No President has the right to use unilateral executive authority to permit a U.S. missile strike against another nation. It invites a retaliatory attack. It is an impeachable offense.

8 points
*

No President has the right to use unilateral executive authority to permit a U.S. missile strike against another nation. It invites a retaliatory attack. It is an impeachable offense.

And this is not happening – the US President is telling Ukrainian forces that they no longer have limitations on targets they can use American supplied weapons on. There is no US missile strike. The US no longer owns those missiles. Ukraine plays within the rules because if it doesn’t there’s a chance it might not get more weapons later.

Also how was this line of argumentation applied in the last like 25 years for like:

  • Yemen
  • Iraq
  • Afghanistan
  • Syria
  • etc.

Sure it happened, but nothing came of it, because it’s just not a real argument anyway. It holds no power. It’s liberal cope.

permalink
report
reply
0 points

If I hand someone a gun, tell them who they can and cannot shoot with it, and train them on how to use it, I’m going to jail when they shoot someone.

This game of Civilization you’re playing in your head is horseshit.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Yeah and a national budget is like a family budget so that’s why you must do austerity.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Don’t summon strawmen. You’re arguing international law like we’re in some kind of 4X. My analogy was an attempt to reel you back into an argumentative ethical reality.

Here’s some whataboutism for you: the United States doesn’t care about international law and is currently sponsoring a genocide. Why would any state be concerned about casus beli (FYI you keep misspelling it) when the big dog in the room doesn’t give a shit?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

The US no longer owns those missiles.

It does insomuch as they are operated by US personnel. From what I’ve heard, Ukrainians haven’t even been given training on operating them, and they rely on US-operated targeting infrastructure to even function.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

It does insomuch as they are operated by US personnel.

They aren’t.

If the US pulled all support tomorrow, would Ukraine still be able to use HIMARS and ATACMS? Yes. Would they be as effective using them? No. And it’s not because of a lack of training or US personel pushing the buttons. It’s about the fact that US main support is providing intelligence and target selection capabilities that Ukraine cannot practically do itself.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

It does insomuch as they are operated by US personnel.

They aren’t.

If you say so, boss. We’ve had troops on the ground since even before the war started.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

why am i more disquieted by the fact that trump has a good quality in ending the war than the prospect of it escalating into nuclear war?

permalink
report
reply
0 points
*

Because liberal brainwashing is hard to shake and they’ve painted Trump as the next Hitler when he’s just the monopoly man if he was hit on the head as a child, i.e. just a politician that’s maybe a little dumber than normal.

Trump will do whatever old money wants him to do, Elon and Trump will learn who actually runs the country, and who actually has wealth if they stray from what old money wants.

As far as anyone can tell old money wants the world to burn in a way they believe is reversible, which isn’t nuclear war.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

It’s hard to imagine that someone has deeper pockets than the richest man in the world

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

He’s just a noveau riche, he can have as much money he wants but he don’t have the entrenched position and that entire root system of connections they have which gives them real power.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

The Rothschilds collectively are the wealthiest in the world that we know about, excluding figurehead royalty due to disputes on what they actually own and how to separate them from the state.

One important thing to know is that wealth isn’t publicly listed anywhere. The vast majority of it is self reported. Sure if you own enough stock as a percentage of a company’s total you get publicly listed, and theoretically if you’re stupid your real assets are in your name, but that isnt how wealth is held. Wealth is held in private corporations, estates, and trusts, layers of them. It’s why the wealthy can avoid taxes in the first place, there is no accurate measure of it all.

Those Forbes lists, for example? Entirely self reported, famously so as that’s how Trump was ever listed as a billionaire despite (best reporting and federal investigations showing) him never having any combination of assets that could be totaled near a billion.

The real people with the real wealth, not tech bros with overvalued stock, don’t have assets directly attributable to them anymore, they learned their lesson back when American workers fought the US military for basic workers rights and Russian workers were beheading tsars.

permalink
report
parent
reply

United States | News & Politics

!usa@lemmy.ml

Create post

Community stats

  • 4.9K

    Monthly active users

  • 4.9K

    Posts

  • 32K

    Comments