FirmWeird
Randomly Generated Reddit Username
No bio...
User ID: 757
There is a right answer here,
No, there really isn't - or at least not the one you're proposing. If you think that Iran announcing their complete capitulation and surrender would lead at all to a positive outcome you're fooling yourself. Do you remember what happened the last time Iran was a democracy? Do you remember why that changed, and how the Shah was installed?
There are other countries out there that Cuba can trade with.
Are you aware of how the sanctions actually work? Other countries who trade with Cuba also get penalised for violating the blockade. They've actually done remarkably well given their conditions, and even train enough doctors that they send them abroad to assist in natural disasters etc.
From my perspective, the two interpretations were you that you were wrong and/or didn't know the details of the situation, or that you were creating unnecessary ambiguity to obscure the actual argument you were making - what's the point of listing countries which were attacked and asking me to guess which of them your criteria actually apply to? I believed that the first interpretation was the more charitable.
Could you please clarify what your list actually meant then? When you said "I am unaware of any U.S. military bases or U.S. troops in several of the attacked countries" you then followed up with "To list, at least: Israel,". What, exactly, were you listing? I interpreted your post as listing countries that were attacked which lacked US military bases or US Troops, because simply listing all countries that had been attacked and implying that some of them lacked US Military bases or Troops would be ambiguous and useless in a good faith discussion. I'm not aware of any nations that Iran has attacked which didn't contribute to the attacks on them, with the exception of Lebanon (which is a difficult situation anyway, because to the best of my knowledge Iran has been attacking Israeli forces inside Lebanese territory).
The fact the Cuban economy cannot afford oil imports at market rates is a result of their mismanagement, corruption, and incompetence.
Cuban hyper-agency! Do you think that US sanctions played any role in this state of affairs?
If you shoot at me from far outside my reach, and the only people I can reach to hit back are some of your friends who happen to be very economically important to you,
It is worth pointing out that in case the "friends" are also holding the gun, helping you reload the gun and hosting a bunch of your employees who help aim and fire the gun.
unaware of any US military bases or U.S. troops
Israel
Come the fuck on. Are you even trying to participate in a good faith discussion? Are you going to seriously sit here and claim that Israel was not party to the attacks on Iran? Do you believe there's no military co-operation between Israel and the US?
Diego Garcia.
Are you for real? Did you forget a sentence or something here? If you aren't aware of any US military bases on Diego Garcia I think you need to go and do some more research before continuing to post on this topic.
attacking other nations seemingly at random
This is the Motte - please leave takes sourced from John Stewart and other talk show hosts where they belong. What they are actually doing is attacking nations which are hosting US forces and military bases, and the hotels they have been attacking were used to host American troops. They've been positively saintlike when compared to the US' blowing up of primary schools and oil depots in Tehran.
targeting infrastructure
Iran attacked a gas field after one of their gas fields was attacked and they explicitly said that was a proportional response. Even Trump chickened out from destroying their powerplants after the Iranians explained what they would blow up if he did.
My apologies for being ambiguous - I did not mean that Israel were in charge of all foreign policy decisions, but that certain decisions were made by them with zero regard for America's interests.
I believe that was the original plan, but at the same time I think they underestimated just how effective Iran's missile campaign would be. The risk of Israel being completely destroyed or rendered effectively uninhabitable for civilian life is just too high - though maybe they consider that price worth paying in the long run.
I'm also going to put my money on TACO. The consequences for anything else are just way too dire, and even though I believe the Trump 2 administration is completely compromised by a foreign power I don't think even that foreign power is suicidal enough to take this next step up the escalation ladder - at least not before they've seen how US boots on the ground fare. Destroying all that energy infrastructure would make Iran substantially less attractive to rule over, and I think we'll need to see a lot more Americans coming home in boxes before blowing up all that infrastructure becomes a worthwhile option.
I don't think there would be much direct collusion between the Trump campaign (at least, not multiple high level staffers) to begin with just because there's not too much need for it.
The problem with this entire take is that Trump actually has colluded with a foreign power and he was extremely open about it, creating an undeniable trail of evidence accompanied by corrupt outcomes which simply do not exist for Russia and Putin. The Russian connection relies on incredibly dodgy IP address connections and other bullshit, along with one of 2016 Candidate Trump's policies (get the US out of foreign wars) coinciding with one of Putin's priorities (end the Ukraine war, which was rendered substantially harder by US assistance). There's mysterious backchannels, blackmail material with sources exactly as strong as someone on 4chan saying they made it up (not joking) etc - and to top it all off, there's no real evidence that Trump acted in a corrupt fashion and helped out Russia.
But if we switch focus for a second and look at Israeli compromise, there are mountains of evidence - we can see Trump talking about how Miriam Adelson purchased his foreign policy decisions for money, we can see the pipeline from donations to pardons, we can see foreign policy decisions completely outsourced to Israel no matter how much the US suffers. This is what corruption actually looks like, and it isn't hidden at all - there IS direct collusion, there IS evidence of quid pro quo, there IS evidence of bribery. What's the point of talking about the anemic and insubstantial accusations of pro-Russian collusion when Trump openly confesses in public to being purchased by Israeli money?
Actually Iran being able to lay waste in 1500 miles is the best argument for dealing with them once and for all.
So you're going to support military action to wipe out the rogue Israeli regime and their undeclared nuclear arsenal, right? Israel is capable of causing even more damage to the region and the world, so naturally you'd support dealing with them once and for all to an even stronger degree, no? They've even made explicit threats to do so (google the Samson option), which is actually more than Iran has done.
the destruction of Israel would invite a metric arse-load of bad karma
I think it is extremely telling that this is the level of argument you have to make to support this war or the pro-Zionist position. Israel and America's interests are deeply opposed here, and to pretend otherwise forces you to descend to this honestly laughable standard of argument.
What's the value in discussion with someone who is going to blame the Jews every time?
If someone was criticising the actions of the Nazi regime, would you discount their critiques on the basis that there is no value in discussion with someone who is going to blame the Germans every time? How many people in the upper echelons of the Israeli government, with the ability and authority to make serious decisions, are not Jewish?
However some of the posters here are clearly just angry, hateful, and blinded by some sort of intense and specific dislike that will never make sense to me and is clearly objectively irrational despite being historically common.
What, exactly, is irrational about Coffee Enjoyer's post? Are you going to deny that Israel has nuclear weapons? Are you going to deny that they have, in the past, engaged in both espionage and direct attacks on the US? The most significant intelligence theft in US history (at least to my knowledge) was committed by an Israeli spy, Jonathan Pollard.
I've never had any significant interaction with anti-semites in person or in real life prior to this conflict and I now get while growing up the Jewish people I know just automatically assumed anyone who was anti-Israel was anti-semitic.
The kind of low-intelligence antisemitism that you're describing, the kind that belongs to people who just look for some kind of external force they can blame for the problems in their life so they don't have to do anything about, have always existed and will always exist. If it wasn't the Jews it would be the Feminists or the Man or the Illuminati etc. Those people aren't worth talking to, but I'd argue that it isn't the specific target of that kind of mental pathology that distinguishes them.
But you're doing your own thinking a great disservice by shoving every single person with an antipathy towards Israel into that rather cramped box. Have you paid any attention to the recent conflict or the actions Israel has actually taken in the Middle East? Do you think the family of Rachel Corrie are motivated by an "objectively irrational" dislike when they criticise the state of Israel? As someone on the left I can assure you that most people who criticise Israel in my circles have a gigantic list of incredibly specific grievances and problems they have with the state of Israel, and it is in fact the state of Israel which goes out of its way to conflate all criticism of it with criticism of Jews in general, and plenty of prominent organisations do the same (like the ADL).
What a coincidence! I too find people who post on the topic of Israel to be incapable of rational discussion because they fail to agree with me and my obviously correct points - just with the opposite political valence to you.
What does that have to do with the point I was making? I'm very confident that a Christian, Jewish or Taoist nation would engage in violent warfare in response to those provocations.
If Iran has the ability to "destroy the global economy" whenever they want then this conflict was coming sooner or later because the rest of the world actually can't afford to cede that power to a rogue state. It's actually the most rational war in the world.
Almost everyone has the ability to destroy the global economy. If you think that's the criteria required, you're saying that we have to go invade and destroy Israel, China, Russia, the US, etc. Iran is just the only state that has been sanctioned and removed from the global economy to the point that it won't actually have nasty consequences for them - the actual rational response is to not sanction them into oblivion so they have some skin in the game.
No no no you're not understanding how war works. War is not America plays pretend. If there's an oil pipeline somewhere that allows Iran to hold out forever -- America will bomb it!
America has not bombed that oil pipeline nor have they seized Iranian tankers - they can't afford to deprive the world of even more oil supplies.
The only reason America hasn't done that already is our charity.
Why isn't the Strait of Hormuz open? I thought America was done playing pretend, so why haven't they won yet? Hegseth is on TV talking about no quarter, no mercy and no more pesky rules against bombing schoolchildren, and yet Iran still controls the Strait.
If the only two alternatives are "Iran wrecks the Global Economy" or "The Global Economy wrecks Iran," which do we think Donald Trump is picking?
Those aren't the only two alternatives - though admittedly "The US empire's decline accelerates as they're forced out of the Middle East" isn't an option Trump is willing to pick either.
(3) Iran's leadership has prioritized building a nuclear bomb.
Israel has built a nuclear arsenal already, has been relentlessly attacking their neighbours and other countries in the area and openly proclaimed their desire to become a regional and/or global power (see Netanyahu's recent comments) - does this actually justify launching attacks against the Israeli regime?
Comparing gdp to Thailand seems a bit much, yea? Thailand isn’t run by religious nutters that fund terrorism. It’s not yelling death to America as a winning political strat. It’s just a lower middle class country.
I am extremely confident that if America had sanctioned Thailand off from the global economy, put out a document titled "Which path to Siam" which explained they needed to wipe out all of Thailand's neighbours before invading them, wiped out all of Thailand's neighbours as they explained in their openly published plan on how to invade Thailand and then blew up 150 Thai schoolgirls that Thailand would actually be yelling "Death to America" at the top of their lungs.
I think it is far more likely that this war is happening as a result of the espionage and blackmail system that Epstein ran rather than as a distraction from it myself.
That's how I refer to it whenever I'm not in a more formal forum like this one where you get banned for referring to it as such.
Then please don't make drive-by shitposts on the topic. If you don't want to have the conversation, don't bring it up.
Bombing an apartment in Bahrain is not proportional to bombing an American military base in Bahrain.
The Iranians have extremely good intelligence from Bahrain due to the high Shia population, and there were credible reports that American soldiers were being quartered in those apartments and hotels.
Iran has little ability to harm Americans.
I actually agree with you on this, which is one of the reasons why starting this conflict was an incredibly stupid idea. The problem, of course, is that Iran's strategy is to destroy the global economy by closing the Strait of Hormuz and depriving the world of fuel, a strategy which won't harm them terribly much due to their continued ability to sell oil to China and the fact that American sanctions kept them cut off from the global economy anyway, which means that the real test of their military effectiveness is simply "How much oil left the strait of Hormuz from non-Iranian sources since the conflict began?" Much like how the Viet Cong would have handily lost a fight with the American military if they all lined up in a field and marched to death, the Iranians understand that their conventional military disadvantage forces them to fight back with alternative means.
- Prev
- Next

Is there any actual evidence of this at all? I've seen numbers ranging from ten to eighty thousand, and no specifics beyond that wrestler who beheaded police officers.
More options
Context Copy link