Is ‘preemptive defense’ even a thing?
Wrong wrong wrong. We don’t do sneak attacks, that’s the other guy (Japan).
Remember the Strait of Hormuz!
Yes. It’s often used to justify aggression, naturally.
In the Mukden Incident, Japan claimed to be fighting a “defensive war” in Manchuria, attempting to “preempt” supposedly-aggressive Chinese intentions towards the Japanese.
As for the 1940 German invasion of Norway, during the 1946 Nuremberg trials, the German defense argued that Germany had been “compelled to attack Norway by the need to forestall an Allied invasion and that her action was therefore preemptive.”
We’re in fine company.
I’m not seeing it.
The question here is, is the US at war with Iran or isn’t it? If it is, then any and all military assets are valid targets. There’s no exception category for “innocent unarmed frigate really far from home.”
If the US isn’t at war with Iran, then this is just more murder on the high seas as the US has been doing in the Western Hemisphere for a few months. Also not a war crime, and barely even a remote chance of seeking remedies via the various UN avenues.
All-in-all people need to stop screaming “war crime” as if it’s going to summon up some higher authority to grab Trump by the collar and drag him off to the Hague. This is simply not going to happen. The only way Trump can be held to account for this is either domestic political remedies of impeachment, removal, and prosecution, or international remedies of sanctions and/or direct action against the US Navy. Yes this is unfortunate, but it’s the reality.
What is especially impressive is the extent to which we are able to come across as the bad guys, despite the fact that the people we are targeting are, in fact, pretty bad guys themselves. Quite an achievement to out bad guy the bad guys!
The Nazis did it to Stalin, another callback to WWII.
WTF, don’t call a war crime a war crimes just because it’s not likely to be prosecuted! This is how political pressure works, by calling these things out in a clear language. The American public has a right to honest dialog so that they can form an informed decision.
I wonder what the sub crew thought. I wonder if I would have followed that order.
And I think unrestrained sub warfare in WWII was an acceptable tactic.
While you may be technically correct, I don’t think this is the purpose behind calling this a war crime.
The US is de facto at war with Iran, despite the fact that you don’t have a functional Congress anymore to declare war. Calling it a “war crime” is to let the public know what is going on in more stark, historical terms. Yes, nobody will ever be convicted of a war crime for this (unless an alliance manages to invade the US and depose the dictatorship)
It’s a “war crime” in the sense that this is shorthand for “murder by the US armed forces who were commanded to do this by psychopathic murderers elected by the American people”.
If we’re talking WWII, I think this sinking of the Iranian ship was much more like the attack on Pearl Harbor. “We’re gonna attack them before they attack us!”
What difference does it make that the IRIS Dena was 2,000 miles away from Iran? There is an existing state of armed conflict (a shooting war*) between the United States and Iran. The Dena was a military target and therefore fair game for the US Navy to destroy no matter where. I might not like it, you might not like it, but I’m not seeing a war crime here.
*I know there’s been no formal declaration of war, but that’s what it is. Just like Russia’s “special military operation” is a war.
The ship obviously couldn’t have been allowed to return to an Iranian port - it would have just rearmed and gone into combat. However, if it really was completely unarmed, then sinking it instead of seizing it intact was just… lazy. I expect better of the U.S. Navy.
The administration is telling us it’s not a war.
We all know it’s a war, but if it’s not a war according to the corrupt incompetents running this, they have no excuse for sinking that ship.
I missed the part where Iran attacked the United States. Must have been on the 4th page of the paper.
I’m pretty sure that’s not what he’s saying. A war crime is a pretty clearly defined legal term, and unless you can point to what law was violated it’s just rhetoric.
They’ve attacked US bases in the area. It’s in response to being attacked first, and I’m not saying the attacks aren’t justified, but there is an armed conflict between both sides at the moment.
I think we need to go back to the old customs of ultimatums and declared wars, for a while we tried too fool ourselves into thinking that wars were no longer acceptable and thus tried to hide under all kind of euphemisms: “Police Action”, “Limited conflict”, “Kinetic actions”, etc.
It’s obvious, unfortunately, that that is not the case.
So let’s restore clarity to the whole process, if you are about to resort to violence to further your aims fucking say so.
Issue an ultimatum “Do this, that, and the other thing by x date or consider yourself in a state of war with us”.
And then if they do not comply to your satisfaction, have the balls to recognize that you are now in a war.
Yes, that’s rather my point. Iran was attacked by the US first, in an act of armed aggression.
As Mark Carney began his Davos speech:
Today, I’ll talk about the rupture in the world order, the end of a nice story and the beginning of a brutal reality where geopolitics among the great powers is not subject to any constraints.
“Not subject to any constraints” is polite language for “The US will use it’s military to attack anyone they choose to gain territory or wealth”
Yup; as I said, the US is the bad guy here, and when the other side is Iran, that is saying a LOT.
At this point, there is a shooting war between the two sides, but you are correct that we shouldn’t forget how it all started. It started with Trump basically fucking around and deciding to burn the world a bit more than he already has.
I think it’s also worth mentioning that the passengers on the Lusitania had been warned by the Germans that the ship was a target. IIRC, (and please correct me if I’m not recalling correctly) Germany took out an ad in the New York Times with this warning.
ETA — found a gift link