Iran War

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

 

1. C',mon mike. 

2. I mean.... not untrue but i'm questioning it's relevance  

3. Insulting someone to say that insulting people is bad is.. well... dumb.  You're not having your best day today. 

1. I'm glad nitpick with you.  Babylon is known as a city-state, and towns and other kinds of jurisdictions make laws. 

It's semantic and nebulous 

2. An anarchist is an extreme form of libertarian, which is an extreme form of conservative. But it bends around... So they smoke weed, are vegan, and date trans people.  IOW they are your worst nightmare 

3. And not a good day for me. It's true. But you have to have your captain crunch and stop insulting people.  

 

 

 

[herbie]

21 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. Yaaaaaaaawn... Somebody give Insult man a bowl of Capn Crunch.

Agghh! Do not throw a bowl of Capt Crunch with milk at just the right temperature as an insult.
You would not be able to post without legions of geeks who thrived upon it.

Kind of like when they disqualified that snowboarder for smoking dope, from what I remember in the 1970s it was people at the  aster parties, stoned out of their nut riding garbage can lids, car hoods, sheets of panel board that invented the sport.

[Michael Hardner]

22 minutes ago, herbie said:

 
1. You would not be able to post without legions of geeks who thrived upon it.

2. Kind of like when they disqualified that snowboarder for smoking dope, from what I remember in the 1970s it was people at the  aster parties, stoned out of their nut riding garbage can lids, car hoods, sheets of panel board that invented the sport.

1. I will calmly assure you that my relationship with that product is very deep.  DM me for details.

2. It was a contact high due to the potency of BC weed.  The judges knew it.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I'm glad nitpick with you.  Babylon is known as a city-state, and towns and other kinds of jurisdictions make laws. 

 

That's a nation. sorry.   You're not nitpicking, you're just wrong.   The local towns etc operate under the authority of the main state who may allow them to do their own thing... or not.  Just like we have municiple laws. 

And in antiquity even a city state is still a nation.  They don't have to be big to be a nation. A nation is a large group of people sharing a collective identity based on common culture, language, history, or ethnicity, often inhabiting a specific territory. They exercise control and authority over that territory.  

Again, you're not nitpicking, you're just wrong.  Babylon was a nation. 

Could Babylon have been described as a nation - Google Search

"Yes, Babylon was a powerful ancient nation, often described as a kingdom or empire (specifically the Babylonian Empire) that reigned over Mesopotamia"

You're just plain out and out wrong. 

And i see you at least dropped the inter NATIONAL law argument  

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. An anarchist is an extreme form of libertarian, which is an extreme form of conservative. But it bends around... So they smoke weed, are vegan, and date trans people.  IOW they are your worst nightmare 

Basically all of that is completely untrue. Anarchy and conservatism have absolutely nothing in common. Anarchy and libertarianism have nothing in common. Libertarianism and conservatism barely scratch each other at all but there's a couple of overlying areas, but then again there's a overlying areas between conservatism and liberals in many cases.

So that whole comment was just absolutely nonsense. But you were originally correct that to the best of my recollection I have not sat around early in the morning smoking weed with an anarchist

And as to what I have to eat or stop I'm afraid you have absolutely no controller say over that  The best way to avoid me insulting you is to make a good argument. Doesn't have to be an argument I agree with but it has to be good.

Meanwhile if you act like a complete douche you're probably going to get called douchey things.

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

The planet can exist just fine.

So can any structure of laws people put their effort into constructing.

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

So what it's really like is you're saying you're stupid and you'd like to change your previous answer to something that you might be able to defend better

No, that's just you being an arsehole about it.  

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

So can any structure of laws people put their effort into constructing.

 

For a lot to be a law there must be a central authority and framework you agree to it and that is a nation. Or derived from a nation., such as in the case of municiple law or strata law or the like where smaller groups create biding rules. 

otherwise there's no law. At best there's agreement between a few people that they could break at any time with no legal consequence. 

Give me one example of there ever being a set of actual law (not just an agreement) without an established nation enabling it?

 

[eyeball]

23 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

For a lot to be a law there must be a central authority and framework you agree to it and that is a nation. Or derived from a nation., such as in the case of municiple law or strata law or the like where smaller groups create biding rules. 

otherwise there's no law. At best there's agreement between a few people that they could break at any time with no legal consequence. 

Give me one example of there ever being a set of actual law (not just an agreement) without an established nation enabling it?

 

How on Earth did established sovereign countries ever come into being without a central authority and framework?  

Through war and conquest sure but sometimes also through agreements and treaties held between often unacknowledged and even disavowed nations, tribes clans, and peoples that came before. Our very own sovereign country's confederation is based on that very thing. The structure of laws that govern us came after.

Point being, it's clear people can create, change, modify and even dispense with laws and even the whole structure they rest on should they choose to. Humans have been doing so ever since, and probably learned how, by Neanderthals.  It's just cooperating to get mutually beneficial things done.

[herbie]

One day my grandchildren can watch the Iran War on the History Channel. A 3 episode season repeated 14/7 every three hours for the next 25 years. Or stream it ad free for only 15 bars of Gold Plated Latinum.

Once my daughter took me to a fancy Persian restaurant for dinner. Beyond delicious, and an instant after we walked out I cut the Fart Of The Century, echoes off the buildings on the far side of the parking lot, and  sighed with relief. And saw my girl's face. The owner had walked out behind us.... he spun around walked back in and I never went there again.
That's the limit of my experience with Iranians here up north.

So my limited personal opinion is I hope they pound the damn  mullahs into the ground so the people can choose their own govt. Even a Shah, so long as he's got no more power than our King Chucky. While still realizing it's still an illegal and unsanctioned war.

[Reg Volk]

17 minutes ago, herbie said:

One day my grandchildren can watch the Iran War on the History Channel.

I'm sad that you have procreated.

[WestCanMan]

26 minutes ago, herbie said:

So my limited personal opinion is I hope they pound the damn  mullahs into the ground

Congrats for being honest about that much. 

Most leftists are not able to say such things. 

Quote

so the people can choose their own govt.

I think we would all love that, but the last 60 years of ME history scream "no chance".

Hope springs eternal, I guess.

Quote

While still realizing it's still an illegal and unsanctioned war.

It's as legal as any war, ever.

Russia had a right to start their war with Ukraine, and the US had a right to start this war. 

Fact is, if you really wanna start a war, you just start a war, and that has been the case since the beginning of recorded history.

If the Nazis won WWII, the history books would remember them as brilliant tacticians, brave warriors, with brilliant scientists, and we would all learn about how they clawed their way back from the injustices of the armistice.

 

"Kill one man, you're a murderer; kill a million men, you're a hero." - humans 

[herbie]

14 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

It's as legal as any war, ever.

Congress decides wars. Not Presidents. A broad based consensus thru the UN. NATO or an alliance like Iraq in 1991
Not by one person because he wants to.

[Reg Volk]

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

How on Earth did established sovereign countries ever come into being without a central authority and framework?  

They came into being in order to form a framework.

Think back to the constitution of America for example. This is the founding document and explains why they came together, look at the preamble

We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice and promote domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, propose the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty

That's why they did it. They created a nation and founded a constitution to create a framework for law order and for the provision to protect these things from others who would try to take them away

But without that framework there is no basis for any law.

If two guys are just living in the woods they can make agreements as to what they're going to do or not do but there cannot be a law. By what power would the law exist? If one were going to sue the other for breech of 'law', to what authority would he appeal? And what legislative framework would he say that law exists under? There's none. 

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

Through war and conquest sure but sometimes also through agreements and treaties held between often unacknowledged and even disavowed nations,

No. Always between recognized and about nations. Somebody stood forward and said I represent these people. But your sidestepping the point, the issue is the creation of law  Conquest brings someone else under your law by force, but you still have a nation that is a framework for those laws. 

You can't have law without a national framework whether it's on the scale of a city or a continent. Otherwise there is no framework for the law.  It has never happened in history, it can't happen.  Before there can be law, there MUST be the formation of a nation that will provide the framework for those laws, it's enforcement and usually it's defense. otherwise, there's no law, there's just strong personal opinions on stuff. 

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

...  Before there can be law, there MUST be the formation of a nation that will provide the framework for those laws, it's enforcement and usually it's defense. otherwise, there's no law, there's just strong personal opinions on stuff. 

 

In the American context, this lesson has been taught many, many times through history, by many different presidents.  It is in the job description.   Might does not make right...it just makes.

Iran's luck just ran out with this combination of sitting U.S. president and Israeli prime minister.   Iran was given a warning shot last year, but continued to fool around and find out.  International or domestic U.S. federal law would not/cannot protect them...only defensive/offensive enforcement can do that.

[User]

3 hours ago, herbie said:

Congress decides wars. Not Presidents. A broad based consensus thru the UN. NATO or an alliance like Iraq in 1991
Not by one person because he wants to.

You clearly have no understanding of American law, the Constitution, and historical precedent. 

 

[WestCanMan]

18 hours ago, herbie said:

Congress decides wars. Not Presidents. A broad based consensus thru the UN. NATO or an alliance like Iraq in 1991
Not by one person because he wants to.

That's just a CNN talking point, herbie. 

[herbie]

13 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

That's just a CNN talking point, herbie

No you pinhead, it's American law - only Congress can declare war. Since that debacle in 
Vietnamc

The torpedoing of a Iranian warship in International waters, thousands of miles from the conflict zone without a formal declaration of war (other than Trump calling it so) proves it is a illegal and unsanctioned action. And won't be if a cowering. spineless Congress declare it such after the fact.

To be expected of a nation that bombs and murders fishermen in International waters merely by saying they're drug smugglers without offering or ever intending to offer any substantial proof or justification. Total descent into totalitarianism of a nation that once held itself as the moral centre of the world. Cowering Congress, eager obedient subject Generals a la SS, made pretty clear when Donnie Dicktater renamed Defence the Dept. of War.

[WestCanMan]

16 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

In the American context, this lesson has been taught many, many times through history, by many different presidents.  It is in the job description.   Might does not make right...it just makes.

TBH, I can't imagine a more ridiculous concept than "all 535 people in congress (or 453 congressmen or 100 senators) need to vote on a war before the US attacks anyone" 😂

Might as well just make a rule that the US needs to offer a formal declaration and then give the other side a week to get prepared before they attack, because there is a 100% chance that Omar, Tlaib, and Jefferies would all have given Iran a heads-up before the attack.

"Look how well prepared the Iranians are this time! So many more Americans are dying. This is what I call a real war: it's way more fair!" - Chuck Schumer & AOC

 

If the Japanese had to consult US congress before they attacked America, then that would make sense, but I'm pretty sure no one's gonna do that.

Wars have happened by surprise for thousands of years, and the element of surprise is very beneficial. 

Quote

The torpedoing of a Iranian warship in International waters, thousands of miles from the conflict zone without a formal declaration of war (other than Trump calling it so) proves it is a illegal and unsanctioned action.

You just admitted that there was a conflict. 

Also, Iran has been threatening the US and Israel with death for generations. Their arsenal was 99% offensive in nature. 

If I threatened to punch you in the face for 10 weeks straight, and then you started a fight with me one day, could I really call it unprovoked? Would a judge go for that? 

Edited March 5 by WestCanMan

[WestCanMan]

Just now, herbie said:

No you pinhead, it's American law - only Congress can declare war. 

😂

Call it something else then. Call it a quarantine, or retaliation for the 150+ attacks on US bases by Iran, or even just a pre-emptive strike. The US has launched 125 "strikes" since WWII, herbie. 

Try as you might, you can't make this into "something new" when It's "something common". 

[Legato]

24 minutes ago, herbie said:

No you pinhead, it's American law - only Congress can declare war. Since that debacle in 
Vietnamc

The torpedoing of a Iranian warship in International waters, thousands of miles from the conflict zone without a formal declaration of war (other than Trump calling it so) proves it is a illegal and unsanctioned action. And won't be if a cowering. spineless Congress declare it such after the fact.

To be expected of a nation that bombs and murders fishermen in International waters merely by saying they're drug smugglers without offering or ever intending to offer any substantial proof or justification. Total descent into totalitarianism of a nation that once held itself as the moral centre of the world. Cowering Congress, eager obedient subject Generals a la SS, made pretty clear when Donnie Dicktater renamed Defence the Dept. of War.

So when did Iran ask congress for permission to attack other countries?

You bumblefreaks keep on calling Trump a Nazi, well, looky here a US Blitzkrieg.

[bush_cheney2004]

55 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

"Look how well prepared the Iranians are this time! So many more Americans are dying. This is what I call a real war: it's way more fair!" - Chuck Schumer & AOC

If the Japanese had to consult US congress before they attacked America, then that would make sense, but I'm pretty sure no one's gonna do that.

 

 

Indeed...wars are not about having a fair fight.  Besides it didn't take a military genius to figure out that the U.S. was massing forces in the region, not only to apply pressure for nuclear weapons negotiations, but to wage unrepentant war as required.  A lower level state of conflict already existed anyway...Iran failed to read the room correctly.

As for the War Powers Act, that was a political process prompted by the Vietnam War and domestic responses, technically for the deployment of ground troops.   All presidents since have waged war (acts of war) mostly without any such approvals, including President Obama.  

Wars are not good, but they can be very necessary:

"

War is the continuation of politics by other means"— Carl von Clausewitz

 

[WestCanMan]

8 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Indeed...wars are not about having a fair fight.  Besides it didn't take a military genius to figure out that the U.S. was massing forces in the region, 

True.

And TBH, if AOC sent the Iranians her version of the battle plans it probably wouldn't have helped the Iranians. 

[Nationalist]

20 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Congrats for being honest about that much. 

Most leftists are not able to say such things. 

I think we would all love that, but the last 60 years of ME history scream "no chance".

Hope springs eternal, I guess.

It's as legal as any war, ever.

Russia had a right to start their war with Ukraine, and the US had a right to start this war. 

Fact is, if you really wanna start a war, you just start a war, and that has been the case since the beginning of recorded history.

If the Nazis won WWII, the history books would remember them as brilliant tacticians, brave warriors, with brilliant scientists, and we would all learn about how they clawed their way back from the injustices of the armistice.

 

"Kill one man, you're a murderer; kill a million men, you're a hero." - humans 

Not that I disagree with you here but, it was the Russian Duma (Congress) that approved the attack and war in Ukraine. 

Jus' sayin'...

[WestCanMan]

4 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Not that I disagree with you here but, it was the Russian Duma (Congress) that approved the attack and war in Ukraine. 

Jus' sayin'...

OMFG 😂😂

So the Russian war is 'legal' and the war against Iran is illegal. 

😂😂😭🤣🥳

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

The torpedoing of a Iranian warship in International waters, thousands of miles from the conflict zone without a formal declaration of war (other than Trump calling it so) proves it is a illegal and unsanctioned action. And won't be if a cowering. spineless Congress declare it such after the fact.

 

I understand your point, but captain and crew of IRIS Dena knew damn well they were at war and a legitimate target as a warship....as a "man-of-war".   There should have been no debate on the bridge about this reality.

I will say that there is no wholesale joy in sending fellow sailors to the bottom, because we know that could be our fate as well.   But this is the nature of sailing warships...always has been.   

Live torpedoes on a submarine are called "warshots"....we hang signs on the torpedo tube breech doors stating as much.   It is very serious business to attack another ship with a submarine launched heavyweight torpedo...hasn't been done since the Falklands War in 1982 to my knowledge (HMS Conquerer sunk ARA General Belgrano (ex US cruiser) with large loss of life.

Full disclosure....I was a submarine weapons officer back in the early-mid 1980's.   Slept with Mk14, Mk37 and Mk48 torpedoes for years...only fired exercise variants for training and certification.   Remember...these weapons can fail and destroy own ship...serious business.

Edited March 5 by bush_cheney2004