Congress Has the Power to Declare War, not Make War.

[BS Filter]

Remember Obama and Libya in 2011? Here's a reminder of Obama, Pelosi and Hillary. Now all of the ignorant democrats here can move on.

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

Remember Obama and Libya in 2011? Here's a reminder of Obama, Pelosi and Hillary. Now all of the ignorant democrats here can move on.

Remember Obama and Libya in 2011? Here's a reminder of Obama, Pelosi and Hillary. Now all of the ignorant democrats here can move on.

Libya and Iran war both were unconstitutional

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

Remember Obama and Libya in 2011? Here's a reminder of Obama, Pelosi and Hillary. Now all of the ignorant democrats here can move on.

 

[BS Filter]

Libya and Iran war both were unconstitutional
View attachment 1228849
View attachment 1228850

Well, there you go. Meanwhile.....

 

[BS Filter]

President Trump hasn't started a war.

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

Well, there you go. Meanwhile.....

Thanks for agreeing Trump and Obama started unconstitutional wars.

 

[BS Filter]

Thanks for agreeing Trump and Obama started unconstitutional wars.

I never said that.

 

[Mac1958]

 

[BS Filter]

This war in Iran sure is.

 

[MarcATL]

OP, describe or define the difference between "declaring war" and "making war."

Thanks.

 

[22lcidw]

OP, describe or define the difference between "declaring war" and "making war."

Thanks.

Old Jessie was corrupted and a charlatan. He could have done Budweiser commercials with him. Anheuser Busch was one of his shakedown targets and they gave him a regional distributorship decades ago. He could have done Busch light commercials with Dylan Mulvaney. King did the dying and Jackson did the enriching.

 

[j-mac]

Do you support Iran building a nuke?

 

[ColonelAngus]

Do you support Iran building a nuke?

That poster is just contrarian to anything Trump does.

Situational analysis is lost on them. Certainly no critical thinking.

These are the same assholes who loved a paddleboarder being arrested for not locking down during the scamdemic while loving the Floyd race riots.

This shit with Iran all started with Carter. What a POS POTUS.

 

[airplanemechanic]

OP, describe or define the difference between "declaring war" and "making war."

Thanks.

Declaration of war is nothing more than something on paper.

Making war is dropping bombs.

Our constitution specifically states only congress can declare war. They changed it from "make war" to "declare war" on purpose because we have ONE elected leader of our military, not 535.


"Making war" refers to the actual conduct of hostilities and military actions (initiated by the President), while "declaring war" is the formal, legal act required by the Constitution for Congress to authorize the state of war. Congress declares to initiate conflict, while the President conducts it to repel attacks.

Key Differences and Details

• Making War (Conducting Hostilities): This is the active use of military force. Under Article II, the President as Commander-in-Chief can respond to sudden attacks or emergencies without immediate congressional approval. It is the de facto state of fighting.
• Declaring War (Legal Authorization): This is the formal, legal action required by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, granted to Congress. A declaration acts as a "reasoned, conditional demand" that legally initiates a state of war.
• Constitutional Authority: The Framers intentionally changed the phrase from "make" to "declare" to ensure Congress holds the power to initiate war, while leaving the President the authority to defend against sudden attacks.

 

[Hafar1014]

Iran started a war against the United States in 1979. It has never stopped.

That is not rhetorical flourish. It is historical fact.

On November 4, 1979, Iranian militants seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days. That was not a protest. It was a declaration. The newly established Islamic Republic defined itself in opposition to the United States and built its foreign policy around confrontation with America and its allies.

Since then, the pattern has been consistent.

In 1983, 241 American Marines were murdered in the Beirut barracks bombing, an attack carried out by Hezbollah with Iranian backing. It remains one of the deadliest single days for the Marine Corps since World War II.

During the Iraq War, Iranian-backed militias killed 603 U.S. service members, according to Pentagon assessments. Iranian-supplied explosively formed penetrators tore through American armored vehicles. I know this personally. My soldiers and I faced those weapons. These were not isolated incidents. They were part of a deliberate strategy by Tehran to attack American forces.

The campaign never ended. It evolved.

In January 2020, Iran fired ballistic missiles at U.S. bases in Iraq. More than 100 American service members were later diagnosed with traumatic brain injuries. Between October 2023 and early 2024, Iranian-backed militias conducted more than 170 attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria. Assassination plots targeting senior American officials have been disrupted on U.S. soil. The regime’s reach is not theoretical.

For 47 years, the Islamic Republic has targeted Americans directly or through proxies.

At the same time, Iran has steadily advanced its nuclear program and expanded its ballistic missile arsenal. It has enriched uranium to levels far beyond civilian energy requirements. It has developed longer-range missile systems with the clear ambition of extending its deterrent and coercive reach. These capabilities are not defensive in nature. They are designed to threaten regional stability, intimidate neighbors, and eventually hold broader targets at risk.

Diplomacy has been attempted repeatedly over decades. Negotiations, sanctions relief, inspections, back-channel talks. The theory was that integration or incentive would moderate behavior. The historical record shows otherwise. While talks proceeded, Iran continued to fund Hezbollah, Hamas, Shia militias in Iraq, and the Houthis. It continued to refine missiles. It continued enrichment. It continued attacks on Americans.

At some point, a pattern must be acknowledged for what it is.

Under Article II of the Constitution, the President of the United States is the Commander-in-Chief. That authority is not symbolic. It carries the duty to protect American lives, American forces, American assets, and American interests. When a hostile regime wages a decades-long campaign of proxy warfare, missile attacks, nuclear advancement, and assassination plots, the constitutional responsibility of the executive is clear.

This is not about regime change rhetoric. It is not about ideological transformation. It is about threat reduction and deterrence restoration.

Iran’s war on the United States did not begin this year. It began in 1979. The question today is not whether that conflict exists. It is whether the United States end it.

History suggests that when America fails to respond decisively to sustained aggression, the aggression grows.

For 47 years, Americans have been targeted.

Enough.



.John Spencer is the Executive Director of the Urban Warfare Institute

 

[BlindBoo]

Remember Obama and Libya in 2011? Here's a reminder of Obama, Pelosi and Hillary. Now all of the ignorant democrats here can move on.

"But the 2011 NATO intervention in Libya is a reminder that even Washington’s long-time allies like France and Britain can create the same danger. In their memoirs, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates reveal (at times perhaps unintentionally) how those nations prodded the reluctant Obama administration into taking such a fateful step in Libya. Clinton herself was favorable to “humanitarian” military missions, while Gates was openly hostile, yet their accounts track closely, confirming how much of an impact allied lobbying had on American decision-making.

As rebellions against authoritarian regimes erupted throughout the Greater Middle East in late 2010 and early 2011 (the so-called Arab Spring), the United States and its European allies pondered how to respond. Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi was the target of one uprising."

https://www.cato.org/commentary/how-nato-pushed-us-libya-fiasco

Net-N-Yahoo is now leading President Benedict Donald around on a leash. No NATO. No UN.

 

[BS Filter]

"But the 2011 NATO intervention in Libya is a reminder that even Washington’s long-time allies like France and Britain can create the same danger. In their memoirs, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates reveal (at times perhaps unintentionally) how those nations prodded the reluctant Obama administration into taking such a fateful step in Libya. Clinton herself was favorable to “humanitarian” military missions, while Gates was openly hostile, yet their accounts track closely, confirming how much of an impact allied lobbying had on American decision-making.

As rebellions against authoritarian regimes erupted throughout the Greater Middle East in late 2010 and early 2011 (the so-called Arab Spring), the United States and its European allies pondered how to respond. Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi was the target of one uprising."

https://www.cato.org/commentary/how-nato-pushed-us-libya-fiasco

Net-N-Yahoo is now leading President Benedict Donald around on a leash. No NATO. No UN.

Whatever. The point is Obama launched a 6-month war in Libya without the approval of Congress.

 

[Hafar1014]

"But the 2011 NATO intervention in Libya is a reminder that even Washington’s long-time allies like France and Britain can create the same danger. In their memoirs, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates reveal (at times perhaps unintentionally) how those nations prodded the reluctant Obama administration into taking such a fateful step in Libya. Clinton herself was favorable to “humanitarian” military missions, while Gates was openly hostile, yet their accounts track closely, confirming how much of an impact allied lobbying had on American decision-making.

As rebellions against authoritarian regimes erupted throughout the Greater Middle East in late 2010 and early 2011 (the so-called Arab Spring), the United States and its European allies pondered how to respond. Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi was the target of one uprising."

https://www.cato.org/commentary/how-nato-pushed-us-libya-fiasco

Net-N-Yahoo is now leading President Benedict Donald around on a leash. No NATO. No UN.

The left is leading you around like rodent on a leash

 

[BlindBoo]

Iran started a war against the United States in 1979. It has never stopped.

That is not rhetorical flourish. It is historical fact.

Our history of interventionism began in 1953, when we overthrew the elected government and installed the Shah. Not 1979.

"When the shah left Iran on 16 January 1979, it was expected that he would quickly seek asylum in America, the nation that had been his strongest supporter and stalwart friend. Even Khomeini had “expressed no objections” to the shah’s exile in the United States at this time. To this end Sunnylands, the sprawling Palms Springs estate of Walter Annenberg, was offered and readied as a place of haven for his royal friend. But the shah “proved to be as indecisive in exile as he had been in power, and this presented a disagreeable problem for the United States government.” Without consulting with the Americans, the shah first made a quick one-week stopover in Cairo at the invitation of Egyptian president Anwar Sadat, and then flew on to the household of another monarch, King Hassan II of Morocco, for an indefinite stay. To Brzezinski, this “pause” in his peregrinations “proved to be disastrous,” and “generated an issue where none should have existed.” As February rolled along the shah’s invitation remained valid, but the shah preferred to remain as Hassan’s guest."

Jimmy Carter and the 1979 Decision to Admit the Shah into the United States | American Diplomacy Est 1996

americandiplomacy.web.unc.edu

"Ancient History": U.S. Conduct in the Middle East Since World War II and the Folly of Intervention

www.cato.org

 

[BlindBoo]

Whatever. The point is Obama launched a 6-month war in Libya without the approval of Congress.

WASHINGTON – In a letter sent to both chambers of Congress today, the American Civil Liberties Union asked Senate and House leadership to schedule floor debates and votes to question whether President Obama may continue to use military force in Libya. The president ordered a military operation in Libya on March 19 without congressional approval, a violation of Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

ACLU Asks Congress To Debate And Vote On President’s Use Of Force In Libya | American Civil Liberties Union

...

www.aclu.org

While the ACLU does not take a position on whether military force should be used, the organization has consistently insisted, from the war in Vietnam through both wars in Iraq, that Congress give advance authorization for the use of such force.

“The Executive Branch’s assertions of unilateral authority to enter the armed conflict in Libya cannot and should not go unchallenged by the Congress. The decision whether to go to war does not lie with the President, but with Congress. Congress's power over decisions involving the use of military force derives from the Constitution,” says the letter, signed by ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero, Washington Legislative Office Director Laura W. Murphy and Senior Legislative Counsel Christopher E. Anders.