Haha true.Probably John Roberts: "We'll see about that!"
Congress does have that power. They could cut the Pentagon's budget to 0 and disband the army tomorrow.
Some nebulous "national interest" exemption to Congressional authorization was definitely not in line with anyone's ideas about use of force when the Constitution was written, and we don't have to pretend that it exists.
Yes, because it is written right there in the Constitution.
Again though, Congress can simply stop the president by removing him unless he does ask permission first.Commander in Chief doesn't have to ask Congress for permission to deploy US military forces. Congress could choose after the fact to not pay for further deployment.
You are free to have a opinion, doesn't mean it is correct.
No, it isn't. All it is written is that Congress declares war. Deploying US military forces abroad to protect US national interests doesn't require a declaration of war.
Congress can actually forbid deployments before they happen. They can literally say "you can't use money or these existing resources to deploy to Blah". Plus, they can always remove the president if they felt like it.Commander in Chief doesn't have to ask Congress for permission to deploy US military forces. Congress could choose after the fact to not pay for further deployment.
You are free to have a opinion, doesn't mean it is correct.
No, it isn't. All it is written is that Congress declares war. Deploying US military forces abroad to protect US national interests doesn't require a declaration of war.
The US military strikes on three of Iran’s nuclear facilities last weekend did not destroy the core components of the country’s nuclear program and likely only set it back by months, according to an early US intelligence assessment that was described by four people briefed on it.
The assessment, which has not been previously reported, was produced by the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon’s intelligence arm. It is based on a battle damage assessment conducted by US Central Command in the aftermath of the US strikes, one of the sources said.
The analysis of the damage to the sites and the impact of the strikes on Iran’s nuclear ambitions is ongoing, and could change as more intelligence becomes available. But the early findings are at odds with President Donald Trump’s repeated claims that the strikes “completely and totally obliterated” Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth also said on Sunday that Iran’s nuclear ambitions “have been obliterated.”
Two of the people familiar with the assessment said Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium was not destroyed. One of the people said the centrifuges are largely “intact.”
“So the (DIA) assessment is that the US set them back maybe a few months, tops,” this person added.
They will say they destroyed it all anyway, of course.well at least it was all for nothing
Exclusive: Early US intel assessment suggests strikes on Iran did not destroy nuclear sites, sources say
Well, we did show everyone that perhaps those bunker busters aren't as fool proof as people may have thought.well at least it was all for nothing
Exclusive: Early US intel assessment suggests strikes on Iran did not destroy nuclear sites, sources say
It was concepts of a strike. Two more weeks.well at least it was all for nothing
Exclusive: Early US intel assessment suggests strikes on Iran did not destroy nuclear sites, sources say
Could be they weren’t very effective, agree, but could also easily be that Iran took steps to protect their assets ahead of time as the possibility of a strike was very clearly advertised in advance because this country is run by fuckups.Well, we did show everyone that perhaps those bunker busters aren't as fool proof as people may have thought.
Could be they weren’t very effective, agree, but could also easily be that Iran took steps to protect their assets ahead of time as the possibility of a strike was very clearly advertised in advance because this country is run by fuckups.
well at least it was all for nothing
Exclusive: Early US intel assessment suggests strikes on Iran did not destroy nuclear sites, sources say
Perhaps the worst possible outcome - fail to stop the project, but convince the Iranian regime of the urgency of pushing ahead with it as fast as possible.
[Edit] Not to mention sending the same message to multiple other countries that might be thinking of going down the same path.
If it were not for Trump, you would be speaking Iranian. I think you owe him some gratitude.People are so fucking stupid they are waiting to give Trump credit for slowing down Iran's nuclear ambitions. When in reality...
Trump set fire to the house, then flew a helicopter full of sand and dumped it on the house. Now he wants credit for putting the fire out. That's why he loves the "poorly educated"
And just revealed the MOP’s real world capability (or possibly lack of in this case).
Shhh...don't tell anyone.. we have more bunker busters.
And just revealed the MOP’s real world capability (or possibly lack of in this case).
Sig-worthy quote.If it were not for Trump, you would be speaking Iranian. I think you owe him some gratitude.
- It hadn't even occurred to me that bunker busters have never been used in combat before...
If the MOP fails... Israel will resort to nukes and that would be a no way return in the way on how to destroy bunkersAnd just revealed the MOP’s real world capability (or possibly lack of in this case).