3 ms·

Is it just me, or are we taking the beginning of Iraq War v 2 very calmly?

by Sabinus 7mo ago

deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
AnimalMuppet 7mo ago
Far too calmly. This is exactly why the Constitution requires Congress to declare war - so that we can't wind up in a war because of the decisions of one man. Sure wish that was still in force...
- lern_too_spel 7mo ago
  Congress can stop it at any time. https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5799286-iran-war-powers-resolution-defeated/ https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5799286-iran-war-powers-... This was true of past conflicts as well. Doe v. Bush tried to challenge the Iraq Resolution because Congress had not declared war, but the US Court of Appeals dismissed the case because Congress had not opposed funding the war. The sad reality is that this is what the people had voted for, and the government is still working as intended.
  - Lapel2742 7mo ago
    >Congress can stop it at any time. No. Your congress can't stop it because it takes two to tango and Iran is clearly not willing to end the war just like that. You people should have stopped that criminal long ago.
    - rolandog 7mo ago
      Sure, but do we agree that the unitedstatesian's (pet peeve: they shouldn't be called americans, per definition) Congress could at least stop one side of the war (the one that initiated the aggression). The Iranians would probably call that a victory, and probably not pursue further retaliation. The US would then need to comply with whatever sanctions the UN might apply due to them having started an illegal war.
      - Lapel2742 7mo ago
        > The Iranians would probably call that a victory, and probably not pursue further retaliation. I highly doubt it. Here are the facts from the viewpoint of Iran: - The US and the UK overthrew the democratic iranian government of Mohammad Mosaddegh - The US terminated the working nuclear deal. - The US ambushed Iran twice in the midst of ongoing negotiations. - Israel is on a conquest to annex new land and to rule over the middle east. At least that is likely there goal. Iran clearly stated their demands. The US should pay up for the damage they caused and the US should give up its military bases in the Arab countries. While the money will probably not be that big of a problem to negotiate, the military bases will be. At least Iran will insist on something substantive that guarantees that they are not ambushed a third time.
        AnimalMuppet 7mo ago
        But from the non-Iranian point of view, those countries want those bases to protect them against Iran. So that's going to be problematic. I mean, the US could unilaterally decide "no, we're not going to defend the Middle East anymore, good luck everybody" and leave. But it's not like the US is oppressing, say, Qatar by having a base there. They willingly let the US stay there.
        Lapel2742 7mo ago
        > those countries want those bases to protect them against Iran. As far as I know: Israel and Saudi Arabia want these bases. I do not know the current opinion of the other Arab countries. > Qatar by having a base there. They willingly let the US stay there. At least they are now noticing that there are risks in hosting the US military too. > “One of the most significant outcomes of this war is the shattering of the concept of a regional security system in the Gulf region,” Mr. al-Ansari said. “The regional security framework in the Gulf was based on certain axioms. Many of these axioms have been bypassed in the current war.” https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/24/world/middleeast/qatar-us-iran-talks-mediation.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/24/world/middleeast/qatar-us...
        7mo ago
locknitpicker 7mo ago
> Is it just me, or are we taking the beginning of Iraq War v 2 very calmly? Iraq war is not a suitable comparison. That event was a decisive US victory that resulted from thorough planning, extensive international support and collaboration, and total commitment from all parties. Trump's wars are none of the above. Mobilizing a couple thousand troops here and there for a war that can be orders of magnitude more intensive than Iraq War V2 and without any semblance of support is a clear sign of starting a war while signaling their own impending defeat. Let's not fool ourselves: the only parties benefiting from this nonsense is Russia and China.
- slim 7mo ago
  I think this war has been planned copiously and the fact that the front man makes it look stupid and takes all the blame is part of the plan
- mmooss 7mo ago
  > Iraq war is not a suitable comparison. That event was a decisive US victory that resulted from thorough planning, extensive international support and collaboration, and total commitment from all parties. I think you mean the Gulf War in the early 1990s. The Iraq War, 2003 - ~2011, had relatively little international support, was poorly planned (they promised no more than 6 weeks, had no plans for occupation, etc.), and was spent fighting Iranian-backed militias and ISIS.
  - GJim 7mo ago
    Not to mention the first gulf war had UN support. (Back when the USA respected international law).
    - ethbr1 7mo ago
      Including USSR!
  - ethbr1 7mo ago
    The 2003 Iraq war was a pretty decisive military victory for the invaders. Iraqi command and control destroyed in the opening stages. About a month to complete occupation of the country. The subsequent years were a complete clusterfuck. Largely because of a missing theory of victory, the inept neocons the administration selected to run the civilian side, and the lack of strategic military-civilian coordination.

Is it just me, or are we taking the beginning of Iraq War v 2 very calmly?

by Sabinus 7mo ago

Is it just me, or are we taking the beginning of Iraq War v 2 very calmly?

deleted 7mo ago

[deleted]

AnimalMuppet 7mo ago

Far too calmly. This is exactly why the Constitution requires Congress to declare war - so that we can't wind up in a war because of the decisions of one man. Sure wish that was still in force...

lern_too_spel 7mo ago
Congress can stop it at any time. https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5799286-iran-war-powers-resolution-defeated/ https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5799286-iran-war-powers-... This was true of past conflicts as well. Doe v. Bush tried to challenge the Iraq Resolution because Congress had not declared war, but the US Court of Appeals dismissed the case because Congress had not opposed funding the war. The sad reality is that this is what the people had voted for, and the government is still working as intended.
- Lapel2742 7mo ago
  >Congress can stop it at any time. No. Your congress can't stop it because it takes two to tango and Iran is clearly not willing to end the war just like that. You people should have stopped that criminal long ago.
  - rolandog 7mo ago
    Sure, but do we agree that the unitedstatesian's (pet peeve: they shouldn't be called americans, per definition) Congress could at least stop one side of the war (the one that initiated the aggression). The Iranians would probably call that a victory, and probably not pursue further retaliation. The US would then need to comply with whatever sanctions the UN might apply due to them having started an illegal war.
    - Lapel2742 7mo ago
      > The Iranians would probably call that a victory, and probably not pursue further retaliation. I highly doubt it. Here are the facts from the viewpoint of Iran: - The US and the UK overthrew the democratic iranian government of Mohammad Mosaddegh - The US terminated the working nuclear deal. - The US ambushed Iran twice in the midst of ongoing negotiations. - Israel is on a conquest to annex new land and to rule over the middle east. At least that is likely there goal. Iran clearly stated their demands. The US should pay up for the damage they caused and the US should give up its military bases in the Arab countries. While the money will probably not be that big of a problem to negotiate, the military bases will be. At least Iran will insist on something substantive that guarantees that they are not ambushed a third time.
      - AnimalMuppet 7mo ago
        But from the non-Iranian point of view, those countries want those bases to protect them against Iran. So that's going to be problematic. I mean, the US could unilaterally decide "no, we're not going to defend the Middle East anymore, good luck everybody" and leave. But it's not like the US is oppressing, say, Qatar by having a base there. They willingly let the US stay there.
        Lapel2742 7mo ago
        > those countries want those bases to protect them against Iran. As far as I know: Israel and Saudi Arabia want these bases. I do not know the current opinion of the other Arab countries. > Qatar by having a base there. They willingly let the US stay there. At least they are now noticing that there are risks in hosting the US military too. > “One of the most significant outcomes of this war is the shattering of the concept of a regional security system in the Gulf region,” Mr. al-Ansari said. “The regional security framework in the Gulf was based on certain axioms. Many of these axioms have been bypassed in the current war.” https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/24/world/middleeast/qatar-us-iran-talks-mediation.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/24/world/middleeast/qatar-us...
        7mo ago

locknitpicker 7mo ago

> Is it just me, or are we taking the beginning of Iraq War v 2 very calmly? Iraq war is not a suitable comparison. That event was a decisive US victory that resulted from thorough planning, extensive international support and collaboration, and total commitment from all parties. Trump's wars are none of the above. Mobilizing a couple thousand troops here and there for a war that can be orders of magnitude more intensive than Iraq War V2 and without any semblance of support is a clear sign of starting a war while signaling their own impending defeat. Let's not fool ourselves: the only parties benefiting from this nonsense is Russia and China.

slim 7mo ago
I think this war has been planned copiously and the fact that the front man makes it look stupid and takes all the blame is part of the plan
mmooss 7mo ago
> Iraq war is not a suitable comparison. That event was a decisive US victory that resulted from thorough planning, extensive international support and collaboration, and total commitment from all parties. I think you mean the Gulf War in the early 1990s. The Iraq War, 2003 - ~2011, had relatively little international support, was poorly planned (they promised no more than 6 weeks, had no plans for occupation, etc.), and was spent fighting Iranian-backed militias and ISIS.
- GJim 7mo ago
  Not to mention the first gulf war had UN support. (Back when the USA respected international law).
  - ethbr1 7mo ago
    Including USSR!
- ethbr1 7mo ago
  The 2003 Iraq war was a pretty decisive military victory for the invaders. Iraqi command and control destroyed in the opening stages. About a month to complete occupation of the country. The subsequent years were a complete clusterfuck. Largely because of a missing theory of victory, the inept neocons the administration selected to run the civilian side, and the lack of strategic military-civilian coordination.