I even toldBlackTron on a post several pages back I didn't actually wish anything bad for him and hope he had a good day, but of course it's the ONLY message bro didn't quote or respond too.
Because American President's don't have the power to declare War. War isn't a meaningless word from a legal or statecraft point of view. If Trump's military actions are short/fast enough - less than 60 days, from memory - they can be declared as simple military operations, and that's totally fine. Venezuela is a perfect example of this (though, that raid is likely in violation of international law and treaties). Any longer than that time frame, and the President needs a new designation for their actions or they must ask Congress to declare a state of War. Other American Presidents have worked around this to keep military actions moving, calling them everything from "policing operations" to "counter-terrorism raids" to get around needing a state of War. But, if Trump wants War powers - to, say, call up a draft or postpone elections - he needs a state of War.
OK bro, super metered take.
You know me well
EverybodyIDontLikeIdHitlerRussia.meme
Just let me know what permissions I have and how I am allowed to speak on this forum you apparently own, comrade. I await your instruction.
BlackTron
approved. 
Ironic, really. It all matters on the geopolitical stage, truthfully.
Definition of POLICE ACTION
a localized military action undertaken without formal declaration of war by regular armed forces against persons held to be violators of international peace and order… See the full definitionwww.merriam-webster.com
police action
noun
Synonyms of police action
: a localized military action undertaken without formal declaration of war by regular armed forces against persons held to be violators of international peace and order
You get permission from him to post that response bro?! You gotta check with him dude.
A bit different in that Beige is talking about warning for humanitarian reasons, whereas in this instance Iran gave warning specifically because they wanted to avoid President Trump being forced to respond to their face-saving retaliation, ie. giving warning was in their own interests.
The Obama administration argued the military action in Libya did not even count as 'hostilities'.
The US hasn't formally been at a declared war since World War II. Yes, even Vietnam wasn't technically a declared war and was never authorized by Congress as a declared war. There was a Congressional resolution that allowed for limited (at the time) military activity but that's it
Live feed right here:
Of course Presidents don't require war powers to send troops; the bureaucratic delay in such immediate actions - such as to defend the USA and/or her allies - was the expressed reason for the 60 day window. However, to commit to full scale military action requires Congress' approval - such as sending the USA "to War". This is why the current US Administration is avoiding the word for their actions in Iran, but Trump's lexicon is slim to miniscule so he can't help himself. I suspect they expected the Iranian people to overthrow the government once the Ayatollah was killed, meaning they wouldn't need to commit to such large scale and extended actions.
More in terms of eventually needing Congress to approve the funding which would eventually be required to sustain such an action, rather than needing permission.
I don't think there was an expectation of that happening. The message was their best opportunity to do so for generations would be once the US finishes bombing tf out of the regime, but it's incredibly unlikely the US is relying on it happening.
Do you really think this is such a big deal compared to being beaten to death for not wearing a hijab?
theconversation.com
Article: Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and neighboring countries in the Persian Gulf region use the fossil fuels under their desert lands not only to make money, but also to make drinking water. The petroleum they produce powers more than 400 desalination plants, which turn seawater into drinkable water.
In the war that began on Feb. 28, 2026, with U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran, retaliatory attacks from Iranian forces have hit oil refineries and natural gas plants and disrupted tourism and aviation. Those attacks all hurt Gulf nations' economies and their hard-won reputations for safety and stability.
But Iranian strikes have also already hit close to a key desalination plant in Dubai. Iranian strikes on March 2 on Dubai's Jebel Ali port hit about 12 miles (20 kilometers) away from a massive complex with 43 desalination units that are key to the city's production of more than 160 billion gallons of water each year.
And there has already been damage to the UAE's Fujairah F1 power and water plant and at Kuwait's Doha West plant. In both cases, the damage seems to have stemmed from attacks on nearby ports or from falling debris from drone interceptions.
Saltwater kingdoms
The region's monarchies are often described as petro-states, but they have also become what I call saltwater kingdoms, global superpowers in the production of human-made fresh water drawn from the sea. Desalination is part of the reason there are golf courses, fountains, water parks and even indoor ski slopes with manufactured snow.
All together, eight of the 10 largest desalination plants in the world are in the Arabian Peninsula. Israel's two Sorek plants round out the list.
The countries of the Arabian Peninsula have about 60% of global water-desalination capacity. And plants close to Iran, around the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea, produce more than 30% of the world's desalinated water.
Roughly 100 million people in the Gulf region rely on desalination plants for their water. Without them, almost nobody would be able to live in Kuwait, Qatar and the UAE – or much of Saudi Arabia, including its capital, Riyadh.
Sabotage of water supplies
CIA worries about attacks on Gulf region desalination plants date back to the 1980s. During Saddam Hussein's 1990 invasion of Kuwait, those worries became real.
After coalition forces began bombing Iraqi positions in January 1991, part of Iraqi troops' response was to release millions of barrels of crude oil into the Persian Gulf. As the massive oil slick drifted south, U.S. and Saudi officials feared it was meant to sabotage desalination systems.
Workers installed protective booms to shield intake valves at major plants, especially the one that supplies much of Riyadh's water. In Kuwait, Iraqi sabotage damaged or destroyed much of the country's desalination capacity.
Kuwaiti authorities also turned to Turkey and Saudi Arabia to supply some 750 water tankers and 200 trucks to import an 18-ton emergency supply of bottled water. U.S.-supplied generators and mobile desalination units provided additional temporary relief, though the full recovery took years.
More recent threats
Fears of attacks on desalination plants resurfaced after Yemen's Houthi movement launched drones and missiles at Saudi facilities at Al-Shuqaiq in 2019 and 2022 – though they did no lasting damage.
Iran's weapons are far more numerous and sophisticated than the Houthis', though, so if it attacked desalination plants, the damage could be significant.
There is an irony here: Iran's capital city of Tehran has a water shortage crisis so serious that in 2025 the government reportedly considered relocating the drought-stricken capital to the coast. But Iran is less vulnerable to attacks on desalination, because its water supply relies instead on dams and wells.
Whatever else the war may be about, water could well become a major factor in the violence and leave lasting political scars. And if either side were to intentionally attack water sources or desalination plants, it would clearly be a human-rights violation.
responsiblestatecraft.org
Article: As the US-Israel war accelerates and the prospects of state implosion grow, the only option for the Islamic Republic's leaders is to retaliate in ways that exact a similar cost for the Gulf Arab states. Faced by a do-or-die scenario, Tehran will try to choke off the life reservoir of both Israel and its Gulf neighbors, i.e., oil, gas, and water. It is already closing the Strait of Hormuz, has hit oil facilities in the U.A.E., and has damaged and possibly crippled Qatar's LNG production.
The U.S. and Israel are racing to destroy Iran's ballistic missiles, but it is very likely that it has many in reserve to deliver the final blow, which is the destruction of desalination plants, without which the Gulf states cannot survive. No water, no state, it is as simple as that. State implosion is a very real possibility in the U.A.E, Qatar, and other Gulf states.
Knowing this, it is very likely that Gulf Arab leaders will sooner rather than later press Donald Trump to declare victory and end the U.S. assault. As their supplies of anti-ballistic "interceptor" missiles dwindle, they will have to choose between their own survival and tolerating the near existential costs of a prolonged conflict. Not surprisingly, U.S. military officials insist that the Arab states are not running out of interceptors, but the supply is finite. A catastrophe of epic proportions is a real possibility.
It might have helped if the "we have your backs, rise up" comments aligned closer with actually being ready. Man that was so painful to watch
The theory is that you drive a wedge between the people and the government. Some people will get angry at the enemy military for disrupting services but others will get angry at the government or military for not defending them. It is much easier to conduct psychological warfare against the people than against institutions because they are mentally weak and react more emotionally. Overall this makes any conflict more expensive and unsustainable politically as you not only have increased cost of defending all sorts of non military targets but you have to deal with the resentment of your people. It is not about toppling a government but overloading it with problems. In the early days of the latest Ukraine offensive the Russians did try to "regime change" but they made a huge mistake of badly estimating how much political support they had compared to the Ukrainian government. Their intelligence built a bullshit story of how much people were pining to be liberated based on a few select voices from inside the country. Naturally that could never happen to real country like USA, just idiots in Russia.
Why would anyone be worried about war crimes with this WH? They are mere suggestions.
If you think that people who had to live under the regime where thousands of protesters were killed, women are beaten to death for not wearing hijab and the political repression or violence will somehow start loving the regime - you are not living in really. People hate the regime, they want it to end, they want to stop being afraid of being killed over the protests, they want to stop the regime hiding soldiers and equipment at schools to use kids as meat shields. Iran had famines, trouble with water, 2m:1 current collapse, internet blackouts, energy issues etc. etc. Nobody expects it to end "easily" or "bloodlessly". People want ayatollah's regime and IRGC to crash and burn.
"We'll be greeted as liberators! Flowers thrown by cheering crowds!"
