omw_68
8d ago
But I feel like Europeans are generally more critical of the [self-defense by Israelis against Hamas terrorism emanating from Gaza] and the current attack on Iran.
FTFY. But that's my impression as well.
omw_68
8d ago
But more importantly, we have already concluded that they are pieces of shit and choose to act immorally. We want them to behave morally, but we have given up expecting it so there is no benefit to spending more time on it than necessary to document their atrocities for posterity.
I actually kind of disagree with this. Here's a hypothetical:
Suppose the Palestinian Arabs put a military base under a hospital; they use that military base to conduct terror campaigns against Israel; and Israel bombs the hospital and takes out the military base but kills some civilians in the process.
Suppose that in such situations, instead of condemning Israel for bombing a hospital, the United Nations; most of the world's political leaders; and most of the world's NGO's publicly blame the entire situation on the Palestinian Arabs.
In that case, I think there's a pretty good chance that the Palestinian Arabs would stop using human shields.
omw_68
8d ago
The reason proxy wars don't always degenerate to large armed conflict is because the relevant powers fighting the proxy war think the proxy war is a better way to engage in the contest than escalating to armed conflict, not because they cannot or "are not allowed."
I tend to agree with this. A blanket rule that a proxy attack somehow "doesn't count" simply doesn't make sense.
omw_68
8d ago
There are an amazing number of people responding with, essentially, "shit happens in war", seemingly with giving any further thought to questions like "can we make shit happen less in war?", "does what we're trying to achieve justify this shit?", and "should the fact that shit happens in war make us more cautious about going to war?"
I suspect part of the problem is that the "shit happens in war" crowd perceive that for the most part, complaints about the school situation are not being made in good faith, but are rather being used as a club to beat up on the out-group. As someone who is pro-Israel, I regularly see the "isolated demand for perfection" game being played, and it's not by people who sincerely care about civilian deaths -- as evidenced by their selectivity.
In any event, I think your questions have pretty much been answered implicitly, but for what it may be worth here are my answers: (1) no, we can't make shit happen less in war; (2) if the war was justified in advance of the school situation, it's still justified now because everyone knows that bombing campaigns inevitably endanger civilians; and (3) no, because we don't want to reward or encourage bullying from behind human shields.
Probably my answers are a little overstated, e.g., there may very well be improvements that can be made to our military to lessen (but not eliminate) the chances of incidents like this. This is a topic which probably should be discussed, but it needs to be approached in such a way as to make clear that it's being raised in good faith and is not about beating up on the out-group.
omw_68
8d ago
Yes, if not more-so, though I think it's better framed as "NATO" or "The Western Bloc" more broadly than just the U.S.A as countries like the UK, France, Poland and Germany have also played important roles in the process.
Well let's be specific. According to Iran, Hezbollah has confirmed that it is under the command of Ayatollah Khamenei:
https://wanaen.com/hezbollah-we-are-under-the-command-of-ayatollah-khamenei/
Assuming you believe this, my question is who exactly is commanding the Ukranian military? Apparently you don't think it's President Trump. You believe it's a group of NATO leaders working together informally?
Historically, no, that has not been considered a justification for direct action against a state sponsor.
Ok, so if the United Kingdom funded and armed the Ukranian military; trained them; and commanded them to start attacking Russian villages; and the Ukranian military followed its instructions and attacked Russian villages, massacring thousands of people, then IN YOUR VIEW, Russia would NOT be justified in retaliating against the United Kingdom. Do I understand you correctly?
omw_68
8d ago
But surely you can see that the sentiment being expressed here is beyond that of just "it is silly to expect perfection from the US."
I'm not sure I understand your point. What sentiment do you say is being expressed here?
omw_68
8d ago
Does focusing one's campaigning on one's own government, instead of others, really count as an isolated demand for rigour?
I don't know, but I am pretty confident that when it comes to Israel, the majority of the demands for perfection are coming from non-Israelis.
omw_68
8d ago
It's "woke" to not want to kill children?
Yes, if "we don't want to kill children" is the motte, but the bailey is something like "the US (or Israeli) military should not engage in otherwise legitimate attacks if children might be endangered."
And in practice, "we don't want children to get harmed" is a motte a very large percentage of the time.
omw_68
8d ago
US bases are basically towns in their own right. In every aspect it would be more difficult to school kids off-base, plus it would create new security risks.
I don't know enough about military matters to comment on this, but I concede that what I am proposing might not be logistically feasible.
That being said, if the Iranians launched a missile at a military base in the US or Israel, and in doing so blew up a school which was located on that base, I do not believe that they should receive any extra condemnation for having blown up a school.
Similarly, if the Iranians were targeting specific buildings on a military base in the US or Israel, and by mistake targeted a school, I do not think they should receive any extra condemnation for having blown up a school.
omw_68
8d ago
US bases include housing for soldiers and their families, like normal cookie-cutter suburban neighborhoods. Changing this changes the model of military service.
I don't know enough about the military to comment on this, however I concede what I am proposing might not be logistically feasible.
omw_68
8d ago
In the case of CONUS/Alaska/Hawaii, the children live on the base, some of which are bigger than our smallest state, so bussing them would be bad for quality of life.
Yes, as I mentioned in another post it might not be logistically feasible.
omw_68
8d ago
Russia isn't nuking NATO over Ukraine
-
In your view, does the US control the Ukrainian military the way that Iran has in the past with Hezbollah?
-
If you believe that the US does exercise that level of control, if the US ordered the Ukrainian military to start attacking Russian villages, do you believe that Russia would have any justification to retaliate directly against the United States?
omw_68
8d ago
The US military maintains a network of schools for service member’s Children. This is the best public(Catholic schools are better) school system in the country going off test scores and is a regular line item in the budget overseen by the DoD- it’s not ad hoc.
I don't dispute that at all. I'm just saying it would be nice if the school facilities were located off-base. Even if an attack against a US base is unlikely, I think it sets a good example. That being said, I have no idea if this is logistically feasible.
omw_68
8d ago
Ultimately wars don't start when the leader of a formerly peaceful nation wakes up and decides to kill some people, they are an escalation of a violent and hostile relationship. If invading Iranian territory and killing its head of state doesn't make A+I the aggressors, probably aggressor/defender is the wrong way to look at this conflict.
Perhaps, but it's pretty clear that if anyone is the "aggressor," it's Iran.
omw_68
8d ago
Talking smack about an unfriendly country doesn't constitute waging war against them. Building nukes may justify a pre-emptive war as a matter of sound policy, but it doesn't as a matter of international law, and it certainly doesn't make you the aggressor if someone does wage a pre-emptive war against you - as a matter of ordinary English meanings of words, building nukes does not constitute aggression unless they are used.
You have a better case on point (1) - Iran is indeed supporting proxies which are attacking Israel (and indeed committing war crimes against Israeli civilians). But they are not an aggressor here - they skate on two technicalities.
The attacks on Israel aren't by Iranians and don't come from Iranian territory. There is a lot of state practice (very much including the US and Israel) of funding plausibly deniable proxies to engage in military action against countries you are at peace with. I don't think the involvement of US government officials in NORAID makes the US the aggressor in the IRA's war against my country. Iran funding Hamas and Hezbullah is a hostile act against Israel, and a despicable one given the circumstances in the current year, but it isn't military aggression in the way the term is usually used in practice.
Hamas and Hezbullah's attacks on Israel are not aggressive. Both are resistance movements that started their wars when Israel was in belligerent occupation of the Palestinian Territories and southern Lebanon respectively. If NATO funds resistance to Russia in occupied Ukraine, that is a hostile act against Russia but not an aggressive one. Hezbullah has continued their defensive war against Israel long after Israel withdrew from Lebanese territory and have been told to stop by the UNSC, which makes their continued war against Israel wrong, but it doesn't make it aggression.
I wasn't aware that you were using the word "aggressor" as a legal term of art. And assuming that the word is in fact such a term, I am extremely skeptical of your claim that proxy attacks do not count.
Please provide cites and links to support your claim. TIA.
Separately, since you have used the phrase "Palestinian Territories," can you please tell me (1) which land areas constitute "Palestinian Territories" (e.g. do they include Ramallah, Gaza City, Hebron, Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, etc.); and (2) how those areas came to be "Palestinian Territories"? TIA
omw_68
8d ago
We (the average american young person) are soft and that's a good thing! (it makes us less willing to accept wars)
I don't think that's necessarily true. If a bad actor knows (or at least perceives) that you are unwilling (or less willing) to go to war, he is more likely to engage in bad behavior against you or your allies.
To be sure, the United States has the luxury of being a large, wealthy country in a very defensible location. But we do (arguably) have interests overseas and there are definitely people who are tempted to interfere with those interests.
omw_68
8d ago
This is standard practice, the US has 160 such schools.
With the benefit of hindsight, this seems like a bad idea to me. Even if it's a base that's not in serious danger of being attacked, it strikes me as a bad precedent.
That being said, if the US were at war, and the enemy attacked a military base and destroyed such a school, I do not think the enemy would deserve any special condemnation for having done so.
There needs to be a principle that -- as far as the rules of war go -- there is nothing necessarily or inherently wrong with an attack that destroys a school if the attack was otherwise legitimate. Anything else encourages the use of human shields.
Also Iranians were negotiating in good faith
I tend to doubt this. Probably there is no way to know for sure either way, but what's your evidence?
omw_68
8d ago
As other people have pointed out, these things happen. Making a fuss about this bombing mainly incentivizes Iran's leadership to start using human shields.
omw_68
8d ago
Man, how many Japanese kids and teachers were incinerated when we firebombed Tokyo? War is terrible, that's why we shouldn't be overly fond of it.
Agreed, and I would add that people who make a fuss about this school bombing are, in effect, endangering MORE children. What do you expect Iran's leadership to do if they perceive they can gain an advantage from this situation? The obvious thing is to start mixing military facilities with schools, hospitals, etc.
Don't incentivize Iran to start using human shields.
omw_68
8d ago
The war is obviously more existential for Iran than it is for any of the aggressors.
To be clear, Iran IS the aggressor -- certainly with respect to Israel. People seem to forget the facts that (1) for many years, Iran has been relentlessly attacking Israel by means of its proxies; (2) Iran's leadership has openly threatened to wipe Israel off the map; and (3) Iran's leadership has prioritized building a nuclear bomb.
I agree that at the moment, Iran has a lot more to lose than Israel or the United States. Probably Iran's leadership should have thought about that before engaging in its aggressive behavior.
omw_68
9d ago
My worry is that at this point, the surviving leadership decides that a bomb is the only path to security.
Being afraid of the bully can make you give in, it can also make you bring a gun to school.
I think that this is a variation on "now they'll REALLY hate us." The fact is that for some time Iran has been making it a high priority to build a nuclear bomb.
omw_68
9d ago
Okay, plus this
I looked at those links and saw NOTHING supporting your claim. Would you mind QUOTING the relevant parts?
Here you go
All I see here is Israel bombing weapons sites which Israel perceived to be a threat. That's "bombing Syria into oblivion"?
Hitler didn't attempt to annex Vichy either but that might have changed had he won the war. Israel has, for it's entire existence (with the partial exception of the Rabin-Sharon era), been in an unending state of attempting to absorb territory from one or more of it's neighbors.
Umm, does that mean "yes" or "no"?
Perhaps you should engage in some preliminary research yourself on these topics before expressing arbitrary skepticism, since the only real dispute here is not whether the Israelis activated their nuclear forces but whether said activation was decisive in provoking American intervention on their side
Sorry, but I'm not your research assistant. It's not my burden to go searching for evidence to support your claims.
Anyway, can you please quote the part of this article which you believe backs up what you are saying?
omw_68
9d ago
There's a big difference between taking out a random speedboat, and taking out every single speedboat.
I don't know enough about military issues to respond definitively to this, but based on my general knowledge of the US militar, I would be pretty surprised if we had to bargain with Iran in order to keep the Strait open.
omw_68
9d ago
Which eliminates the entire idea of inspiring fear to avoid hatred.
Perhaps, but I think the basic point is correct. It's not really worth worry about whether Iran's leadership REALLY hates us now. Because they already did, and even if they didn't have reason to, they would surely manufacture some grievance.
I'm not going to debate it in this sub-thread.
More options
Context Copy link