General Discussion

bigtree

(94,013 posts)

9. it will just contain 'funding for the troops'

Mon Mar 2, 2026, 01:25 PM

Monday

...which is what allowed successive presidents to remain in Iraq and Afghanistan for decades under a resolution which was exploited for myriad other military activities and actions in the region before it was ended just recently.

The most effective thing would be to try and dry the money up after 60 days under a Senate filibuster refusal to agree to cloture. If they do pass a resolution now that has some republican support, it won't likely tell him to just stop at this point, and it won't come with a veto-proof majority of votes.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

9 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

A War Powers Resolution is just window dressing. If it passes he'll veto it. It's a worthless tool anymore [View all] Cheezoholic Monday OP

Putting US soldiers in Iran ..................... Lovie777 Monday #1

In which case, there could be a response by Russia Wednesdays Monday #4

No, it is farther than that. Celerity Monday #5

The point is, that it's close. Wednesdays Monday #6

'Close' or not, I highly, highly doubt Russia is going to directly attack US troops. That is playing with the fire of Celerity Monday #7

Except what indicator is there Putin would care given his relationship with Trump? EdmondDantes_ Monday #8

Resolutions express a state of mind. I don't believe they are subject to a veto. mahatmakanejeeves Monday #2

It always has been EdmondDantes_ Monday #3

it will just contain 'funding for the troops' bigtree Monday #9