Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A simple question: Did Isreal and the USA breach UN article 2(4) in attacking Iran? “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations”" Looks like it to me but the reality is, you can break UN articles and even commit war crimes as you please - as long as you’ve got the power to put you out of reach of any consequences. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A simple question: Did Isreal and the USA breach UN article 2(4) in attacking Iran? “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations” Looks like it to me but the reality is, you can break UN articles and even commit war crimes as you please - as long as you’ve got the power to put you out of reach of any consequences." Indeed, Pete Hegseth has committed at least one war crime in the past week or so. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A simple question: Did Isreal and the USA breach UN article 2(4) in attacking Iran? “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations”" The answer to that is that it depends on interpretation. You've asked the question about both Israel and the United States together, so the clearest answer supporting the legality would presumably look to Israel's right to defense OR an already ongoing war. If one extends a proxy war to its originator, then Israel definitely has a right to strike Iran and, by extension, so do its allies. If one doesn't accept that there was either an ongoing war or that Iran cannot be equated with Hezbollah and the Houthis, say, then it may well be illegal, unless there is an imminent threat to either the US or Israel. That would be up to Israel to prove, should it come to that (which it won't). So people will bang on about it being an illegal war (at if it's fact) while at the same time bang on about how people claiming asylum cannot be termed "illegal" until there is due process of law (which sometimes gets kicked into the long grass). Finally, if it is indeed illegal, the question then is whether the law correctly accounted for complex situations such as the current one and whether the right thing is being done regardless. That's a different discussion, of course, and opinions will vary widely. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A simple question: Did Isreal and the USA breach UN article 2(4) in attacking Iran? “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations” The answer to that is that it depends on interpretation. You've asked the question about both Israel and the United States together, so the clearest answer supporting the legality would presumably look to Israel's right to defense OR an already ongoing war. If one extends a proxy war to its originator, then Israel definitely has a right to strike Iran and, by extension, so do its allies. If one doesn't accept that there was either an ongoing war or that Iran cannot be equated with Hezbollah and the Houthis, say, then it may well be illegal, unless there is an imminent threat to either the US or Israel. That would be up to Israel to prove, should it come to that (which it won't). So people will bang on about it being an illegal war (at if it's fact) while at the same time bang on about how people claiming asylum cannot be termed "illegal" until there is due process of law (which sometimes gets kicked into the long grass). Finally, if it is indeed illegal, the question then is whether the law correctly accounted for complex situations such as the current one and whether the right thing is being done regardless. That's a different discussion, of course, and opinions will vary widely." That’s a lot of word salad, though isn’t it? And it also includes a non-sequitur about asylum seekers. The question was simple. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The UN is a load of wank It took them 3.5 years to send peacekeepers to Bosnia. They did fuck all in Rwanda. Fuck all in Gaza. Their COP30 event venue destroyed 247 acres of rainforest. " Irrelevant to the question though. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A simple question: Did Isreal and the USA breach UN article 2(4) in attacking Iran? ..." On a related note, it's interesting that you pose this question after repeatedly dodging one on the other thread: In your view, at what point would a preemptive attack be justified - if you like you can imagine "at what point *should* the UN authorise a preemptive attack"? You also said: "Had Iran struck first, then they’re the ones engaging in an illegal war, and nations have a right to defended themselves." The follow on questions were: Why would a strike by Hezbollah, who were co-founded by Iran, largely run by Iran and are a proxy for Iran, not qualify? If the source of the funding and armaments is Iran, why not attack that source? What is more important, the legality of a war, or the moral rightness of a war? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" What is more important, the legality of a war, or the moral rightness of a war?" I responded to this already. Morals are subjective, legality is not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" That’s a lot of word salad, though isn’t it? " Nope, did you actually understand the answer given? Do you have an issue with nuanced topics? " And it also includes a non-sequitur about asylum seekers." Perhaps, but that doesn't invalidate the rest, does it? Funny how you could pick up on that enough to bring it up, but not understand the actual answer to your question. Perhaps you want to argue where you're most comfortable, picking out distractions. " The question was simple. " If you want simple answers to complex questions, go and vote Reform. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" What is more important, the legality of a war, or the moral rightness of a war? I responded to this already. Morals are subjective, legality is not. " We will assume, after strike three, that you do not wish to engage with the rest of the post. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A simple question: Did Isreal and the USA breach UN article 2(4) in attacking Iran? “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations”" you do realise them rules are for the 3rd world dont you? Us in the westcan do pretty much as we please why do you think blair and bush have never been held accountable for the illegal invasion of iraq its rules for everyone else not the west | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" That’s a lot of word salad, though isn’t it? Nope, did you actually understand the answer given? Do you have an issue with nuanced topics? And it also includes a non-sequitur about asylum seekers. Perhaps, but that doesn't invalidate the rest, does it? Funny how you could pick up on that enough to bring it up, but not understand the actual answer to your question. Perhaps you want to argue where you're most comfortable, picking out distractions. The question was simple. If you want simple answers to complex questions, go and vote Reform." The complexity lies in the circumstance, not in the question - therein lies your error. Wha you’re arguing is ‘yes the article was breached, and here’s my opinion of the justification’ - I didn’t ask that. I asked ‘was the article breached or not’ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A simple question: Did Isreal and the USA breach UN article 2(4) in attacking Iran? “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations”you do realise them rules are for the 3rd world dont you? Us in the westcan do pretty much as we please why do you think blair and bush have never been held accountable for the illegal invasion of iraq its rules for everyone else not the west" Oh absolutely. It’s highlighting exactly that. Pete Hegseth committed a war crime on TV in the past week or so. Has he been held to account? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A simple question: Did Isreal and the USA breach UN article 2(4) in attacking Iran? “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations”you do realise them rules are for the 3rd world dont you? Us in the westcan do pretty much as we please why do you think blair and bush have never been held accountable for the illegal invasion of iraq its rules for everyone else not the west Oh absolutely. It’s highlighting exactly that. Pete Hegseth committed a war crime on TV in the past week or so. Has he been held to account? " and he never will be looking for ke i saud those rules are for other countrys not in our sphere why would we use those rules for ourselves? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" What is more important, the legality of a war, or the moral rightness of a war? I responded to this already. Morals are subjective, legality is not. We will assume, after strike three, that you do not wish to engage with the rest of the post." I engaged previously and you didn’t want to discuss the other ‘allied’ nations who fund terror groups - only the ones you mentioned. I won’t debate with someone who can’t engage openly. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" What is more important, the legality of a war, or the moral rightness of a war? I responded to this already. Morals are subjective, legality is not. We will assume, after strike three, that you do not wish to engage with the rest of the post. I engaged previously and you didn’t want to discuss the other ‘allied’ nations who fund terror groups - only the ones you mentioned. I won’t debate with someone who can’t engage openly. " Apologies for the oversight - if you point that out, you will get a full and direct answer. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The question was simple. If you want simple answers to complex questions, go and vote Reform. The complexity lies in the circumstance, not in the question - therein lies your error. Wha you’re arguing is ‘yes the article was breached, and here’s my opinion of the justification’ - I didn’t ask that. I asked ‘was the article breached or not’ " The circumstance determines whether or not there has been a breach. If there is a baying horde at the borders and intelligence determines an imminent attack, there has been no breach in the event of a preemptive strike (Article 51 - right to self defense). If there is an ongoing war, then the article does not apply and there is no breach. There is an argument to be made for that, as well. Therefore, to conclude that there HAS been a breach, all of those other factors must be examined and ruled out. People will opine and posture for their own political reasons (or take a genuinely principled and moral stand), but this is not a legal reality. So, short answer: "perhaps, and subject to interpretation". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The question was simple. If you want simple answers to complex questions, go and vote Reform. The complexity lies in the circumstance, not in the question - therein lies your error. Wha you’re arguing is ‘yes the article was breached, and here’s my opinion of the justification’ - I didn’t ask that. I asked ‘was the article breached or not’ The circumstance determines whether or not there has been a breach. If there is a baying horde at the borders and intelligence determines an imminent attack, there has been no breach in the event of a preemptive strike (Article 51 - right to self defense). If there is an ongoing war, then the article does not apply and there is no breach. There is an argument to be made for that, as well. Therefore, to conclude that there HAS been a breach, all of those other factors must be examined and ruled out. People will opine and posture for their own political reasons (or take a genuinely principled and moral stand), but this is not a legal reality. So, short answer: "perhaps, and subject to interpretation"." So you’ve argued that the USA *did* breach the article at least - for there was no imminent threat. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So you’ve argued that the USA *did* breach the article at least - for there was no imminent threat. " Israel and the US did subject Iran to "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of [Iran]". Whether that was "inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations" is what is unclear to many and subject to debate. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Yes they're bad fuckers in the regime but we either have international law or we go with the rule of the jungle and history tells us how that ends up.." In many cases, it's more important that rule of law is enforced than the rightness of that law. However, Iran has been exploiting every opportunity to keep just about on the right side of international law to prevent anyone from attacking them, while actively preparing an end-of-days scenario for Israel. The calculation being that, by the time Israel is justified in doing anything about it, it's too late. Faced with Hezbollah who were co-founded, are financed, trained and directed by Iran, with whom Israel is currently at war, Israel would argue that they are already at war with Iran. If France openly hired, armed and directed an Irish militia of 50,000 as mercenaries who then declared war on the UK - would the UK be at war with France? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Faced with Hezbollah who were co-founded, are financed, trained and directed by Iran, with whom Israel is currently at war, Israel would argue that they are already at war with Iran. " Of course they would argue that. Would it hold up in a court? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Yes they're bad fuckers in the regime but we either have international law or we go with the rule of the jungle and history tells us how that ends up.. In many cases, it's more important that rule of law is enforced than the rightness of that law. However, Iran has been exploiting every opportunity to keep just about on the right side of international law to prevent anyone from attacking them, while actively preparing an end-of-days scenario for Israel. The calculation being that, by the time Israel is justified in doing anything about it, it's too late. Faced with Hezbollah who were co-founded, are financed, trained and directed by Iran, with whom Israel is currently at war, Israel would argue that they are already at war with Iran. If France openly hired, armed and directed an Irish militia of 50,000 as mercenaries who then declared war on the UK - would the UK be at war with France?" TM, your posts on here are well laid out and pretty much spot on but adding 'what if there are hordes and if France..' etc dont change the reality that in this case Israel amd America have by their actions acted in such a way that there is no legal amd lawful way of justification as per the laws as they are.. And yes I get the point that Iran are funding and have been for years the various terrorist groups.. And Iran cant be allowed to have nuclear weapons .. History will of course ignore such trivial things like international law because power talks and narratives are very much in the pen of the Victor's.. But at what price given the regime is still intact.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Faced with Hezbollah who were co-founded, are financed, trained and directed by Iran, with whom Israel is currently at war, Israel would argue that they are already at war with Iran. Of course they would argue that. Would it hold up in a court? " That's where interpretation comes in. It will probably never get to a court. In which case it will be endlessly debated along partisan lines. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" And Iran cant be allowed to have nuclear weapons .. " Let’s put the cat amongst the pigeons. Why can’t Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons? Why can’t anyone? Now I’m a pacifist. I’m vehemently against anyone having nukes, but why can’t some nations have them, and can it be argued without resorting to Western exceptionalism? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" And Iran cant be allowed to have nuclear weapons .. Let’s put the cat amongst the pigeons. Why can’t Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons? Why can’t anyone? Now I’m a pacifist. I’m vehemently against anyone having nukes, but why can’t some nations have them, and can it be argued without resorting to Western exceptionalism? " Because they are complete fucking nut jobs.. Yes there are other countries with them that are lets say unstable like North Korea but China keep them in check.. Call it whatever we like but it was the case before we were born and its not going to change.. I get the thinking that other countries think they need them as a deterrent etc but Iran have been consistent for years in their ideology based upon destroying Israel and America.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"...in this case Israel amd America have by their actions acted in such a way that there is no legal amd lawful way of justification as per the laws as they are.." The OP quoted the relevant section of law. The defense against that is that it was either necessary or a pre-existing conflict. You might be right, it might be not be justified when under the spotlight of an international court. But it might also be justified, legally and/or morally. The legal and legal defenses are above in the thread. The discussion generally focuses on self defense from the perspective the US (imminent threat), which echoes Iraq. That's a joke and the Trump administration trying to call it as self defense of themselves or Europe actually frustrates the real point: Israel is in constant danger. There are two dangers that would justify the strikes: (1) The already realised threat of missiles from proxies of Iran; and (2) The looming threat of an empowered Iranian axis. Iran tried to contain the imminent problem to its proxies, to deny Israel a clean justification to attack them directly. There is no question that Iran is fundamentally an existential threat to Israel. At some point, an attack on them would be justified, however Iran was trying to engineer that point to come after they were strategically unassailable (nukes and the delivery mechanism). If you believe that (you don't have to, but Israel does), then a preemptive strike was always going to happen, and the UN would certainly not explicitly endorse it until it was far too late for Israel. As such, it's possible that Israel got ahead of the game because they have a pliable ally in Trump. Illegal? Maybe. But two can play at legal semantics, hence Israel would claim either existing conflict or self defense. And that's a case to be made, however strong or weak. Which then brings the point: If it's illegal, was it moral? That's probably more interesting. Would there be a way for Israel to negate the existential threat whilst staying within the law (assuming that they aren't now). " And yes I get the point that Iran are funding and have been for years the various terrorist groups.. And Iran cant be allowed to have nuclear weapons .. History will of course ignore such trivial things like international law because power talks and narratives are very much in the pen of the Victor's.. But at what price given the regime is still intact.." It's possibly to early to tell what will happen. Perhaps we will look back in a year and say "it was all with it", perhaps we'll say "it was an unmitigated disaster and a pointless loss of life". Let's reconvene in a year?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" And Iran cant be allowed to have nuclear weapons .. Let’s put the cat amongst the pigeons. Why can’t Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons? Why can’t anyone? Now I’m a pacifist. I’m vehemently against anyone having nukes, but why can’t some nations have them, and can it be argued without resorting to Western exceptionalism? Because they are complete fucking nut jobs.. Yes there are other countries with them that are lets say unstable like North Korea but China keep them in check.. Call it whatever we like but it was the case before we were born and its not going to change.. I get the thinking that other countries think they need them as a deterrent etc but Iran have been consistent for years in their ideology based upon destroying Israel and America.. " There’s also a nut job in the Oval Office though. And as you say, North Korea are also problematic but we accept them having access to nukes. What about Russia? At what point would it theoretically be acceptable for a ‘changed’ Iran (or Iraq, or any other nation) to have access to such weaponry? And how would they prove it? What if India or Pakistan became massively problematic - a new 21st century superpower threatening its neighbours - would we take their nukes away? Do we in the west really have the right to dictate who has access to what weaponry? (These are all rhetorical questions btw - it’s an interesting discussion) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It's possibly too early to tell what will happen. Perhaps we will look back in a year and say "it was all with it", perhaps we'll say "it was an unmitigated disaster and a pointless loss of life". Let's reconvene in a year? "I feel like when there’s even a slight risk that a war might be an unmitigated disaster, one probably shouldn’t wage war though. I guess we really did learn nothing from 2003. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"...in this case Israel amd America have by their actions acted in such a way that there is no legal amd lawful way of justification as per the laws as they are.. The OP quoted the relevant section of law. The defense against that is that it was either necessary or a pre-existing conflict. You might be right, it might be not be justified when under the spotlight of an international court. But it might also be justified, legally and/or morally. The legal and legal defenses are above in the thread. The discussion generally focuses on self defense from the perspective the US (imminent threat), which echoes Iraq. That's a joke and the Trump administration trying to call it as self defense of themselves or Europe actually frustrates the real point: Israel is in constant danger. There are two dangers that would justify the strikes: (1) The already realised threat of missiles from proxies of Iran; and (2) The looming threat of an empowered Iranian axis. Iran tried to contain the imminent problem to its proxies, to deny Israel a clean justification to attack them directly. There is no question that Iran is fundamentally an existential threat to Israel. At some point, an attack on them would be justified, however Iran was trying to engineer that point to come after they were strategically unassailable (nukes and the delivery mechanism). If you believe that (you don't have to, but Israel does), then a preemptive strike was always going to happen, and the UN would certainly not explicitly endorse it until it was far too late for Israel. As such, it's possible that Israel got ahead of the game because they have a pliable ally in Trump. Illegal? Maybe. But two can play at legal semantics, hence Israel would claim either existing conflict or self defense. And that's a case to be made, however strong or weak. Which then brings the point: If it's illegal, was it moral? That's probably more interesting. Would there be a way for Israel to negate the existential threat whilst staying within the law (assuming that they aren't now). And yes I get the point that Iran are funding and have been for years the various terrorist groups.. And Iran cant be allowed to have nuclear weapons .. History will of course ignore such trivial things like international law because power talks and narratives are very much in the pen of the Victor's.. But at what price given the regime is still intact.. It's possibly to early to tell what will happen. Perhaps we will look back in a year and say "it was all with it", perhaps we'll say "it was an unmitigated disaster and a pointless loss of life". Let's reconvene in a year? "I'm hedging my bets purely on past interventions..  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" And Iran cant be allowed to have nuclear weapons .. Let’s put the cat amongst the pigeons. Why can’t Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons? Why can’t anyone? Now I’m a pacifist. I’m vehemently against anyone having nukes, but why can’t some nations have them, and can it be argued without resorting to Western exceptionalism? Because they are complete fucking nut jobs.. Yes there are other countries with them that are lets say unstable like North Korea but China keep them in check.. Call it whatever we like but it was the case before we were born and its not going to change.. I get the thinking that other countries think they need them as a deterrent etc but Iran have been consistent for years in their ideology based upon destroying Israel and America.. There’s also a nut job in the Oval Office though. And as you say, North Korea are also problematic but we accept them having access to nukes. What about Russia? At what point would it theoretically be acceptable for a ‘changed’ Iran (or Iraq, or any other nation) to have access to such weaponry? And how would they prove it? What if India or Pakistan became massively problematic - a new 21st century superpower threatening its neighbours - would we take their nukes away? Do we in the west really have the right to dictate who has access to what weaponry? (These are all rhetorical questions btw - it’s an interesting discussion) " We've always had democratic nut jobs with a nuclear suitcase to hand of course, but the back up is the system is designed to protect itself if the nut job goes totally doolally.. We accept North Korea because we know we cant physically do anything about it, that's the crux of it.. Other countries I reckon will only need allowed into the club if they satisfy one of the big boys, but the others will have a say in that strategically.. No one is going to give up their deterrent, certainly neither India whilst Pakistan keeps theirs etc and vice versa.. Its like a badge of we are a successful strong nation.. Its a huge hypocrisy that one country has the overall say on who gets to join the club, essentially the head of the pride holds sway.. All a bit totally fucking bonkers but nowt us minions can do about it.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It's possibly too early to tell what will happen. Perhaps we will look back in a year and say "it was all with it", perhaps we'll say "it was an unmitigated disaster and a pointless loss of life". Let's reconvene in a year?
I feel like when there’s even a slight risk that a war might be an unmitigated disaster, one probably shouldn’t wage war though.
I guess we really did learn nothing from 2003."The consequences and risks of action and inaction are wildly different for each actor in this scenario. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Either way, no one gives a fuck about the UN anymore." Except when it suits, of course. How quickly would a western nation have been calling an act of war illegal were the roles reversed? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The article 2(4) is a multi-page document with clarifications on when it's allowed and when it's not. The three lines you shared alone doesn't cover it all. There is right to self defense and even Responsibility to protect, cyber attacks, etc. which can he used as an excuse. Either way, no one gives a fuck about the UN anymore." You're overcomplicating a very simple question...  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Was it an unprovoked attack on a sovereign state at peace with the world or was it an attack on a regime that has always stated it is at war with the Zionists and the Great Satan by declaring "Death to America" and "Death to Israel"?" Legally it is irrelevant though. That’s the point of the question. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Who's actually going to stop Trump from doing whatever he wants? Only America has the power to stop him even then I'm not sure. " That’s the crux, isn’t it? I mean the USA could be utterly destroyed - but only at the expense of the rest of the world with it in a nuclear war. And that’s what creates western exceptionalism. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It's possibly too early to tell what will happen. Perhaps we will look back in a year and say "it was all with it", perhaps we'll say "it was an unmitigated disaster and a pointless loss of life". Let's reconvene in a year?
I feel like when there’s even a slight risk that a war might be an unmitigated disaster, one probably shouldn’t wage war though.
I guess we really did learn nothing from 2003.
The consequences and risks of action and inaction are wildly different for each actor in this scenario."Given Trump’s own words, about the damage done to Iran last year, and so far this year - there is no threat to immediately withdrawing - he himself states that the war is ‘over’ Of course these a risk now of a power vacuum, but that’s going to be there no matter when withdrawal takes place unless they leave a task force on site. Boots on the ground. Which he rules out, then backtracked a bit on. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Who's actually going to stop Trump from doing whatever he wants? Only America has the power to stop him even then I'm not sure. " Maybe a suicidal Iranian will get through his security. I hope he's being careful 🤞 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The article 2(4) is a multi-page document with clarifications on when it's allowed and when it's not. The three lines you shared alone doesn't cover it all. There is right to self defense and even Responsibility to protect, cyber attacks, etc. which can he used as an excuse. Either way, no one gives a fuck about the UN anymore. You're overcomplicating a very simple question... " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Either way, no one gives a fuck about the UN anymore. Except when it suits, of course. How quickly would a western nation have been calling an act of war illegal were the roles reversed? " Like every other country in the world, which was my point to begin with. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What is the process to declare this an illegal war? Is the fact that many, including experts say it's illegal enough? Or does the UN need to fully investigate and perhaps hold a court case and if the decision is it's illegal then it's illegal? If they decide illegal what are the consequences or punishment?" Som people on a forum is enough for some | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A simple question: Did Isreal and the USA breach UN article 2(4) in attacking Iran? “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations”" No. UN purpose number 1 is "To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression ...". The US can easily argue that Iran was committing acts of aggression on its own people, and therefore the attack was warranted. You and I might disagree, but there's a clear path there for a defence if it ever got to a court. There's no clear evidence of a breach, so it can't be said that the US definitely breached UN article 2(4). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What is the process to declare this an illegal war? Is the fact that many, including experts say it's illegal enough? Or does the UN need to fully investigate and perhaps hold a court case and if the decision is it's illegal then it's illegal? If they decide illegal what are the consequences or punishment? Som people on a forum is enough for some "Well looks like we will need a bigger court as the BBC have reported: Human Rights Watch: 'Iran has unlawfully targeted civilians' in Gulf states. Field day for the lawyers | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pete Hegseth committed a war crime on TV in the past week or so. Has he been held to account?" He hasn't been held to account because he didn't commit a war crime. You really should stop pushing this obvious falsehood. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"...If they decide illegal what are the consequences or punishment?" If you're small enough to bully, but not small enough to be irrelevant... And if you have resources... Some "cop" nation will beat you up and take your stuff. Unless you have powerful friends. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pete Hegseth committed a war crime on TV in the past week or so. Has he been held to account? He hasn't been held to account because he didn't commit a war crime. You really should stop pushing this obvious falsehood." While thousands of people are killed by their own murderous regime, the sharpest words are reserved for someone who stupidly said "no quarter" in a rhetorical rant. Although it's unlikely that he was actually trying to say "if people try to surrender, don't let them - shoot them instead", it reinforces the notion that Hegseth=bad (he isn't great, that's for sure) and justifies extremely loaded language in order to push a position. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"While thousands of people are killed by their own murderous regime, the sharpest words are reserved for someone who stupidly said "no quarter" in a rhetorical rant. Although it's unlikely that he was actually trying to say "if people try to surrender, don't let them - shoot them instead", it reinforces the notion that Hegseth=bad (he isn't great, that's for sure) and justifies extremely loaded language in order to push a position." Agreed. And that's a lot of the problem with modern debate. People feel justified in using ludicrous exaggerations of their opponent's words to justify the hatred that they've already decided to spew out upon them. It makes it so difficult to have any sort of meaningful debate. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pete Hegseth committed a war crime on TV in the past week or so. Has he been held to account? He hasn't been held to account because he didn't commit a war crime. You really should stop pushing this obvious falsehood." Yes he did. Using the phrase ‘No Quarter’ is a war crime. Whether you agree or not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Was it an unprovoked attack on a sovereign state at peace with the world or was it an attack on a regime that has always stated it is at war with the Zionists and the Great Satan by declaring "Death to America" and "Death to Israel"? Legally it is irrelevant though. That’s the point of the question. " The point of the reply to the question is that the left will always say that any action by their nemesis is illegal even with the support to their proxies declarations of intent to kill. The point of the reply to the question is that the right will always say that any action by their nemesis is legal because of the support to their proxies declarations of intent to kill. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pete Hegseth committed a war crime on TV in the past week or so. Has he been held to account? He hasn't been held to account because he didn't commit a war crime. You really should stop pushing this obvious falsehood. Yes he did. Using the phrase ‘No Quarter’ is a war crime. Whether you agree or not. "  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pete Hegseth committed a war crime on TV in the past week or so. Has he been held to account? He hasn't been held to account because he didn't commit a war crime. You really should stop pushing this obvious falsehood. Yes he did. Using the phrase ‘No Quarter’ is a war crime. Whether you agree or not. "Article 23 of the Hague Convention of 1907 states that "it is especially forbidden to declare that no quarter will be given" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pete Hegseth committed a war crime on TV in the past week or so. Has he been held to account? He hasn't been held to account because he didn't commit a war crime. You really should stop pushing this obvious falsehood. Yes he did. Using the phrase ‘No Quarter’ is a war crime. Whether you agree or not.
Article 23 of the Hague Convention of 1907 states that "it is especially forbidden to declare that no quarter will be given""Agreed regarding unconditional declaration of "no quarter" but he actually stated that no quarter will be given to those who do not lay down their arms (ie. that they continue combat). Isn't the "no quarter" declaration mentioned to in the 1907 convention referring to non combatants either by way of civilians or military who are no longer fighting? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pete Hegseth committed a war crime on TV in the past week or so. Has he been held to account? He hasn't been held to account because he didn't commit a war crime. You really should stop pushing this obvious falsehood. Yes he did. Using the phrase ‘No Quarter’ is a war crime. Whether you agree or not.
Article 23 of the Hague Convention of 1907 states that "it is especially forbidden to declare that no quarter will be given"
Agreed regarding unconditional declaration of "no quarter" but he actually stated that no quarter will be given to those who do not lay down their arms (ie. that they continue combat).
Isn't the "no quarter" declaration mentioned to in the 1907 convention referring to non combatants either by way of civilians or military who are no longer fighting?"It’s part of the customary laws of war, applicable and binding to all parties in a conflict. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" While thousands of people are killed by their own murderous regime, the sharpest words are reserved for someone who stupidly said "no quarter" in a rhetorical rant. Although it's unlikely that he was actually trying to say "if people try to surrender, don't let them - shoot them instead", it reinforces the notion that Hegseth=bad (he isn't great, that's for sure) and justifies extremely loaded language in order to push a position." Some years ago we sacked someone for using a piece of parlance that was unacceptable. He claimed it wasn’t intended in that fashion, it was a ‘turn of phrase’ and was meant without harm. You know what? He was probably telling the truth. You can argue that we might have shown lenience, you can argue that perhaps the rules should have been changed, but what you can’t argue, is that the decision was unjust or wrong. Because in any rules based society, you have to deal with rule breaking. You may not think Hegseth was issuing a cry to slaughter everyone, and you’d be right, I’m certain he wasn’t. But that doesn’t change the law. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Some years ago we sacked someone for using a piece of parlance that was unacceptable. He claimed it wasn’t intended in that fashion, it was a ‘turn of phrase’ and was meant without harm." Was he prosecuted and found guilty? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Some years ago we sacked someone for using a piece of parlance that was unacceptable. He claimed it wasn’t intended in that fashion, it was a ‘turn of phrase’ and was meant without harm. Was he prosecuted and found guilty?" In a workplace sense, yes. An investigation was undertaken and the outcome was dismissal. The point is that rules don’t care about opinion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Some years ago we sacked someone for using a piece of parlance that was unacceptable. He claimed it wasn’t intended in that fashion, it was a ‘turn of phrase’ and was meant without harm. Was he prosecuted and found guilty? In a workplace sense, yes. An investigation was undertaken and the outcome was dismissal. The point is that rules don’t care about opinion. " So he wasn't a criminal. So perhaps, in a political sense, he is "guilty" of "using a piece of parlance that was unacceptable". Perhaps he is actually guilty of a war crime. Perhaps he isn't. He's an idiot. But it's far from certain (or even probable) that he's actually a war criminal. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Some years ago we sacked someone for using a piece of parlance that was unacceptable. He claimed it wasn’t intended in that fashion, it was a ‘turn of phrase’ and was meant without harm. Was he prosecuted and found guilty? In a workplace sense, yes. An investigation was undertaken and the outcome was dismissal. The point is that rules don’t care about opinion. So he wasn't a criminal. So perhaps, in a political sense, he is "guilty" of "using a piece of parlance that was unacceptable". Perhaps he is actually guilty of a war crime. Perhaps he isn't. He's an idiot. But it's far from certain (or even probable) that he's actually a war criminal." Well the fact that Hegseth has committed a war crime is undeniable, unless you believe he didn’t say it - which given we have video evidence of it, would be a strange stance to take. Whether any action will be taken is another matter (and of course it won’t). You’re arguing that somebody who robs a bank is only committing a criminal act if they’re sentenced for it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Some years ago we sacked someone for using a piece of parlance that was unacceptable. He claimed it wasn’t intended in that fashion, it was a ‘turn of phrase’ and was meant without harm. Was he prosecuted and found guilty? In a workplace sense, yes. An investigation was undertaken and the outcome was dismissal. The point is that rules don’t care about opinion. So he wasn't a criminal. So perhaps, in a political sense, he is "guilty" of "using a piece of parlance that was unacceptable". Perhaps he is actually guilty of a war crime. Perhaps he isn't. He's an idiot. But it's far from certain (or even probable) that he's actually a war criminal. Well the fact that Hegseth has committed a war crime is undeniable, unless you believe he didn’t say it - which given we have video evidence of it, would be a strange stance to take. Whether any action will be taken is another matter (and of course it won’t). You’re arguing that somebody who robs a bank is only committing a criminal act if they’re sentenced for it. " No... A case can be made accusing him of a war crime. In the position he holds, even his rhetoric carries weight. It would be a good thing for him to be called out, legally, on this. His defense would be that it would not have been construed as an order and that it was just rhetoric. Given the full context of the statement, he probably thought he was just talking tough. He's out of his depth and he is a wannabe definition of toxic masculinity. The best outcome for the US is that he would lose his job. Might he have committed a war crime? Yes. Did he? Maybe. That's for a court to decide. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" No... A case can be made accusing him of a war crime. In the position he holds, even his rhetoric carries weight. It would be a good thing for him to be called out, legally, on this. His defense would be that it would not have been construed as an order and that it was just rhetoric. Given the full context of the statement, he probably thought he was just talking tough. He's out of his depth and he is a wannabe definition of toxic masculinity. The best outcome for the US is that he would lose his job. Might he have committed a war crime? Yes. Did he? Maybe. That's for a court to decide. " A court could show leniency - but the law is that nobody “shall declare that no quarter be given’ He declared it. Unarguably so. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pete Hegseth committed a war crime on TV in the past week or so. Has he been held to account?" "He hasn't been held to account because he didn't commit a war crime. You really should stop pushing this obvious falsehood." "Yes he did. Using the phrase ‘No Quarter’ is a war crime. Whether you agree or not." No it isn't. Troops using a 'no quarter' policy is a war crime, as is an officer issuing such an order. A politician saying it in a press conference to an entirely home crowd isn't a war crime. Yes, in any normal government he'd be sacked for over-stepping the line, but this is Trump's government and they all seem to have no shame. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" A court could show leniency - but the law is that nobody “shall declare that no quarter be given’ He declared it. Unarguably so. " One might expect the Democrats to pursue prosecution on this if they really believe they have a chance. Why don't they? They would love nothing more than to see him fall on a criminal master. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A court could show leniency - but the law is that nobody “shall declare that no quarter be given’ He declared it. Unarguably so." It isn't unarguable, because I'm about to argue that you're wrong. In the Hague Convention "declare" means 'to issue an order to troops'. It does not mean simply saying the words "no quarter" in a non-military setting. Pete Hegseth went too far in his bombast to the press, and he would be well advised to withdraw the words to protect America's troops from irrational reprisals. But he hasn't committed a crime, war or otherwise. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It isn't unarguable, because I'm about to argue that you're wrong. In the Hague Convention "declare" means 'to issue an order to troops'. It does not mean simply saying the words "no quarter" in a non-military setting. " No, that’s your interpretation. The Hague convention doesn’t specify the definition of ‘declare’. I did find the below from Oona Hathaway (who is a legal expert and was special counsel to the pentagon) “Indeed, ordering that no quarter will be given, threatening an adversary therewith, or conducting hostilities on this basis is prohibited and constitutes a war crime,” So someone with far more knowledge than you or I also points out ‘threatening an adversary’ constitutes a war crime. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It isn't unarguable, because I'm about to argue that you're wrong. In the Hague Convention "declare" means 'to issue an order to troops'. It does not mean simply saying the words "no quarter" in a non-military setting. No, that’s your interpretation. The Hague convention doesn’t specify the definition of ‘declare’. I did find the below from Oona Hathaway (who is a legal expert and was special counsel to the pentagon) “Indeed, ordering that no quarter will be given, threatening an adversary therewith, or conducting hostilities on this basis is prohibited and constitutes a war crime,” So someone with far more knowledge than you or I also points out ‘threatening an adversary’ constitutes a war crime. " The expert is providing an opinion, the expert can be wrong snd that would be tested if needed. Ask yourself this question, would or have US troops been influenced by his words to the point of committing a war crime? The answer to that is clearly we don't know. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It isn't unarguable, because I'm about to argue that you're wrong. In the Hague Convention "declare" means 'to issue an order to troops'. It does not mean simply saying the words "no quarter" in a non-military setting. No, that’s your interpretation. The Hague convention doesn’t specify the definition of ‘declare’. I did find the below from Oona Hathaway (who is a legal expert and was special counsel to the pentagon) “Indeed, ordering that no quarter will be given, threatening an adversary therewith, or conducting hostilities on this basis is prohibited and constitutes a war crime,” So someone with far more knowledge than you or I also points out ‘threatening an adversary’ constitutes a war crime. The expert is providing an opinion, the expert can be wrong snd that would be tested if needed. Ask yourself this question, would or have US troops been influenced by his words to the point of committing a war crime? The answer to that is clearly we don't know." And we’d all agree that the opinion of an expert which is going out to the world, is infinitely more valuable than ours, correct? And your question about influence is legally irrelevant - even moreso since your own response to it is to accept that nobody knows - implying that there is indeed the potential that his words could be construed or taken as an order. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And we’d all agree that the opinion of an expert which is going out to the world, is infinitely more valuable than ours, correct? " Have you cherry-picked someone who agrees with you, or are there other experts who differ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And we’d all agree that the opinion of an expert which is going out to the world, is infinitely more valuable than ours, correct? Have you cherry-picked someone who agrees with you, or are there other experts who differ?" You’re free to google, I’ve seen nothing defending his words or outright clearing him as the fabs experts here have. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In the Hague Convention "declare" means 'to issue an order to troops'. It does not mean simply saying the words "no quarter" in a non-military setting." "No, that’s your interpretation. The Hague convention doesn’t specify the definition of ‘declare’." It's an interpretation supported by legal precedent. "I did find the below from Oona Hathaway (who is a legal expert and was special counsel to the pentagon) “Indeed, ordering that no quarter will be given, threatening an adversary therewith, or conducting hostilities on this basis is prohibited and constitutes a war crime,” So someone with far more knowledge than you or I also points out ‘threatening an adversary’ constitutes a war crime. " Ah, so you've given up on your argument that he 'declared no quarter', and you're now switching to 'threatening no quarter'. Ms Hathaway's words are perfectly correct, in that threatening no quarter is indeed a war crime. But you'll notice that she does not say that Hegseth's actions constitute a threat. No one is going to agree with you that making an overblown speech to the US press constitutes an explicit threat to the enemy. Even more so when it was made by a civilian with no power over military rules or objectives. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Ah, so you've given up on your argument that he 'declared no quarter', and you're now switching to 'threatening no quarter'." No, I’ve given up on nothing. He declared ‘no quarter’ he made a declaration. If you don’t see it as a declaration, presumably because you purposefully misconstrue what that word means, it’s still making a threat in the context of his statement. It’s clear that you’re not going to agree, and that is fine. I’ll accept the view of the experts who agree he’s on *very* shaky ground, and this would constitute a war crime if tested. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I’ll accept the view of the experts who agree he’s on *very* shaky ground, and this would constitute a war crime if tested. " Very shaky ground, or definitely a war crime? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I’ll accept the view of the experts who agree he’s on *very* shaky ground, and this would constitute a war crime if tested. Very shaky ground, or definitely a war crime?" I think the end of the sentence is succinct, no? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A simple question: Did Isreal and the USA breach UN article 2(4) in attacking Iran? “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations”" the un is irrelevant so it's policy's are irrelevant | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ah, so you've given up on your argument that he 'declared no quarter', and you're now switching to 'threatening no quarter'." "No, I’ve given up on nothing. He declared ‘no quarter’ he made a declaration. If you don’t see it as a declaration, presumably because you purposefully misconstrue what that word means, it’s still making a threat in the context of his statement. It’s clear that you’re not going to agree, and that is fine. I’ll accept the view of the experts who agree he’s on *very* shaky ground, and this would constitute a war crime if tested. " Now you've given up entirely on your own arguments and are relying on what experts say. So let's find some. All of the experts I've seen say that declaring or threatening 'no quarter' is a war crime (which we knew), but none of them have said that Pete Hegseth did either of those things. A few have gone as far as to say that he *may* have committed a war crime, but none have gone further than that. So since we both agree that experts should be listened to, find me an expert that is willing to say that Pete Hegseth's actions are definitely, or even likely, a war crime. I'll wait. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So since we both agree that experts should be listened to, find me an expert that is willing to say that Pete Hegseth's actions are definitely, or even likely, a war crime. I'll wait." No need to wait, you’ve already been given one - Oona Hathaway. but you chose to ignore and blather because there’s no possible way you’re wrong and someone else is right. “declaring that no quarter will be given unequivocally violates international humanitarian law.” “Indeed, ordering that no quarter will be given, threatening an adversary therewith, or conducting hostilities on this basis is prohibited and constitutes a war crime,” | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So since we both agree that experts should be listened to, find me an expert that is willing to say that Pete Hegseth's actions are definitely, or even likely, a war crime. I'll wait." "No need to wait, you’ve already been given one - Oona Hathaway. but you chose to ignore and blather because there’s no possible way you’re wrong and someone else is right. “declaring that no quarter will be given unequivocally violates international humanitarian law.” “Indeed, ordering that no quarter will be given, threatening an adversary therewith, or conducting hostilities on this basis is prohibited and constitutes a war crime,”" As I've already said, Oona Hathaway's words are entirely accurate, and we all agree that declaring or threatening 'no quarter' is a war crime. But she doesn't say that Pete Hegseth has declared or threatened 'no quarter'. That's just your assumption. What we need is an expert that has said "Pete Hegseth" and "war crime" in the same sentence. You'll find a few experts that have done that, while also including the words "may have" in that same sentence. Can you find an expert that's been more concrete? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So since we both agree that experts should be listened to, find me an expert that is willing to say that Pete Hegseth's actions are definitely, or even likely, a war crime. I'll wait. No need to wait, you’ve already been given one - Oona Hathaway. but you chose to ignore and blather because there’s no possible way you’re wrong and someone else is right. “declaring that no quarter will be given unequivocally violates international humanitarian law.” “Indeed, ordering that no quarter will be given, threatening an adversary therewith, or conducting hostilities on this basis is prohibited and constitutes a war crime,” As I've already said, Oona Hathaway's words are entirely accurate, and we all agree that declaring or threatening 'no quarter' is a war crime. But she doesn't say that Pete Hegseth has declared or threatened 'no quarter'. That's just your assumption. What we need is an expert that has said "Pete Hegseth" and "war crime" in the same sentence. You'll find a few experts that have done that, while also including the words "may have" in that same sentence. Can you find an expert that's been more concrete?" Oona has been concrete, and I’m glad you agree with her summation. Can you explain how saying “We will keep pressing, keep pushing, keep advancing – no quarter, no mercy for our enemy.” In a recorded event Isn’t a declaration or a threat? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oona has been concrete, and I’m glad you agree with her summation." She's been concrete on the idea that declaring or threatening 'no quarter' is a war crime. She's said nothing at all on whether that is what Pete Hegseth has done. "Can you explain how saying “We will keep pressing, keep pushing, keep advancing – no quarter, no mercy for our enemy.” In a recorded event Isn’t a declaration or a threat?" I already have, several times. It's a civilian boating about his country's abilities in a press conference attended by his country's media. Declaring no quarter can only be done by a military officer, as it involves issuing orders to troops. As a civilian, Pete Hegseth can't do that. Boasting about how tough your country's military is to a local crowd isn't issuing a threat to a foreign enemy. But let's stick with experts. Can you find me a single expert that is willing to say that Pete Hegseth has, or is likely to have, committed a war crime. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Oona has been concrete, and I’m glad you agree with her summation. Can you explain how saying “We will keep pressing, keep pushing, keep advancing – no quarter, no mercy for our enemy.” In a recorded event Isn’t a declaration or a threat? " Even if you do not agree with it, do you understand the point and distinction we're making here? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A simple question: Did Isreal and the USA breach UN article 2(4) in attacking Iran? “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations”" "inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations" A lot of wiggle room there. 
At the end of the day its not that long ago when Iran shot down aa civilian airliner in their own airspace that had taken off from their own airport in Tehran. That in itself was due to them being in panic mode after launching attacks on US bases in the region.
If memory serves those attacks were retaliation for some commander being assassinated by Israel? Anyway, aa lot of recent history and thus wiggle room. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oona has been concrete, and I’m glad you agree with her summation. She's been concrete on the idea that declaring or threatening 'no quarter' is a war crime. She's said nothing at all on whether that is what Pete Hegseth has done. Can you explain how saying “We will keep pressing, keep pushing, keep advancing – no quarter, no mercy for our enemy.” In a recorded event Isn’t a declaration or a threat? I already have, several times. It's a civilian boating about his country's abilities in a press conference attended by his country's media. Declaring no quarter can only be done by a military officer, as it involves issuing orders to troops. As a civilian, Pete Hegseth can't do that. " Secretary of defense is a civilian position within the military chain of command, is it not? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can you explain how saying “We will keep pressing, keep pushing, keep advancing – no quarter, no mercy for our enemy.” In a recorded event Isn’t a declaration or a threat?" "I already have, several times. It's a civilian boating about his country's abilities in a press conference attended by his country's media. Declaring no quarter can only be done by a military officer, as it involves issuing orders to troops. As a civilian, Pete Hegseth can't do that." "Secretary of defense is a civilian position within the military chain of command, is it not?" No, it's not. The "chain of command" runs from the top of a military force down the bottom. Hegseth is a civilian, so he's not in the chain of command. As secretary of defence he instructs military leaders to prosecute the war in a particular way, and they then go and issue the commands. The top brass are at liberty (and under compulsion) to refuse any instruction that they consider to be detrimental to the war effort. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can you explain how saying “We will keep pressing, keep pushing, keep advancing – no quarter, no mercy for our enemy.” In a recorded event Isn’t a declaration or a threat? I already have, several times. It's a civilian boating about his country's abilities in a press conference attended by his country's media. Declaring no quarter can only be done by a military officer, as it involves issuing orders to troops. As a civilian, Pete Hegseth can't do that. Secretary of defense is a civilian position within the military chain of command, is it not? No, it's not. The "chain of command" runs from the top of a military force down the bottom. Hegseth is a civilian, so he's not in the chain of command. As secretary of defence he instructs military leaders to prosecute the war in a particular way, and they then go and issue the commands. The top brass are at liberty (and under compulsion) to refuse any instruction that they consider to be detrimental to the war effort." Incorrect, partially. The top brass can indeed refuse, but they do sit below the Secretary of defense, who sits only below the commander in chief - the president. And they’d refuse at their own risk. To claim the Secretary of defense is not in the chain of command is simply incorrect. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can you explain how saying “We will keep pressing, keep pushing, keep advancing – no quarter, no mercy for our enemy.” In a recorded event Isn’t a declaration or a threat? I already have, several times. It's a civilian boating about his country's abilities in a press conference attended by his country's media. Declaring no quarter can only be done by a military officer, as it involves issuing orders to troops. As a civilian, Pete Hegseth can't do that. Secretary of defense is a civilian position within the military chain of command, is it not? No, it's not. The "chain of command" runs from the top of a military force down the bottom. Hegseth is a civilian, so he's not in the chain of command. As secretary of defence he instructs military leaders to prosecute the war in a particular way, and they then go and issue the commands. The top brass are at liberty (and under compulsion) to refuse any instruction that they consider to be detrimental to the war effort. Incorrect, partially. The top brass can indeed refuse, but they do sit below the Secretary of defense, who sits only below the commander in chief - the president. And they’d refuse at their own risk. To claim the Secretary of defense is not in the chain of command is simply incorrect." That is not correct, your last response clearly states within in the military chain of command. Removing "military" would indicate you know what part you had wrong maybe? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Incorrect, partially. The top brass can indeed refuse, but they do sit below the Secretary of defense, who sits only below the commander in chief - the president. And they’d refuse at their own risk. To claim the Secretary of defense is not in the chain of command is simply incorrect." I'm afraid you're wrong. The president is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, and is therefore in charge. It's an honorary title, the president is still a civilian, but technically he is in charge. Below him are the top brass, and then it goes down the ranks. Hegseth, along with all of the other advisors to the military, sits on a different branch of the org chart as part of the government. He tells the top brass what he wants done, but he can't order them to do it. He is not in the military chain of command. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can you explain how saying “We will keep pressing, keep pushing, keep advancing – no quarter, no mercy for our enemy.” In a recorded event Isn’t a declaration or a threat? I already have, several times. It's a civilian boating about his country's abilities in a press conference attended by his country's media. Declaring no quarter can only be done by a military officer, as it involves issuing orders to troops. As a civilian, Pete Hegseth can't do that. Secretary of defense is a civilian position within the military chain of command, is it not? No, it's not. The "chain of command" runs from the top of a military force down the bottom. Hegseth is a civilian, so he's not in the chain of command. As secretary of defence he instructs military leaders to prosecute the war in a particular way, and they then go and issue the commands. The top brass are at liberty (and under compulsion) to refuse any instruction that they consider to be detrimental to the war effort. Incorrect, partially. The top brass can indeed refuse, but they do sit below the Secretary of defense, who sits only below the commander in chief - the president. And they’d refuse at their own risk. To claim the Secretary of defense is not in the chain of command is simply incorrect. That is not correct, your last response clearly states within in the military chain of command. Removing "military" would indicate you know what part you had wrong maybe? " No, I removed the word military because it’s patently obvious what I was saying. The Secretary of defense is in the military chain of command. He answers to one person. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No, I removed the word military because it’s patently obvious what I was saying. The Secretary of defense is in the military chain of command. He answers to one person." You carry on denying reality I'm the meantime, how are you getting on with finding an expert that is willing to say that Pete Hegseth's actions are definitely, or even likely, a war crime? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
