• AA5B@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 hours ago

    And that’s kind of a problem. As far as I see, this use of the war powers act is entirely consistent with previous uses. Trumps not wrong for once.

    Maybe the part about not bothering to inform Congress because “they’ll see it in the news”.

    Our outrage seems to be mainly that he chose poorly, or maybe even that we haven’t been conditioned to agree with it. Iran has been pursuing nuclear weapons for years(decades?) and I certainly agree the world becomes a more dangerous, unstable place as more countries obtain nuclear weapons. Sanctions haven’t been working, but you combine this with Israel’s assassinations and it should be effective at stopping their program.

    Of course I don’t know that anyone tried negotiating from a point of respect for their sovereignty nor was this in response to hostilities against our Interests or any urgent threat (that we’re aware of). You can’t just bomb people you disagree with, but this really seems consistent with previous administrations and the only difference is the propaganda war to manipulate support

    • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      Trumps not wrong for once.

      He’s definitely wrong morally, constitutionally, and strategically just not legally, per how the courts have (mis)interpreted the constitution.

      Sanctions haven’t been working

      Well, in order to work, they’d have to have a coherent objective.

      They did work at bringing Iran to the negotiating table, which led to Obama’s Iran deal. The only problem being that Obama made it, so Trump had to hate it. The only thing the US actually wants from Iran is for it to be an enemy the president can bomb to look tough.

      it should be effective at stopping their program.

      The program that we have no evidence actually existed, that is. Certainly, if they weren’t actively persuing one before, they’d be mad not to now. How else could they stop the frequent, random unprovoked aggression from the US?

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 hours ago

        I mean yeah, I didn’t claim this action was morally or even strategically acceptable, just that it seems consistent with the way past administrations have used the same power.