Yeah unfortunately that is not actually the way the law is written Bernie. Wish it was.
Short version, the president gets to deploy the military where ever he wishes (outside the US, posse comitatus etc). That includes invading a sovereign nation or raining missiles down on one.
Only congress has the power to declare a war, but the Potus gets to defacto kick off the war and then dare congress not to back him.
After it was either 60 or 90 days, I forget, congress gets to “review” the decision, the problem is they have no power other than financial if they wish to stop the war. So the only thing they can do is turn off the finances to the military, and wait for the money to run out - which is generally up to a year. They have no way of forcing the president to desist other than impeachment or cutting off the funds.
They can pass a motion, or even legislation, which the Prez can then veto, pointless. If they can muster the 2/3rds of congress they can remove him via impeachment.
Edit, spelling correction and to note that I can pull out the full details if needed - was discussed heavily on reddit a while ago
But genocidal Kamala is just as bad! I was informed about it multiple times by accounts on .ml (and not all of them are operating exclusively during Moscow working hours)
Biden/Harris would have done something similar to defend Israel from the consequences of its actions. Biden did bomb Yemen after all when it tried to stop the genocide. Biden is a self admitted Zionist and defended Israel’s invasion of Lebanon and supported the invasion of Iraq. Harris did nothing to distance herself from him.
Yeah, in most regards kamala would’ve been better, but this is Israel. She may have been less gung ho, which would be better for a handful of Iranians benefitting from slightly fewer bombs, but not better enough
Well, there is no real support for a war in the democratic party, democratic party is influencable to some extent, and leader of it has to listen to the party and to voters, at least somewhat. There is no dictator on day one bullshit.
not better enough
This is some prime disconnected bullshit. For people not murdered by bombs it’s precisely better enough. This “who cares about handful of randos in some remote country” bullshit is only one click less evil than whatever the current US government is doing right now.
Trump killed more civilians in Yemen this one excursion than the US did in the previous 23 years.
There is bad, and there is this bad. And not differentiating between the two is criminal.
By this point, there are only two ways to not understand what the degrees of bad are. Either you really, deeply, powerfully don’t give a flying fuck about people’s lives, and you see people as numbers you want to use to own the libs or whatever, or you are are so disconnected from reality, you really don’t understand what differentiate more suffering from less suffering.
I really don’t know what’s worse, but both of those possibilities are deeply disturbing. You might feel like you’re a good person, but you really aren’t.
I am trying to convey you one very simple series of principles.
Two things can simultaneously be bad.
One of two things can be worse than another.
It is your moral duty and obligation to ensure that in situation where one or another thing will be chosen, you chose one that is less bad.
Yeah unfortunately that is not actually the way the law is written Bernie. Wish it was.
Short version, the president gets to deploy the military where ever he wishes (outside the US, posse comitatus etc). That includes invading a sovereign nation or raining missiles down on one.
Only congress has the power to declare a war, but the Potus gets to defacto kick off the war and then dare congress not to back him.
After it was either 60 or 90 days, I forget, congress gets to “review” the decision, the problem is they have no power other than financial if they wish to stop the war. So the only thing they can do is turn off the finances to the military, and wait for the money to run out - which is generally up to a year. They have no way of forcing the president to desist other than impeachment or cutting off the funds.
They can pass a motion, or even legislation, which the Prez can then veto, pointless. If they can muster the 2/3rds of congress they can remove him via impeachment.
Edit, spelling correction and to note that I can pull out the full details if needed - was discussed heavily on reddit a while ago
Its like choosing the president is a really important decision.
But genocidal Kamala is just as bad! I was informed about it multiple times by accounts on .ml (and not all of them are operating exclusively during Moscow working hours)
Biden/Harris would have done something similar to defend Israel from the consequences of its actions. Biden did bomb Yemen after all when it tried to stop the genocide. Biden is a self admitted Zionist and defended Israel’s invasion of Lebanon and supported the invasion of Iraq. Harris did nothing to distance herself from him.
Yeah, in most regards kamala would’ve been better, but this is Israel. She may have been less gung ho, which would be better for a handful of Iranians benefitting from slightly fewer bombs, but not better enough
Well, there is no real support for a war in the democratic party, democratic party is influencable to some extent, and leader of it has to listen to the party and to voters, at least somewhat. There is no dictator on day one bullshit.
Trump killed more civilians in Yemen this one excursion than the US did in the previous 23 years.
There is bad, and there is this bad. And not differentiating between the two is criminal.
By the time Biden has left office he was already responsible for over 30,000 deaths in Palestine. They are all bad.
By this point, there are only two ways to not understand what the degrees of bad are. Either you really, deeply, powerfully don’t give a flying fuck about people’s lives, and you see people as numbers you want to use to own the libs or whatever, or you are are so disconnected from reality, you really don’t understand what differentiate more suffering from less suffering.
I really don’t know what’s worse, but both of those possibilities are deeply disturbing. You might feel like you’re a good person, but you really aren’t.
Do you deny that it was a genocide when Biden was president or do you deny his complicity? That’s the only way your comment would make any sense.
I am trying to convey you one very simple series of principles.
Two things can simultaneously be bad.
One of two things can be worse than another.
It is your moral duty and obligation to ensure that in situation where one or another thing will be chosen, you chose one that is less bad.