ADVERTISEMENT

Community notes:

Mar 11, 2020
34,710
31,134
113
Screenshot-20240725-092958-X.jpg
 
By this logic we weren’t at war in Korea.
Or Vietnam.
Or Iraq.
Or Afghanistan.

Must have all been a dream.

You’re better than this. All 3 of those had a Congressional resolution or AUMF

And the strikes against Houthi’s don’t have American combat troops on the ground in country - unlike all 3 you listed.
 
You’re better than this. All 3 of those had a Congressional resolution or AUMF

And the strikes against Houthi’s don’t have American combat troops on the ground in country - unlike all 3 you listed.

So you acknowledge there is no Congressional authorization for this war.

The distinction you’re trying to make (troops on the ground) is immaterial to the War Powers Resolution.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/warpower.asp

It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.



Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.




Biden is waging an illegal war.
 
You’re better than this. All 3 of those had a Congressional resolution or AUMF

And the strikes against Houthi’s don’t have American combat troops on the ground in country - unlike all 3 you listed.
We have troops in Iraq and Syria and they engage in combat operations.

In some countries like Iraq and Syria, U.S. troops are there to fight against Islamic State militants and are also helping advise local forces. But they have come under attack from Iran-backed forces over the past several years and have taken action against them.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RileyHawk
I would never come on The Bacon and try to dunk on someone with some statement that’s easily fact-checked. I don’t get why politicians can’t be happy with the actual successes and not overstate or mislead?
 
We have troops in Iraq and Syria and they engage in combat operations.

In some countries like Iraq and Syria, U.S. troops are there to fight against Islamic State militants and are also helping advise local forces. But they have come under attack from Iran-backed forces over the past several years and have taken action against them.

Would you call that a “war?”
 
So you acknowledge there is no Congressional authorization for this war.

The distinction you’re trying to make (troops on the ground) is immaterial to the War Powers Resolution.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/warpower.asp

It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.



Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.




Biden is waging an illegal war.
Clearing shipping lanes with robots. Not a war.
 
Clearing shipping lanes with robots. Not a war.

That’s a terrible lie.
We aren’t fighting this with robots.
Where did you even get that idea?

In June, the number of Houthi attacks on merchant vessels increased to levels not seen since December, according to the Joint Maritime Information Center, a coalition which is overseen by the U.S. Navy. U.S.-led airstrikes have targeted the Houthis since January, with a series of strikes on May 30 killing at least 16 people and wounding 42 others, the rebels say.
 
  • Like
Reactions: goldmom
No.

Was Kosovo a "war"? Was Libya?

What's the definition of a "war" in this conversation?

Seems to be nebulous.

Debating the meaning of the word ‘war’ is just distraction.

the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances

There is no disputing that US Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities and currently in situations where “imminent involvement in hostilities” is obvious.

Gaslighting that dropping bombs and firing missiles at people in another country isn’t ‘war’ is ridiculous, but for some reason some folks want to do it.
 
That’s a terrible lie.
We aren’t fighting this with robots.
Where did you even get that idea?

In June, the number of Houthi attacks on merchant vessels increased to levels not seen since December, according to the Joint Maritime Information Center, a coalition which is overseen by the U.S. Navy. U.S.-led airstrikes have targeted the Houthis since January, with a series of strikes on May 30 killing at least 16 people and wounding 42 others, the rebels say.
We aren't fighting this with troops. We are bombing terrorists -largely with drones. For that I am grateful.
 
Debating the meaning of the word ‘war’ is just distraction.

the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances

There is no disputing that US Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities and currently in situations where “imminent involvement in hostilities” is obvious.

Gaslighting that dropping bombs and firing missiles at people in another country isn’t ‘war’ is ridiculous, but for some reason some folks want to do it.
Is "Houthi" a country?

<Community Note>
Their official slogan is:

God is Most Great
Death to America
Death to Israel
Curse the Jews
Victory to Islam

LMAO.
 
Is "Houthi" a country?
Immaterial. They’re certainly not in this country.

Can you argue that US forces in the Red Sea have not engaged in hostilities since January?

Of course not.

Biden is flouting the law by continuing this war* without Congressional authorization.

*By war I mean using our military to drop bombs and launch missiles to kill people in other countries.
 
Who were we at war with during the first 9 months of 2001?
We never stopped bombing Iraq after 1991.

On February 16, 2001, U.S. President George W. Bush ordered air strikes on five military targets near the Iraqi capital of Baghdad.[2] The strikes came in response to imminent Iraqi threats to aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones.[3] Many countries, including U.S. allies, have condemned the airstrikes, which they have called illegal.
 
Remember when Trump lied that he’d get us out of Afghanistan and ramped up both American troop and civilian casualties? Convenient amnesia?
He made the deal that got us out of there.

Hillary never wanted to leave.

Which do you prefer?
 
April 14, 2011

By Matt Spetalnick
BERLIN (Reuters) - Secretary of State Hillary Clinton cautioned NATO allies on Thursday against a rush to the exit in the war in Afghanistan as they begin transferring security responsibility to Afghan forces.
Clinton urged NATO members to avoid "political expediency" as the security transition gets underway and also renewed a U.S. call for coalition members to finance a $1 billion "trust fund" to support the Afghan military in coming years.

"We need to worry less about how fast we can leave and more about how we can help the Afghan people build on the gains of the past 15 months," she said in prepared remarks to a conference of NATO foreign ministers in Berlin.
 

He made the deal that got us out of there.

Hillary never wanted to leave.

Which do you prefer?
How it started:


How it went:

 
  • Like
Reactions: Ree4
How it started:


How it went:


Do you wish we still had troops in Afghanistan like Hillary wanted?
 
We never stopped bombing Iraq after 1991.

On February 16, 2001, U.S. President George W. Bush ordered air strikes on five military targets near the Iraqi capital of Baghdad.[2] The strikes came in response to imminent Iraqi threats to aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones.[3] Many countries, including U.S. allies, have condemned the airstrikes, which they have called illegal.
So…a bit like what we’re doing in Yemen right now?
 
  • Like
Reactions: seminole97
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT