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.
This traitor really makes me angry. How can a man with over 30 years in the military spew such lies! He is deceitful to The People. And the terrible things he says about Noble Hegseth!
https://youtu.be/ARhESog8C-0?si=Wvr4K8hURf08mhTX
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.
How would hell break loose among their immigrant populations?
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.
A formula for determining which formula? The key, as I’ve tried to explain from the beginning, is being able to recognize an ethical problem when it occurs, is about to occur, or may occur (ethics chess). Then you have the tools to conceive an ethical solution that is supported by at least one ethical system, and arguably many.
War is a unique non-ethics zone, and pretending that there are coherent and consistent ethical ways to wage it is lunacy. Why? Because the side most willing to break the rules wins.
War is a unique non-ethics zone, and pretending that there are coherent and consistent ethical ways to wage it is lunacy. Why? Because the side most willing to break the rules wins.
As Steve in NJ has intoned (for a decade, maybe for centuries) it is “gold and steel” that enables winning of war. If you do not have gold and steel, no matter your *cause*, you cannot win wars.
However, in history no tyrannical power that has founded itself on *injustice*, cruelty, pure power and slavery has ever been able to remain standing. They have all fallen down.
And this is what you-plural are not taking into account when you do not view what is going on now holistically.
This is one reason why the nation of Israel is problematic: It is turning into a vicious state and one ruled by tyrants. Do not trust me on this. Read the Israeli press!
(However, and as I have clearly said, it is my hope that this present war is resolved quickly and that the US does “win” it. I only have been noting that there is a huge sector of intelligent and informed people (who are not those fearing women you refer to!) who point out that a MESS is developing, not a success).
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!
Iran is not one those nations…and hasn’t been one of those nations for decades.
Everyone has a right to resist and oppose action by any entity trying to take what it wants. Your statement is flatly wrong…it is historically wrong…it is stupidly wrong.
You ARE wrong…again. A more powerful entity can TRY to grab what it wants. But that is no guarantee of success, which has been demonstrated too many times to count, from the Biblical accounts of Gideon and David and Goliath to Agincourt and the Battle of Midway. You’re being overly dramatic about a confrontation – the big guy fighting the little guy – that’s been around since the dawn of man and you’re incorrectly assuming a singular outcome to that confrontation.
The U.S. Constitution is still alive and well…and the rights of U.S. citizens are alive and well.
You don’t like that the U.S. is dealing with Iran the way it is. You don’t like what the U.S. did in Venezuela. And you have a special fetish when it comes to “Jewish/Christian Zionism.” Fine. I don’t care. Believe what you want. But don’t use your disagreement to make ridiculous assertions that have little basis in historical or current reality.
You may think you’ve somehow been ordained to educate the EA audience, but you have a thing or two to learn as well.
Estimado Don Señor Mundt: I suggest reading what I wrote again, but see the irony in it! Jack is making the case that anything goes in war, and the one who does that *anything*, wins. Therefore (according to this logic) there are no restraints (and not ethics) during war. Now, in the first place, no tyranny and no dictatorship based in such a philosophy still is standing. The ENTIRE PHILOSOPHY of the United States is that a people, a state, a civic organization, has a RIGHT to resist and oppose tyranny. It is, and I say this factually, nearly a metaphysical command. It is a core idea of Americanism (of the original variety).
You may be unaware of the later phases of the history of your own country (and the country of which I am a naturalized citizen), but your country violated in extraordinarily ways the principles by which it declared it was established. If you wish to understand my perspective, you must understand how I orient myself in relation to this issue. You have to have some familiarity with the political and philosophical strains of idea that have attempted RESISTANCE to abuses of power and, frankly, to tyranny. You (i.e. you plural) are willfully blind to this. You will not study recent history from the angle of those who have had to deal with, and suffer under, the tyranny I refer to.
The HYPOCRISY that I note on this blog in recent days is stunning to me. And noting it, it pushes me to think about things, and to defend certain perspectives that, in truth, I do not wish to defend. Take Maduro and Venezuela. I am overjoyed that Maduro is not there longer. But the entire incident of invading a country, arresting the president of that country, and dragging him back to serve trial in a SHOW TRIAL, is incredibly bad PR. I am referring to the way THE WORLD looks at the actions of a rogue power that disregards all the rules and norms IT DEFINED IN THE POSTWAR as being necessary. Do you understand what I am trying to say? This action, though amazing, though glorious, though showing America’s power, will not serve American in the LONG RUN. Why? Because tyrannical actions, though successful when they are carried out, do not ever work out well in the long run.
Now, you see, you have no moral ground to oppose the aggression of Russia against Ukraine. And from now on, and forever, you (the US) will have no argument when any country commits some act under the pretenses of *war*, that is really ‘politics by other means’. Therefore, politics by other means (war-making) is made the order of the day.
The entire effort of the National Socialists in Central Europe was one of waging war. At Nuremberg there were moral trials that condemned the Nazis for the horrors for what they did. It was couched entirely in moral terms. A government should not, must not, cannot! act in these ways. And then they hung those perpetrators in rituals of righteous retribution. But if I apply the (extremely questionable) argument being put forth here, the Nazis simply did what normal men must do in order to *win*. Forget any moral blame. Forget all this casting of satanic shadows on them: for we can as well do whatever we want, whenever we need to, and need not feel any moral pang.
Now, you (and nearly everyone on this blog) seem unaware that you exist within a PROPAGANDA MACHINE that is comparable, not the same, but comparable to the propaganda machine that ran the nation of your ‘favorite historical enemy’. You drink it all down, this amazing Kool Aid, with so little analysis that it is embarrassing to watch. In fact it is shameful. You talk about how bad it is that you no longer have a free press, but there is in fact NO PRESS that is examining the present undertakings in a light that anyone could call critical! And you-plural do not even want that! And therefore, you show yourselves as going along in exactly the same way as during the Iraq War. That war, condemned after the fact as being destructive to the nation, that resulted in hundreds of thousands of dead, and which did very real harm to those who were forced to fight it, and to the treasure and economy of the nation, not to mention its mental, psychological and spiritual health!
You see? You force me back into this position, if I am to defend what is merely obvious and sensible.
You may think you’ve somehow been ordained to educate the EA audience, but you have a thing or two to learn as well.
And that is exactly what I have been asking for: your instruction. Set me straight, put me in my place, educate me, present the coherent argument. I have asked this of FIVE people here and I get “radio silence”.
Please, proceed.
And one other thing: I am opposed to an Israeli power-faction in Israel, and I am morally opposed to the political philosophy of Zionism! And there are many diaspora Jews who are of the same mind, and a significant faction in Israel who think similarly.
Calumnia is extremely unethical, Mr Mundt. I have never said anything against any Jewish person but I have said (and do believe) that Christianity (its philosophy) is a positive evolution of Judaism.
At least acknowledge what I tell you were. Be honest to yourself.
In their defense, the authors of the Constitution thought so.
Much like “high crimes and misdemeanors” a conceptual generality rather than a defined standard.
You just waved it away …
Yes. Because it’s utopian ethics nonsense. As long as the tactics of war advance the cause of winning that war as quickly as possible, there is no war crime. Killing civilians just to kill civilians with no other result is immoral and unethical. But that isn’t the issue here.
“Imagine that Iran had obtained nuclear weapons and delivery systems on President Trump’s watch. What would the media’s reaction be?”
PWS
Trump: bombs the enrichment plants.
The Left: “What a useless action! This only set their plans back several months.”
Iran: Kills enough protesters to fill a small city.
The Left: “Trump kills protesters just like Iran does! This proves he dictator!”
Trump: Detachea regime figurehead after figurehead and leaves Iran like the Monty Python black knight.
The Left: OMG! War crimes!
I shared this article among several Usenet newsgroups.
https://soc.culture.israel.narkive.com/MnJxSYVh/how-ignorant-and-biased-are-reporters-this-ignorant-and-biased
Join the discussion