US Attacks Iran 2026

[Szdfan]

Do you believe there are actions in war that are wrong even if no one is powerful enough to stop them?

Yes. Hating people, killing people, destroying food and property of others are all wrong.

See…common ground.

Since those limits do exist, I think naming them and expecting governments to be accountable to them matters, even if there is no practical way to enforce them.

[JohnH]

See…common ground.

Since those limits do exist, I think naming them and expecting governments to be accountable to them matters, even if there is no practical way to enforce them.

Doing so is utterly pointless. "Governments" don't do those things; people do. The answer is to seek to convert people to Christ.

Of course, since you and I can't even agree on what following Christ is or what Christian living is, you and I will perpetually be at cross-purposes.

[ken_sylvania]

I'm not arguing for permission. I'm not arguing for a criteria that makes it morally acceptable to go to war. I'm arguing for damage control when war happens.

My position is: war is bad; unrestrained war is worse. Limiting harm is not the same as justifying the act.

But aren't you implying that there is a certain threshold for violence at which somebody else should step in and either violently or non-violently prevent further escalation of violence?

Okay...but when a man beats his wife, is our response, "Oh well, that's what the ungodly do? They need Jesus.” Or do we call the police or offer the spouse help? Do we stop it, intervene, protect the victim and hold the abuser accountable?

What I'm seeing here is that when the US accidentally bombs a school or Pete Hegseth advocates war crimes, the response isn't, this is wrong and why it's wrong, but a shrug and a dismissal. If we agree that violence is wrong, then how it’s carried out still matters. Otherwise, aren’t we just accepting that once war starts, anything goes?

When an Iranian man beats his wife, I do nothing about it. If my neighbor beats his wife, if I know about it I offer what assistance I can. If I call the police, they come and use greater violence on him to make him stop his violence, or else they make a large enough show of force that he decides resistance is useless.

But as it relates to my analogy, my response to the vast majority of domestic violence cases is to say "they are acting like the ungodly will act - they need Jesus."

I think this helps clarify the differences between us.

What I hear is that you place responsibility primarily in proximity. In other words, what your responsibility is limited to what you personally can do in your immediate area.

I place responsibility in harm and power. For me the question is: what actions cause the greatest harm and who has the ability to prevent it? So for me, the fact that I personally can’t stop something doesn’t mean there are no standards, no responsibility or need to name it as wrong.

Otherwise, I think what happens is that there is less accountability for the greater harms the powerful commit than for my neighbors and that seems really backwards to me.

Do you mind telling me what the appropriate "standard" is for violence during war?

There is a lot about Jesus' teaching and example that seems really backwards, but is there something specific that Jesus taught that makes you think we Christians have a responsibility to hold powerful strangers accountable for their sins?
I read nothing at all in Jesus' teachings about my responsibility to judge the world or to hold them accountable for the wrongs they commit. Do you remember Jesus' response when Herod killed some Galileans while they were offering sacrifices? Do you remember what he said about the atrocities committed by the Roman Emperor? Oh, right, he didn't bother to hold the man to account for his wrongs. Is there a lesson for us there?

[Szdfan]

See…common ground.

Since those limits do exist, I think naming them and expecting governments to be accountable to them matters, even if there is no practical way to enforce them.

Doing so is utterly pointless. "Governments" don't do those things; people do. The answer is to seek to convert people to Christ.

Of course, since you and I can't even agree on what following Christ is or what Christian living is, you and I will perpetually be at cross-purposes.

I’m honestly a bit confused by your position. On the one hand, you argue that power determines what is right.

Yet, in another thread you write:

Overall this is why regimes like the irgc shouldn’t be tolerated. Szdfan keeps asking for some kind of international law or restrictions on war. I’d suggest completely annihilating any regime that decides to use children as suicide bombers.

This seems to suggest that at some level you believe there are moral standards governments should be held accountable for and that violating those standards demands a response.

So if that’s the case, then it seems to me that naming those standards and expecting accountability isn’t pointless

[ken_sylvania]

Do you believe there are actions in war that are wrong even if no one is powerful enough to stop them?

Yes. Hating people, killing people, destroying food and property of others are all wrong.

See…common ground.

Since those limits do exist, I think naming them and expecting governments to be accountable to them matters, even if there is no practical way to enforce them.

OK, fair enough. Let me go on record as stating that according to Jesus both Trump and Hegseth are doing wrong by hating the Iranians. They should be loving them instead.

[Judas Maccabeus]

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

This is just rumor and idle speculation.

With the White House "refusing to rule it out.........." So maybe it is not so idle.

https://thehill.com/opinion/national-se ... revisited/

[Soloist]

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

This is just rumor and idle speculation.

With the White House "refusing to rule it out.........." So maybe it is not so idle.

https://thehill.com/opinion/national-se ... revisited/

Not ruling out something isn’t a big deal. Landing troops (on the mainland) strongly indicates a very bad direction for possible draft.

[Judas Maccabeus]

I'm not arguing for permission. I'm not arguing for a criteria that makes it morally acceptable to go to war. I'm arguing for damage control when war happens.

My position is: war is bad; unrestrained war is worse. Limiting harm is not the same as justifying the act.

So who do you propose does the limiting? Some kind of World Police?

Okay...but when a man beats his wife, is our response, "Oh well, that's what the ungodly do? They need Jesus.” Or do we call the police or offer the spouse help? Do we stop it, intervene, protect the victim and hold the abuser accountable?

... calling the police is appealing to people with bigger guns, bigger firepower, and more willingness to use violence to stop the less-powerful person (the wife-beater) from also engaging in violence.

So who do you propose somehow restrains the U.S. government and the democrat will of the American people who elect Congress and the President?

And how do you propose to give them enough firepower to overwhelm the U.S. military plus the American voters?

What I'm seeing here is that when the US accidentally bombs a school or Pete Hegseth advocates war crimes, the response isn't, this is wrong and why it's wrong, but a shrug and a dismissal. If we agree that violence is wrong, then how it’s carried out still matters. Otherwise, aren’t we just accepting that once war starts, anything goes?

"War crimes" are something that winners of wars prosecute against losers of wars.

The United States HAS signed treadies that limit the conduct of war. Right along with the Constitution and laws passed by Congress, they form part of the basic law of the United States. So, any government official that violates a treaty could, in theory be held accountable for it.

We have, in fact, prosecuted our soldiers for war crimes. Unfortunately, they tend to get pardoned.

With universal jurisdiction, people involved in provable war crimes may not be able to travel. They could be held accountable anywhere a court gets hold of them.

Moral: Don't commit war crimes.

[Judas Maccabeus]

This is just rumor and idle speculation.

With the White House "refusing to rule it out.........." So maybe it is not so idle.

https://thehill.com/opinion/national-se ... revisited/

Not ruling out something isn’t a big deal. Landing troops (on the mainland) strongly indicates a very bad direction for possible draft.

I have heard, from good sources, they are stop-lossing people. That is also a bad sign.

[JohnH]

I’m honestly a bit confused by your position. On the one hand, you argue that power determines what is right.

I have never done such a thing. I have said that power determines who wins.

Yet, in another thread you write:

Overall this is why regimes like the irgc shouldn’t be tolerated. Szdfan keeps asking for some kind of international law or restrictions on war. I’d suggest completely annihilating any regime that decides to use children as suicide bombers.

That's idealistic. In the real world, though, such a thing won't happen, unless having child-suicide-bombers leads to a weaker regime. (In my analysis, it does, so child-suicide-bombing is something you mostly see in rebel type of groups like the LTTE which pioneered the practice.)

This seems to suggest that at some level you believe there are moral standards governments should be held accountable for and that violating those standards demands a response.

That doesn't suggest that, and please don't put words in my mouth.

So if that’s the case, then it seems to me that naming those standards and expecting accountability isn’t pointless

It isn't the case.

Ultimately, the person who oversees the affairs of men is God, and it does say that ultimately God decides when armies win and lose. It might be good to take a step back and think about things from that perspective for a while. One thing is for certain: nobody is going to listen to, nor care, what Mennonites think about foreign policy.