I found this recent link to be most interesting.

The bold face and the strike-throughs in the following are mine, and in the following comment both will separately serve as key points.

First, let us consider the strikethroughs. Kindly notice that each of them "provided a (politically charged!!) "alternative rationale and/or explanation" at the end of the "news-reporting (sic)" paragraph that it accompanied.

• The first strikethrough seeks to dismiss the article itself, suggesting that the whole thing "is not likely to be heeded."
• The next two strikethroughs seek to neuter the two signatories by an irrelevant back-reference to two familiar topics: (1) "Russia, of course," and (2) "The internal bickering of 'the party that lost the election.™'"

(Do you now see how "Propaganda" works?)

Now, let us deal with the nationally significant issues!

1. The US Constitution explicitly states that the Congress must declare a State of War. And yet, we have never actually done so since December 8, 1941.
2. "The US Constitution notwithstanding," there have nevertheless been a great many "non-war military escapades" since that time
3. and-d-d-d...
4. We have l-o-s-t every single one of them!
   • Our "War on Terror" ... "War on Afghanistan" ... is now indeed in its sixteenth year, and Dick Cheney still doesn't have his oil pipeline through Afghanistan to the Capian Sea, although he did manage to steal a lot of Lithium and Opium.
   • "ISIL" is yet-another so-far three-year 'campaign' that has also never been called for what it was ... a war.

The actual story here is that several lawmakers are finally(!) demanding that the US Government return to the original concept set forth in the US Constitution: that, "if the United States is to find itself in a State of War, then Congress must first declare it!"

Now, "why, exactly, did the US, since 1941, stray from this?" The answer is very simple: "the military-industrial complex."

You see, the US Constitution contains one very-pesky sentence, buried in Article 2, Section 8: Therefore, somewhere after the end of World War II, the "Military-Industrial Complex" (which five-star General Dwight D. Eisenhower [first...] called by name and feared) made a very simple decision: In this way, they have avoided the US Constitution. And, perhaps until now, no one in the US Congress has spoken up.

And in any case, "the Meda," which unabashedly derives much of its funding from military industrialists, is very anxious that all of you should just "y'know, go to sleep again. For another sixty years."

More like a blank check for more regime change. DAESH is the result of the previous administrations, and I don't remember the last time the congress was even consulted for any permission anyways, this is just some weak attempt at making it look like it will be debated to say those who are still gullible that the proper channels and procedures are used.

The military industrial complex along with the intelligence agencies have hijacked this country for a while, and Trump seems to be a threat to that. What will happen I do not know, you can speculate everything from a soft coup by the deep state, to outright possible assassination if it comes to that. Tinfoil hat territory perhaps, but at the same time we are now in the world where everything makes almost no sense, black is white down is up, etc.

(Without regard ... yet ... to the previous comment ... and therefore irrelevant to it ...)

Well, gentlebeings, may I ask ... "what do you think" with regards to so-called "reporting" such as the following excerpted paragraph?
In the edits that I have duly performed below, I have "merely erred" in the direction of objectivity, in which "the Fourth Estate" would as a matter of sacred principle strive to remain, "above all else," neutral. Therefore, I submit that my edits now quite speak for themselves.

Trump says he wants to take Iraq's oil, but US is already profiting from it

-Edit

Also, given that the US has such sway over the UN I feel this is also relevant.


‘Libya descended in total darkness, primarily because of illegal UN resolution’ – Gaddafi’s cousin
‘Differing Courses’: Trump more interested in defeating ISIS, not changing regimes

"Gentlebeings ... might I somehow find a way to press the Pause button here?!?!"

I mean, c'mon! Just how many "hot-buttons" do we need to find here?

• "Trump says he wants to take Iraq's oil!"
• "Libya descended in total (oh my!) darkness ..."
• "Trump more interested in defeating ISIS, not changing regimes"
• ...
• "The Sky is falling! The Sky is falling!!"

C'mon, people ... let us realize that there are propagandists among us, and that these people are more-or-less (presently, at least) "in charge of our headlines."

Even though these people are perfectly eager to toss a match into our nearby buckets of gasoline, it does not, in fact, oblige any of us to yell, "Fire!"

Ok fine, I realise I am stoking the fire too but the western media is the guilty one here for selling the US public that what we are doing in the world is just, and to counter any criticism at worst it is just 'results' of war, but far worse now it is all just fake news mantra. Of course it is fake news, because they are not the ones in control of the narrative anymore.

Back to the main topic at hand then - not since WWII has the congress really been asked to authorise any sort of military endeavors - well on legit. premises - i.e. Gulf of Tonkin incident, then Gulf War, then Post 9/11 military excursions.

Accountability has been left by the wayside and is no longer relevant, and anything can be made legal - just put it in writing and arbitrarily put a stamp on it and say it is legal, who cares about what other says.

And some people made tremendous amounts of money doing it. They still do. General of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us of this – but, no one listened.

The Constitution is quite explicit in saying that Congress must declare War, and that appropriations for War must be re-approved every two years.

This has never been done since FDR asked for a Declaration of War on Dec. 8, 1941, and received with only one dissenting vote. (By a person who felt that no declaration of War should be unanimous.)

The public has no idea how much of its money is daily being spent on these military juntas.