Tad Stoermer points out something I have been talking about for a while.
In the spirit of Mather Byles: I would rather have an official greeter than a tyrant. The loyalists were the real resistance of the Independence period. British North America exists--it's called CANADA.
I am thoroughly disgusted that the bullshit in Iran wasn't stopped before it happened. After all, a deployment that size is hard to hide.
It also doesn't take too much brainpower to see that this was not well thought out to begin with.
But, this confirms it.
People in the US really don't like the costs associated with wars, yet they keep getting into them. Perhaps it's due to the fact that the war for independence was basically paying for a previous war started by George Washington: La Conquête (or the French and Indian War).
I think I have mentioned that the War for Independence probably could have been nipped in the bud if the British had said: "No, we won't send troops and supplies until you cough up some money."
But, like Trump's Operation Epic Failure, the wars were started and then the bill shows up.
To be paid for by the average person. Here's Maryam again to explain how the fuel cost will hit the US.
Another nice thing would be if the US became the multiparty democracy with free and fair elections on a secret ballot that it spent the last Century saying it was and pushing it to the rest of the world.
Call it what it is. And don't forget to put Trump's name on the front of it since he like having things named after himself.
And it sort of puts the blame where it belongs.
"Sort of" since only Congress has the power to declare war, which should be clarified to mean any deployment of troops outside of US territory. Especially since this time has been a complete GMFU.
Let's start with something missing from last night's speech: regime change.
Maryam is Iranian and a good source of info and commentary on this fiasco. She confirms that Trump's decapitation has only led to more radical leadership.
Let's face it, this adventure was ill-advised and should have been stopped long before it happened. It is not in anyway a victory since it has totally messed up the world order for the worse.
Now, for that Downfall clip to translate last night's speech by the president.
This is a disaster.
From Rep. Jason Crow. Bio:
And from Col. Douglas Macgregor:
Can't forget Joe Kent:The more I listen to people, the more I think that Trump just charged ahead on this without thinking.
I have to keep saying it:
You need to watch your back if you want to stand with Israel
Which is beginning to be more and more obvious after Trump dragged the US into an ill-prepared war.
But there's a reason for this: Trump sold out to Israel.
The Iranians were willing to make concession when Israel and the United States attacked it without provocation.
So much for "no more forever wars", "making America great again", or even "America First".
Trump sold out the US to Israel.
The upside of this will be that Israel will cease to be.
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
I added clause 12 because, as I keep pointing out, the issue of standing armies was important to the Constitutional framework. The founders made it clear that standing armies were the tools, and a sign, of tyranny.
I'm going to cite once again this precursor to the Second Amendment from the Virginia Bill of Rights of 1776 provides a good idea of what the founders' mindset happened to be:
13. That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
This isn't to point out the Militia/Standing Army conflict, which was something the constitution bears out, but to point out that the use of military force requires the consent of congress: not unilateral action by a maniac (tyrant).
The law of the Declare War Clause is unsettled in part because there have been very few judicial decisions interpreting it. In the Prize Cases in 1863, the Supreme Court upheld as a defensive measure President Lincoln’s blockade of the southern states following their attack on Fort Sumter, but was ambiguous as to whether the authority for the blockade came from Article II, from specific statutes Congress had passed in 1795 and 1807, or some combination of both. And in dicta, the Court noted that the President could not begin hostilities without Congress’s approval. Earlier cases, such as Bas v. Tingy (1800), referred generally to Congress’s broad powers over warmaking without giving specific guidance on the President’s power. But in modern times, courts have generally avoided deciding war-initiation cases on the merits, based on rules that limit what types of disputes courts can resolve, such as standing or the political question doctrine. As a result, the precise contours and implications of the Declare War Clause remain unresolved today—leaving resolution of disputes over particular uses of force by the President to the political process.
The president is allowed to use military force for imminent threats, but I would say that those threats need to be immediate, actual, and directly upon the territory of the United States. Anything other than that would require Congressional approval.
I also disagree with the concept that any use of troops beyond the territory of the United States is not in violation of this since a "peacekeeping" force can find itself embroiled in a conflict. The founders were clear that one of the reasons they preferred militias to standing armies was that they were local defence forces. That is, they would not be used on "foreign adventures": especially those like the one pursued by Trump.
Trump gives fabulous examples of why this clause needs to be strictly interpreted with consideration to international law with his latest adventure being both unconstitutional and in violation of international war.
The United States and Israel were in negotiations with Iran, with Iran basically conceding to the demands when both Israel and the United States attacked Iran: which is a violation of international law. Toss in that it discredits both Israel and the United States, which is why they started this last conflict, but won't be the ones to end it.
It is long past time that the US military serves as a defence force, not one that keeps the country in forever wars.
If there ever was an argument for making criteria for the use of military force and ensuring that only congress can declare war:
There is no plan for how this mess will be carried out.
OK, this is something which is definitely verifiable.
Trump's fiasco is harming the United States: and that's not Trump Derangement Syndrome.
We know he's in a panic because his war has spun out of his control.
Definitely, there is a bias in the western media to promote the war by failing to talk about it openly.
There is a question about US naval resources in the region. Iran claims that both the USS Abraham Lincoln and USS Gerald Ford are out of commission. There are rumours another carrier is being sent to the region.
And there is the rumoured 5,000 marines being deployed.
There was enough time to have stopped this since it's hard to hide sending a carrier group to a region, which would have been enough time for a war powers resolution to have been raised. But, no, that didn't happen.
This is a disaster for the United States.
It should never have elected a business person who has gone bankrupt 6 times if it wants the fantasy of running the nation like a business. His track record should have shown he would be a disaster for the country.
The US Constitution give only Congress the power to declare war. This should only be the prerogative of the legislature, and not in the hands of the executive.
Iran is a signatory of a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that aims to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is responsible for monitoring compliance. Iran has faced scrutiny for its nuclear activities, with recent agreements for inspections being complicated by its restrictions on IAEA access to its facilities.
On the other hand, Israel is not a party to the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty. It is not subject of IAEA scrutiny. It is also supposed to actually have nuclear weapons.
What's wrong with this picture?
The Glenn Amendment refers to an amendment to the Arms Export Control Act (Section 102). Under the Glenn Amendment, if the President determines that a non-nuclear weapon state [as defined by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)] detonates a nuclear explosive device, certain sanctions apply. The sanctions impose broad-ranging restrictions on various types of assistance, loans, and trade. The DOD Appropriations Act of 2000, signed into law on October 25, 1999, provides authority for the President to waive Glenn Amendment sanctions.
This policy needs to end.
Israel needs to be held to the same standard as Iran.
There are rumours that JFK was killed because he wanted to stop Israel from getting nuclear weapons.
Now it has the the Samson Option, Israel's alleged nuclear doctrine of last resort, which is where they will use nuclear weapons as a pre-emptive strike.
The US needs to stop supporting the state of Israel.
And this war could have been avoided.
