He started this war for two reasons: Israel told him to, and if he failed to act, they were going to expose the extent of his crimes against children as recorded in the Epstein files.
World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
a resolution meant to prevent Mr. Trump from starting a war without congressional approval
Uhhh. I have news for ya, cuckgress
If they couldn't stop any prior president from starting a war, then why would Trump be any different.
This will never be declared a 'war' legally by the US government, because those require congressional approval. It will instead be a 'military operation', just like the Iraq War, Desert Storm 2, Afghanistan, Libya and pretty much all major military engagements since WW2.
Wild how the small innovation of just changing terminology completely allowed presidents to get around the law.
Under Obama, civilians became: "Enemy or Unarmed Combatants". Under Bush, torture became "enhanced interrogation" and kidnapping became "extraordinary rendition". Under Clinton war became "peacekeeping operation". They all loved using the term "air strike" instead of "bombing" or "settlers" instead of "murderers and rapists".
I hate that it works, but it works.
We really ought to be calling those 'illegal military operations'
The man is proving to be untouchable. If you have enough money, power and legal advice you can get away with just about anything.
He's grabbed the country by the pussy, and we let him do it, just like he said.
I think that's incorrect.
Donald became inevitable when the Democratic Party opted to rule in a manner that didn't distinguish them from the Republicans in any meaningful way. "We" didn't let him do anything. "We" exist in a country where absent a billion dollar fortune or membership in the Epstein Class, you have no power whatsoever to effect change outside of your local municipality.
My point being that he isn't CURRENTLY supposed to be able to declare war. The Marines are the only branch of the military he should be able to send without a congressional declaration.
But, since even TWO impeachments wouldn't stick, who will have the balls to stop him? I see your point.
Yeah he’s not supposed to do a lot of stuff. He farting all over the founding father’s faces.
That's very generous of you to limit it to "farts"
They just forgot to add "spray" before "farts".
Democrats could file a TRO in federal court immediately asking to pause operations & that his actions violate Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution. But they almost certainly won't, and they want you believing exactly what you do now, which is "our hands are tied, nothing we can do, send money & then we can do something, etc." The reality is a vast majority of them are funded by AIPAC & support this, and they'll almost certainly have a majority of ignorant or naive people repeating their lies.
Here are some things they could try as well:
Sponsoring a Soldier's Habeas Corpus Petition
Instead of lawmakers suing on their own behalf, a coalition of anti-war lawmakers could legally and financially back a Habeas Corpus petition for a U.S. service member currently deployed or ordered to participate in the Iran strikes.
- The Strategy: The lawsuit would argue that because the war is unconstitutional and lacks congressional authorization, the soldier's deployment is an illegal deprivation of their liberty (violating their Fifth Amendment Due Process rights).
- Why it could work: A soldier ordered into a combat zone undeniably has "standing"—their life and liberty are directly at risk. If a group of lawmakers files amicus briefs and publicly coordinates this lawsuit, it forces a federal judge to answer whether the military's orders are lawful. It takes the politicians out of the plaintiff's seat and puts the actual victim of the constitutional violation in front of the judge.
The "Mike Gravel Maneuver" (The Speech or Debate Clause)
If the minority party knows the administration is lying about Iran posing an "imminent threat," but the proof is highly classified, they do not need a judge or a majority to release it. They just need one brave lawmaker.
- The Law: Under the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution (Article I, Section 6), members of Congress have absolute immunity from prosecution for anything they say or read during official legislative business.
- The Action: A single lawmaker (like a dissenting member of the Intelligence or Foreign Affairs Committees) could walk onto the floor of the House or Senate, or convene a specialized subcommittee, and read the classified intelligence proving the administration is lying straight into the public Congressional Record.
- The Precedent: This is exactly what Senator Mike Gravel did in 1971 when he read the top-secret Pentagon Papers into the record to expose the government's lies about the Vietnam War. The Supreme Court ruled he could not be prosecuted.
- The Complicity Test: If Democrats claim they have seen intelligence proving the strikes are unjustified but refuse to read it into the record because they are afraid of losing their security clearances or violating committee rules, they are prioritizing decorum over stopping a war.
The "Senate Hold"
The U.S. Senate runs almost entirely on something called "Unanimous Consent" to function smoothly and confirm nominees.
- The Law: A single Senator has the power to object to unanimous consent, placing a "hold" on Senate business.
- The Action: Just one or two anti-war Senators could publicly declare that they will place a blanket hold on every single military promotion, defense contractor confirmation, and Pentagon budgetary consent request until the administration publicly releases the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memos justifying the strikes on Iran and the civilian boats.
- Why it Works: It does not require a majority. It single-handedly grinds the Pentagon's administrative machinery to a halt. If the minority party refuses to use this leverage to demand transparency for an unconstitutional war, "our hands are tied" is just an excuse.
Sponsoring a Qui Tam (Whistleblower) Lawsuit
Since minority politicians cannot sue the President directly due to "lack of standing," they can bypass the political blockade by using corporate fraud laws against the defense industry.
- The Law: The False Claims Act allows private citizens with insider knowledge to file a lawsuit on behalf of the government (known as a qui tam suit) against companies defrauding the taxpayers.
- The Action: Minority lawmakers could actively solicit and legally shield a whistleblower from inside a defense contractor (like the companies manufacturing the missiles hitting Iran). The lawsuit would argue that because the military operation violates the War Powers Resolution and the Anti-Deficiency Act, the defense contractor is fulfilling an illegal contract and fraudulently billing the U.S. taxpayer.
- Why it Works: A federal judge cannot throw this out using the "Political Question" doctrine because it is technically a corporate fraud case. It forces the court to examine whether the underlying contract (the war) is legally authorized.
Forcing Privileged Floor Votes (The Complicity Test)
If minority lawmakers say they are powerless because they don't control the House, they are lying by omission. Certain laws allow any single member of Congress to force a mandatory floor vote that the majority party cannot block.
- The Arms Export Control Act (AECA): Any senator can introduce a Joint Resolution of Disapproval to block the sale or transfer of specific weapons (like the missiles being used in Iran or Israel). Bernie Sanders used this recently regarding Gaza.
- The War Powers "Concurrent Resolution": Any member can introduce a resolution under Section 5(c) directing the President to remove troops engaged in unauthorized hostilities.
- The Litmus Test: If a Democrat goes on television and says, "We must stop this," but refuses to introduce or vote for an AECA or War Powers resolution, they are complicit. Forcing the vote is the only way to put every single member of Congress on the public record.
What is this LLM slop?
Half the stuff Trump wouldn't care about, the other half would not really affect any current military operation. Plus most of it he'd just ignore like he did most other things, e.g. tarifs are illegal, welp, let me just use some other law to justify tarifs
You've just demonstrated my favorite excuse from Dems.
"It's okay that they don't do anything because opposition is hard, and it might not work anyway, so why do anything?"
I didn't say their hands were tied, but he shouldn't be committing acts of war unilaterally. That was my point
Agreed... I just don't want people acting like there is nothing that Democrats can do right now, including cutting off funding, drafting resolutions, etc. Maybe they will do something for once, but I don't have my hopes up. Seeing how they literally enabled the genocide in Palestine, it seems like most of them are bought & paid for.
They're not going to do anything, not because they're powerless, but because they're bought off by AIPAC and support the war too, and not only that, they have a maniacal leader in charge willing to take all of the heat off of them by acting without Congress and giving them plausible deniability. It's a dream scenario if you're an AIPAC-bribed legislator.
Mr. President
When’s NYT compost event?
The President is merely acting according to his nature - the ultimate explanation of why he is doing this is that the American public chose to trust the sort of man that he is. Challenging the fox's motives after he has been voted back into the henhouse is a waste of words.
I keep thinking back to all the conversations with alleged leftists here on how they were both the same and Biden was too soft on Israel, which disqualified Harris and at least Trump was running on ending foreign wars.
Still haven't seen any "oh, wow, yeah, that's way worse than I thought it'd be, I was kinda wrong on that one", either.
I know I should not be pushing the issue in hopes that they quietly show up for the midterms, but at this point US politics is not worth engaging with and you can only take so many middle class cosplayers smugly calling you a naive centrist for even entertaining a gradient of madness between US political factions before you start getting flashbacks the circling of the drain speeds up.