This is why the United States used to not do shit like this

[maxrandb]

More dangerous than what this fuckstick has done to our alliances, the message sent by the dictatorial bombing of Iran is most destructive.

And, before the resident DUers respond, NO! I am not pro-Iran, or antisemitic, or a peacenik, or someone that thinks military action is NEVER warranted.

The problems with this unlateral, unauthorized by Congress, tiny-dick wagging shitshow are multiple, but IMHO. the message sent to the world is.most dangerous.

- Xi can claim Taiwan is a threat!
- Kim Jon Ung can claim South Korea is a threat!
- India can claim Pakistan is a threat.
- Turkey can claim Greece is a threat.
- and on and on and on...

Russia has already declared Ukraine a threat.

What will be next?

Look out Greenland and Canada.

I think the only way we will know when WWIII starts. will be when Donnie Dipshit arranges a podiatry appointment for Barron.

So..."Rah! Rah! Rah! - USA! USA! USA!"..Just remember, we've seen this movie before.

[Renew Deal]

1. This brings up another question.

Did the US give up NATO Article 5 protections with the attack?

[MadameButterfly]

38. Does NATO claim that if a member

attacks a sovereign nation that is not in NATO, the member loses article 5? How does that work?

[DavidDvorkin]

2. When was this mythical time when the United States didn't do shit like this?

[Fiendish Thingy]

3. Yeah, I'm 67 and I don't remember a time when the US didn't do shit like this. Nt

[maxrandb]

4. Never! We've never had a president unilaterally bomb a sovereign nation WITHOUT Congressional action of some sort

You can say that Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Iraq 1, Afghanistan, Iraq II, were "stupid, shortsighted, ill-conceived, poorly planned, unnecessary, or "wars of choice", but you can't say that any of the presidents at those times didn't get Congressional approval/oversight.

We've never had a president that just did shit, because he sees those planes, ships, missiles and people AS HIS FUCKING TOYS

This action is more akin to what Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito, Musolini Xi, Ung, Putin, Erdoran and any number of Third World Warlords and Despots would do.

Hell, even Bibi got the approval of the Israeli Knesset before starving Gaza to death.

[Igel]

7. Drone atttacks in Pakistan.

Joining with a European force to strike Libya.

We bombed in Yemen and in Somalia.

No, that wasn't Trump or Bush II or Bush I or Reagan. That was Obama. (and I leave out Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria as givens; did we ever have explicit Congressional authorization for our involvement in Syria? Oh--that was under the generic AUF for Bush II after 9-11).

Just pointing out that there was a lot of dissent over stretching and stretching again that AUF to include things never intended. Yet we still pretend that Congress explicitly authorized all those things.

As for oversight, that's post hoc. You don't oversee during the process--Congress doesn't have that power. Oversight is after action--maybe before other on-going actions, but you conduct oversight investigations about what has been not will be.

[Martin Eden]

11. The threshold for war by executive decision has steadily been lowered

Sadly, it has been bipartisan.

[MadameButterfly]

39. AUF?

[LiberalArkie]

41. Because in the end, even the Democratic presidents feel the need to appear to be Macho, Macho men.

(And to win favor with the military industrial complex)

[onenote]

15. Sorry, but presidents have hit military targets in the mideast without following the War Powers Resolution many times.

To give just one example: Clinton authorizing US participation in the NATO bombing of Kosovo without Congressional authorization. There are numerous others. Indeed, presidents have routinely disputed their obligations under the War Powers Resolution using various arguments. Obama insisted the US could continue participating in the bombing of Libya without congressional authorization and even after Congress defeated a resolution that would have given limited authorization. Of course, Reagan and both Bushes also took a similar position and conducted military actions without Congressional authorization.

I'm not suggesting in any way that its right or justifiable. Just that its happened before, will happen again, and these actions rarely turn out that well.

[flashman13]

20. We have also never had a president that has completely destroyed our system of alliances.

We have never had a president cozy up to multiple war criminals and war mongers.

[Jack Valentino]

25. No, but during the cold war we cozied up to multiple far-right authoritarian governments,

because they were "anti-communist"--- particularly in Central and South America, Chile being the worst.

[MadameButterfly]

40. We overthrew a democratically elected Chilean government

an helped establish a RW dictatorship

[snot]

5. Maybe target governments &/or their citizens wised up to the point that

it was getting harder to covertly overthrow or assassinate leaders who failed to comply with our Imperialistic requirements.

[republianmushroom]

22. Let's ask George Bush.

He will know for sure.

[Clouds Passing]

6. No more rich people's wars! May they all eat each other!

[ananda]

16. Yes. I suspect the MIC and the war profiteers...

are very happy about all this.

[hueymahl]

8. Interesting question

If we had won would a Kamala administration done the same thing? I am thinking yes.

[MuchBetterThanThis]

9. Definitely not when her Intelligence "chief" states there isn't any intelligence warranting a strike on Iran.

We need stop this Dems are like Republicans bullshit, and at least try to be real

[Javaman]

17. nice try, but no.

she actually did follow the rule of law.

[Ping Tung]

10. Inventing bogeymen to justify killing and war is as old as Cain and Abel.

Anyone remember the "domino theory" that LBJ and Nixon used to kill a million plus SE Asians? Or Saddam's stockpile of WMDs?

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.  H.L. Mencken

[wanderer54]

32. Truman began it Eisenhower popularized it and JFK believed

[stillcool]

12. I've forgotten so much

but do remember the links!

"I spent thirty-three years in the Marines, most of my time being a hlgh class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism.
I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1910-1912. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City [Bank] boys to collect revenue in. I helped in the rape of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street.
In China in 1927 l helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
I had a swell racket. l was rewarded with honors, medals, promotions. l might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate a racket in three city districts. The Marines operated on three continents."
General Smedley Butler, former US Marine Corps Commandant, 1935
https://barbariansinsuits.net/

https://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_Interventions_WBlumZ.html
A Brief History of U.S. Interventions:
1945 to the Present
by William Blum
Z magazine , June 1999
U.S. Military and CIA Interventions since World War II
Iran (1953); Guatemala(1954); Thailand (1957); Laos (1958-60); the Congo (1960); Turkey (1960, 1971 & 1980); Ecuador (1961 & 1963); South Vietnam (1963); Brazil (1964); the Dominican Republic (1963); Argentina (1963); Honduras (1963 & 2009); Iraq (1963 & 2003); Bolivia (1964, 1971 & 1980); Indonesia (1965); Ghana (1966); Greece (1967); Panama (1968 & 1989); Cambodia (1970); Chile (1973); Bangladesh (1975); Pakistan (1977); Grenada (1983); Mauritania (1984); Guinea (1984); Burkina Faso (1987); Paraguay (1989); Haiti (1991 & 2004); Russia (1993); Uganda (1996);and Libya (2011). This list does not include a roughly equal number of failed coups, nor coups in Africa and elsewhere in which a U.S. role is suspected but unproven.

p114
Following their bombing of Iraq in 1991, the United States wound up with military bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates.
Following their bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, the United States wound up with military bases in Kosovo, Albania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Hungary, Bosnia, and Croatia.
Following their bombing of Afghanistan, the United States appears on course to wind up with military bases in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and elsewhere in the area.

[LiberalArkie]

42. Ahh, that is why Smedley Butler was chosen to be our new dictator in the "Business Plot"

[Heidi]

13. I'm a US citizen living in Switzerland.

You might be surprised to know that 🇺🇸 no longer has the bullying influence it once had. While the current president may well want his Pearl Harbor or 9/11 moment in the spotlight, I seriously doubt that even the leaders of the nations you cited want their legacies to be besmirched by Trumpian “influence.”

[gfarber]

14. Grinning despots

A strongman threw bombs in Iran,
Unchecked by the laws or a plan.
Now tyrants all cheer,
Say, “My threat is right here!”
While world peace slips out of our hand.

A tantrum with missiles was flung,
By a dotard with half of a lung.
Now despots all grin,
“Let the strongman begin!”
While the world holds its breath, deeply stung.

A jackass with nukes made a stand,
Dropped fire on Iran, unplanned.
Now tyrants declare,
"Why not bomb anywhere?"
While Donnie just tweets with one hand.

[flashman13]

18. No we haven't seen this movie before. This shit show can and will become much worse.

You are absolutely 100% correct in your assessment. We have two countries lead by evil men that are in thrall to religious nuts rummaging around in Pandora's box. What could possibly go wrong besides everything?

[ancianita]

19. As you list all those countries

that you say can claim other is a threat, you can't separate those claims from the reality of their past conflicts: NONE of them have suffered ongoing attacks from their neighbors like Israel has since the day it became a country. Thus, they know the international community would not give ANY of them the same credibility that Israel has. IMO, this worry doesn't seem valid because of completely different historical contexts.

Keep this in mind about Israel and its people:



Sure, China, India, etc., could use this war to test America's strength right now. But they'd better not underestimate the US military and its intelligence, even if they have contempt for US leadership & diplomacy.

[AloeVera]

34. A chart that has in its title "The Land of Israel"... is a little suspect, at least to me.

Just as one example, the 2008 Gaza War was started by Israel, when it raided Gaza in what it admitted was a pre-emptive strike in which several Hamas militants were killed. The raid occurred on the day a 6-month ceasefire was to expire. The war resulted in between 1,200 and 1,400 Palestinian deaths and 13 Israeli deaths. The IDF destroyed nearly 50,000 homes in Gaza, leaving over 100,000 people homeless. It was like a dry run for the 2023 Gaza War. Interestingly, a UN team responsible for the protection of women and children found hundreds of violations of the rights of children and accused Israeli soldiers of using kids as human shields, bulldozing a home with a woman and child still inside, and shelling a building they had ordered civilians into a day earlier.

Human shields, hmmm.

Oddly enough, the 1967 war also started with a pre-emptive strike. Again, by Israel. Nearly the entire Egyptian Air Force was destroyed.

Israel's preference for pre-emptive strikes is evident, although with Iran now, it's more of a preventive strike - a brand-new category of war-making it seems to me, where the aim is to prevent another nation from doing something it might do in the future, the evidence for which of course is non-existent as it has not happened yet.

I could continue with the rest but I have to get some rest myself and this would be a very long post.

[ancianita]

45. Out of the 15 you've got two doubtful exceptions. Might as well add Trump's preemptive strike on Iran, if you

want to loosely define pre-emptive from Israel's founding. Your points, however, fail to disprove the 13 historical attacks -- largely funded and fueled by Muslim leaders -- upon Israel were genocidal in intent.

Being perfectly right by numbers doesn't compromise the moral clarity of a) Israel's right to exist, and b) the ME Shia history of refusing to 'live and let live.'

[lonely bird]

21. War is the history of the human race

Even more, violence is the history of the human race.

The U.S. is no different than anyone else.

[Initech]

23. I've never been more disgusted by my country than I have been the last 24 hours.

This sick fuck and his goons just made us all sitting ducks.

[Jack Valentino]

27. It's not "our country" but THIS administration----

even half of the magats are opposed to this action!

[Initech]

36. Even Marjorie Shit For Brains is opposed!

[Wednesdays]

24. "...we've seen this movie before..."

At least 3 times in the last 35 years.

[H2O Man]

29. Wait !!?!

Didn't Granada pose a threat to our country in 1983? I mean, they were building an airport runway that was almost as long as the one in the town I lived in back then, with a population of 3,000.


Recommended.

[yourout]

26. We ceded the moral high ground decades ago.

[H2O Man]

28. Recommended.

I saw a news report of Putin asking why two countries didn't have to follow the rules that others do?

[David__77]

30. It is a succinct expression of where political power comes from.

And it’s not ever otherwise, just sometimes concealed.

[tirebiter]

31. I had friends who quit the Air Force when Nixon started openly bombing Cambodia. They kept their benefits.

[Bayard]

33. Canada sees the U.S. as a threat now

But, I'm sure they have enough common sense and morality not to bomb us.

[Lancero]

35. Rose tinted glasses. Our nation has always done shit like this.

[TomWilm]

37. US Presidents attacking around the world ...

US Presidents attacking around the world after WW2, mostly without Congressional Approval

1953-1961
(R) Dwight D. Eisenhower
Cuba, Guatemala, Iran

1961-1963
(D) John F. Kennedy
Cuba, Vietnam

1963–1969
(D) Lyndon B. Johnson
Dominican Republic, Vietnam

1969–1974
(R) Richard Nixon
Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam

1974–1977
(R) Gerald Ford
Cambodia

1977–1981
(D) Jimmy Carter
Afghanistan, Indonesia, Morocco, South Korea, Zaire ...

1981–1989
(R) Ronald Reagan
Grenada, Iran, Lebanon, Libya

1989–1993
(R) George H. W. Bush
Iraq, Panama, Somalia

1993–2001
(D) Bill Clinton
Afghanistan, Bosnia, Iraq, Kosovo, Serbia, Somalia, Sudan

2001–2009
(R) George W. Bush
Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia

2009–2017
(R) Barack Obama
Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, Yemen

2017-2021
(R) Donald Trump
Iran, Syria, Yemen

2021-2025
(D) Joe Biden
Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Syria, Yemen

2025-∞
(R) Donald Trump
Iran, Yemen

... need a more obvious filtering method, how much of the covert overthrowing governments and helping dictators against their own people should be included ...

[MadameButterfly]

43. These are not all equal and this time it's worse

I recall a Gulf of Tonkin speech from Johnson re: Vietnam. Congress fell for the Tonkin lie and approved increased military involvement (we were already involved under Kennedy). Carter didn't bomb Afganistan, he boycotted the Olympics, stopped grain sales to Russia, and supplied aid to Afgan rebels. (Note, he was actually supporting the country that got invaded). Bush for sure got Congressional approval for Iraq (with lies).

I don't have time to research each of the examples you listed but I'm guessing they aren't all equal.

We NEED to not count them as equal. I'm not defending the military meddling of past presidents, but Trump has taken it to a new level. No NATO collaboration, no Congressional approval, denying the report of his own top Intelligence officer that there is no immediate threat....

He only takes advice--and I would guess flattery and coercion--from a dictatorial genocidal warmonger who is himself clinging to power to avoid prosecution, and who has been lying about Iran's nuclear weapons for decades. He has removed all experienced experts in foreign policy from the equation.

Trump is a malignant narcissist, and rulers with this personality disorder ALWAYS become military aggressors. It's part of the mental construct. This attack happened because of his mental illness, not for any claimed policy objectives. He is treating our military like toys. He has no ability to assess the ramifications and no one in place to do that for him. Anyone who objects is removed, so many just don't object.

Many in the past have gotten it wrong. But there have been people in place making decisions who are not psychologically/medically unqualified to be doing so.

[TomWilm]

44. And I agree with most of your comment ...

... though I do not really know if Trumps imbecility or Johnson's heartless rationality is the worst for such decisions...

Re Carter... I really like how he behaved in his long afterlife. But looking at what happened during his presidency, he had a lot to be forgiven for. Carter gave military aid to all of the really wrong leaders of his time, and supported their crushing of East Timor, Namibia, Western Sahara, Zaire and surprisingly many other places. And yes, he also started the arming of the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan, which became the foundation for Osama Bin Laden.