Israel and US hit Iran

It's a pity this Country has such a wet leader at this time.
Starmer drops from my esteem further every day of this War.
There has got to be someone better to run the Country.

That is still not a reason to be rude.

Chocolatelovinggran

Oreo, it is possible for other people to have some understanding of international matters, as well as yourself.

I’m not sure that oreo does actually understand International or constitutional law, because she wouldn’t be posting what she is posting.

Whereas Whitewavemark2 is an expert of course.
International or constitutional law just isn’t relevant when dealing with a terrible regime such as Iran.
Just do what needs doing and make the world a safer place.

Oreo is one of the few people on here that have realistic and sensible arguments. IMO, of course.
In fact, I agree with all her words to the extent mine are redundant (yippee).

Iran have been given a free pass for far too long.

Thanks Boz 😃

fancythat

Would you not need to sign up to it?

A law made in Nigeria is not binding on someone living in the Uk for example.

A law made by the UN is not going to be binding to all countries.

Who is the world police?
Maybe a discussion for another thread? Not sure I will start it.

I have alwasy wondered about "international law"
Always seemed a misnomer to me.
And not exactly binding on all 206 countries.

Unless you are thinking of, or wanting, a new world order?

The Nuremberg trials (1945-1946) established foundational principles of modern international law. Individuals, not just states can be held criminally responsible for atrocities. The trials were international criminal trials held by France, Russia, Uk, USA against the leaders of Nazi Germany,

The recent film with Russell Crowe as Goring goes into the legal complexities and establishment of the principles of international law.

No one on this thread is suggesting Iran doesn’t have despotic dangerous leaders. That imo doesn’t justify what Trump did, illegally, in the middle of negotiations. I’m not suggesting the negotiations were heading positively but I can’t support what Trump has started

Oreo

Whereas Whitewavemark2 is an expert of course.
International or constitutional law just isn’t relevant when dealing with a terrible regime such as Iran.
Just do what needs doing and make the world a safer place.

No but sovereign equality is, and that is what you are advocating breaking.

Sovereign equality protects us all.

How can you justify breaking it?

Neither Netanyahu or Trump are motivated for altruistic reasons.

Boz

Oreo is one of the few people on here that have realistic and sensible arguments. IMO, of course.
In fact, I agree with all her words to the extent mine are redundant (yippee).

So do I.

Iam64

fancythat

Would you not need to sign up to it?

A law made in Nigeria is not binding on someone living in the Uk for example.

A law made by the UN is not going to be binding to all countries.

Who is the world police?
Maybe a discussion for another thread? Not sure I will start it.

I have alwasy wondered about "international law"
Always seemed a misnomer to me.
And not exactly binding on all 206 countries.

Unless you are thinking of, or wanting, a new world order?

The Nuremberg trials (1945-1946) established foundational principles of modern international law. Individuals, not just states can be held criminally responsible for atrocities. The trials were international criminal trials held by France, Russia, Uk, USA against the leaders of Nazi Germany,

The recent film with Russell Crowe as Goring goes into the legal complexities and establishment of the principles of international law.

No one on this thread is suggesting Iran doesn’t have despotic dangerous leaders. That imo doesn’t justify what Trump did, illegally, in the middle of negotiations. I’m not suggesting the negotiations were heading positively but I can’t support what Trump has started

If you lived Iran you would feel very differently.

The people who live in Iran have as varied views as we do Meandogrog, obviously. It is a universal truism.

Casdon

The people who live in Iran have as varied views as we do Meandogrog, obviously. It is a universal truism.

That would depend on whether you are a man or a woman.

To a degree, but there are women who accept the current order too, I have no doubt. None of us can speak for everybody else, they are people just like us, and we are poles apart as a group of older, mainly women, on this forum.

Casdon

To a degree, but there are women who accept the current order too, I have no doubt. None of us can speak for everybody else, they are people just like us, and we are poles apart as a group of older, mainly women, on this forum.

Just interested to know who the women are who accept the current order? Do you know of any? I would expect they will be rejoicing in the streets!

Boz

Oreo is one of the few people on here that have realistic and sensible arguments. IMO, of course.
In fact, I agree with all her words to the extent mine are redundant (yippee).

The US people in the majority of over 60 percent do not want this war .
They have already lost 6 servicemen. 3 planes of A value of 31 million and heaven knows how much in munitions.
Yet Trump prattles on about drapes and ballrooms!
While some here can bravely say how wonderful this war is the Americans know differently . I appreciate Starmer putting the brakes on this travesty. I don’t appreciate those here that don’t pay the taxes that subsidize this… except at the gas pump !

Meandrogrog

Casdon

To a degree, but there are women who accept the current order too, I have no doubt. None of us can speak for everybody else, they are people just like us, and we are poles apart as a group of older, mainly women, on this forum.

Just interested to know who the women are who accept the current order? Do you know of any? I would expect they will be rejoicing in the streets!

Just check it out Meandogrog, that’s what I do.
‘Some women do support the regime, due to religious conviction, traditional values, or ideological alignment with the Islamic Republic's anti-Western stance.
These women, often supporters of the hardline establishment, may participate in pro-hijab rallies, believing in the regime's enforcement of modesty laws.
Support Base: Supporters often advocate for the mandatory hijab (chador) as a symbol of faith and cultural identity.
Active Roles: Some women are active within the regime's structure, working as politicians, in government, or with organizations that support the Islamic Republic's ideology.
Contrast with Resistance: While a base of support exists, it is countered by a large, visible movement of women protesting for rights, defying mandatory hijab laws, and demanding an end to theocratic rule.
Complex Motivations: Support can stem from viewing the regime as a protector against foreign influence, while opposition is fueled by restrictions on personal freedoms, employment, and legal rights.’
AI summary.

Even if one accepts - which we all clearly do - that the Iranian regime is deeply problematic, accepting that a nation can bypass legal constraints when it deems it necessary sets a dangerous precedent. Other states with military capability could apply the same logic.

Over time, that weakens the rule-based framework that helps prevent escalation and replaces it with a power-based system. And ultimately, global anarchy.

The issue is whether we’re comfortable normalising a principle that powerful states may ignore legal constraints whenever they believe their cause is justified... because that principle won’t remain exclusive to us.

Thank you, British friends, for your concern about my feelings. (Well, most of you, anyway.) No worries about that; I've been participating in online discussions on this and other forums for ages, and I'm used to the fact that some people are rude; most are not.

About Iran, I am the first to admit that I am far from an expert about that country. For that matter, is anyone? The Ayatollah was not exactly an open book. But I do get most of my news from the NY Times and bbc.com online, and CNN and MS NOW on TV throughout the day. That's at least enough for me to be reasonably conversant about the probable outcome of the actions of Trump/Netanyahu.

I am a mother, grandmother, and the great-grandmother of two adorable little sweethearts, and while I probably won't be around much longer, I am very concerned about the future of the rest of my family. I don't want to see any of them put at risk to boost Trump's ego. Iran, bad as it was, did not start this war. We did.

Interestingly, today's news says that even a group of Republican members of Congress are warning Trump that his swaggering boast about not getting the yips about boots on the ground is going too far. His own party!

I saw that too Golden lady.

I need to go look to see how the Primary went in Texas yesterday. The House is going to lose that seat I think.

Let's hope!

Casdon

Meandrogrog

Casdon

To a degree, but there are women who accept the current order too, I have no doubt. None of us can speak for everybody else, they are people just like us, and we are poles apart as a group of older, mainly women, on this forum.

Just interested to know who the women are who accept the current order? Do you know of any? I would expect they will be rejoicing in the streets!

Just check it out Meandogrog, that’s what I do.
‘Some women do support the regime, due to religious conviction, traditional values, or ideological alignment with the Islamic Republic's anti-Western stance.
These women, often supporters of the hardline establishment, may participate in pro-hijab rallies, believing in the regime's enforcement of modesty laws.
Support Base: Supporters often advocate for the mandatory hijab (chador) as a symbol of faith and cultural identity.
Active Roles: Some women are active within the regime's structure, working as politicians, in government, or with organizations that support the Islamic Republic's ideology.
Contrast with Resistance: While a base of support exists, it is countered by a large, visible movement of women protesting for rights, defying mandatory hijab laws, and demanding an end to theocratic rule.
Complex Motivations: Support can stem from viewing the regime as a protector against foreign influence, while opposition is fueled by restrictions on personal freedoms, employment, and legal rights.’
AI summary.

Meandogrog, Casdon sets out clearly the reality on the variety of beliefs by women living in what we see as oppressive regimes that show no respect for women as equal citizens. I’m afraid I see your belief that women will be rejoicing as naive. Some would rejoice if it was safe enough to do so. Others would readily support the oppressors

Well. Apparently today is Tuesday, not Wednesday. Today is election day!

I am interested to see how the Dems are voting in the Primaries. So far, they have chosen more Progressive candidates in places like New York. I can't imagine centrist Dems drawing in voters with their same old rhetoric. They all deserve to be on the unemployment line.

Oreo

If you don’t know anything about Iran GoldenLady which appears to be the case then naturally you won’t understand why it had to be done.

GL seems to know quite a lot?