FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
And every gimmick hungry yob
Digging gold from rock n roll
Grabs the mic to tell us
he'll die before he's sold
But I believe in this
And it's been tested by research
He who fucks nuns
Will later join the church
User ID: 195
I do know. Assuming for a second that this does end with ground forces coming to grips with the enemy, a declaration of "no quarter, no mercy" is both profoundly stupid and profoundly evil.
Stupid, because we'd like Iranian footsoldiers to surrender. A process made more difficult when we're handing them ready made, authentic propaganda in which the American government declares that they will be summarily shot if they surrender and no prisoners will be taken. Stupid, because setting that standard makes turnabout fair play when a Marine is captured, and I don't want captured American troops torture-murdered. I'd like to see PoW conditions on both sides closer to the Western front than the Eastern front.
Evil, because it's obviously evil to murder a surrendered enemy soldier on the spot. It serves no purpose beyond the gratification of base human desires. This is a betrayal of American tradition dating back at least to the Lieber Code in the Civil War:
Art. 49: A prisoner of war is a public enemy armed or attached to the hostile army for active aid, who has fallen into the hands of the captor, either fighting or wounded, on the field or in the hospital, by individual surrender or by capitulation. All soldiers, of whatever species of arms; all men who belong to the rising en masse of the hostile country; all those who are attached to the army for its efficiency and promote directly the object of the war, except such as are hereinafter provided for; all disabled men or officers on the field or elsewhere, if captured; all enemies who have thrown away their arms and ask for quarter, are prisoners of war, and as such exposed to the inconveniences as well as entitled to the privileges of a prisoner of war.
Art. 52: No belligerent has the right to declare that he will treat every captured man in arms of a levy en masse as a brigand or bandit. If, however, the people of a country, or any portion of the same, already occupied by an army, rise against it, they are violators of the laws of war, and are not entitled to their protection.
Art. 56: A prisoner of war is subject to no punishment for being a public enemy, nor is any revenge wreaked upon him by the intentional infliction of any suffering, or disgrace, by cruel imprisonment, want of food, by mutilation, death, or any other barbarity.
But then you say
I also think that if I were President Truman in the spring of '45 I would want to keep Morgenthau and his plan on hand...
Which makes me wonder if you understand what a declaration of "no quarter" means exactly, and are using it just to say "we should be meaner."
In the stated opinion of the United States government, they're more of a suggestion, or advertising fluff.
The USA bombed Iran's nuclear capability six months ago, and the government has said repeatedly that it did not achieve its goals of setting back the Iranian nuclear program.
The Iranian political-economic system was already strained enough that there was a 'moderate' faction of pragmatists who were willing to disagree with IRGC-aligned hardliners not in goals, but in the need for reforms to get there. This war seems to have let the IRGC step in and leave the reformists out, and over the longer term states that don't reform can still be aggressive and dangerous, but become less capable over time.
I realize you're just jawboning and not advocating for this position, but this would have to make the "Trump 8d Backgammon" hall of fame for copium right? "The war that we launched to bring down the hardline theocratic Iranian regime succeeded, because it empowered the hardline theocratic elements, which will lead to their downfall some years down the road!"
China,
Where is China involved in any of this? I can see where you draw an Iran-Russia alliance, and China lurks in the background, but they haven't done anything to help Iran or Russia, and to a first guess their purposes are best served by Iran losing quickly and Russia remaining isolated and weakened.
Out of curiosity, what soft of things do you think the government of Iran would be saying if things were not going well for them and that they were prepared to make politically painful changes?
Where does my analysis rely on what Iran is saying? I'm concerned about what my country is saying. I'm not making any claims based on missile stocks or whatever, I'm looking at what Donald Trump is saying live every day. He's saying the war is won, but at first the war was won and the regime was going to collapse, then there was a period where the war was won and the Iranians would "unconditionally surrender." Then the Iranians were going to give up on the strait out of fear of bombing attacks on infrastructure. Now we've arrived at, the Iranians are going to open the strait of hormuz in exchange for all sanctions being dropped.
Next you'll tell me that Trump just says shit and it doesn't matter keep your eye on the prize kid, the marines are on their way and it's all the prelude to the invasion that will go perfectly and end the whole thing! And maybe, but that doesn't really make me feel very good either. Because I don't really like being part of a country where the government just says shit it doesn't mean.
He will certainly punish those who promote “no mercy” and “no quarter”.
It's sad that my only hope is that the Secretary of War is too stupid to understand what he's saying when he says that the intention is to fight this war with no quarter allowed or asked for, and is merely repeating something he thought sounded badass in an Alestorm song.
The problem with poster-boying a monogamous couple is that monogamy is hard, and failure is easy and frequent even if you're trying your best. Putting a couple on a pedestal gives them a long way to fall.
Your Carrie Bradshaw type "complicated messy" women icons don't suffer from failure because it's an easier standard to reach.
nonsense like plans to take territory (any evidence of this?)
The Israelis have announced plans for a buffer zone:
Israel on March 4 ordered all residents south of Lebanon's Litani River to leave the area, two days after Hezbollah joined the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran by firing rockets at Israel. The river runs east from the Mediterranean about 30 km (19 miles) north of the border with Israel. About 8% of Lebanese territory lies south of the river.
Israeli ground troops have set up new fortifications south of the river and destroyed homes in emptied villages. Israel views the area as a stronghold for the Iran-backed Shi'ite militia, but the south has historically been a diverse region with Christian and Sunni villages as well. Marking an escalation of Israel's plans, Defence Minister Israel Katz said on March 24 that Israel had destroyed five bridges over the river and that the military would "control the remaining bridges and the security zone up to the Litani." He said troops would remain there as long as there is "terrorism and missiles". The military's spokesperson, Effie Defrin, said the same day that the military had defined the Litani River as the "northern security line" and that Israel was "deepening its ground operation with the aim of preventing direct fire at (Israel's) northern communities."
Making his first comments on the subject, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on March 25 that Israel was "expanding this security strip to keep the threat of anti-tank weapons away from our towns and our territory." "We are simply creating a larger buffer zone," he said.
The occupation, and inevitable settlement, is conjecture at this point.
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.
These ships were non-Iranian oil.
The windfall to the Iranian from the de-sanctioning of oil on the water last week is an estimated windfall to Iran of in the neighborhood of as much as $14bn.
Allowing the Iranians to meter who gets through and who doesn't would be a disaster for the world.
There is a difference between cold blooded public murder and targeted killings of leaders during a war
Given that the war was "announced" and the Ayatollah was killed at home within ten minutes, I'd say they were pretty similar levels of cold-bloodedly killing a man who was just going about his day because the shooter thought that the man was evil. This feels like a distinction without a difference.
And I'm going to call you on this, as I have done before, and ask you to show me anything even close to an apples-to-apples comparison.
The most obvious would be various GrandBurdensomeCount personas, where his disdain is always treated as pathological or trolling. This isn't primarily an accusation against the mods, but the forum itself, it's not that you see an attack on white people and ban someone, it's that the tone of the conversation develops such that a ban is inevitable.
Third Gulf War Negotiations Thread
As we approach the end of the 5 day pause(?) before the USA ramps up attacks again, reports are coming in that the Trump team has sent Iran a 15 point plan for peace. I don’t think the full text has been credibly made public at this time, as should be expected, but from what I’ve gathered the points can be reduced from redundant and detail points, Iran gives:
— Iran stops funding proxies abroad, especially Hamas and Hezbollah
— Iran pinky promises to never get a nuclear weapon, surrenders nuclear material, agrees to various future restrictions/inspections
— Iran opens the Strait of Hormuz
In exchange Iran gets:
— Full sanctions relief, including removal of the snapback provisions that removed sanctions would go back on Iran immediately if Iran violated the agreement
— American assistance with their civilian nuclear program.
Iran, after denying that negotiations were happening at all, has come back with the following demands:
— Bombing of Iran ends, assassination of Iranian officials ends, guarantees that it won’t start again
— Reparations
— Recognition of Iranian sovereignty over the strait of Hormuz
— They won’t negotiate with Steve and Jared, only with JD Vance
Trump has delayed bombing Iranian civilian infrastructure for this week, while Iran has let some ships through the strait as a gesture of good faith, or as Trump put it a “very expensive present.”
Now none of this is being reported clearly, and this all might be bullshit, and maybe one or both sides is engaging in distractionism.
But I’m filled with a deep sense of disquiet and defeat. The Iranian regime is rebuilt, reinforced, made more powerful. The Iranian regime is given new credibility, where before my diasporic friends could claim that with a push the rotten structure would collapse, now they know it will not. Iran gets effective, if not formal, sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz. Iran gets sanctions relief. Iran gives up more or less nothing, just some fissionable material that is easily enough replaced and a few proxies that have already been degraded. I don’t really credit the promises Iran is making here for much, especially if the snapback provision is removed.
Giving Iran anything after they close the Strait is tantamount to recognizing their sovereignty over it, de facto if not legally. Simply by asking for it, and then making a deal, Iran is going to be perceived as getting sovereignty over the strait. The USA, by accepting Iran's "gift" of letting ships through the strait, is already acknowledging that Iran has control of the strait! And this would be disastrous.
The flip side is that there’s little guarantee that the US would keep its promises in the future, but that doesn’t feel very good to me either. I’m not sure where I see the off-ramp at this point that isn’t a full invasion of Iran.
Another view is that given the conditions, this isn't really the Iran war, it's the Lebanon war and the Iran war is a sideshow and a distraction. The casualties are higher in Lebanon, there are troops on the ground in Lebanon, Israel is considering expanding its territory into Lebanon, occupation will inevitably result in settlements which will not be removed, etc. Perhaps the purpose of the Iran war never had anything to do with Iran herself, which is why the goals against Iran never seemed achievable, but were instead more local to protecting the Israeli homefront against Hezbollah. The USA distracts Iran and forces it to accept Hezbollah's defeat.
I suppose at least we’ll get good pistachios and saffron now? I’d love to see sanctions relief on a personal level, and I think sanctions are a wildly ineffective method of international relations, but on a geopolitical level this seems like the US admitting defeat.
One of the patterns that is easy to arrive at given the make up of both the forum and the moderation team is H1Bs looking out for other H1Bs, and that is where I feel like users like @KMC and @FiveHourMarathon are coming from.
To be clear, I don't think this is limited to Indians or to Jews. My feelings, as I've said before, is that at times:
If you hate white people or men you're a troll and will catch a ban, if you hate Jews or Asians you have to show receipts or you risk a ban, if you hate blacks or hispanics or arabs you're rounding second ahead of the throw.
I don't think the tone of what KMC said, though I find it wrong and stupid, would have caught any flack if he said it about Venezuelans or Somalians rather than about Indian academics. That includes me, of course, I objected to his vitriol against Amar because it's someone I knew personally and a type of person I've been close with in my life. As a result, I don't think KMC ought to be disciplined for it, or I think a lot of other discussion should be disciplined similarly.
Policing purely for tone and not content would mean that the death of the Ayatollah would be dealt with the same way as the death of Charlie Kirk, which I don't think is or really could be the case. We're always going to have a bias towards our friends.
It should give you context as to why Nixon wins the election even if I don't know anyone who voted for him.
You have made the point repeatedly that there exist significant portions of the American public rooting against America in the present war.
Do you think the United States would fall as a result of similar circumstances?
I love the America of my birth, of my father's birth, that my grandfathers fought for, that my great grandfather's immigrated to. I love the America that is Great because we have the best of everything and the best of everyone, the America where I grew up with a Pakistani pediatrician, where half my best friends growing up were Indian, where I learned from professors like Amar.
I love the America that develops so many great athletes that you had the Heritage Americans on the American WBC team, Italian Americans on the Italy team, and Mexican Americans on the Mexican team, and they were all competitive!
I love the America of Elon Musk and Jensen Huang, of Barack Obama and Dwight Eisenhower, the America of Joe Dimaggio and Frank Sinatra, of Woody Allen and Bob Dylan.
I'm glad we can be clear about terms. You can find it offensive to call an eminent constitutional scholar American, I will find it offensive when you don't.
I want to register that although I disagree with my learned friend in argument @KMC here and have said why below, I don't think this particular comment crosses the set lines of theMotte.
If we want to move the lines around that's fine, but it's perfectly in line with discussions of other ethnic groups that have been accepted in the past, and a new rule shouldn't be enforced retroactively.
Because "these people" are also posters here and are entitled to the same civility as everyone else.
Indians shouldn't get kid glove treatment because there are clearly open Indians among our number, where blacks or Palestinians or Iranians wouldn't because we don't have posters within those identity groups.
Amar isn't a random blogger, he's an eminent originalist constitutional scholar. I recall a blurb on the back of his book saying he was one of the five most cited living American legal scholars. He's a man who has devoted his life to the study of the American constitution.
This is the challenge facing the project of building a new American nationalism, you can't excise people like Amar without destroying much of what makes this country great.
Yes. The USA failed to pacify the population sustainably until, roughly, 2017 when ISIS lost most of its territory there.
I would not say that was how Dubya and Rumsfeld drew it up.
I'm less interested in the military effectiveness of the gulf countries than in the reaction of their civilian population to Iranian bombings in their cities. It seems to me that every campaign that I've seen begin with the assumption "the populace is docile, cowardly, Aristotelian natural slaves who will surrender when attacked" it hasn't worked out that way. Most recently, Ukraine was assumed by essentially every intelligent observer (including essentially all major governments and intelligence agencies) to be a fake country with a population uninterested in dying for a corrupt elite. That has proven untrue, to the sorrow of millions.
I don't know that the Gulf Arabs can convert popular anger into effective military action against Iran, but I'm unsure that the theory they will cower and sue for peace is a good one for Iran to set as their win condition. In the same way that I would caution against building a win condition into USA war planning that the Iranians will sue for peace as a result of aerial bombing.
If one loves America, extant America not imaginary America, one must guard against both.
The Americans of 1890 were (I would think) overwhelmingly the Americans of 1776 or 1690.
This would be wildly incorrect, unless you have a specialized definition of overwhelmingly. Black 47 brought the Irish fleeing famine, 1848 brought waves of German immigration after failed revolutions. Local elementary schools near me taught in German until the 1900s. We got 2,000,000 Irish and 1,500,000 Germans dumped into an 1840 population of around 15,000,000 free men. The Civil War was fought, in significant part, by immigrants.
Immigration would break 1,000,000/decade in the 1840s, and crest at 5,000,000 in the 1880s.
If you want England to be English, that is fine, for you. One only has to turn back the clock a few decades, within living memory there were few immigrants in England. England is still 80% white English. The United States white population, broadly defined not even getting into the "heritage American" distinction, fell below 80% in the 80s.The colonial stock were a minority by 1900, at the latest, among the white population. And 1900 is the start of the American Century, not its end.
In America especially I observe a thought process that goes approximately: America is a land of pioneers everyone who comes to America is by definition a pioneer therefore they’re super-duper American and all is well. I think this is extremely superficial and surface-level. Creedal nations don’t work because everyone interprets and responds to the creed differently.
Yet America remains the greatest nation on Earth, as a creedal nation, assimilating vast multitudes.
Thank God and Ben Franklin I'm not English then.
Tradition ist die Weitergabe des Feuers und nicht die Anbetung der Asche.
The thing that will make America more like Japan is if we turn into an insular people, focused on our past and our heritage and our purity. You're so frightened of America you want to turn it into a foreign country.
Kings made tombs more splendid than the houses of the living, and counted the old names of their descent dearer than the names of their sons. Childless lords sat in aged halls musing on heraldry, or in high, cold towers asking questions of the stars. And so the people of Gondor fell into ruin.
Past tense being used here to indicate death I assume? My condolences, though at this point even a soldier who enlisted at 17 in '45 would be 97 or something.
In the fifties and sixties this might have been accurate to a reasonable degree, there were zero Indian Americans born in Michigan who went on to become important scholars. One could ignore them or wish them away. That isn't the case now, one must deal with Kash Patel and Akhil Reed Amar whether one likes it or not.
- Prev
- Next

I agree it's intensely frustrating, particularly as each side seems to have arrogated to itself the right to just say whatever bullshit and it doesn't matter, while assuming that any statement by the other side is deeply symbolic of their evil.
More options
Context Copy link