Poll: US attacks on Iran

I would suggest there’s a flip side to this argument, that while righteous motives and sound planning increase the likelihood and palatability of a good outcome, neither of these things is required for a good outcome, nor do they reliably predict the quality of outcome.

We simply don’t yet know what’s going to happen. “Trump is a dummy who does everything wrong” has not shown any positive or negative correlation to the quality of economic or international-affairs outcomes simply because such affairs are bigger than any one person or country, even when they’re the biggest and most powerful.

Apologies again, but where are these “Rules of War” governing this situation written? Who agreed to them and who enforces them?

I can imagine some individuals/states might think the world would be “a better place” following actions/developments you or I might personally disagree with.

There are no rules of war governing this situation.

For rules to govern something you need a government to enforce those rules, and this of course doesn’t exist.

That’s precisely the problem.

Oh sure, in theory, there are various treaties, some of which the UN has said apply whether you sign on to them or not. But that doesn’t mean these rules govern this situation, because again, there is no government to enforce the rules, and thus, no governing.

For example, by these UN rules, Iran certainly shouldn’t be attacking Israeli civilians through their proxies Hamas or Hezbollah, nor should they disrupt international shipping through their other proxies the Houthis, nor should they use the Houthis to create a devestating decade long civil war that results in famine across Yemen.

So what? What is going to be done about Iran doing any of those things? Precisely nothing.

What does govern international relations is the actions of various polities. Iran isn’t going to stop doing the things I listed above because they are “against the law”; America and much of the world have tried to use economic pressure for decades, to no avail. So now they are being stopped by force.

Yes, you are correct - of course. But the key point is that those states are actively working to make the world closer to their personal vision. What stops them is vigorous opposition from other states, not international law.

“America shouldn’t take actions to make the world more liberal because this would legitimize other actors, like authoritarian Russia or Islamist Iran, taking actions to make the world more authoritarian or Islamist” is a bad argument because Iran and Russia are already acting this way. We should vigorously oppose them, not bury our head in the sand to avoid offending them.

That’s kind of where I am on this. I’m not smart enough to speculate on the 2nd and 3rd order effects this will have, and it would be foolish to think that a stable and democratic government will arise, but also, any replacement government couldn’t be much worse than what they had.

Apparently you do not appreciate the inconsistency between citing (and capitalizing) the “Rules of War” in one post - seemingly wishing to justify one actor’s actions, and then quickly acknowledging that there are no such rules of war.

Such argument only holds if you focus on our preferred perspective, and choose a specific start date that suits your preferences.

Like I said, I’m not a big fan of tribalism - in any form. But, short of clear genocide, I respect a country’s right to act tribally within its own borders. And I strongly prefer economic and social efforts to effect change within a sovereign state rather than military.

But I strongly suspect you and I will never reach agreement on some pretty basic issues/definitions that affect our disparate views.

Apparently you didn’t read my original post?

If both sides limit certain actions, then both sides benefit. We call this mutual understanding “the Rules of War”. Sometimes they correspond to various documents the UN has, other times they do not.

Obviously rules of war exist; what I said is that they aren’t governing this situation, because Iran has been ignoring them to deliver proxy attacks for decades.

I don’t know if you noticed, but the world has been making social and economic efforts to change Iran’s regime for literally decades, which in part led to the recent protests where the regime murdered 30,000 Iranian citizens.

If you’ve tried something futily for 47 years, it’s time to change strategy, maybe.

Maybe regime change from abroad just doesn’t work and should be abandoned (barring very long term occupation and very extensive investment)? Instead of bombing and killing lots of civilians and putting many others at risk as well?

And what happened 48+ years ago? Anything that might predispose a nation to think unkindly of foreign states’ efforts to influence?

It is absolutely fine that you have your own myopic vision of what is and isn’t right/good/legitimate/justified. I do as well. And I suspect many Iranians - whatever their personal situation - do as well. But you don’t seem to acknowledge the personal and biased nature of your views. Which is fine. A lot of people act and speak that way.

Of course I acknowledge that my views are mine. Just because of that I’m meant to not vigorously defend them?

I understand that there are people who disagree with me and hold views I consider reprehensible that they think are good. But what you seem to be missing is that those people are already vigorously and actively working to protect their own interests. If people who agree with me and believe in liberal values just sit around with our thumb up our collective ass whining about “well, would it be morally justified for me to defend my views” while followers of every other ideology work to promote their own interests as quickly as they can, then Liberalism will die.

I don’t think that Trump himself is doing this for the right reasons, but frankly, I couldn’t care less. I don’t view this through the lens of domestic US politics; this is far bigger than that.

Iran has been promoting war against Israel for years. This war started because Iranian backed proxies attacked Israel in october of 2023. Iran has also fired missiles at a dozen nations since this war began.

You guys act like a nation can do whatever they want to their own citizens and its perfectly fine, but once violence happens between nations than its unbearable. None of you gave a damn about the tens of thousands of Iranians massacred by the government after the recent uprisings against tyranny and oppression.

But all of a sudden, now you care about Iranian causalities once it fits your psychological narrative. You all were silent when tens of thousands of Iranians were being killed by the IRGC, but now that some are being killed by airstrikes suddenly you care deeply about the lives of the Iranian people because you can use that to promote your ideological narrative.

I’m guessing you guys also feel whats happening in Gaza is a genocide, but you don’t care about the actual genocide going on in South Sudan since that can’t be blamed on the west.

Its very unpleasant. But an investigation needs to be done to see what happened so it can be avoided in the future.

Also this reminds me of when the war with Gaza was happening, and Israel attacking a hospital parking lot. The media said Israel attacked them, but eventually it was learned that the bombing happened because of a misfired rocked fired by Hamas.

To reiterate, again, none of you give a damn about the endless tens of thousands murdered and tortured by the regime. But once you can use death and suffering in Iran to support your political narratives, suddenly you become humanitarians.

This is total bullshit. Firstly, this war didn’t start because of the killing of Iranian protesters. Neither Netanyahu nor Trump care at all about that. Secondly, there’s absolutely no reason to believe that a war with no mission and no plan is going to improve the lives of Iranian civilians. It’s just Trump fantasy nonsense. Live in that fantasy world if you want, but don’t expect anyone else to. And thirdly, there’s no controversy about Sudan. No disagreement. It doesn’t get discussed much because everyone agrees genocide in Sudan is bad and should stop. It’s entirely irrelevant to criticisms of Israel.

An awful lot of the atrocities have proven to be true however. The IDF loves this example because they get to handwave entire cities turned to rubble with “there was this one time”.

Since this is outside of the Pit I will just calmly say you are wrong and that I take great offense at that statement.

I wouldn’t be surprised if it ended with at least a tacit agreement that the Iranian regime could continue, as oppressively as it liked to its own people, as long as it accepted forgoing nuclear weapons and dropped - or at least dialled down - its “axis of resistance” and sponsorship of terrorism in other countries.

Hard to unpack this hijack.
It is insulting loads of users & hijacking the thread.

Warning for you and thread ban. Do not post in this thread again. Take this to the Pit or something.

This topic was automatically opened after 18 minutes.

I’m not American, Iranian or anywhere near the current conflict.

I am very strongly anti-war, though.

The Idiot in Chief of the United States of America is being led by his orange nose into an unwinnable coflict akin to Iraq, and while I am not privy to his reasoning, the old adage “follow the money” seems particularly appropriate.

Who is paying Trump?

Seems like a conspicacy theory, except… this is Trump.