The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
No bio...
User ID: 174
Hopefully also not terribly controversial, but shooting tens of thousands of your own citizens does not actually fix the issues, but tends to make them worse.
No, it works fine. Ask China about the Tiananmen Square protests. (But don't ask anyone young because they've never heard of them)
So in your opinion is the concept of a "bunker buster" just a lie?
The Iranians had bunkers deep enough to defeat the USs largest bunker busters.
We bombed it earlier, it made no difference. We can keep bombing the entrances to their facilities, but they can keep digging them out. So either we have to keep bombing forever (which means the war didn't end), or they're going to be able to restart the nuclear program where they left off. We actually have to take the nuclear material and take or destroy the centrifuges before we've actually set them back.
Both are coup-complete problems, however.
Uh, they don't obliterate all their competition. If they try, their exports get seized. If you're assuming a hypercompetent Iran and a US which will do nothing you're in a dream world.
Best case scenario, Iran's ground forces are weaker than expected, you take an island with minimal casualties and now Iran can no longer extort passing ships or export oil.
No, I expect the US to continue to allow Iran to export oil.
Institutional safeguards only work when the implementing institution wishes to obey them.
In a non-cartel market, the insurers can't refuse to insure in order to pressure the US to restore the situation where they were getting war risk premiums when there was no war risk.
Whether or not Iran can properly close the strait, shippers clearly think the risk is high enough that they're not willing to risk it.
"Shippers" meaning the London insurance cartel.
Iran has effective control of the strait of Hormuz and the regime stands, with a new generation of leadership. The nuclear program is exactly where it was before. If the war ends at this point it's a clear US loss.
Why not just drop them off in a prison until they turn 18?
Because we can't afford to pay for full-time public schools.
On the one hand you've got the parents who think "children shouldn't be allowed outside or on the Internet". On the other, there's the ones who think both the world and the Internet should be childproofed. No wonder TFR is dropping.
3rd wave feminism is sex-positive as long as only women are involved, or between transexuals and non-binaries or whatever, but for straight men it's only acceptable if the women initiate and control the whole encounter, which is an unusual kink at best.
Yes, Mossad's HUMINT and infiltration/clandestine operations ability is just insane.
These ships were non-Iranian oil.
I've heard of non-Iranian carriers getting through (e.g. with natural gas) but not tankers. Either way, though, that's even better. Allowing Iran to meter who gets through until the Marines arrive is strictly better (for the US) than the strait being entirely closed until the Marines arive.
Kids have hated their parents for placing restrictions for their own good since time immemorial. Doesn't make it ok to give up though
It also doesn't make it OK for parents to demand that everyone else do the work to make it easy for them to implement their desired restrictions.
Now none of this is being reported clearly, and this all might be bullshit, and maybe one or both sides is engaging in distractionism.
There are still US Marines and parts of the 82nd Airborne headed to the Middle East. So yeah, I'd say distraction.
The peace the US is supposedly offering is basically similar to that which was supposedly offered before the war. The most important part of that, IMO, is that Iran actually surrenders the nuclear material (and likely the centrifuges and such); that's very hard to fake and sets their nuclear program way back. Iran clearly isn't interested in that deal, so I think the US is offering it knowing they won't take it. There certainly exists the danger that Iran could make an offer that the US would feel bound to accept, but "Iran keeps the strait" is obviously unacceptable, so that's not going to happen right away.
There's also the possibility that the US makes a deal, stops bombing, and it turns out there is some Iranian domestic opposition force which takes that as a signal to start a revolution. But I doubt it; the Iranians are too domesticated through 47 years of culling.
Iran allowing some vessels through the strait now doesn't change anything; Iranian oil remains a double-edged sword, both helping the regime and reducing their leverage to stop the US by squeezing energy markets.
There should be a strong prior for widespread support of the regime in charge. We also have the fact that they're Muslims subject to a Muslim regime, and everywhere else in the Gulf, the leaders are actually considerably LESS strict about their religion than the people. We have the various "Death to America" rallies over the years, and the massive public funeral of General Solemani a few years ago. And of course what they don't have -- any real unrest. There's some protests, but they never do anything but soak up bullets. Even if they're not armed, where's the arson and window-breaking, the rocks thrown at police? Even Palestinians can manage that much. Even now, with the regime subject to death from above, there's no indication of popular revolt.
The picture to me is of a people who overwhelmingly support their government, and a few malcontents who go out and protest, sort of cargo-culting Western protestors. And are surprised when they get shot instead of things actually changing.
GAMAAN
It's an Internet poll issued through an anti-censorship provider. Very non-representative. Same for the diaspora. As for footage from Iran... the information environment is terrible, who even knows if it's real?
If you blame both, you are excusing the culprit while maintaining a fig-leaf of not doing so.
No, the navigable channel is quite wide, almost the entire width of the strait. There are narrow shipping lanes in the deepest part which are (usually) maintained for traffic separation purposes, but even fully laden oil tankers can use most of the strait.
Aside from being a bad example in a horrific and now-overturned Supreme Court decision, the reason yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is bad is that the people who hear the cry do not have the time for deliberation of their next action. The cry convinces them that there is an emergency and they must act to leave immediately.
No such situation existed in Iran. The bombing of their facilities by the US did not cause an emergency for which the reflexive action was to send missiles and drones at uninvolved countries.
The populace of Iraq didn't mostly refuse to resist the Americans because they were docile and cowardly natural slaves, though; they refused to resist because Saddam sucked so much they preferred the Devil they didn't know. I do not believe the same is true for Iran, and it certainly isn't true for the Gulf states.
It's not the multinationals transporting the oil, but the insurance cartel based in London. Which would rather pressure the US to stop the war so they can continue to collect war risk premiums with no war risk than actually sell insurance when there might be claims.
Self-insurance isn't permitted, by treaty, law, regulation, and contract. You have to have P&I from the cartel, and once you are required to have insurance, you're forced to cede your business decisions to the insurers (or join the shadow fleet)
- Prev
- Next

New York, along with basically every other place in America, has a surplus of single males under 40. It appears to have a surplus of single women overall mostly because women die later.
More options
Context Copy link