If we won the war a month ago…

Are you drunk? Not only is the thread titled if we won the war a YEAR ago,....then you follow up by thinking were in the IRAQ war?
 

Trump's U.N. Ambassador Mike Waltz says bombing every bridge and power plant in Iran wouldn't be a war crime


He is incorrect.

Deliberately bombing civilian infrastructure like bridges and power plants is a war crime under international humanitarian law.


  • Laws governing this include the laws of armed conflict (international humanitarian law), principally the Hague Conventions and the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols.
  • Even if a target is a military objective, an attack is unlawful if the expected incidental civilian harm (death, injury, damage to civilian objects) would be excessive compared to the anticipated concrete and direct military advantage.
  • Perfidy and indiscriminate attacks: Deliberate or indiscriminate attacks that cannot be directed at a specific military objective are prohibited.
  • Serious violations: Grave breaches or serious violations (e.g., intentionally directing attacks against civilians) can amount to war crimes and give rise to individual criminal responsibility (prosecution by national courts, international tribunals, or the ICC where jurisdiction exists).
  • If the campaign intentionally targets civilian infrastructure with no clear, concrete military necessity and causes widespread civilian harm (blackouts, harm to hospitals/water/sanitation), it would violate distinction and proportionality and therefore constitute war crimes.
  • Attacking protected objects, causing starvation of civilians by depriving them of essentials and state/command responsibility for planning or ordering such attacks render Trump and his soldiers liable to prosecution.
 
You're such a fool. Also you're so very, disgustingly fat, blimpie!
STILL no sales huh? Maybe the problem is YOU? Might be time for some self reflection on your part. I just don't think you are Kirby Man material. You may try becoming a Fuller brush man,....or one of those guys who jumps out at a stop light and washes your windows for some change,....you might have better luck.
 

War on Iran: Why Israel and the US are the ultimate losers



A campaign aimed at weakening or destabilising the government in Tehran seems to have had the opposite effect.

Taking into account the continuously changing objectives of the US-Israeli war on Iran - which range from inciting internal turmoil and regime change, to dismantling Iran’s civilian nuclear programme, eliminating its missile capacity and unconditionally opening the Strait of Hormuz - it is clear that none have been achieved.

Rather, the campaign failed.

Iran, despite suffering heavy civilian casualties and the assassination of first-and second-tier leadership, was able to maintain and even reinforce its governing authority.

It conducted a sustained and gradually escalating asymmetrical campaign, placed the broader region under pressure, and demonstrated its capacity to disrupt global energy supplies by asserting its control over the Strait of Hormuz.

Given that the US declared a ceasefire without any visible prior negotiations with Iran, these factors could be interpreted as an Iranian victory.

As for how US President Donald Trump might present this outcome as a victory, that is difficult to comprehend.

His actions fit a broader pattern of empty threats, shifting strategies, inflammatory language and extreme rhetoric, including references to erasing Iranian civilisation.

The US is today led by a group of largely non-expert figures attempting to preserve a declining global position.

In doing so, they further weaken their own standing, while inadvertently strengthening their declared adversaries.
 

Trump's U.N. Ambassador Mike Waltz says bombing every bridge and power plant in Iran wouldn't be a war crime


He is incorrect.

Deliberately bombing civilian infrastructure like bridges and power plants is a war crime under international humanitarian law.


  • Laws governing this include the laws of armed conflict (international humanitarian law), principally the Hague Conventions and the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols.
  • Even if a target is a military objective, an attack is unlawful if the expected incidental civilian harm (death, injury, damage to civilian objects) would be excessive compared to the anticipated concrete and direct military advantage.
  • Perfidy and indiscriminate attacks: Deliberate or indiscriminate attacks that cannot be directed at a specific military objective are prohibited.
  • Serious violations: Grave breaches or serious violations (e.g., intentionally directing attacks against civilians) can amount to war crimes and give rise to individual criminal responsibility (prosecution by national courts, international tribunals, or the ICC where jurisdiction exists).
  • If the campaign intentionally targets civilian infrastructure with no clear, concrete military necessity and causes widespread civilian harm (blackouts, harm to hospitals/water/sanitation), it would violate distinction and proportionality and therefore constitute war crimes.
  • Attacking protected objects, causing starvation of civilians by depriving them of essentials and state/command responsibility for planning or ordering such attacks render Trump and his soldiers liable to prosecution.
Oh I forgot- you're also a loser.
 
If we won the Iran war over a month ago, why is Hormuz still open and why are they unable to negotiate an end to the war?
Well, if you can redefine the word “win” to fit any circumstances you want it’s easy, reality doesn’t matter, it’s what you call it
 
If we won the Iran war over a month ago, why is Hormuz still open and why are they unable to negotiate an end to the war?
Trump said six weeks ago he would only accept unconditional surrender. Why is he inviting the radical regime to negotiate?
 
Trump said he won the war. Trump said he obliterated their nuke program. Trump says he stomped then in every conflict. Then why are we still there spending a billion dollars a day?
 
Back
Top