US Attacks Iran 2026

[Judas Maccabeus]

We have a first hand witness of the process resulting in a denial. We can't say for sure on 2. As for 1, we will see.

Since the draft ended in 1072, a good 50 years ago, the first hand witness must be quite old.

1072? The ottomans conscription?

1972 was the last year anyone actually was inducted. They were still running the system for, I believe, two years after that, still giving lottery numbers, still assigning status. My year of eligibility was 1973.

That is not all that old, early to mid 70s. Not quite THAT old. Some of this is the best I remember, but, yes, it was 50+ years ago. I will never forget getting that “status” letter.

[Judas Maccabeus]

Just a reminder, bombing civilian power plants is a war crime.

Since when?

Since the Geneva Conventions established modern international law in 1949 and the Additional Protocol I of 1977. The US signed both of them.

Relevant articles include:

• Article 48 – Principle of Distinction: parties must distinguish between civilians and military targets
• Article 52 – Civilian Objects: civilian objects (like power plants) cannot be targeted unless they become military objectives
• Article 54 – Objects Indispensable to Civilian Survival: Prohibits attacking infrastructure essential to civilians (food, water, etc.)
• Article 51 – Proportionality: Attacks causing excessive civilian harm are prohibited.

And since congress has ratified that treaty, it for a part of our basic law.

[JohnH]

Doesn’t matter. Even if the government owns power plants and power grids, it’s still considered civilian infrastructure because it serves civilians. That’s exactly why international law doesn’t consider ownership the standard. By your logic, it’s permissible to bomb hospitals if they’re government owned.

It is entirely justified to take out the IRGC's assets.

That’s hard to square with a pro-life position.

Destroying a power generation station has nothing to do with being pro-life or not. If anything, it seems a lot less harmful than actively killing people.

And since congress has ratified that treaty, it for a part of our basic law.

Feel free to file a lawsuit. I don't think it is. When a rogue militia group (the IRGC) runs much of the infrastructure, that makes it military, not civilian, infrastructure.

[Szdfan]

Doesn’t matter. Even if the government owns power plants and power grids, it’s still considered civilian infrastructure because it serves civilians. That’s exactly why international law doesn’t consider ownership the standard. By your logic, it’s permissible to bomb hospitals if they’re government owned.

It is entirely justified to take out the IRGC's assets.

That’s hard to square with a pro-life position.

Destroying a power generation station has nothing to do with being pro-life or not. If anything, it seems a lot less harmful than actively killing people.

Power infrastructure directly affects civilian survival. Hospitals, water and sanitation need it.

Trump has also threatened to destroy water desalination plants, which are one of Iran’s primary sources of drinking water.

These are protected resources under international law and are considered indispensable for the survival of the civilian population. It’s not separate from human life.

[JohnH]

These are protected resources under international law and are considered indispensable for the survival of the civilian population. It’s not separate from human life.

You keep bringing up "international law". "International law" isn't something the U.S. is a party to, and who would enforce it, anyway?

Humans can live without things like electricity. At some point, this regime needs to be stopped; it would be a disaster if they had been allowed to get nuclear weapons. We can see that they would indiscriminately be firing them at civilian targets. It is worth nothing that IRGC has gone almost entirely after civilian targets, yet I haven't seen you decrying their "war crimes" or "violations of international law".

[Soloist]

Doesn’t matter. Even if the government owns power plants and power grids, it’s still considered civilian infrastructure because it serves civilians. That’s exactly why international law doesn’t consider ownership the standard. By your logic, it’s permissible to bomb hospitals if they’re government owned.

It is entirely justified to take out the IRGC's assets.

That’s hard to square with a pro-life position.

Destroying a power generation station has nothing to do with being pro-life or not. If anything, it seems a lot less harmful than actively killing people.

And since congress has ratified that treaty, it for a part of our basic law.

Feel free to file a lawsuit. I don't think it is. When a rogue militia group (the IRGC) runs much of the infrastructure, that makes it military, not civilian, infrastructure.

That does explain why you didn't think the school was a big deal.

[JohnH]

That does explain why you didn't think the school was a big deal.

Ah yes, the "school" placed right inside a military base for no good reason.

If the IRGC wants this kind of stuff to stop, they can: they simply need to surrender. It's that simple. They aren't going to win. They are choosing to prolong things.

[Judas Maccabeus]

Doesn’t matter. Even if the government owns power plants and power grids, it’s still considered civilian infrastructure because it serves civilians. That’s exactly why international law doesn’t consider ownership the standard. By your logic, it’s permissible to bomb hospitals if they’re government owned.

It is entirely justified to take out the IRGC's assets.

That’s hard to square with a pro-life position.

Destroying a power generation station has nothing to do with being pro-life or not. If anything, it seems a lot less harmful than actively killing people.

And since congress has ratified that treaty, it for a part of our basic law.

Feel free to file a lawsuit. I don't think it is. When a rogue militia group (the IRGC) runs much of the infrastructure, that makes it military, not civilian, infrastructure.

I would not have standing, since I have not been individually impacted. However, a member of Congress would. It would also be grounds for impeachment.

There is also the sticky issue of Universal Jurisdiction. Especially if one travels when out of office.

[JohnH]

There is also the sticky issue of Universal Jurisdiction. Especially if one travels when out of office.

Such a thing doesn't exist. The idea that there is some global one world government is a conspiracy theory, not a real thing.

[Judas Maccabeus]

Treaties that the US has signed and the Senate has ratified ARE a part of the law of the United States:

Article 6, Section 2, clause 2:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Our founders were men with honor.

Whatever can I say about those who disregard agreements that we have made?