When war crimes rhetoric becomes battlefield reality(justsecurity.org) |
When war crimes rhetoric becomes battlefield reality(justsecurity.org) |
By our ideas, hitting power plants and such infra will not effect IRGC by any means, IRGC hates it's own people ( aka Iranians who uprised against them so many times, last being less than 2 months ago leading to 40k+ civilian deaths), it'll just make the economy many times worse for us than it is. IRGC will run it's infra even if it means full blackout of the civilians.
At this point of time I'm getting ready to be laid off cuz our jobs are non existent now ( I am a fellow software engineer)
For next couple of months, life's gonna be shit, either the strikes will end it, or the IRGC. Wonder what we gotta do.
https://armscontrolcenter.org/irans-stockpile-of-highly-enri...
https://armscontrolcenter.org/uranium-enrichment-for-peace-o...
Indeed, this seems to be what supporters of Trump are leaning on, as you can make the argument that _any_ bridge, or _any_ powerplant could hypothetically be used by the military, and that this conflict is sufficiently important for the livelihood of people in America/"The West" that doing anything that even slightly helps tips the odds is justifiable.
There’s a reason that past generations tried to draw a line in the sand and say “we will not cross this line.” It was imperfect and often violated, but at least it served to frame actions as just or unjust. Blatant violations could catalyze domestic opposition to unjust war, as in Vietnam and Iraq. Now that the standard has been eroded into nothing, I don’t know if we can stop further escalation.
A lot of war is about economics and logistics.
Edit: to add, what about Iran's threats to destroy water supplies?
The purpose, the idea behind warcrimes is that when warcrimes occur, the world would unite, in the security council, a mandate would be voted in, and the whole world would intervene, preventing warcrimes from occuring, or at least from repeating.
Well, when it comes to Iranian and US warcrimes the UNSC, specifically France, Russia and China have declared there will be no consequence to any warcrime by either side. In France's case it's not that they don't think warcrimes are terrible crimes, it's that they don't want to help anyone.
In Russia and China's case it's that they think this war destabilizes the west and that matters more to them than terrible crimes. Oh and the whole communist stick of "it's not warcrimes, it's internal matters", you know, when they do it to their population. So they have declared they will actively fight to prevent anything being done about warcrimes.
Under those circumstances, of course, warcrimes effectively don't exist, and that's that. Or to put it another way: the world is perfectly happy for you to be discussing the finer points of international law and why this and that is or isn't "a crime".
But the world is totally unwilling to do anything about warcrimes. I mean, let's be realistic. The world is unwilling to do anything about Iranian warcrimes, and perfectly certain the US won't commit any (the US will make mistakes, of course, but not actually commit real warcrimes). Whatever the outcome of your discussion on what is and isn't a heinous crime ... there will be no consequences.
If I were a lawyer responsible for defending Trump in the Hague, I'd argue that the tweet was actually an abbreviated way of saying "If Iran does not comply, we will destroy all military assets, including but not limited to their ICBMs, Bridges, and Power Stations, such that we have total military dominance."
Now very obviously (to me at least) this was not the intent of the message, but I don't know whether you could prove that in a hypothetical war crimes trial.
The slippery slope.
whoops, was responding to someone but accidentally top levelled this comment, which id rather leave here even though it lacks context -- something about levies on ship transit, which isnt really that much different to global tariffs is it?
How about each country sets up a blockade and demands their toll for safe passage?
The only sensible strategy is to make IRGC capitulate.
The fact that the US seemed surprised they shut down the strait is such an immense intelligence failure.
If anyone by this point think there will be any meaningful change in Iranian society that won't be shoved down their throats imperialist style, they shouldn't be in politics or military intelligence. They should be selling pencils from a cup.
Whatever aims the US had with this illegal war, we should all admit they are a lost cause.
Unless the US allows for immense civilian suffering, I think Iran will outlast any US political patience for this war
There's a singular failure point. Trump was properly informed and just said "nah, they are gonna collapse before they do it".
it is also almost certain that Bannon or Stephen Miller or whoever his Trump's Russian handler -- wildly thought to be Melania until he got elected -- is also telling him what to think.
given that it is reported he literally has off the record calls with Putin, it is entirely possible that his handler is literally Putin himself at this point
While my explanation requires just one idiot who likes to disregard input. Which is self-evidently true.
If piracy is bad, what precedent due the US and Israel's conduct set?
Instead of tolling the strait, Iran should arrest leaders of their neighboring states, and try them for their crimes under Iranian law.
Should we start our own extortion program? There's no need to limit it to waters near us; we can credibly threaten ships anywhere on the planet. Of course other states could do the same, even landlocked ones...
Isn't US already doing that with Venezuela and/or Cuba?
USA has intercepted the oil tankers headed to Cuba, causing a very serious fuel shortage there, which has created a lot of problems for the ordinary Cuban citizens.
It is USA who started practicing piracy in international waters and blocking the traffic of ships belonging to others.
Therefore now it is really shameless for USA to criticize Iran for doing against USA and its allies, during a war started by USA, the same thing that USA has already been doing, and unlike Iran, USA has started doing this completely unprovoked.
USA has already demonstrated in numerous occasions that they believe to have the right to break any international laws and treaties whenever they please. Therefore any other country also has the same right, whenever that is done against USA or its allies.
The only way for USA to succeed would be to attempt to kill most of the Iranians, which would only make even more clear that USA are not the "good guys" and they have lost long ago the moral authority to demand anything from others in international relationships.
Couldn’t you significantly degrade transportation via air campaign?
The problem, I think, is that these radical governments will refuse to abdicate even in the face of complete destruction. Look at what happened to Gaza.
> The problem, I think, is that these radical governments will refuse to abdicate even in the face of complete destruction
Last time a government did this for a few years, we did get the 'keep calm and carry on' posters, so...
https://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/kheft0...
Same goes with Russia against Ukraine.
USA allies in the region will be largely uninhabitable, since they depend on power and desalination for their existence.
Still, maybe that is what Trump, the crazy bastard, wants.
You can't defeat religious fanatics that welcome pain just by inflicting pain, especially by inflicting it mainly on other people.
They don't welcome pain any more than Buddha did when he sacrificed himself so the tigress could feed and raise her cubs.
Iran presently also isn't trying to Lebensraum "buffer zones" from other countries lands around itself.
I'm still not sure what this has to do with Iranian aggression?
But Japan does go to show that: 1. Leadership change is not voluntary, even when faced with obvious military dominance.
2. requires horrific destruction
3. Can be good for the long term of the country.
Let’s not forget IRGC has a long list of atrocities and oppression to their name. Yes… yes… you might say the same of USA, but it is categorically different.
Israel in any case isn't much better. Random Mileikowskis and Androvich's claiming ancient levantine connections and killing and stealing land over this nonsense.
Only if we ignore all of Iran's proxy warfare.
If we correct your argument so it's actually based on international law, it seems to boil down to "we have to ignore proxy warfare, otherwise Nicaragua might have historically (several decades ago) had a right to attack US military assets." That hardly seems like a reason to deny reality and ignore proxy warfare.