this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2025
293 points (98.0% liked)

World News

43863 readers
3137 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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.

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/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ShellMonkey@lemmy.socdojo.com 6 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Not that I have any faith in the R congress to have a spine, but I'm not seeing how he even could do so if he wanted to without consent of Congress. Pretty well all the direct actions taken in the last couple decades come from the AUMF but that's at least theoretically supposed to be linked to terrorist activities.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_of_2001

[–] Zzyzx@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 11 hours ago

Apparently part of the treaty that returned the canal to Panama means that either Panama or the US can unilaterally ensure the canal's neutrality if they feel it is threatened. So I'm sure they could make the argument that it falls under this. It would be bullshit, of course, but so are all of their other arguments.

[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Supposedly he'd have to have a reason, such as terrorism like you say, in order to pull a Bush Jr Invasion.

In todays wacked out evil af world... who knows. Im wondering why he's just not using the CIA to "covertly" do this. But then again it could all be a bluff.

[–] ragepaw@lemmy.ca 8 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Because he doesn't get public worship from black ops.

[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 3 points 21 hours ago

I hope that's true