The war in Iran (or whose war is it anyways?)

1787329033515.png
By Anika Arora Seth, Shelby Holliday, Denise Blostein, and Milàn Czerny / June 25, 2026 9:00 pm ET

When the Iranian missiles and drones came for the nerve center of America’s naval operations in the Middle East, some of them hit their mark.

The U.S. Navy base in Bahrain was repeatedly targeted between late February and June. Strikes that got through caused extensive damage, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of satellite imagery, social-media footage and interviews with current and former service members—damage that the Pentagon hasn’t publicly acknowledged. Hit hard were the command headquarters and at least a dozen other buildings, along with two satellite communications terminals.

The Trump administration has called the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln home after supply shortages aboard created difficulties for the crew.
Some reports filtering through suggest Iran's counterattacks against U.S. military Middle East locations reduced the U.S. ability to resupply our vessels there, including the Lincoln.
 
sear said:
View attachment 6123
By Anika Arora Seth, Shelby Holliday, Denise Blostein, and Milàn Czerny / June 25, 2026 9:00 pm ET

When the Iranian missiles and drones came for the nerve center of America’s naval operations in the Middle East, some of them hit their mark.

The U.S. Navy base in Bahrain was repeatedly targeted between late February and June. Strikes that got through caused extensive damage, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of satellite imagery, social-media footage and interviews with current and former service members—damage that the Pentagon hasn’t publicly acknowledged. Hit hard were the command headquarters and at least a dozen other buildings, along with two satellite communications terminals.

The Trump administration has called the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln home after supply shortages aboard created difficulties for the crew.
Some reports filtering through suggest Iran's counterattacks against U.S. military Middle East locations reduced the U.S. ability to resupply our vessels there, including the Lincoln.
Click to expand...

I think Iran has every legal right to a nuclear deterrent, and the US is committing a war crime by attacking them.
It would be different if the US did not have nukes and we could claim they were too dangerous for anyone to have.
But if we have them, it is illegal to deny them to anyone else.
That is especially true after we lied about WMD in Iraq.
 
Rigby5 said:
"I think Iran has every legal right to a nuclear deterrent, and the US is committing a war crime by attacking them." R5 #402
Click to expand...
The U.S. has tried covert military assault for months. It hasn't worked. So now
the U.S. is reverting to "economic d-day", trade sanctions which hasn't worked for decades.

PBSNH260824as.JPG
 
sear said:
The U.S. has tried covert military assault for months. It hasn't worked. So now
the U.S. is reverting to "economic d-day", trade sanctions which hasn't worked for decades.

View attachment 6155
Click to expand...

{...

Rule 53.​

Starvation as a Method of Warfare​



Rule 53. The use of starvation of the civilian population as a method of warfare is prohibited.

Practice​

Volume II, Chapter 17, Section A.

Summary​

State practice establishes this rule as a norm of customary international law applicable in both international and non-international armed conflicts.

International armed conflicts​

While in 1863 the Lieber Code still stated that “it is lawful to starve the hostile belligerent, armed or unarmed, so that it leads to the speedier subjection of the enemy”,[1] by 1919 the Report of the Commission on Responsibility set up after the First World War listed “deliberate starvation of civilians” as a violation of the laws and customs of war subject to criminal prosecution.[2] The prohibition of starvation as a method of warfare is codified in Article 54(1) of Additional Protocol I.[3] This provision was generally considered new at the time of the adoption of Additional Protocol I but since then has hardened into a rule of customary international law. Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare” is a war crime in international armed conflicts.[4]
The prohibition of starvation is set forth in numerous military manuals.[5] Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is an offence under the legislation of many States.[6] This rule is also supported by official statements and other practice.[7] This practice includes that of States not, or not at the time, party to Additional Protocol I.[8] Contrary practice has been generally condemned or has been denied by the accused party.[9]
...}
 
Rigby5 said:
"Rule 53." R5 #404
Click to expand...
President Trump ?!
A crook ?!?! 😲

[ramble] There are some that may think they don't kill animals, despite the fact they wear leather shoes, & eat cheeseburgers.
They may not be trigger-man at the abattoir, but they're party to the slaughter.

Personally I do not favor starving civilian populations. BUT !
As a U.S. citizen / $taxpayer / voter I am party to it. (n) [/ramble]

Thank you R5 #404,
not a joyous message, but an important reminder none the less.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top