Oh great: “war crimes” again. I’m afraid to check Facebook because I am sure that about 20 of my Trump Deranged show biz friends will be ranting about this.
Yesterday, President Trump posted on Truth Social that a number of Iranian targets would be obliterated if Iran does not allow the Hormuz Strait to be opened immediately. NBC White House correspondent Garrett Haake channeled his inner John Lennon and mewled to White House Paid Liar Karoline Leavitt,
“The president posted this morning about his threat that on leaving Iran he said, ‘Blowing up and completely obliterating all of their electric generating plants, oil wells, hard island, and possibly all desalination plants,’ Under international law, striking civilian infrastructure like that is generally prohibited. Why is the President threatening what would amount to potentially a war crime with the US military? And how do you square that with the administration repeatedly saying that the US does not target civilians?”
My metaphorical hat is off to Leavitt, who was appropriately diplomatic and did not smite this Axis idiot with the rhetorical barrage that I would have.
“Look,” she said. “The President has made it quite clear to the Iranian regime at this moment in time, as evidenced by the statement that you just read, that their best move is to make a deal, or else the United States Armed Forces has capabilities beyond their wildest imagination and the President is not afraid to use them.” Shethen denied that that Trump was contemplating “war crimes.”
I would have said, “Garrett, the United States is in a war, and the Geneva convention, which is an imaginary set of pacifist edicts that the United States does not feel bound by when the interests of the nation, Americans and civilization itself are at risk, will not restrain the United States in its efforts to conclude this conflict or any conflict as quickly as possible. Moreover nothing in the President’s message suggested that he was “targeting civilians.” But if civilians are at risk because it is necessary to remove facilities and resources that Iran needs to continue fighting, and if the real threat of losing these prompts Iran to surrender or make a good faith effort to negotiate a peace settlement, that is regrettable but unavoidable. This is a war. The United States will not limit its options to prevail.”
I might have been able to avoid concluding with, “you idiot.”
Several commentators have noted that the Axis media and the anti-American Left are using the same playbook and propaganda to support Iran against their own country that they embraced to support Gaza (Hamas, terrorists…) against Israel. I still await the tipping point when the public turns decisively and permanently against these people.
Surely it must be on the horizon.
Ethics Alarms 
Has Trump crossed a line in this war that Roosevelt did not cross in the first half of the 1940’s?
Besides using U.S. resources and manpower to attack Iran on its very soil? FDR didn’t do that. Whether that’s crossing a line is subjective. The Democrats most certainly think it is. But, then, their historical insight only begins in roughly 1960.
if our allies would step up this war would be over by now. the straits would be in the control of the west, Irananian regime would be annhilated; perhaps free elctions would be held and the existential threat to the west would be.
Spain will no let us sue our airfield, then pull out, destorying all the infrastructure we built and eliminating thousand of jobs for the Spanish people.
All of europe should take a mosque count to realize they are being conquered. The only outliers are Poland and Hungary.
dd, I hadn’t realized that if any EU country were to help attack Iran, all hell would break loose among their “immigrant” populations. And forget about the alleged Shia Sunni divide and the alleged Arab Persian animosity. It seems Muslims can attack other Muslims, but non-Muslims can’t attack any Muslims.
I’d add the Czech Republic…maybe even at the top of the list. They’re also uniquely fire-arm friendly for the EU, allowing even concealed carry (with a permit) and with something similar to the Second Amendment in their constitution (Oddly…or maybe not…the second amendment in their equivalent of a bill of rights.)
I would have said, “Garrett, the United States is in a war, and the Geneva convention, which is an imaginary set of pacifist edicts that the United States does not feel bound by when the interests of the nation, Americans and civilization itself are at risk, will not restrain the United States in its efforts to conclude this conflict or any conflict as quickly as possible. Moreover nothing in the President’s message suggested that he was “targeting civilians.” But if civilians are at risk because it is necessary to remove facilities and resources that Iran needs to continue fighting, and if the real threat of losing these prompts Iran to surrender or make a good faith effort to negotiate a peace settlement, that is regrettable but unavoidable. This is a war. The United States will not limit its options to prevail.”
As I have been teaching lately, with tremendous patience, the US is honestly indicating that there is no *accepted rule* or any sort, in any context, that it need abide by. As I have indicated: Power will do what power must do.
There are times when rhetorical syrups, very thick, very deceptive, but of the sort that for the masses (who are instructed in their state schools to think in terms of, oh say the message of the Nuremberg Trials and the *moral punishment* that was given, at the end of a rope, to those who violated humanitarian norms so ghastlily), the moral syrups may be poured down over their heads and into their throats but only to win them over to whatever enterprise Power has chosen to pursue.
How utterly cool it would have been if Levitt could have said something to this effect! and to be broadcast to the entire world, so that it also understand that when interests are at stake, no one need even consider the pretense of moral stance.
Oh brave new world that has such creatures in it!
You see? Once the Republic chose to become an imperium it became necessary to sort of cast to the side the Lofty Principles that are (as they say) ‘enshrined’ in the Founding documents and in the concept of the US. Once all rules and all laws can be violated in the external realm, then neither will they apply to the internal realm.
I suppose this is why Martí referred to The Colossus of the North.
To quote from At Play in the Fields of the Lord (Peter Mathiessen) “…and blow those little fuckers to Kingdom Come!“
I really like the new “Honesty Approach” here at EA! I feel that pretty soon we might have to start talking in ze German tongue!
🤩
My Muse labored and she delivered:
José Martí said: “Others go to bed with their mistresses; I with my ideas.”
To be amended to: “…and Americans with their hypocrisies.
Atentamente: una idiota del vecindario.
Ah, in the immortal words of Grouch Marx, Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana.
Or, as Homer Simpson is wont to say, “Donuts. Is there anything they can’t do?”
jvb
PS: If we are being pithy, then pithy let’s be.
Surely it must be on the horizon.
No! Though the future is not entirety written, the Story goes (more) like this:
Trump got into a terrible mess! He miscalculated in a few crucial areas (way too aggressive in a rebel state and blowing a WOMAN’S head off on national TeeTee. Horrifyingly bad PR).
Then, he used the military in an extraordinary, but extraordinarily reckless in terms of world PR, capture of a foreign president and hauling him to a show trial in the US, gloating over it all (again on world TeeVee).
And then launching a “regime change operation” which was not very well advised, and at least to appearances in service to the nation of Israel.
All this in the context of incredible Epstein revelations and insinuations of outrageous corruption which SHOCKS people.
So, should this war go badly, he endangers the mid-terms; the Democrats get power; they IMPEACH him and work like devils to send him to prison!
It’s called “snatching defeat from the jaws of victory” and it may well be America’s fate. Sad.
I don’t necessarily disagree with your perspective here or in the recent post “The Ethicist” Slaps Down Manipulative Parenting on 3/29/2026, but I find your explanations lack a certain grounding. You often take a stand based on a principle and assert that it’s obviously the correct view to take. Sometimes the principle is “rules, conventions, and social norms are vitally important for society”, sometimes it’s “we have to be responsible and think of the consequences,” sometimes it’s “we need to be kind to each other,” and sometimes it’s “freedom is too important to let anyone tell you what to do, and if someone does then tell them to bite you.” There are probably several others I don’t remember at the moment. In this case it seems to be “in war, all bets are off and we need to do whatever it takes to win,” which ignores the pragmatic concerns that led to the Geneva Conventions in the first place.
Taken together, many of these principles can imply contradictory behaviors. I know how I reconcile them in my head, but I don’t remember you explaining how you do so. I can’t predict which principle you’re going to stand on in any given situation unless you’ve said it before, but I can predict that you will express contempt for anyone who happens to consider another principle more relevant, or even just someone who thinks your position might be correct, but not obviously so.
What approach do you use to determine which of several competing principles takes precedence in a given situation?
There are many ethical systems. When applied to a particular set of facts, they will not necessarily lead to the same ethical solution. I hold that many ethical systems have their place in ethical decision-making, and the skill one needs to develop is valid judgment regarding which is best applied in each situation. I could go through the calculation in every post regarding which system of systems I do apply, but 1) that would be time-consuming and repetitious and 2) I wouldn’t be able to cover as much material, which is too much to cover anyway. I also reference the standard ethics values. In the case of the parents trying to control their adult son’s decisions, it was a clear case of respecting autonomy. Could I have concluded that, using pure utilitarianism, the proposed coercion could be called ethical on an ends justified the means basis? Sure. Many of these posts include my stating with certainly what can be legitimately opposed using a different mix of systems and values. One reason philosophers are useless, in my opinion, as that they seldom come to a definite conclusion, or if they do, it is by insisting that their formula is the “right” one. There is no single right formula that is appropriate in all cases.
Isn’t ethics a subset of philosophy?
If there’s no formula that’s appropriate in all cases, how do we determine which formula is appropriate in a particular case? Is it arbitrary, or is it possible to have a formula for that? I assume the Ethics Incompleteness Theorem applies when people start trying to game the system.
Imagine that Iran had obtained nuclear weapons and delivery systems on President Trump’s watch. What would the media’s reaction be? Their hypocrisy is unmitigated TDS for which there is no cure. I often hear pundits claim this is complicated. It isn’t. Iran is an existential threat to almost every country on earth, and but for political cowardice more countries would join our coalition. Shame on those who don’t, especially those who rely on the Strait of Hormuz. Grow a pair. Wanting to avoid war does not have to be a suicide pact.
It is hard to even conceive of the idiocy of some of these nations! They are stuck on this cRaZy rhetorical idea that there actually exists *international laws* both in reality and as a concept. I guess this must be due to the fact that the idea — of international law — has been touted for decades by our own idiot governing class! Aaaargggh! Can you believe it? They even had the stupidity to say that Russia had no *right* to invade Ukraine! What *right* is referred to here, I ask you! No one has any right to resist or even to oppose, on a moral plane, any action taken by any entity that has the power to take what it wants, when it wants!
Now, the really interesting thing is that — or perhaps I am wrong (?) — that you have no *rights* either. Any entity more powerful than you can grab from you what it wants. But here’s the beauty (if this seems distressing): you can lord it over anyone less powerful than you and take from them what you want. Deal? So get more powerful!
Oh and those *rights* that were enshrined in the US Constitution; it is better is we all sort of forget them since, as Power is showing us today, they have no basis to be respected. They are false.
And only IDIOTS were so stupid as to believe in them!
“Imagine that Iran had obtained nuclear weapons and delivery systems on President Trump’s watch. What would the media’s reaction be?”
PWS