That’s the Bush doctrine! A belief that you can invade a country, remove the power center, and democracy will spring forth. You don’t even need to speak the local language, read any books about the country you’re attacking, or talk to any locals! Just go for it and democracy will magically spring into existence.
Not directly but OP seemed to intuit some sort of moral justification for this war of aggression ("humanitarian reasons"), and few people believe that to be a key motivating factor for the White House.
> Not directly but OP seemed to intuit some sort of moral justification for this war of aggression
There is an absolute moral justification for this war. Saying that US is the aggressor here is an absolute revisionism of history. Let us not pretend that Islamic Republic minded its own business since its inception, and suddenly the US and Israel decided to wage war on it.
One example of IR's aggression is Beirut bombing in 1983 sponsored and planned by IR.
Both from an international rights and from a moral point of view you're objectively wrong. This is not even worth a discussion. The fact that you need cite a terrorist attack from 1983 to justify an illegal war of aggression in 2026 instigated by a US president without Congressional oversight speaks volumes.
> Islamic Republic minded its own business since its inception
That's a straw man argument since nobody claimed that.
Just to anticipate another weak argument that is a non-starter, a war of aggression is also illegal if it is started under the pretense of caring about a human rights situation. This kind of justification is quite common anyway. For the same reason, preventive wars are also prohibited and immoral. Not even you want to live in a world where such wars are common, you're more likely merely arguing from the perspective of someone whose country you believe to be in a position of strength.
> Both from an international rights and from a moral point of view you're objectively wrong.
Can you clarify the "moral point of view", please?
> This is not even worth a discussion.
How do you know without a discussion that you are right?
> The fact that you need cite a terrorist attack from 1983 to justify an illegal war of aggression in 2026 instigated by a US president without Congressional oversight speaks volumes.
This is a straw man you just made. The 1983 event is to show that Iran was in forever war with the US through either 3rd parties or directly on the territories of other states.
> That's a straw man argument since nobody claimed that.
Now it seems we are in a strange situation. If it is a war of aggression by the US, the implication is that Iran was not aggressive towards US. But we know it is not true. So, which is it?
Also, how would congress authorization make US non-aggressor here?
> Can you clarify the "moral point of view", please?
The moral point of view is that a war of aggression violates the sovereignty of the people in the attacked country. The aggressor country's officials are not elected by the people of the defending country, nor do they in any other way represent the people of that country. They have no right to decide the fate of the people in another country.
> How do you know without a discussion that you are right?
I'm reasonably certain about that because I've studied philosophy and worked in ethics, though not specifically on any issues concerning international rights. I'm also overall a well-educated person with an intact sense of justice.
> This is a straw man you just made. The 1983 event is to show that Iran was in forever war with the US through either 3rd parties or directly on the territories of other states.
No it's not a straw man. You came up with the 1983 event, not me. It would have been a straw man argument if I suddenly had come up with that. My reply to your position is that there are no "forever wars" - this category does not exist in international right and obviously makes no sense. Once you start justifying your attacks with a "forever war" you're in the realm of historical justifications, and these are principally wrong. Why? Because you can find some historical justification for just about any war you want to start. The whole world would be constantly at war if historical justifications were used and deemed acceptable. They are not acceptable.
> Now it seems we are in a strange situation. If it is a war of aggression by the US, the implication is that Iran was not aggressive towards US. But we know it is not true. So, which is it?
I believe you're trolling. In any case, that is not the implication. Not every act of aggression is an act of war. However, the US military has just started a widespread bombing campaign, and that is an act of war. The US is the aggressor not just from an international rights point of view, they're the aggressor as evidenced by the speech of the US President.
> Also, how would congress authorization make US non-aggressor here?
> The moral point of view is that a war of aggression violates the sovereignty of the people in the attacked country. The aggressor country's officials are not elected by the people of the defending country, nor do they in any other way represent the people of that country. They have no right to decide the fate of the people in another country.
Interesting. So, US intervention in WW2 was not moral? Germans did not consent.
> I know that because I've studied philosophy and worked in ethics, though not specifically on any issues concerning international rights. I'm also overall a well-educated person with an intact sense of justice.
And? So, you cannot be mistaken?
> Because you can find some historical justification for just about any war you want to start. The whole world would be constantly at war if historical justifications were used and deemed acceptable. They are not acceptable.
Great. Then no war is acceptable. Any action that is not yet take is in the past, and thus historical. Why respond?
You see, thinking in absolutes will take you only this far. The hardest issues to reason about are in the gray area, where you have to make a judgement call because it is not a clear cut issue. Unlike you, I realize that it's not a simple "aggression" but rather way more complicated issue.
> I believe you're trolling.
I am not. I am having an opposing point of view to yours. However, I am not basing my argument on my personal qualities as the most moral person in the world. I am trying to use universal values and reasoning.
Let's keep it short, I'll give you the last word if you want.
1. The US "intervention" in WW2 was fully justified because the US was attacked. It's also justified to help another country that is attacked, for example the US campaign against Iraq during the First Gulf war was justified. Both were defensive actions, not wars of aggression. Preventive wars are also wars of aggression, though, and classified as such by international law. There are fairly direct equivalents of all of this in regular penal law.
2. I never claimed I cannot be mistaken. It's best to focus on arguments, not persons.
> Great. Then no war is acceptable.
War has at least two sides (often more). A war of aggression is never acceptable. You've got that right. That's also how it's viewed in international law. Defending against a war of aggression is always acceptable. Helping someone defend against a war of aggression is also acceptable. There is a third category, a military intervention by a broad alliance legitimized by some international body. That is in the "it depends" category but plays no role here. Now countries that start wars of aggression know all that and therefore often argue they're just defending themselves. I'm stating that this is a pretense and not a correct justification in this particular case of the US attacking Iran. I'm not planning to go into the details why this is the case, it is obvious enough anyway. Just to make this clear.
I have no comments about the rest of your comment, which, frankly speaking, to me mostly sounds like self-aggrandizing remarks. I was mostly referring to how established international law looks at the matter and your personal views interest me less. Have a good day!
That’s the Bush doctrine! A belief that you can invade a country, remove the power center, and democracy will spring forth. You don’t even need to speak the local language, read any books about the country you’re attacking, or talk to any locals! Just go for it and democracy will magically spring into existence.
What else does "regime change" as a goal refer to?
Not directly but OP seemed to intuit some sort of moral justification for this war of aggression ("humanitarian reasons"), and few people believe that to be a key motivating factor for the White House.
> Not directly but OP seemed to intuit some sort of moral justification for this war of aggression
There is an absolute moral justification for this war. Saying that US is the aggressor here is an absolute revisionism of history. Let us not pretend that Islamic Republic minded its own business since its inception, and suddenly the US and Israel decided to wage war on it.
One example of IR's aggression is Beirut bombing in 1983 sponsored and planned by IR.
Both from an international rights and from a moral point of view you're objectively wrong. This is not even worth a discussion. The fact that you need cite a terrorist attack from 1983 to justify an illegal war of aggression in 2026 instigated by a US president without Congressional oversight speaks volumes.
> Islamic Republic minded its own business since its inception
That's a straw man argument since nobody claimed that.
Just to anticipate another weak argument that is a non-starter, a war of aggression is also illegal if it is started under the pretense of caring about a human rights situation. This kind of justification is quite common anyway. For the same reason, preventive wars are also prohibited and immoral. Not even you want to live in a world where such wars are common, you're more likely merely arguing from the perspective of someone whose country you believe to be in a position of strength.
> Both from an international rights and from a moral point of view you're objectively wrong.
Can you clarify the "moral point of view", please?
> This is not even worth a discussion.
How do you know without a discussion that you are right?
> The fact that you need cite a terrorist attack from 1983 to justify an illegal war of aggression in 2026 instigated by a US president without Congressional oversight speaks volumes.
This is a straw man you just made. The 1983 event is to show that Iran was in forever war with the US through either 3rd parties or directly on the territories of other states.
> That's a straw man argument since nobody claimed that.
Now it seems we are in a strange situation. If it is a war of aggression by the US, the implication is that Iran was not aggressive towards US. But we know it is not true. So, which is it?
Also, how would congress authorization make US non-aggressor here?
> Can you clarify the "moral point of view", please?
The moral point of view is that a war of aggression violates the sovereignty of the people in the attacked country. The aggressor country's officials are not elected by the people of the defending country, nor do they in any other way represent the people of that country. They have no right to decide the fate of the people in another country.
> How do you know without a discussion that you are right?
I'm reasonably certain about that because I've studied philosophy and worked in ethics, though not specifically on any issues concerning international rights. I'm also overall a well-educated person with an intact sense of justice.
> This is a straw man you just made. The 1983 event is to show that Iran was in forever war with the US through either 3rd parties or directly on the territories of other states.
No it's not a straw man. You came up with the 1983 event, not me. It would have been a straw man argument if I suddenly had come up with that. My reply to your position is that there are no "forever wars" - this category does not exist in international right and obviously makes no sense. Once you start justifying your attacks with a "forever war" you're in the realm of historical justifications, and these are principally wrong. Why? Because you can find some historical justification for just about any war you want to start. The whole world would be constantly at war if historical justifications were used and deemed acceptable. They are not acceptable.
> Now it seems we are in a strange situation. If it is a war of aggression by the US, the implication is that Iran was not aggressive towards US. But we know it is not true. So, which is it?
I believe you're trolling. In any case, that is not the implication. Not every act of aggression is an act of war. However, the US military has just started a widespread bombing campaign, and that is an act of war. The US is the aggressor not just from an international rights point of view, they're the aggressor as evidenced by the speech of the US President.
> Also, how would congress authorization make US non-aggressor here?
Not at all, and I didn't say that.
> The moral point of view is that a war of aggression violates the sovereignty of the people in the attacked country. The aggressor country's officials are not elected by the people of the defending country, nor do they in any other way represent the people of that country. They have no right to decide the fate of the people in another country.
Interesting. So, US intervention in WW2 was not moral? Germans did not consent.
> I know that because I've studied philosophy and worked in ethics, though not specifically on any issues concerning international rights. I'm also overall a well-educated person with an intact sense of justice.
And? So, you cannot be mistaken?
> Because you can find some historical justification for just about any war you want to start. The whole world would be constantly at war if historical justifications were used and deemed acceptable. They are not acceptable.
Great. Then no war is acceptable. Any action that is not yet take is in the past, and thus historical. Why respond?
You see, thinking in absolutes will take you only this far. The hardest issues to reason about are in the gray area, where you have to make a judgement call because it is not a clear cut issue. Unlike you, I realize that it's not a simple "aggression" but rather way more complicated issue.
> I believe you're trolling.
I am not. I am having an opposing point of view to yours. However, I am not basing my argument on my personal qualities as the most moral person in the world. I am trying to use universal values and reasoning.
Let's keep it short, I'll give you the last word if you want.
1. The US "intervention" in WW2 was fully justified because the US was attacked. It's also justified to help another country that is attacked, for example the US campaign against Iraq during the First Gulf war was justified. Both were defensive actions, not wars of aggression. Preventive wars are also wars of aggression, though, and classified as such by international law. There are fairly direct equivalents of all of this in regular penal law.
2. I never claimed I cannot be mistaken. It's best to focus on arguments, not persons.
> Great. Then no war is acceptable.
War has at least two sides (often more). A war of aggression is never acceptable. You've got that right. That's also how it's viewed in international law. Defending against a war of aggression is always acceptable. Helping someone defend against a war of aggression is also acceptable. There is a third category, a military intervention by a broad alliance legitimized by some international body. That is in the "it depends" category but plays no role here. Now countries that start wars of aggression know all that and therefore often argue they're just defending themselves. I'm stating that this is a pretense and not a correct justification in this particular case of the US attacking Iran. I'm not planning to go into the details why this is the case, it is obvious enough anyway. Just to make this clear.
I have no comments about the rest of your comment, which, frankly speaking, to me mostly sounds like self-aggrandizing remarks. I was mostly referring to how established international law looks at the matter and your personal views interest me less. Have a good day!
It seems to me that your position is based on a certain belief and not reasoning.