I agree, Gwai's stance is mine too. I frankly just don't want that risk to exist.
So is the US right therefore to continue its military and economic pressure on Iran until there is an acceptably low risk of Iran developing a nuclear weapon?
No, because invading a sovereign nation unprovoked is clearly wrong.
Well, what do you know? Trump doesn’t need Congressional approval. Anyway he thinks the 60 day rule is unconstitutional.
I happen to think the 60 day rule is unconstitutional. The constitution clearly says only Congress can declare war. That has not been done since Dec 8th, 1941, when we declared war against Japan, and Dec 11, 1941 when we declared war on Germany and Italy.
Arguable, if you are pursuing a just war - then giving yourself a strategic / tactical advantage doesn’t seem inherently contradictory ? War is not a game or a dual after all.
E.g. if, for example, China invaded Germany - I doubt it would be unethical for NATO to respond without a formal declaration of war.
What does always seem stupid, is how having started a war, or responded to an attack - people continue to pretend it’s not a war. What is the point of Putin talking about a special military operation ?
I think that is often an attempt to either avoid constitutional scrutiny, or avoid obligations under international law - such as requirements around the treatment of POWs - which I do think is unethical.
I happen to think the 60-day period was for defensive purposes only, as in the case of a certain Big Bear gets restless and grabs a piece of a NATO territory. It would give us time to come to the aid of our allies.
However, presidents have used it as a window to go into a country, achieve certain objectives and then stand down.
It is the case of give them and inch, and they will take a mile.
Well the red white and blue protective dome over the Strait of Hormuz (announced by Hegseth as a result of Project Freedom) would now appear to be full of holes (or perhaps even more full of holes?).
Trump has paused Project Freedom for a little while, expecting the successful outcome of negotiations. And Rubio says Operation Epic Fury is now over.
I wonder? I suppose that if hostilities are re-opened following a breakdown of negotiations they might call it something else again. Honouring the 60 day rule at least in letter, if not in spirit?
Hard to believe that White House statements are to be taken on merit. Such an awful track record.
Trump has paused Project Freedom for a little while, expecting the successful outcome of negotiations.
What rubbish he rejected the Iranians' proposal without even reading it saying that "Iran has not yet paid a big enough price for what they have done to humanity and the world for the past 47 years".
All this is, is Trump cashing another bet on the price of oil.
This is a legalism. It's all about the Name. It's a legal sleight of hand that renames an existing operation in order to reset the clock and the operational budget. Like a bankruptcy. The management just sets up in the same place under a new name and carries on.
I came across it in a Guardian article today...and the general feeling seems to be that Iran has the upper hand, and that Trump is caught in a trap of his own making.
Iran has the upper hand because the Iranian government has very little to lose (their people, on the other hand have a lot to lose, but their government might not care that much). Some more members of the leadership may be martyred, but there seems to be a depth of people to take their place. They might not have many cards in their hand, but they have the ultimate trump card. They can maintain an effective blockade for a long time, they just need to do enough to remind everyone that they could hit ships in the Strait of Hormuz, the insurance companies will assess the risk too high and not permit ships to take the chance.
<snip>
They can maintain an effective blockade for a long time, they just need to do enough to remind everyone that they could hit ships in the Strait of Hormuz, the insurance companies will assess the risk too high and not permit ships to take the chance.
Indeed. Something that has been clear to all NATO countries other than the USA, since before this disastrous military operation began.
Trump listened to Israel and never consulted with his allies - perhaps I should say denigrated allies.
I feel for the thousands of seafarers stuck on their ships in the Strait - apart from the mental stress and strain, essential supplies are said to be running low.
Seems like both sides are saying they are getting close to a one-page memo of understanding to at least open the strait. No real treaty. One page is probably more than Trump's comprehension anyway.
I once watched a long video about how "Strategic Bombing" usually hardens the hearts of the population against the faction doing the bombing. Threats and violence don't generally bring about desired results.
Might be a lesson there for Moses, et al. I wonder if God himself had to learn something there.
There's an element of certain politicians admiring the "Blitz Spirit" of defiance against strategic bombing when it's "our side" that shows it, and then being surprised when the other side show the same defiance when they order the bombers over. Don't they realise that people are people wherever they are, and defiance by one group of people will be reflected by defiance in another group under similar circumstances?
There's an element of certain politicians admiring the "Blitz Spirit" of defiance against strategic bombing when it's "our side" that shows it, and then being surprised when the other side show the same defiance when they order the bombers over. Don't they realise that people are people wherever they are, and defiance by one group of people will be reflected by defiance in another group under similar circumstances?
Comments
Re the bomb in Plymouth, the thought that crossed my mind was “85 years on, and they’re still turning up”. The evil that men do lives after them.
No, because invading a sovereign nation unprovoked is clearly wrong.
I happen to think the 60 day rule is unconstitutional. The constitution clearly says only Congress can declare war. That has not been done since Dec 8th, 1941, when we declared war against Japan, and Dec 11, 1941 when we declared war on Germany and Italy.
E.g. if, for example, China invaded Germany - I doubt it would be unethical for NATO to respond without a formal declaration of war.
What does always seem stupid, is how having started a war, or responded to an attack - people continue to pretend it’s not a war. What is the point of Putin talking about a special military operation ?
I think that is often an attempt to either avoid constitutional scrutiny, or avoid obligations under international law - such as requirements around the treatment of POWs - which I do think is unethical.
However, presidents have used it as a window to go into a country, achieve certain objectives and then stand down.
It is the case of give them and inch, and they will take a mile.
Trump has paused Project Freedom for a little while, expecting the successful outcome of negotiations. And Rubio says Operation Epic Fury is now over.
I wonder? I suppose that if hostilities are re-opened following a breakdown of negotiations they might call it something else again. Honouring the 60 day rule at least in letter, if not in spirit?
Hard to believe that White House statements are to be taken on merit. Such an awful track record.
What rubbish he rejected the Iranians' proposal without even reading it saying that "Iran has not yet paid a big enough price for what they have done to humanity and the world for the past 47 years".
All this is, is Trump cashing another bet on the price of oil.
This is a legalism. It's all about the Name. It's a legal sleight of hand that renames an existing operation in order to reset the clock and the operational budget. Like a bankruptcy. The management just sets up in the same place under a new name and carries on.
AFF
Glad we agree.
Me too! 😁😉
AFF
Clever!!
Indeed. Something that has been clear to all NATO countries other than the USA, since before this disastrous military operation began.
Trump listened to Israel and never consulted with his allies - perhaps I should say denigrated allies.
Hence this mess.
More victims of Trump's folly.
Might be a lesson there for Moses, et al. I wonder if God himself had to learn something there.
No, because they're usually racists.