US Attacks Iran 2026

[Szdfan]

The US had an obligation under international law to confirm the school wasn’t a civilian target and I’m not sure that Iranians who lost loved ones in that bombing are going to care whether it was intentional

There are no obligations under "international law". Your argument would be quite a bit more persuasive if you claimed there is a moral obligation to try not to bomb schools, though.

Then what limits to violence exist?

If international law doesn’t impose obligations, what provides a shared standard that actually restrains what can be done?

[JohnH]

Then what limits to violence exist?

If international law doesn’t impose obligations, what provides a shared standard that actually restrains what can be done?

"International law" is something the largest, most powerful countries don't care about, are not parties to in any realistic sense, and in any sense do not observe.

There is no shared standard of global law, despite the wishes of many people to have some kind of one-world government. In war, might makes right: the most powerful people win, and the less-powerful people lose. That is the way of nations, governments, empires, and kings, and it has been such since the fall of Babel. God seems to have ordained it to be so, telling us there will be "Wars and rumours of wars".

[Bootstrap]

But we used to have much more careful screening to minimize them. Pete Hegseth campaigned against that screening. And I think we see the result.

Preserving lives is not woke or feminine. You can do lots of pushups and still check carefully to see if you might be bombing a school or a hospital.

We'll probably have to agree to disagree, but I do not think the U.S. has been engaging in intentionally bombing schools.

I suspect it's more reckless negligence, not intentionally bombing schools. They dropped the protocols they used to use to avoid bombing schools and hospitals. And the result was predictable.

[JohnH]

I suspect it's more reckless negligence, not intentionally bombing schools. They dropped the protocols they used to use to avoid bombing schools and hospitals. And the result was predictable.

Do you actually know this? You sure seem to have a lot of expert, inside knowledge of the workings of how the military works.

[Ernie]

The fact Iran has these capabilities is quite clearly a problem, though, and makes it very obvious such a regime cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons.

Why should the US, the only country who has ever used nuclear weapons in combat, be trusted with them?

Because... Well... Because...

I think any other answer is probably rather lame, considering the trajectory of our country.

[Ernie]

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5807 ... k-damages/

If Iran can destroy a 300M US jet that was sitting on the tarmac in Saudi Arabia, using a missile, 27 days into the war, and after this statement was made...

“Never… has a modern military been so rapidly and historically obliterated.”

it makes me think that perhaps those behind attacking Iran might have underestimated their enemy.


I also wonder about this statement.

“We see ourselves as part of this negotiation as well. We negotiate with bombs.”

The clean hit on the US jet makes me wonder how the negotiating is going.

[Bootstrap]

I suspect it's more reckless negligence, not intentionally bombing schools. They dropped the protocols they used to use to avoid bombing schools and hospitals. And the result was predictable.

Do you actually know this? You sure seem to have a lot of expert, inside knowledge of the workings of how the military works.

Yes, Hegseth was very loud about his desire to get rid of these protocols, he claimed they handcuffed the military. He fired many of the people involved in the process. Many of them have spoken on news shows and podcasts and written about this.

It's not hard to find this information if you look.

[Szdfan]

Then what limits to violence exist?

If international law doesn’t impose obligations, what provides a shared standard that actually restrains what can be done?

"International law" is something the largest, most powerful countries don't care about, are not parties to in any realistic sense, and in any sense do not observe.

There is no shared standard of global law, despite the wishes of many people to have some kind of one-world government. In war, might makes right: the most powerful people win, and the less-powerful people lose. That is the way of nations, governments, empires, and kings, and it has been such since the fall of Babel. God seems to have ordained it to be so, telling us there will be "Wars and rumours of wars".

I find it fascinating that you’ve argued elsewhere that God is the source of law and that society’s laws should follow God’s will and intentions, but when it comes to the power of the State to kill, there are no rules or restrictions. Why is that? Why would the area with the greatest potential for harm be the one with the fewest limits?

[Robert]

I would suggest preparing your young people for the draft that is to come.

This is just rumor and idle speculation.

[JohnH]

Then what limits to violence exist?

If international law doesn’t impose obligations, what provides a shared standard that actually restrains what can be done?

"International law" is something the largest, most powerful countries don't care about, are not parties to in any realistic sense, and in any sense do not observe.

There is no shared standard of global law, despite the wishes of many people to have some kind of one-world government. In war, might makes right: the most powerful people win, and the less-powerful people lose. That is the way of nations, governments, empires, and kings, and it has been such since the fall of Babel. God seems to have ordained it to be so, telling us there will be "Wars and rumours of wars".

I find it fascinating that you’ve argued elsewhere that God is the source of law and that society’s laws should follow God’s will and intentions, but when it comes to the power of the State to kill, there are no rules or restrictions. Why is that? Why would the area with the greatest potential for harm be the one with the fewest limits?

Most governments today claim not be following God’s law, although Iran’s regime does…

In any case, “international law” is not binding on the U.S. and basically doesn’t exist.