CheriSwearsUK takes a sensible stand
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-statement-on-iran-28-february-2026
Jonathan Kamens 86 47@SheriSwears Is that what this is?
Because I would think that a "sensible" stand would involve condemning unprovoked attacks on a sovereign that are a violation of international law, executed on the U.S. side in a wholly unconstitutional fashion.
But I suppose the U.K. never saw an act of colonialism it didn't like.
Because I would think that a "sensible" stand would involve condemning unprovoked attacks on a sovereign that are a violation of international law, executed on the U.S. side in a wholly unconstitutional fashion.
But I suppose the U.K. never saw an act of colonialism it didn't like.
@jik
The Iranian regime has aggressively sponsored terrorism and proxy wars around the world for decades. Starmer's statement cites 20 attempts in the UK within the last year. Iran has also propped up Russia's war against Ukraine/Europe.
Multiple negotiations have failed to stop bloodshed. How long should the world turn a blind eye?
@SheriSwears The U.S. and Israel have also "aggressively sponsored terrorism and proxy wars around the world for decades." Indeed, for centuries.
Leaving that aside, there are international laws regarding how threats like the one posed by Iran can be handled. None of those laws allow the U.S. and Israel to do what they did Friday night.
Also, as I previously noted, apart from international law, there are U.S. laws about the use of force: it must be authorized by Congress.
Leaving that aside, there are international laws regarding how threats like the one posed by Iran can be handled. None of those laws allow the U.S. and Israel to do what they did Friday night.
Also, as I previously noted, apart from international law, there are U.S. laws about the use of force: it must be authorized by Congress.
@SheriSwears On a more practical level… Iran's nuclear program is in a shambles. Hamas and Hezbollah are weak. Iran's economy is in a shambles and it doesn't have the money to give them significant support; the sanctions are _working_. Given all this, there was absolutely no justification now for the U.S. and Israel to start a fight now.
This is just Trump swinging his dick around and acting at Bibi's behest, not a noble attempt to rein in a rampaging regime.
This is just Trump swinging his dick around and acting at Bibi's behest, not a noble attempt to rein in a rampaging regime.
@SheriSwears If Trump had said he was going after Iran to stop it from continuing to offer material support for Russia in Ukraine, at Ukraine's request, then that, at least, would have at least slightly justified the action, because Russia is considered the clear aggressor in that current, ongoing war. But of course, Trump can't say that, because Trump doesn't actually support Ukraine in that conflict, he supports Russia.
@SheriSwears How well did it work out for the U.S. the last time we played the regime change game in Iran?
How about Iraq?
Afghanistan?
Vietnam?
Korea?
Do you think the Trump administration is more capable of arriving at a positive outcome than the administrations that initiated those?
Do the men who have led the Trump administration into war strike you as particularly competent or level-headed, or as strong strategic thinkers, or as people seriously interested in world peace?
How about Iraq?
Afghanistan?
Vietnam?
Korea?
Do you think the Trump administration is more capable of arriving at a positive outcome than the administrations that initiated those?
Do the men who have led the Trump administration into war strike you as particularly competent or level-headed, or as strong strategic thinkers, or as people seriously interested in world peace?
@SheriSwears Sorry to pile on, last thing and then I'll stop.
If you're not finding what I'm saying here convincing, perhaps you will find it more convincing coming from a well-known historian and expert on fascism:
https://snyder.substack.com/p/why-attack-iran
If you're not finding what I'm saying here convincing, perhaps you will find it more convincing coming from a well-known historian and expert on fascism:
https://snyder.substack.com/p/why-attack-iran
@jik the UK's stance, in light of what is known, is sensible. They are on alert to protect themselves from reprisals, but they are not escalating attacks.
The sensibility of Trump's stance is a different issue. He only takes action to enrich himself - he is not controlled by Israel. Snyder's piece addressing gulf state corruption seems plausible.
As for Constitutionality, that only arises if Congress and/or the courts are willing to do their jobs. Until then, laws are just words on paper.