were protected from a president that insists on pulling every lever of power at once, but that's separate from the checks and balances. | |
| ▲ | 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | tekla 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The system relies on people acting in good faith. It is impossible to make a constitution that can deal with people at all levels of power not acting in good faith. In this case, Congress has completely abdicated their duties. | | |
| ▲ | lazide 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | No it doesn’t. Checks and balances is explicitly setting branches against each other because it is assumed everyone is a greedy abusive MF’er only out for their own benefit. The challenge is all 3 branches are owned by the same group right now. |
| |
| ▲ | pineaux 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Its because the president used to have a modicum of respect for the house and the Senate.
So the president did have the sole right to send military anywhere on the planet and even launch nukes without any need for congressional permission. This is by design. But the other presidents were a bit less crazy so we never noticed. | |
| ▲ | nkingsy 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The movie "vice" covers this nicely. The only thing stopping US presidents from acting like kings is precedent. | | |
| ▲ | ericmay 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | This is simply not true and it's disappointing fear-mongering from Vice (or anyone else who publishes this stuff). The reason you know it's true is because Trump doesn't care about precedent, yet in court case after court case that he or his administration lose they follow the law, even if it is imperfect or later attempted to be argued under a different standing. The same thing that is true for Donald Trump now was true for pretty much all past presidents. Nothing has meaningfully changed here, yet we did not have these same articles before, nor did we have folks who are so caught up in political fervor that they are happy to go along with any ole' article or reporting that aligns with their current beliefs. In other words, articles like those are click-bait, and their sole intention or at least their effect is to cause chaos and doubt in the American government. | | |
| ▲ | starshadowx2 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | They're talking about the movie Vice from 2018, not Vice the magazine. | | |
| ▲ | ericmay 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Thanks for the correction. No change in my opinion or writing though. |
| |
| ▲ | edmundsauto 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This is demonstrably false. In the case of removing migrants, the court ordered the practice halt and flights get turned around. The court also found evidence of contempt from the federal government due to noncompliance, although another appeals court stopped the contempt investigation. In the Kiyemba decision, the court identified a pattern of 96 violations across 75 or so cases. Detainees were held despite release orders In family separation cases, courts have required legal representation reinstated and the government refused to comply. In the case of NY vs Trump, courts ordered funds to be unfrozen and the administration refused to comply. | |
| ▲ | ImPostingOnHN 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Nothing has meaningfully changed here Legally? No. That's what OP said: > The only thing stopping US presidents from acting like kings is precedent. Now if we're talking reality, the realty is that new precedents were set (president acting like a king) which revealed that there are not effective legal checks on US presidents acting like kings (or else we would not have a president acting like a king). | | |
| ▲ | ericmay 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Sorry, I just don't agree with your assessment. Anyone can just say "well so and so is acting like a king or queen". Trump, as despicable and annoying as he is certainly says a lot, but he's not doing anything from what I can tell that isn't at least poorly argued that he has a right or legal justification for doing. A king or queen needs no such justification, and if one is going through the motions and being forced to respect the law (again there are shades of gray here) than there is no "acting like a king". But if your focus is on whatever he tweets and therefore he acts like a king, sure. Whatever. I mostly care about what actually happens, actual policy, actual laws and rules, not the theater around it which so many seem to want to indulge in instead of watching reality TV. | | |
| ▲ | thaumasiotes 30 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > A king or queen needs no such justification They sure spent a lot of time and effort establishing it for something they didn't need. | |
| ▲ | wizzwizz4 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > A king or queen needs no such justification Sure they do! Take the king that the US's predecessor governments rebelled against, King George III. He was very much bound to the dictates of Parliament. From his Wikipedia article: > Meanwhile, George had become exasperated at Grenville's attempts to reduce the King's prerogatives, and tried, unsuccessfully, to persuade William Pitt the Elder to accept the office of prime minister.[45] Does this sound like something that would be said of an absolute monarch? | | |
| ▲ | ericmay 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Donald Trump is also bound by the dictates of Congress and the courts. If that’s your criteria as to who is “acting like a king” and your reference is yet another king who is constrained by the Congress and Courts, I’m not really sure what point your trying to make here. He isn’t a king nor does he act like one in the office of the President precisely because he is following the law (generally speaking, I don’t think it’s pertinent to get into specific details else we get into those same details with all presidents) and because he is constrained by Congress. Your argument just makes “king” George out to be constrained in the way a president is. It’s a bad argument. Don’t let the reality TV fool you. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | krapp 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Peter, the apologist is here. | |
| ▲ | AnimalMuppet 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | What has meaningfully changed here is the rate at which Trump goes charging across lines that result in court cases. As best as I remember, it has always been the case that executives make decisions that result in court cases. I've never seen it like this, though. | | |
| ▲ | ericmay 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | The rate is different but at the end of the day they still go through the process and when his administration loses cases they just shut up and lose the case. You mostly don't hear about the, I believe hundreds, of cases that the administration has lost. As long as they follow the rule of law (obviously there are at times gray areas and he is expert at identifying and challenging those) I'm not too concerned. Again the media just whips people up into a fervor because it's really good advertising business. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | lazide 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | He’s the hate magnet for things they want anyway. Why not let him go crazy? | |
| ▲ | jedmeyers 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Nobody in the cabinet can speak up and overrule his whimsy? Who will be overruling that "someone in the cabinet", when things start going the wrong way again? There is always someone on top, and in the US it's the sitting President. | | |
| ▲ | stasomatic 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | The diehards that voted last time are having second thoughts when it starts hitting their wallets. Loyalty goes both ways. |
| |
| ▲ | Amezarak 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You sound like you’re from a country with a parliamentary system? In the US, the “cabinet” is simply the President’s handpicked subordinates, not MPs. The President is the head of the executive, the government, usually understood as the executive, answers to him. They are not in a position to legally stop him. There are measures Congress could very easily take if they chose to, but modern Congresses are very much do-nothing and frankly regard the President taking unilateral actions as relieving them of accountability and the need to take action themselves on important matters. | | |
| ▲ | stasomatic 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | No, I am from the states, just been ignorant until it started bugging me. I'm sad that one geezer can turn the rest of the world against us without our say so and now we are wholesale opted in as villains. Not that the past was rosy, but it was more gentleman-ish? I am out of my depth here, just frustrated. | | |
| ▲ | bee_rider 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It’s not just one geezer, Congress also agrees with him (at least in the sense that they aren’t willing to take advantage of any of the leverage they have to stop him). The midterm elections will be the people’s chance to express how they feel about it all. | |
| ▲ | Amezarak 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > without our say so The election was our say so. "We" collectively voted for this. |
|
| |
| ▲ | quickthrowman 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Why would you think it’s not that way? Virtually all of the power of the executive branch of the US Goverment is in the Office of the President. There are mechanisms in the Constitution to remove the sitting president, but it requires the other branches to act in the best interests of the nation instead of their own personal interests. Look at the history of every single war we’ve been involved in since WWII, no declaration of war. Korean War, Vietnam War, Grenada, Panama, Desert Storm, Somalia, Balkans, GWOT, Libya, Syria, Venezuela, Iran. I’m not a fan of the president, but Trump only started two of those. Korea was Truman, Vietnam was LBJ, Grenada was Reagan, Panama was HW Bush, Somalia and the Balkans was Clinton, GWOT was Bush, Libya and Syria were Obama, and the last two were Trump. That’s 7 total presidents, add in Bay of Pigs and JFK for 8 and the only two presidents who didn’t start a war are Nixon, who fucked up negotiations with the NVA that may have prolonged the war to win an election, and Jimmy Carter, who tried to rescue hostages in Iran with military assets. | | |
| ▲ | anonymars 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Korea was Truman, Vietnam was LBJ, Grenada was Reagan, Panama was HW Bush, Somalia and the Balkans was Clinton, GWOT was Bush, Libya and Syria were Obama I think this is at least a little misleading. How many of these conflicts were started by that president/the US (as opposed to "joined")? |
| |
| ▲ | ericmay 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's not really that insane. Don't overreact to Trump stuff - it leads you to make bad decisions and assumptions. This archaic and formal "I do declare war upon theee" is not flexible enough for the modern world and so we have found, perhaps an unhappy middle ground where the President can indeed take military action, for a limited period of time (60 days) without congressional authorization. The President is the civilian commander of the military and regardless of whether it is a Democrat or Republican we, like in other cases, give the President the discretion to make these choices. You may not like their exercise of power, but it is legal, Constitutional, and intentional and even if it is Donald Trump (much to my displeasure) we as a society trust him and his office to use this power responsibly and for the good of the American people. Even in the case of Iran and Venezuela, frankly, I think he has used power responsibly (if less effective than it should be) and for the good of the American people. We can't have a nuclear Iran in the Middle East, nor can we or should we accept thugs like Maduro running a country into the ground and causing mass migration to the US and causing problems here and breaking our laws. There are folks in the cabinet that can take action, or resign, &c., but as the Executive the president selects his cabinet and they serve at his pleasure, once they are confirmed by the Senate. This is true for all presidents and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. I think sometimes we forget, these are just people. We give them broad authority and they get to, by virtue of being elected, exercise that power as they see fit though ideally if or when a law is broken we deal with it through the judicial system. | | |
| ▲ | stasomatic 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | What's the recourse when they fall into a natural senile abyss like with the previous POTUS? Wait and see? I naively lived under an assumption there was a system of checks and balances that's not a coup d'état. | | |
| ▲ | ericmay 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's just up to those that we elected to make a decision or enact legislation. If they decide tat the president isn't senile enough, then that's just what they get to decide. Sometimes I think folks are expecting there to be an ever increasing system of accountability or authority to appeal to, but no it's just those people and they get to decide. If you don't like their decision, outside of the ballot box or whatever other means you have available to protest their decision, then you just have to live with what they say or decide. They are the authority. They decide to invoke the 25th Amendment or not. Not you. | | |
| ▲ | stasomatic 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'll bite. What's in it for them ("They are the authority")? Weathering the weather until the next election? I'm prone to assuming that people higher on the totem pole are smarter, more experienced, more nuanced, better educated, that's on me. |
| |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > What's the recourse when they fall into a natural senile abyss like with the previous POTUS? Congress should tighten up the War Powers Act, including but not limited to making the Secretary of Defense personally liable for breaches. (We do this with CFOs under Sarbanes-Oxley.) | |
| ▲ | bdangubic 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | previous POTUS? you meant current, right? |
| |
| ▲ | collingreen 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If the constitution needs amending, amend it. Just "doing war" and calling it something else because you find the "right" way inconvenient or impractical is ridiculous, immoral, and illegal. If the government acts on behalf of and derives its authority from the will of the people then do it according to our shared governance. If not then the people claiming autocracy or oligarchy or techno-feudalism has supplanted our democracy are probably on to something. Tl;dr - no shit following the law is less convenient than just doing whatever you want | | |
| ▲ | ericmay 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > If the constitution needs amending, amend it. Is there something about the War Powers Act that's unconstitutional? If so, what specifically? I'm struggling here to understand what is being alleged to be unconstitutional. Separately, I actually think Congress has been dysfunctional and has been outsourcing its power to the Executive and Judicial branches, but these claims about constitutional breaches seem to be, at best, wrong. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | Panda4 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Even by ignoring the name change, that is its function. Even if it was called department of defense, it's actually department of war. | |
| ▲ | Ritewut 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Regardless of what the name legally is, they are in fact initiating war against other nations and Palantir is one of the main players in those wars. | |
| ▲ | Peritract 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If it's what they call themselves and what they're currently doing, how much does it matter what the official name is? | | |
| ▲ | thewebguyd 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Because soft power is a real phenomenon and by going along with the illegal name change, we are giving legitimacy to an illegitimate act. Its anticipatory obedience. Do not obey in advance. It signals to the regime how much power they actually have. | | |
| ▲ | Peritract 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'd agree in principle, but they're already killing people. The worst-case scenario has been happening for a while; treating this as a procedural stance rather than a description of reality is blinkered. | | |
| ▲ | thewebguyd 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | If we adopt their language because things are already bad we are saying that their power is now the only reality that matters, we are giving up any form of resistance. We killed people under the name of Department of Defense too. Giving them the name is giving them the legitimacy to continue to justify the violence, and signals to the rest of the population that no one is coming to help and the new order is absolute. Mind you, this is mostly the fault of complicit media going a long with the name change rather than individuals here on HN, but whether its a true description of reality or not isn't important, whats important is any form of resistance to stop giving legitimacy to the regime. | | |
| ▲ | Peritract 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | As a non-American, I think that Americans treating concrete problems as less important than linguistic games does an awful lot more to legitimise the violence. | | |
| ▲ | collingreen 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't think parent claimed that simply using certain words is more important than dealing with the real problems. You sound frustrated with the American situation. I am too but that doesn't mean someone saying "resist" is somehow condoning or ignoring the important issues. I think the message of "don't submit in advance" is a great one and it actually makes sense to me to include that ethos in all things, including your speech. I think we all agree that speech alone is not enough. | |
| ▲ | scottyah 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Really makes one think about the "Soft times make soft men" quote. | |
| ▲ | quickthrowman 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Controlling language changes the way people think, and therefore act. Both of the things you mentioned are bad, glossing over real problems and the attempt to control language, they are not mutually exclusive. Just (re)read 1984 and focus on Newspeak, controlling language controls the way people think and act. The body of water that borders Texas, Florida, Louisiana, and other states along with Mexico is the Gulf of Mexico. The US cabinet-level department responsible for the military is the Department of Defense. | |
| ▲ | ImPostingOnHN 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | As a third party to your discussion, I observe that you are both engaged in exactly the same "linguistic game" with each other, if you prefer to use that dismissive terminology, and I'll add that writing is not mutually exclusive with action. | |
| ▲ | Barrin92 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >linguistic games it's far more than that. By giving into the television like hyper-reality they create you're giving up base reality. That power and legitimate institutions are derived from the people and due process. To surrender to the rhetoric is the entire point of the obscenities. War department, thugs with badges pretending to be police etc. The provocations are intentional and the offensiveness is the point, if you're just opposed to the concrete violence you're missing the forest for the trees. You have to reject their entire grammar they're trying to impose on you. It's as if I put on a robe, went to Rome and claimed I'm the Pope (taking bets on this happening in the US too). You shouldn't then try to argue with me if I'm a good or bad pope or if I'm committing bad acts, but you should reject the entire non-reality circus I'm trying to pull you in. | | |
| ▲ | Peritract 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > To surrender to the rhetoric is the entire point of the obscenities. No, this is what I am complaining about. The obscenities are the point, the rhetoric is cover. Ignoring the rhetoric does not stop the obscenities, and treating the problem as 'they are using the wrong name' rather than 'they are doing the wrong thing' dismisses the real harm being done. If you claim to be the pope, rejecting your constructed reality is the way to help you out of your delusion. If you do so while leading a crusade to sack Jerusalem, it's not the priority. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
| |
| ▲ | RickJWagner 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Trump publicly mulled about going to war with Iran for weeks before it started. Iran had been killing its own citizens by thousands, stopping the massacre was a leading factor. I am aware of one obscure Democrat that spoke out against the action at the time. I believe that man is the only one that should be criticizing the decision, because he didn’t wait on the fence to see how things turned out. If you know of more Democrats that spoke out—- especially big name ones—- please provide credible, contemporary sources. I’ll be glad to give approval to any that acted bravely at the time. | | |
| ▲ | NoLinkToMe 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Right, but Trump has stated he can accept working with the regime without consequence, like in Venezuela, as long as they cooperate on key issues e.g. oil and Israeli security concerns. He couldn’t care less that the regime is killing its own people. Like he couldn’t care less about Israel’s illegal occupation and murder. To think Trump did this war to save Iranian lives from its own government is hopelessly naive. It was not at all a leading factor. |
| |
| ▲ | alexashka 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 'We' should stop using the word 'we'. :) 'We' talk is how the pseudo-educated talk down to those other people who are the problem. | |
| ▲ | michaelsshaw 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The US has always used its military for global terrorism. Only just now, it is more in your face. There is no doubt: the US is responsible for some of the most sickening crimes against humanity the world has ever seen, including directly being the inspiration for the Holocaust, as well as US companies providing logistics for the Holocaust! I hate the idea that it was ever the DoD. It was always a terroristic, offensive force. | | |
| ▲ | UltraSane 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | "It was always a terroristic, offensive force." Even during WW2? | | |
| ▲ | lazyasciiart 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes. Netanyahu has pretended to justify destroying civilians in Gaza by saying the US did it first in Dresden. | | | |
| ▲ | carlosjobim 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | WWII was won by terror bombings of German cities, and terror nuclear bombing of Japanese cities. That's common knowledge. Not mentioning the Soviet terror in Germany during and after the war, since the topic is the US. | | |
| ▲ | UltraSane an hour ago | parent [-] | | It isn't really accurate to describe those bombings as terrorism when they happened during the largest war in human history. | | |
| ▲ | antiframe a few seconds ago | parent [-] | | While I agree there's not a universally agreed upon definition of terrorism, I want to hear more about why you think bombing with novel munitions expressly delivered to dense urban areas which killed 250k people 90% of whom were civilian, in an attempt to scare them into surrender, is not "terrorism". |
|
| |
| ▲ | dudefeliciano 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Ok then, always in our lifetime, assuming you are < 81 |
|
| |
| ▲ | Henchman21 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The Iran war started to provide a distraction from the Epstein files. Let's not pretend we don't know why, or more absurdly, can't quite articulate. It's very simple. | | |
| ▲ | master_crab 36 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Why is this getting downvoted? How is this any less ridiculous sounding than the multitude of other, ever-shifting reasons Trump gave for starting the war. |
| |
| ▲ | echelon 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > We're in a war in Iran for reasons that nobody can quite articulate (1) Nuclear proliferation. We once had a deal that looked as though it was holding. Trump's nixing of the deal and the happenings in Ukraine accelerated Iran's desire to have nukes. (2) Taiwan invasion postponement / CRINK disruption As I've been reading, this might be a second order play to stall China's invasion of Taiwan. If China has to dip into strategic oil reserves to smooth out impact to its economy, it may forgo its Taiwan invasion plans for a bit longer. It's also throwing a wrench into the CRINK alliance. | | |
| ▲ | Zigurd 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | There's a lot of retrofitting going on here. | |
| ▲ | kelnos 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Those are incredibly thin justifications that don't really hold up to scrutiny. 1) The deal was holding. And even if we take Trump's word for it that it wasn't, he told us that he destroyed their nuclear capability a year ago. So either he was lying about that, or there was no serious nuclear capability in the first place. Regardless of how that shakes out, there's no reason we should believe this justification today. 2) This is incredibly speculative, and no serious intelligence analyst or military strategist would suggest "war with Iran" as a solution there. And the joke is on us, anyway: China may be feeling an oil crunch, but we're depleting our stock of a bunch of materiel that we'll need if it comes time to defend Taiwan. On top of that, China's military leadership is seeing how incompetently the US is prosecuting this war, and is likely feeling a lot more confident about their ability to fend off a US defense of Taiwan. | | |
| ▲ | decimalenough 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The US military is prosecuting the war just fine, US losses of materiel and personnel have been minimal (not zero, but close enough). China's takeaway from this is not going to be that the US military is incompetent. The fundamental problem is that the declared objectives of regime change and securing control of the Strait of Hormuz cannot be achieved through air power alone. And this is the fault of the president, not the military. | | |
| ▲ | lazyasciiart 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Achieving the declared objective falls directly within the category of "prosecuting the war", and "the US" certainly includes the Commander in Chief. | |
| ▲ | collingreen 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | What? How many is the right number of personnel and materiel to lose for this war that isn't war and seems to have been either purchased for a few hundred million by political bribes or is just a distraction from the administrations involvement in a monstrous child sex ring? Also didn't we already win this war last year, last month, and last week? It is really easy to wave away our fellow dead citizens (and Iranians, including a school full of children!) from an internet comment form but damn, real people are dead here and it's an actual tragedy. For me, zero deaths seems like the right answer for these objectives and anything else is egregious abuse of power. I'd love it if everyone stopped being happy with people lying to them. When you catch people lying to you, be angry and stop trusting them! | | |
| ▲ | decimalenough 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I hate to interrupt a good rant, but we actually agree on this. To spell it out: the abject failure of the war is not a failure of the US military, it's a failure of its executive leadership, meaning Trump and his coterie of yes-men. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > the abject failure of the war is not a failure of the US military, it's a failure of its executive leadership It's a bit of both. Our lack of mine-clearing and anti-drone technology is a legitimate weakness, as are our defence-production gaps. The damage done to our system of alliances, moreover, directly weakens our military standing. | |
| ▲ | tokai 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Are you one of those that claim the US won the Vietnam war? |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | stasomatic 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Even if we destroyed it, RU would be happy to resupply. What has this war that nobody wanted cost just at the gas pumps all over the world and who stood to benefit? I really do think I’d be better off having had been born a century or two ago reading books under a candle and digging outhouses when needed. |
| |
| ▲ | specproc 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The reasons are very clear: Bibi owns Trump, Israel will unlikely have a US president as supportive again, they want as many facts on the ground as they can get whilst they have him. | | |
| ▲ | 1234letshaveatw 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Lefties used to pretend it was Putin. Time flies | | |
| ▲ | smallmancontrov 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't know if Trump could walk and chew bubble gum at the same time, but he sure seems able to screw Ukraine and bomb Iran at the same time. He just finished sending Vance to Hungary to stump for Orban, too. The love affair between far-right authoritarian leaders is not a 2 person relationship. | |
| ▲ | dudefeliciano 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Is he doing anything that is hindering Putin? That theory still very much holds. Both Putin and Netanyahu can realistically have kompromat on him, seeing how incredibly brazen and stupid he is. | |
| ▲ | zulux 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | As a right-winger, I miss the day when Jew haters were just on our side. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | inetknght 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > for reasons that nobody can quite articulate I'll say them. The reasons are Trump, Vance, and Republicans. | | |
| ▲ | tapland 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Might want to go back and check on the Dems. It bad > it's the ones I don't vote for is easy to say. | | |
| ▲ | solid_fuel 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Senate Democrats have made at least 5 attempts to stop this. Every Democrat voted in favor except Fetterman. Every republican opposed the attempt except Ron Paul. The Republicans are entirely responsible for the war in Iran - they started it and have opposed every attempt to reign the administration in. Don't play this "both sides" game when one side is clearly causing the issue here. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/senate-defeats-democ... | | |
| ▲ | tapland 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | I mean. The side voting while knowing they can't stop it that way, the definition of optics, thought this was worth it to not cater to their anti-war voters, no? Both side bad yeah, you seem to think the solution is still to cling to the lesser of two evils. Hell, dem presidential candidates were praising Trumps Iran policy up until the bombs started falling. There is no evidence they _actually_ care about a war with Iran outside of, just as you do, saying OH this is THEIR doing. | | |
| ▲ | solid_fuel 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Look, I would love to reply to this but you don't even articulate a coherent position here. It seems like you trying to claim that the democrats actively opposing and trying to stop the war are somehow just as culpable as the republicans who are actively supporting the war just because the democrats don't have enough power to actually stop it? I want to be generous in my interpretation here, but I can't make heads or tails of your statement. | |
| ▲ | ImPostingOnHN 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | yea, I don't see any evidence that either the democratic party or democratic voters support the war on iran, secretly or not sometimes a cigar is just a cigar | | |
| ▲ | tapland 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | No-one supports the war now. But Palestine just had to go? It can't be about _war_ or loss of life, and the people caring can get f-ed we don't need your votes. But sure one side is extremely against anything like this but unfortunately only get to demonstrate it when in opposition and unable to do anything. | | |
| ▲ | lovich 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Right, so your argument is that democrats are performative which is just as bad as the republicans actively starting wars? Is there a more steelmanned version of this that I can ignore once you start making more false equivalencies in its defense? |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | bdangubic 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | got two words for you - Netanyahoo :) |
| |
| ▲ | stackedinserter 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > for reasons that nobody can quite articulate They were articulated many times, maybe you didn't want to hear. The action itself was poorly planned and executed, it's a different question. | | |
| ▲ | fraggleysun 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Many reason were articulated, including the threat on an immediate attack on the US. That reason ran counter to defense assessments. Also, the reasons and goals stated by Trump (“President of Peace” and inaugural awardee of the FIFA peace prize), Rubio, and Hegseth have not been consistent. Was the reason to open the Strait that was already open, prevent an attack, to prevent Iran from making a nuclear weapon, or to change a regime? | |
| ▲ | amanaplanacanal 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I believe Rubio stated the reason at the very beginning of the war. The US learned that Israel was going to attack and jumped in. Everything after that is bullshit. | |
| ▲ | nextaccountic 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The reasons this administration gave to justify this war are mostly lies though | |
| ▲ | kelnos 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The reasons given were complete bullshit. So maybe it's not true that they weren't articulated, but the reasons that were articulated don't hold up to scrutiny. And, yes, on top of that, the action itself was poorly planned and executed, which just adds insult to injury. | |
| ▲ | pphysch 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yeah, we didn't want Iran to have nukes, so we rugpulled the JCPOA and murdered the guy who declared a fatwa against nukes. We wanted to save the Iranian people from the regime that murdered 100,000 peaceful protestors (don't ask for evidence) so we butchered 170 school girls and didn't apologize. We wanted to stabilize the region, so we greenlit Israel's rampage in Lebanon and directly induced Iran to close the Strait. Yeah. Articulated. | | |
| ▲ | nomdep 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > We wanted to save the Iranian people from the regime that murdered 100,000 peaceful protestors (don't ask for evidence) At least 20,000 according to Amnesty International, other independent sources claim 40,000. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2026/01/what-hap... | | | |
| ▲ | quickthrowman 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > We wanted to stabilize the region, so we greenlit Israel's rampage in Lebanon Consider this hypothetical situation. Iran funds a terrorist group operating in Tijuana to fire rockets across the border into San Diego. Assume the Mexican government is not organized enough to stop the terrorists from firing rockets. What do you think the response of the US Government would be? Please recall what we did after 9/11 before answering. Israel isn’t invading Egypt and Jordan, I wonder if it’s because there’s no Iran-funded terrorist groups firing rockets from those countries or if there’s some other reason. Israel definitely has blood on their hands, but how do you suggest they deal with terrorist groups funded by Iran operating in lawless areas of neighboring countries that are firing rockets at civilians in Israel? Israel has been invaded by all of its neighbors simultaneously more than once, it’s a pretty complex situation that spans over a hundred years. Europeans and Arab nations (aside from the Ottomans) treated Jews like shit for centuries, pogroms and holocausts and expulsions and forced migrations. No wonder they want to keep the nation of Israel around, everyone else has tried exterminating them. Just try not to be so reductionist and polarizing about it, it’s a complex historical situation with many shades of gray. I know my opinion is probably unpopular around here, but it’s how I see it. Israel has done some horrible shit, but they aren’t just rampaging against any non Jew in sight, there were Hezbollah operatives constantly firing rockets into northern Israel for years. What’s happening in Lebanon (and Syria and may other places) sucks, and that massive pier explosion certainly didn’t help. | | |
| ▲ | cramsession 43 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Israel are the terrorists who invaded Palestine and have committed crimes against humanity all across the Middle East. Your hypothetical situation is nothing at all like what's going on in reality. Iran is our ally against Zionist occupation of our own government. |
| |
| ▲ | stackedinserter 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes, an aggressive regime that develops nuclear weapons (otherwise why all this enrichment?), stockpiles missiles and drones that, funds terrorists like hezbolla, hoothis and hamas, should be stopped. Yes, when you apply military force, civilians die. Nobody is happy about it, at least in US. Yes, Iran closed the strait, because Trump taco'ed again and can't use force against it. Yes, Israel bombs hezbolla, because what else should they do to people that shoot rockets at Israel? Send them fresh water and electricity? They tried it with Gaza, didn't help. What was your point? | | |
| ▲ | turtlesdown11 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Send them fresh water and electricity? They tried it with Gaza, didn't help. yes, one cannot imagine why keeping millions of people in an open air concentration camp doesn't work out well | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > open air concentration camp Nitpick: the analogy is an open-air prison. Because prisons usually have ceilings. Open-air concentration camp is just a concentration camp, which doesn't really appropriately describe a siege. |
|
|
|
|
|
