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

[Rigby5]

This evening NBC-TV News reports Iran demands:
- The U.S. never threaten or insult Iran in any language
- Withdraw its military forces from around Iran
- Lift sanctions and pay back assets to Iran

President Trump has a tiger by the tail.

Oddly enough, what Iran is demanding is simply justice.
It is illegal to threaten or insult any country.
It is illegal to commit terrorism by placing our troops in threatening positions.
It is illegal to impose economic sanctions.

And I say that without looking up actual legislation, but instead by going with the basic understanding of it being illegal to violate inherent human rights.

 

[Shiftless2]

Since over 50% of our discretionary federal spending is on the military, obviously the $39 trillion national debt is from munitions.
Which we need to stop if we do not want to go bankrupt.

The US is already bankrupt. The unfunded liabilities for Social Security and medicare exceed the value of all real property in the US.

 

[Rigby5]

The US is already bankrupt. The unfunded liabilities for Social Security and medicare exceed the value of all real property in the US.

Could be, but they can cut Social Security payments and Medicare services if they have to.
What I think will be the death knell will be when we fail to keep up with interest payments, so no one is willing to finance our annual deficit any longer.
I do not know when that will happen.
I did not think we could even get to a $39 trillion national debt.
I do not understand why this is not a bigger concern?

 

[sear]

"Oddly enough, what Iran is demanding is simply justice." R5 #381

"Odd" indeed.
It exposes Trump as a spectacularly bumbling incompetent.
Iran was vastly less a problem before Trump undertook to teach Iran a lesson.

"It is illegal to threaten or insult any country." R5 #381

I suspect that depends on the details, in some cases yes, in other cases no.
Is it wrong for the West to caution mainland China to respect the wishes of those living in Taiwan?

"It is illegal to commit terrorism by placing our troops in threatening positions." R5 #381

Some U.S. military installations outside conventional U.S. sovereign territory is defensive, though not all.

"It is illegal to impose economic sanctions." R5 #381

I believe congress has not merely the authority but the responsibility to establish U.S. trade policy.
It seems President Trump has intruded the exec. into this legislative realm.

"And I say that without looking up actual legislation, but instead by going with the basic understanding of it being illegal to violate inherent human rights." R5 #381

Think it through.
The U.S. has the authority to commit to a free trade treaty. That authority, but no other?

 

[Shiftless2]

Any questions?

 

[Shiftless2]

Smart move - they know he won't keep his word

Breaking: Iran won't negotiate with the US until Trump's term is done | FXStreet

In a major setback to efforts to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and cool Middle East tensions, Iran ruled out any future negotiations with United States (US) President Donald Trump, according to Iranian outlets and a X post by an adviser to Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf.

www.fxstreet.com

 

[sear]

"Smart move - they know he won't keep his word" S2 #386

Trump is a liar.
Trump has already broken U.S. word to Iran by unilateral withdrawal from Obama's JCPOA.
Trump dismissed the Obama administration's 7 nation agreement with Iran, Trump claiming he could do better.
Tuesday August 11 that seems vanishingly unlikely.

"Iran rules out future negotiations with the Trump administration ..." #386

This is not the first time Iran has done this to the U.S.
During the 444 day long Iranian hostage crisis of the Carter administration, Iran refused to release its U.S. captives until after President Carter was succeeded
by President Reagan.

Trump is an ignorant buffoon. Iranian leadership understands this.

 

[Rigby5]

"Odd" indeed.
It exposes Trump as a spectacularly bumbling incompetent.
Iran was vastly less a problem before Trump undertook to teach Iran a lesson.


I suspect that depends on the details, in some cases yes, in other cases no.
Is it wrong for the West to caution mainland China to respect the wishes of those living in Taiwan?


Some U.S. military installations outside conventional U.S. sovereign territory is defensive, though not all.


I believe congress has not merely the authority but the responsibility to establish U.S. trade policy.
It seems President Trump has intruded the exec. into this legislative realm.


Think it through.
The U.S. has the authority to commit to a free trade treaty. That authority, but no other?

What is interesting about Taiwan is that before the US tried to install Chang Kai Shek in China after WWII, the population of Taiwan was actually culturally Japanese.
The population was against the Republic of China government the US imposed as a dictatorship until around the 1990s.

The Declaration of Independence claims that the only actual source of legal authority comes from the rights of individuals to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
So all the federal government can do as far as "trade policy" is defend the rights of individuals.
That would not allow for things like economic sanctions, such as how we tried to starve Cuba.
The feds to not have the authority to harm Cubans or US businessmen who were making a living off trade with Cuba.

 

[sear]

"What is interesting about Taiwan is that before the US tried to install Chang Kai Shek in China after WWII, the population of Taiwan was actually culturally Japanese." R5 #388

I did not know that.

"The population was against the Republic of China government the US imposed as a dictatorship until around the 1990s." R5 #388

?
I don't know the history of the region well enough to understand the difference between PRC relations w/ Taiwan vs Hong Kong.

"The Declaration of Independence claims that the only actual source of legal authority comes from the rights of individuals to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness." R5 #388

Jefferson penned that rights are not gifts from government but are creator endowed, government's role is to protect those rights.

"So all the federal government can do as far as "trade policy" is defend the rights of individuals." R5 #388

Governments are charged with attending to the needs of the People.
U.S. federal government is our international liaison.
It requires the authority to attend to the details of our international relations.
Its track record is blemished, in precipitous decline in recent years.

"That would not allow for things like economic sanctions, such as how we tried to starve Cuba." R5 #388

Trump administration abuse of Cuba is disgraceful.
I'd have hoped Secretary of State Rubio might have talked some sense into the president.
Easier said than done apparently.

 

[Rigby5]

I did not know that.


?
I don't know the history of the region well enough to understand the difference between PRC relations w/ Taiwan vs Hong Kong.


Jefferson penned that rights are not gifts from government but are creator endowed, government's role is to protect those rights.


Governments are charged with attending to the needs of the People.
U.S. federal government is our international liaison.
It requires the authority to attend to the details of our international relations.
Its track record is blemished, in precipitous decline in recent years.


Trump administration abuse of Cuba is disgraceful.
I'd have hoped Secretary of State Rubio might have talked some sense into the president.
Easier said than done apparently.

The reason arbitrary economic sanctions are illegal is because they harm the rights of individuals.
Lets say a US citizen makes a living by retailing Cuban cigars he buys wholesale from Cuba.
Then the arbitrary US economic sanctions destroy his means of survival, harming his life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
Economic sanctions could only legally be justified if for some reason they were necessary in order to protect the rights of others somehow.
But economic sanctions almost never could actually do that, and instead are more like the illegal starvation blockade that the Geneva Conventions specifically forbids.

The trouble with Rubio is that is a descendant of the Cuban aristocracy that fled Castro to Miami.
He likes the illegal economic sanctions on Cuba.
{...

Rubio Escalates Cuba Pressure. A Sanctions Campaign Is Set To Target Every ‘Escape Valve’​

The campaign represents one of the most aggressive U.S. efforts against Cuba in decades.​

By Matias Civita
Published 08/07/26
...}
https://www.ibtimes.com/rubio-escal...ampaign-set-target-every-escape-valve-3806183

 

[sear]

"The reason arbitrary economic sanctions are illegal is because they harm the rights of individuals.
Lets say a US citizen makes a living by retailing Cuban cigars he buys wholesale from Cuba.
Then the arbitrary US economic sanctions destroy his means of survival, harming his life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness." R5 #390

I can't imagine a more persuasive argument for your position.
And while I don't dispute its premise or logic, I respond:

Any status quo has its constituency.
Thus any change is likely to produce both winners & losers.

I believe non-violence is a sensible principle, BUT !
I believe Jainism, sweeping ones own path forward with a broom to avoid sqwarshing a bug is excessive.

Holding national economic policy hostage to a cigar salesman seems similarly excessive. BUT !

That reflects my own subjective preference for utilitarianism, the greatest benefit for the greatest number.

 

[Rigby5]

I can't imagine a more persuasive argument for your position.
And while I don't dispute its premise or logic, I respond:

Any status quo has its constituency.
Thus any change is likely to produce both winners & losers.

I believe non-violence is a sensible principle, BUT !
I believe Jainism, sweeping ones own path forward with a broom to avoid sqwarshing a bug is excessive.

Holding national economic policy hostage to a cigar salesman seems similarly excessive. BUT !

That reflects my own subjective preference for utilitarianism, the greatest benefit for the greatest number.

If the act benefits the rights of many, then I could defer the rights of the single cigar retail salesman for the greater good.
But economic sanctions are in themselves illegal war crimes in violation of the Geneva Conventions of 1904, when it was made illegal to use starvation to make cities surrender.
And since places like Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, etc., that we illegally impose economic sanctions on, have not harmed anyone, then these economic sanctions are draconian dictates.
What the executive is allowed to negotiate as national economic policy, are things that enhance the rights of individuals in the US, like retaliatory tariffs.

 

[sear]

"If the act benefits the rights of many, then I could defer the rights of the single cigar retail salesman for the greater good.
But ..." R5 #392

If it were a simple binary:
either:
- trade policy, or
- no trade policy
we could pick one. BUT !
It isn't.

So isn't it basically a question of whose ox is gored?

 

[Rigby5]

If it were a simple binary:
either:
- trade policy, or
- no trade policy
we could pick one. BUT !
It isn't.

So isn't it basically a question of whose ox is gored?

But no one's ox was gored by Castro defeating Batista.
The US had no valid reason to impose economic sanctions on Cuba, in my opinion.
Castro may have nationalized some US holdings, but I would bet the US was illegally backing crimes committed by Batista.
I think under Batista, Cuba was sort of a member of the crime syndicate, with things like gambling, rum, hookers, and drugs.

I don't think the US government has the authority to arbitrarily dictate a "trade policy".
I think they can only act when another country is abusive towards some US citizens.

Going even further, I believe the rights of others are also equally valuable, so the fact Castro was so popular with the Cubans, made it wrong for the US to abuse them all.

 

[sear]

"But no one's ox was gored by Castro defeating Batista." R5 #394

But Castro's victory was not U.S. trade policy.

"The US had no valid reason to impose economic sanctions on Cuba, in my opinion." R5 #394

I apologize if any part of my post seems like a "mine is bigger than yours" contest.
I'll sidestep your "no valid reason" formulation and state simply I believe the U.S. has overdone it, PARTICULARLY in this 2nd Trump administration.

Perhaps influenced by stories I read in grammar school, I often sympathize with the underdog. Regarding the "red menace"
the U.S. bullied and punished diminutive Cuba, while simultaneously engaging much more powerful China. At very least that suggest cowardice at U.S. international policy scale.