this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2024
8 points (70.0% liked)

United States | News & Politics

8177 readers
710 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 8 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (12 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)