• Telodzrum@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago
    1. Not a war.
    2. They have a responsibility to carry out such actions in the presence of Congressional inaction and cowardice.
    3. As long as the AUMF exists and is in effect, it is both legally and effectively the role of the President to act under its grant of authority in accordance with its purpose.
    • novibe@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      10 months ago

      “The law says we have to kill whoever we want! You wouldn’t us to break the law would you??”

      • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        Cool comment my dude. But, I bet you could be even more reductive and purposefully obtuse if you tried. Give it a go; I’m eager to see you progress.

        • Promethiel@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Shame on me for not adding to the discussion but the caffeine still ain’t hit. I just want to say for some reason that seeing a willingly obtuse clown be challenged to be even more so genuinely made me giggle for some reason. Thank you.

        • novibe@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          I’m sorry but saying the president can, so they have to, is the most reductive thing I’ve ever seen. It’s the epitome of absolute ideology. Thinking a piece of paper absolves the genocidal actions of anyone……

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            10 months ago

            Targeted killings of senior leaders in the Islamic extremist movement is hardly genocide. We have an actual fucking genocide in progress to reference and you want to sell us on the idea of drone strikes as genocide?

            • novibe@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              10 months ago

              The attack was to support Israel in their genocide. It wasn’t an act of genocide, but you can’t deny it was an act in the aid of genocide.

              • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                10 months ago

                No. How the fuck does a ship taking oil from an Egyptian port to Vietnam, just with an American financial stake have fuck all to do with genocide?

                Just because someone claims they’re fighting something does not mean they actually are. Nothing about what the Houthis are doing is actually about Israel except their words.

        • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          As long as the AUMF exists and is in effect, it is both legally and effectively the role of the President to act under its grant of authority in accordance with its purpose.

          Nah, this bullet is an off the wall insane interpretation of the AUMF. They were 100% right to mock you for it. Not to mention that the AUMF is actually about September 11, and specifically textually so, not just in motivation. Did the Houthis plan, execute, or shelter those responsible? It’s been a huge stretch to even use it how it’s been used. It’s not in any way, shape, or form a requirement to go fight other random Islamic groups, whether or not they deserve it.