5 ms·

Again, little to no information for the US public. No approval from Congress. Calling for the people to rise up. You can't bomb your way into regime change. Ar

Again, little to no information for the US public. No approval from Congress. Calling for the people to rise up. You can't bomb your way into regime change. Are we supplying arms to groups? Is there a plan beyond pointless death and regional chaos the president would like to share?

guerrilla 8mo ago
> Are we supplying arms to groups? Yes. The US supports the monarchy, the Kurds and MeK. The CIA was revealed to have armed MeK (despite designation) and my guess is that they do with the Kurds too. The CIA also talks to the Balochi groups as well although I don't know how organized or armed they are. Needless to say, "regime change" would in reality mean civil war like Syria or collapse like Libya.
- aucisson_masque 8mo ago
  Or Irak. The list of exemple is long enough, no need to add Iran. We already had ISIS thanks to the mess in Irak and Libya.
  - PretzelPirate 8mo ago
    You spelled Iraq as "Irak". Is there a meaning to this? I couldn't find a reference but wonder if that's somehow a meaningful spelling.
    - SSLy 8mo ago
      It's the spelling used by French, German and couple of neighbouring languages.
    - t-3 8mo ago
      Romanizations are fashion trends rather than any kind of science or real standardized system. Other than those places with Roman-era Latin spellings like Syria, others have dozens of variants.
    - petre 8mo ago
      Yeah, he's probably French.
    - aucisson_masque 8mo ago
      Yes it's how we write in french.
  - guerrilla 8mo ago
    Well, Iraq is not that simple because Iran has also invested a lot in Iraq with various Shia forces. Right now Iraq is trying not to get involved. That's been their news all day. Maybe that is a sign that the Iranian investment is paying off, or just that the Iraqis are tired as fuck especially after the first Iran-Iraq invasion and then them being fucked by the US.
- etc-hosts 8mo ago
  The US has spent a lot of time and money on MEK but I don't think they are very effective. Or will be very effective. My understanding is the leader of MEK has n't been seen in years(is probably dead), and MEK members are only allowed to marry other MEK members, so the number of MEK members is way down from their 80s highpoint, and it's not getting better.
  - guerrilla 8mo ago
    Yeah, my understanding as well. Seems more like a cult that the US got too excited about.
Ylpertnodi 8mo ago
...In a couple of weeks.
gruez 8mo ago
>No approval from Congress. To be fair that's been the case for decades. Trump's hardly new in this.
- qup 8mo ago
  Needs to notify Congress within 48 hours (and he did beforehand), and has 60 days before needing Congress to declare war.
  - xeromal 8mo ago
    Looking at the list of countries we have declared war on https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/declarations-of-war.htm https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/declarations-... I don't think it matters.
- wat10000 8mo ago
  For better or for worse, the War Powers Resolution acts as standing approval.
Natfan 8mo ago
> is there a plan... probably not, outside of making more revenue for raytheon
parineum 8mo ago
> No approval from Congress. I don't support it but there's blanket approval from Congress from the AUMF.
- pphysch 8mo ago
  And when was that approval passed?
- richk449 8mo ago
  This authorizes an attack on Iran? SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This joint resolution may be cited as the ‘‘Authorization for Use of Military Force’’. SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (a) IN GENERAL.—That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
kenjackson 8mo ago
A plan? Actually there is. This is all part of the backdrop to end US elections. We can’t have elections in the middle of a major war. And if we do have them we must greatly constrain how they are held while we are at war.
- idontwantthis 8mo ago
  That's an absurd stretch with no basis in fact or history.
  - avaer 8mo ago
    The president said they should cancel the elections.
  - skullone 8mo ago
    You must be ignorant - the entire republican leadership is telegraphing the cancel elections
  - rdiddly 8mo ago
    Unfortunately, you can't dismiss it based on that. Most of what this administration does is an absurd stretch with no basis in fact or history.
- muwtyhg 8mo ago
  > We can’t have elections in the middle of a major war. Yes we can? Is there any provision in the US Constitution that allows delay of election because of war? We have had elections during most of our recent wars (Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan). Trump could definitely try. Or pull an emergency card out of his ass. But it doesn't mean there is any provision for cancelling elections because of this 'war' with Iran (which they aren't even calling a war, but a "special combat operation" to get around congress having the war powers)
  - kenjackson 8mo ago
    That statement was not on my voice, but the coming voice from this administration. IMO there is never a reason to withhold elections.
thisisit 8mo ago
Campaign to move the headlines from Epstein to something else, perhaps?

guerrilla 8mo ago

> Are we supplying arms to groups? Yes. The US supports the monarchy, the Kurds and MeK. The CIA was revealed to have armed MeK (despite designation) and my guess is that they do with the Kurds too. The CIA also talks to the Balochi groups as well although I don't know how organized or armed they are. Needless to say, "regime change" would in reality mean civil war like Syria or collapse like Libya.

aucisson_masque 8mo ago
Or Irak. The list of exemple is long enough, no need to add Iran. We already had ISIS thanks to the mess in Irak and Libya.
- PretzelPirate 8mo ago
  You spelled Iraq as "Irak". Is there a meaning to this? I couldn't find a reference but wonder if that's somehow a meaningful spelling.
  - SSLy 8mo ago
    It's the spelling used by French, German and couple of neighbouring languages.
  - t-3 8mo ago
    Romanizations are fashion trends rather than any kind of science or real standardized system. Other than those places with Roman-era Latin spellings like Syria, others have dozens of variants.
  - petre 8mo ago
    Yeah, he's probably French.
  - aucisson_masque 8mo ago
    Yes it's how we write in french.
- guerrilla 8mo ago
  Well, Iraq is not that simple because Iran has also invested a lot in Iraq with various Shia forces. Right now Iraq is trying not to get involved. That's been their news all day. Maybe that is a sign that the Iranian investment is paying off, or just that the Iraqis are tired as fuck especially after the first Iran-Iraq invasion and then them being fucked by the US.
etc-hosts 8mo ago
The US has spent a lot of time and money on MEK but I don't think they are very effective. Or will be very effective. My understanding is the leader of MEK has n't been seen in years(is probably dead), and MEK members are only allowed to marry other MEK members, so the number of MEK members is way down from their 80s highpoint, and it's not getting better.
- guerrilla 8mo ago
  Yeah, my understanding as well. Seems more like a cult that the US got too excited about.

Ylpertnodi 8mo ago

...In a couple of weeks.

gruez 8mo ago

>No approval from Congress. To be fair that's been the case for decades. Trump's hardly new in this.

qup 8mo ago
Needs to notify Congress within 48 hours (and he did beforehand), and has 60 days before needing Congress to declare war.
- xeromal 8mo ago
  Looking at the list of countries we have declared war on https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/declarations-of-war.htm https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/declarations-... I don't think it matters.
wat10000 8mo ago
For better or for worse, the War Powers Resolution acts as standing approval.

Natfan 8mo ago

> is there a plan... probably not, outside of making more revenue for raytheon

parineum 8mo ago

> No approval from Congress. I don't support it but there's blanket approval from Congress from the AUMF.

pphysch 8mo ago
And when was that approval passed?
richk449 8mo ago
This authorizes an attack on Iran? SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This joint resolution may be cited as the ‘‘Authorization for Use of Military Force’’. SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (a) IN GENERAL.—That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

kenjackson 8mo ago

A plan? Actually there is. This is all part of the backdrop to end US elections. We can’t have elections in the middle of a major war. And if we do have them we must greatly constrain how they are held while we are at war.

idontwantthis 8mo ago
That's an absurd stretch with no basis in fact or history.
- avaer 8mo ago
  The president said they should cancel the elections.
- skullone 8mo ago
  You must be ignorant - the entire republican leadership is telegraphing the cancel elections
- rdiddly 8mo ago
  Unfortunately, you can't dismiss it based on that. Most of what this administration does is an absurd stretch with no basis in fact or history.
muwtyhg 8mo ago
> We can’t have elections in the middle of a major war. Yes we can? Is there any provision in the US Constitution that allows delay of election because of war? We have had elections during most of our recent wars (Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan). Trump could definitely try. Or pull an emergency card out of his ass. But it doesn't mean there is any provision for cancelling elections because of this 'war' with Iran (which they aren't even calling a war, but a "special combat operation" to get around congress having the war powers)
- kenjackson 8mo ago
  That statement was not on my voice, but the coming voice from this administration. IMO there is never a reason to withhold elections.

thisisit 8mo ago

Campaign to move the headlines from Epstein to something else, perhaps?