Isn't sucker punching a sovereign nation after saying you were going to negotiate for two weeks kind of a war crime?

[meadowlander]

I know it's maybe not the biggest problem and pardon me if I've missed anything after enjoying a lovely day of not checking the news to come back to this but...

1. did we bother declaring war before we attacked a sovereign nation?
2. didn't Trump say we were hitting pause for two weeks to try diplomacy with Iran? Is that in legal terms similar to a truce or ceasefire (if we had been at war with them in the first place)?
3. isn't bombing your enemy in the middle of a truce/ceasefire which you were using as cover for your preparations kind of illegal/a war crime?

I'm certainly not a lawyer but hoping someone can enlighten me. And I know all the MAGAs are going to rationalise it away as God-tier dimensional chess but didn't he really just lie about entering into negotiations in good faith and then sucker punch a country we weren't even at war with yet?

What am I missing here?

[doublethink]

1. As for the God-tier dimensional chess ...

some say Chess originated in Iran/Persia. Maybe someone should alert Maga.

[Karasu]

2. This country hasn't officially "declared war" since fucking 1942.

Going through the actual process is too messy and time-consuming, don't you know.

[Botany]

3. I fell asleep with the news of this unneeded attack and woke up to a nightmare.

I have now seen how he was placed into power again by Musk, PeterTheil, Leo, and others
and now this? And yes this is a gut punch to all of the world. Trump caused all this
crap. He tore up the deal that would have stopped this from happening.

Iran is going to strike back count on it.

[Intractable]

4. Trump was being relentlessly teased about his "TACO" tendencies and the meaninglessness of the phrase "two weeks."

So, he decided to flex his muscles and show how resolute he could be.

[Igel]

5. Actual original quotes.

They were all things like "within two weeks" or "might be two weeks."

The media play the same mistake with "up to" some amount. "It may save up to $3 billion" is crucially "3$ billion" when it suits them. But $1 billion in savings is still within that upper bound, upper limit, of "up to $3 billion".

The media spin the speaker's hedge and many just listen to the wonderful yarn that results from the spinning, made into a glorious tapestry.

Sad, but true.