She spends the first four paragraphs calling it out as immoral, and at the end includes that it's also illegal. She isn't undermining her point by calling on congress to limit executive authority for military action, the war would still be everything she described it as in the first four paragraphs.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

What the OP means by an "illegal war" and what she means by "This war is unlawful." seems different. The OP is talking about international law: wars of aggression are illegal. AOC seems to only be saying it's unlawful because it lacks Congressional approval.

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

That seems like it's wholly up for interpretation - she calls it unlawful, then after several paragraphs outlining it's fundemental immorality she points out that it's illegal under US law. If you choose to interpret that as her saying it's only illegal under US law I can't stop you, but I think that's a very unfair reading since she lays it out clearly as a war of aggression.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

The fact that it's up for interpretation actually demonstrates my point, that's what I mean by "she can't seem to decide" and that it's mixed with "weak liberal garbage." This isn't a strong enough statement for me to be satisfied. It's trying to do too many things at the same time instead of picking a lane.

Though, like I said, it's better than I feared. European liberals are coming out much more strongly in support of the war.