4 ms·

Who amongst us is not appalled that Iran would use any defenses against a preemptive invasion by countries it considers its sworn enemies, let alone all of thos

Who amongst us is not appalled that Iran would use any defenses against a preemptive invasion by countries it considers its sworn enemies, let alone all of those at its disposal?

JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
> is not appalled that Iran would use any defenses against a preemptive invasion by countries it considers its sworn enemies, let alone all of those at its disposal? Those of us who would prefer not to see schools get bombed. Like, you have a point. Iran hasn't been playing by international law since basically its founding. America flirted with the idea of blowing off international law before fully committing to the bit in 2025, joining Russia, China and Israel. So we have a theatre where those limits don't apply. That doesn't mean we shouldn't argue they should, or ask if Iran would have been better off playing by the rules.
- estimator7292 7mo ago
  I think probably the US shouldn't blow up schools full of kids regardless of who else is nearby. Wanting to kill one guy really, really bad is not really a justification for killing children.
  - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
    > Wanting to kill one guy really, really bad is not really a justification for killing children It shouldn't be. But historically it has been. The world tried, once after the Napoleonic Wars and again after WWII, to establish the norm that it isn't. But the norms were rejected first in parts and then wholesale in WWII. And then, again, in parts during and after the Cold War and then altogether with Russia into Ukraine, Israel being Israel, China going on about Taiwan and now America under this regime. Put another way, if you choose to engage in war today, you're going wind up killing children.
    - throw310822 7mo ago
      > if you choose to engage in war today, you're going wind up killing children. I assume you're fine when those children are Israeli then. And Hamas or Iran are the killers.
- treetalker 7mo ago
  I find it hard to give that argument (were it to come from the US) any weight when its head of state, who unilaterally started this conflict — and proudly so — recently went on record, along with his Secretary of State, to assert that there is no international law; certainly none that applies to him; and that the US is only bound by his "own morality". E.g., https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/08/trump-power-international-law https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/08/trump-power-...
  - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
    > hard to give that argument (were it to come from the US) any weight If Iran hadn't engaged in war crimes since the 1980s, including but not limited to restraining itself from supporting Hamas, before and after its October 7th attacks, chances are it wouldn't be at war right now. That isn't a satisfying answer. But part of why we have these norms is to reduce the sort of cross-contamination of belligerence that occured in the lead-up to each of the Napoleonic Wars, WWI, WWII and then the Cold War.

Who amongst us is not appalled that Iran would use any defenses against a preemptive invasion by countries it considers its sworn enemies, let alone all of those at its disposal?

JumpCrisscross 7mo ago

> is not appalled that Iran would use any defenses against a preemptive invasion by countries it considers its sworn enemies, let alone all of those at its disposal? Those of us who would prefer not to see schools get bombed. Like, you have a point. Iran hasn't been playing by international law since basically its founding. America flirted with the idea of blowing off international law before fully committing to the bit in 2025, joining Russia, China and Israel. So we have a theatre where those limits don't apply. That doesn't mean we shouldn't argue they should, or ask if Iran would have been better off playing by the rules.

estimator7292 7mo ago
I think probably the US shouldn't blow up schools full of kids regardless of who else is nearby. Wanting to kill one guy really, really bad is not really a justification for killing children.
- JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
  > Wanting to kill one guy really, really bad is not really a justification for killing children It shouldn't be. But historically it has been. The world tried, once after the Napoleonic Wars and again after WWII, to establish the norm that it isn't. But the norms were rejected first in parts and then wholesale in WWII. And then, again, in parts during and after the Cold War and then altogether with Russia into Ukraine, Israel being Israel, China going on about Taiwan and now America under this regime. Put another way, if you choose to engage in war today, you're going wind up killing children.
  - throw310822 7mo ago
    > if you choose to engage in war today, you're going wind up killing children. I assume you're fine when those children are Israeli then. And Hamas or Iran are the killers.
treetalker 7mo ago
I find it hard to give that argument (were it to come from the US) any weight when its head of state, who unilaterally started this conflict — and proudly so — recently went on record, along with his Secretary of State, to assert that there is no international law; certainly none that applies to him; and that the US is only bound by his "own morality". E.g., https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/08/trump-power-international-law https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/08/trump-power-...
- JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
  > hard to give that argument (were it to come from the US) any weight If Iran hadn't engaged in war crimes since the 1980s, including but not limited to restraining itself from supporting Hamas, before and after its October 7th attacks, chances are it wouldn't be at war right now. That isn't a satisfying answer. But part of why we have these norms is to reduce the sort of cross-contamination of belligerence that occured in the lead-up to each of the Napoleonic Wars, WWI, WWII and then the Cold War.