Because China can use international law to its advantage. After all, the U.S. is blackmailing its own allies and openly threatening NATO with another war of aggression against one of its founding members. It wouldn’t be unwise to join forces and impose sanctions on the U.S. together in order to strengthen ones own negotiating position. I mean everyone knows what “Taco” means by now.

Sanctions don’t even require the UN, as the example of Russia shows - a country that also holds a veto right in the UN and is a permanent member of the Security Council. Yet they do face sanctions for their war of aggression they wage against Ukraine in violation of international law - the war the US is waging against Iran is just as unlawful under international law, and so was the previous abduction of Venezuelan head of state Maduro.

This time, the US stands alone in its violation of international law - except for Israel, which is committing genocide and should have been excluded from the international community long ago.

In short: International law plays into China’s hands, especially since the US, along with its allies, is committing such horrific war crimes. Bombing hospitals and schools makes it abundantly clear what monsters they are and how dangerous such psychopaths are to the world.

On top of that, this war is paralyzing nearly 20% of global oil trade. It is by no means only China that is affected.

I don’t think China will be so incredibly foolish as to actively intervene in this war, which violates international law.

What they could certainly do, however, is use their influence to impose sanctions on the US - and just how disastrous that would be has already been demonstrated by the embarrassing saga of tariffs that led to such a spectacular failure for the U.S. In doing so, China would be completely in the right. In fact, all countries whose ships are being held up by the US’s illegal war should join in, because the blockade of trade routes is also a clear violation of international law.

So I think it will turn out the same way it has so many times before: China will once again benefit from the hubris of this absurd U.S. regime.

Sure, of course. The fact that the U.S. tried yesterday to gain an advantage during the negotiations certainly has nothing to do with it. What could possibly demonstrate more goodwill than provocations aimed at goading the other side into breaking the ceasefire…

U.S. Navy ships sent an unmistakable signal Saturday as they crossed the Strait of Hormuz, challenging Iran’s control over the narrow waterway that will likely determine the outcome of the Middle East war.

Source

Well, it’s hardly surprising that such propaganda has been successful, especially since it contains more truth than most U.S. media outlets dare to publish these days.

That really worked out great…

Iran chose ‘not to accept our terms’, Vance says after negotiations

That much is clear. It’s just the modus operandi of this criminal regime to use a ceasefire as a pretext to gain an advantage. Israel has been doing the same thing all along for a long time.

This highlights two things:

1. Nothing is sacred to these people, and they don’t care about international law either.

2. Agreements with the U.S. are impossible, since the regime and its allies will never abide by them.

Thus, diplomacy is impossible from the outset.

That doesn’t make the U.S. look good at all, but its psychotic leader doesn’t care, because he’s clearly not interested in the well-being of U.S. citizens, nor does he care that thousands upon thousands of people are dying in Iran.

So the U.S. is bragging about having sailed through the Strait of Hormuz while peace negotiations were underway - and then they wonder why Iran is threatening them - and why the peace negotiations are failing? Seriously?

Ah, yes, that’s right.

canyon.mid is also a real classic, even if it’s not quite as funky.

He hides the pain for all of us.

Well, I guess you can’t expect someone like this moron to know the tale “The Boy Who Cried Wolf.”

So he just keeps crying…

Yes, in principle, but unfortunately there are many politicians who do not act in the interests of the people. This is evident simply from the fact that the richest of the rich are getting richer and richer, even though this is by no means in the interests of a country’s citizens.

While there are neo-capitalist approaches such as “trickle-down economics” even after decades of pursuing them, what they postulate has never come to pass - instead, exactly what was to be expected has occurred: tax revenues are plummeting, resulting in a lack of funds for investments in socially vital sectors and infrastructure, and the standard of living for citizens is steadily declining.

The result is that a kind of new monarchy of billionaires has emerged, who use their enormous influence through corruption and lobbying so ruthlessly that today there is hardly a capitalist-democratic state left that still serves the interests of its citizens.

Yes, I agree, especially since selfishness, ruthlessness, and greed are traits that promise profits - and (short-term) profits are the only, or at least the primary, measure by which most managers’ performance is judged (Shareholder Value, Quarterly revenue figures, and such). It is therefore quite likely that current managers also exhibit these traits and thus fill positions with people who are similar to them. It appears to be a systemic vicious cycle that allows for hardly any exceptions.

/c/showerthoughts also has a “no politics” rule, which means that many topics are off-limits - and since this rule is worded very vaguely, the admins decide at their own discretion which topics are allowed.

Noice!

Because they are all the same kind of people, and age doesn’t really matter in itself - most of the people at the top are just white and old men because the system was set up by those very people.

And that is precisely the problem: this system of endless greed propels ruthless psychopaths to the top. It is sold as a performance-based society, even though performance has absolutely nothing to do with it - if that were the case, the problem wouldn’t exist in the first place.

In my view, an attack on any health infrastructure - of course - constitutes a war crime, a crime against humanity.

I consider this type of warfare despicable and contrary to international law (which is what the US’s illegal war of aggression against Iran is, anyway - not any better than the illegal war of aggression that Russia is waging against the people of Ukraine).

Of course, Iran is ruled by a barbaric, fundamentalist regime - but that does not give equally fundamentalist criminals, namely the horrendous US regime, the right to trample on international law like they do.

We will likely never find common ground on this issue, because I consider this war itself to be a crime, and all the more so given how barbarically it is being waged.

Edit: Btw - what you’re presenting here as a clever “strategy” pretty much fits the definition of genocide, since it involves wiping a people off the face of the earth using precisely those kinds of methods. Maybe look up the term or ask the US allies in Israel - they know a thing or two about the subject.

Hospitals are not legitimate targets for military attacks. Attacking them is by no means a “strategy,” but rather a crime against humanity.

Civilian hospitals organized to give care to the wounded and sick, the infirm and maternity cases, may in no circumstances be the object of attack, but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict.

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949 - Article 18 - Protection of civilian hospitals

The direction in which the U.S. is heading is toward a true autocracy, like in Russia, with all the coercive mechanisms that go along with it.

This is the logical consequence of the American people allowing the most serious crimes to go unpunished.

It is quite obvious that the oligarchs who have ruled the country for decades have now decided that the illusion of democracy - which they had maintained until now with this absurd two-party system - is no longer necessary, since they will never be held accountable for their crimes anyway.

Even in their last, rather pathetic coup attempt, everyone involved got off scot-free, even the foot soldiers. This time, however, the regime has established ICE, a secret police force with a budget equivalent to the military spending of a medium-sized country - by U.S. standards: ICE’s budget exceeds that of all U.S. federal agencies, including the CIA and FBI, etc. combined. Isn’t it quite obvious why an “agency” like this would ever need such an astronomical budget?

Yes, that’s true, which is why, as I said, I consider sanctions unrealistic. The big problem is that after World War II, the U.S. rose to become the sole power controlling the financial market.

Now that the US is on the verge of losing its status as a superpower to China, however, the situation is slowly changing.

I very much hope that countries will learn that the same principle applies at the state level as it does in the economy: monopolies harm everyone except the monopolists. Perhaps politicians will see reason, allow themselves not to be “influenced” shamelessly by lobbyists in the future, and stop putting all their eggs in one basket.

As for Germany, I can say that we are unfortunately still very far from that. Our chancellor is, unfortunately, more of a U.S. lobbyist than a politician who would act in the interests of the people.

So I don’t have much hope, but still, one almost has to be grateful to that orange pedo for being such a brain-dead moron. His arrogant warmongering and his constant, brazen threats make it abundantly clear that the US is anything but a peace-loving, reliable partner.

I hope this will lead other countries to organize themselves to at least begin to break free from this miserable relationship of dependency.