Middle East

[Polds4OSU]

The incompetence of the Iran War rollout is just stunning.

Rubio says "Israel dragged us into this war! We had no choice!"

Trump says "I dragged Israel into this war! Regime change! Iranian people, rise up!"

Just bonkers.

Senator Chris Murphy (@senchrismurphy) on Threads

The incompetence of the Iran War rollout is just stunning. Rubio says "Israel dragged us into this war! We had no choice!" Trump says "I dragged Israel into this war! Regime change! Iranian people, rise up!" Just bonkers.

www.threads.com

 

[osuwhit]

That's kinda what made me think about the "special military operation" phrase. I think once the conflict involves torpedoing a warship, it has escalated enough to call it a war.

From what I understand, the War Powers Act of 1973 gives the POTUS a little work around for that pesky congressional declaration of war. To summarize.. as long as we only attack another country for no more than 60 days, it's just "military operations" or a "conflict." It's not war according to this law.

So, within two months from February 28, the US should probably stop attacking Iran to satisfy our own law. I don't expect Congress to approve a declaration of war unless the AIPAC money comes rolling in or the blackmail is extremely widespread. A false flag terror event on our own soil could likely sway opinions for the declaration. Or, we simply hand the ball (weapons) off to Israel and let them run it.

I feel like @GratefulPoke might have a better understanding of this in case I'm off base anywhere.

 

[cowboyinexile]

From what I understand, the War Powers Act of 1973 gives the POTUS a little work around for that pesky congressional declaration of war. To summarize.. as long as we only attack another country for no more than 60 days, it's just "military operations" or a "conflict." It's not war according to this law.

So, within two months from February 28, the US should probably stop attacking Iran to satisfy our own law. I don't expect Congress to approve a declaration of war unless the AIPAC money comes rolling in or the blackmail is extremely widespread. A false flag terror event on our own soil could likely sway opinions for the declaration. Or, we simply hand the ball (weapons) off to Israel and let them run it.

I feel like @GratefulPoke might have a better understanding of this in case I'm off base anywhere.

Or POTUS could tell congress to F off and we're going to keep bombing Iran as long as we want to if they don't fall in line.

 

[osuwhit]

Or POTUS could tell congress to F off and we're going to keep bombing Iran as long as we want to if they don't fall in line.

Well, as I described, that would be a direct violation of the War Powers Act of 1973. I suppose they could pause the attack for a short time and then restart the 60 days with a new "conflict" in Iran. I have no idea..

 

[Polds4OSU]

NATO shoots down Iranian missile headed for Turkey​

NATO forces on Wednesday shot down an Iranian missile headed for Turkey, as the United States’s decision to target Tehran militarily continues to spark wider regional conflict.

A spokesman for President Recep Erdogan said that the capacity to ensure Turkey’s security "is at the highest level." A fragment of a preventive missile fell into an open area in Hatay's Dortyol district, but there was no loss of life or injuries, according to Turkey.


Turkey said ‌that NATO air defenses destroyed a ballistic missile headed into its airspace, a notable event as it appears to mark the first time a NATO member has been drawn into the expanding Middle East conflict. According to NATO Article 5, an armed attack on one NATO member is deemed an attack on the entire alliance, committing members to assist the attacked party. War Secretary Pete Hegseth said he had "no sense" the attack would "trigger anything like Article 5" in a press conference on Wednesday with Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

“All necessary steps to defend our lands and airspace will be taken without hesitation,” Turkey’s presidential office said in a statement. “Necessary responses will be given within the framework of international law against any hostile attitudes that may be encountered.”

 

[steross]

Well, as I described, that would be a direct violation of the War Powers Act of 1973. I suppose they could pause the attack for a short time and then restart the 60 days with a new "conflict" in Iran. I have no idea..

This administration has been breaking the law all over the place and absolutely nothing happens.

I don't mean to badmouth the founding fathers as their foresight has given me a better life than 99.999999% of the humans that have ever inhabited this planet and I am eternally grateful.

But, given that they had in their recent memory gotten away from a King, I think they felt that any megalomaniac leader who broke the constitution and laws would be fought by congress, the courts, and if needed the people would rise against him. They could not have seen the age of an entertainment president who uses the internet and misinformation to stay popular while destroying the republic.

 

[Polds4OSU]

Q: "No one from the administration has laid out the imminent threat that was supposed to have been taken care of by this…Why is it that across the administration you can't say what the imminent threat against the U.S. was that required us to launch this?"

Leavitt: "I completely reject the premise of your question."

Barbara Sobel (@barbaraj.sobel) on Threads

Q: "No one from the administration has laid out the imminent threat that was supposed to have been taken care of by this…Why is it that across the administration you can't say what the imminent threat against the U.S. was that required us to launch this?" Leavitt: "I completely reject the...

www.threads.com

 

[Polds4OSU]

Former U.S. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene:

“If your church leaders and elected leaders are telling you the way to bring Jesus back is by killing innocent children of innocent foreign people you’ve never met in a foreign land you’ve never been to, then you’re believing the lies of wolves dressed in sheep’s clothing.”

sarah (@sahouraxo) on Threads

Former U.S. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene: “If your church leaders and elected leaders are telling you the way to bring Jesus back is by killing innocent children of innocent foreign people you’ve never met in a foreign land you’ve never been to, then you’re believing the lies of wolves...

www.threads.com

 

[osuwhit]

This administration has been breaking the law all over the place and absolutely nothing happens.

I don't mean to badmouth the founding fathers as their foresight has given me a better life than 99.999999% of the humans that have ever inhabited this planet and I am eternally grateful.

But, given that they had in their recent memory gotten away from a King, I think they felt that any megalomaniac leader who broke the constitution and laws would be fought by congress, the courts, and if needed the people would rise against him. They could not have seen the age of an entertainment president who uses the internet and misinformation to stay popular while destroying the republic.

Well, if there's a precedence for a lack of accountability then maybe the conflict continues past 60 days.

I have a feeling the blackmail evidence comes out. He's backing into a F'd up corner.

 

[osuwhit]

Former U.S. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene:

“If your church leaders and elected leaders are telling you the way to bring Jesus back is by killing innocent children of innocent foreign people you’ve never met in a foreign land you’ve never been to, then you’re believing the lies of wolves dressed in sheep’s clothing.”

sarah (@sahouraxo) on Threads

Former U.S. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene: “If your church leaders and elected leaders are telling you the way to bring Jesus back is by killing innocent children of innocent foreign people you’ve never met in a foreign land you’ve never been to, then you’re believing the lies of wolves...

www.threads.com

Wolves is a weird name for Zionist.

 

[Polds4OSU]

Yes this is real:


Karoline Leavitt just said in response to why Trump launched the war on Iran: "The president had a feeling, again, based on fact, that Iran was going to strike the US." So this is the first US war based on vibes.

Dean Obeidallah (@deanobeidallah) on Threads

Yes this is real: Karoline Leavitt just said in response to why Trump launched the war on Iran: "The president had a feeling, again, based on fact, that Iran was going to strike the US." So this is the first US war based on vibes. #VibesWar

www.threads.com

 

[Polds4OSU]

The White House said today that Spain had agreed to cooperate with its military campaign in the Middle East, but the Spanish government has now come out and said that is not true.

Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yasharali) on Threads

The White House said today that Spain had agreed to cooperate with its military campaign in the Middle East, but the Spanish government has now come out and said that is not true.

www.threads.com

 

[Polds4OSU]

The gaslighting is INSANE

BREAKING: CNN’s Kaitlan collins just asked Karoline Leavitt why Pete Hegseth complained about American casualties making front page news.

Leavitt then denied that he ever did.

They are officially telling us that what we saw with our eyes and heard with our ears did not happen.

Welcome to Orwell’s 1984.

Trump 45 Lied (@trump45lied) on Threads

🚨🚨 BREAKING: CNN’s Kaitlan collins just asked Karoline Leavitt why Pete Hegseth complained about American casualties making front page news. Leavitt then denied that he ever did. I play both videos. You decide! They are officially telling us that what we saw with our eyes and heard with our...

www.threads.com

 

[Polds4OSU]

PRESIDENT TRUMP: "We're doing very well on the war front, to put it mildly I would say. Somebody said 'on a scale of 10 where would you rate it?' I said, 'about a 15.'"

"We're going to continue to do well. We have the greatest military in the world, by far."

Fox News (@foxnews) on Threads

PRESIDENT TRUMP: "We're doing very well on the war front, to put it mildly I would say. Somebody said 'on a scale of 10 where would you rate it?' I said, 'about a 15.'" "We're going to continue to do well. We have the greatest military in the world, by far."

www.threads.com

 

[Polds4OSU]

Trump: "Barack Obama gave Iran a nuclear weapon."

Craig R. Brittain (@brittainforsenate) on Threads

Trump: "Barack Obama gave Iran a nuclear weapon." (He didn't. Duh.)

www.threads.com

 

[Polds4OSU]

 

[Polds4OSU]

Trump sits down and immediately repeatedly describes his strikes on Iran as "war"

Aaron Rupar (@aaron.rupar) on Threads

Trump sits down and immediately repeatedly describes his strikes on Iran as "war"

www.threads.com

 

[Polds4OSU]

The Tennessee Holler (@thetnholler) on Threads

“He had a feeling” is a crazy reason to start a war

www.threads.com

 

[GratefulPoke]

From what I understand, the War Powers Act of 1973 gives the POTUS a little work around for that pesky congressional declaration of war. To summarize.. as long as we only attack another country for no more than 60 days, it's just "military operations" or a "conflict." It's not war according to this law.

So, within two months from February 28, the US should probably stop attacking Iran to satisfy our own law. I don't expect Congress to approve a declaration of war unless the AIPAC money comes rolling in or the blackmail is extremely widespread. A false flag terror event on our own soil could likely sway opinions for the declaration. Or, we simply hand the ball (weapons) off to Israel and let them run it.

I feel like @GratefulPoke might have a better understanding of this in case I'm off base anywhere.

Its been awhile since I took con law and I cannot remember if this was even covered, but my understanding is that the War Powers Act was supposed to allow limited military action for up to 60 days before needing congressional approval. To be able to react quickly to threats Not to allow the president to declare war and full scale invasions and then ask for approval in 60 days. Now they don't even do that after 60 days.

The precedent has been set at this point in the last 30 years, it basically has de facto given the president the ability to unilaterally declare war. I think it is time to repeal this act. Its one of the many things that has been causal for executive branch overreach.

 

[CowboyJD]

Well, as I described, that would be a direct violation of the War Powers Act of 1973. I suppose they could pause the attack for a short time and then restart the 60 days with a new "conflict" in Iran. I have no idea..

When has violating a law ever stopped El Trumpo from doing whatever he wants?