7 ms·
You know how sometimes you find theres an simpler way of doing things? Sometimes its easier, or more scalable, it just takes creative thinking. Imagine for a mo
by Geisterde 3y ago
You know how sometimes you find theres an simpler way of doing things? Sometimes its easier, or more scalable, it just takes creative thinking. Imagine for a moment a crazy idea, instead of sending a strike force to go turn people into mist, we try talking first? Its this weird phenomena, sometimes people dont rush into violence when they feel like their grievances are being taken seriously.
- sealeck 3y agoThe Houthis want conflict to remain in power domestically.
- Geisterde 3y agoThat logic could be applied to all belligerents in the conflict, can you name a country that doesnt apply to?
- paulryanrogers 3y agoDid FDR want to join WW2 to stay in power at home?
- Geisterde 3y agoYes, we never had to be involved. In fact, the holocaust started after we declated war, and we kept it a secret that we sunk a japanese submarine that was near Hawaii because it would have tipped off the forces there that they needed to be ready to defend themselves. Pearl harbor was allowed to happen to justify going to war, soldiers and sailors killed for what exactly?
- yard2010 3y agoThe Holocaust started in 1933
- JumpCrisscross 3y agoIt’s classically held to have occurred between 1941 and 1945 [1], beginning around the attack on Pearl Harbor. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust
- yard2010 3y ago"The Nazis developed their ideology based on racism and pursuit of "living space", and seized power in early 1933. In an attempt to force all German Jews to emigrate, the regime passed anti-Jewish laws and orchestrated a nationwide pogrom in November 1938. After Germany invaded Poland in September 1939, occupation authorities began to establish ghettos to segregate Jews. Following the invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, 1.5 to 2 million Jews were shot by German forces and local collaborators." People lived in ghettos and were executed before. I guess it depends how you define Holocaust tho
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> guess it depends how you define Holocaust True. I think it’s most broadly held as the industrial liquidation of the Jewish people (alongside other undesirables). Everything else was sadly precedented.
- Benlights 3y agoWhat nonsense is this, At the Babi Yar ravine just outside Kyiv, 33,771 Jews were massacred on September 29 and 30, 1941. Months before the US entered the war. Additionally there were Jews being slaughtered from 1939.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> we never had to be involved [in WWII] Ffs, can we have someone defending Arab interests who doesn’t pivot to de facto defending the literal Nazis?
- bluGill 3y agoWe didn't get involved because of the holocaust. At the time many favored it in the US. Only near the end did se realise how horrible it was
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> We didn't get involved because of the holocaust Nobody claimed we did!
- Geisterde 3y ago[flagged]
- yard2010 3y agoWhere did you read this? Can you provide a source?
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> holocaust was the result of our involvement. And hitlers rise was in large part due to our involvement in WW1. Sorry buddy, you’ve gone off the deep end. Germany wasn’t winning WWI, with or without America. What our involvement did was shorten the war’s duration and lighten the terms of the Treaty of Versailles a tad. As for America being responsible for the Holocaust, you’re wrong. I know where you’re getting this , and while I don’t think you’re going to be deprogrammed by Internet comments I hope flagging this as abject nonsense will prevent others from going down that path.
- bluGill 3y ago
- hackerlight 3y agoAutocracies work very differently. War gives them an excuse to crack down on dissent, e.g. criminalizing opponents. Also, the foundational reason for the existence of the autocracy is often an unresolved conflict or grievance, for example North Korea, so they need to perpetuate the grievance.
- dotancohen 3y agoThey're not really Houthis, they are followers of Hussein al-Houthi. I don't know why the Western media insists on giving them this name. Hussein al-Houthi was a Houthi, but most of his supporters are not. Would you call all Barak Obama supporters "Obamas"?
- ceejayoz 3y ago> Would you call all Barak Obama supporters "Obamas"? If they engaged in a rebellion under his leadership/memory separately from the rest of the Democrats, we probably would.
- JumpCrisscross 3y agoCaesarians, Pompeiians, Marxists, Reagan Republicans…
- _teyd 3y agoProbably Obamists, along the lines of Trumpists, Stalinists, Maoists, etc.
- Bud 3y ago[dead]
- woodruffw 3y agoTrumpers, Reaganites, Maoists, etc. It’s a standard political demonym structure in English.
- confd 3y ago> Would you call all Barak Obama supporters "Obamas"? Not really, but if they were referred to as “Obamites” it wouldn’t be that jarring. Are they referred to by something different in Arabic-language media?
- yard2010 3y agoWhen they start pirating around, maybe
- dotancohen 3y agoWhat side do you think tried violence before talking? The followers of Hussein al-Houthi? The Israelis? The Gazans? Hamas? Historic Palestinian leaderships? I could give examples for and against every single one of those entities. This is very much a matter of perspective - and everyone thinks he was reasonable from his own perspective.
- Geisterde 3y agoRight, and history started 2 months ago. There was never a partner for peace of course, not when we gave chemical weapons to Saddam, not when we invaded and turned the place into a shooting gallery for no reason, not when we rejected the talibans offer to turn over bin laden, not when we let him escape into Pakistan, not when we turned Libya into a failed state, not when we invaded somalia, not when we propped up a dictator in iran, not when we sanctioned them for overthrowing the puppet, not when we started the civil war in sudan, not when we supported al-queda, not when we created isis, nope, never a partner for peace. The US has created significant ill will trying to control the middle east, and there are consequences for continuing this path. You think we can solve this problem with more fighting, you dont think that will cause more problems?
- aaomidi 3y agoThe US, UK, and Russia are generally hated in the Middle East and for good reason. Norway also failed to hold the various parties that came to agreements in Oslo. Not that they had to, but it would’ve been nice to get the mediator on the record of what the agreement was and how it actually played out.
- golergka 3y ago> The US, UK, and Russia are generally hated in the Middle East and for good reason. In Middle East, any given actor hates most other Middle Eastern actors. Hate is not in short supply there.
- yard2010 3y agoYou're describing life. This is diplomacy, while we can argue about its effectiveness I'm certain we can agree that it's still better than China, Russia and or Iran. It's just a matter of perspective - the west is the lesser evil here
- bozhark 3y agoYeah this really didn’t work for Carter.
- chef0 3y ago“The Houthis aren’t going to stop what they’re doing, until the Israeli offensive in Gaza concludes,” Gregory Brew, an analyst at the Eurasia Group, told Al Jazeera, “and even then they are likely to continue for some time after.” Their demands and intentions are quite clear and solely focused on Israeli-bound ships, although it does seem like this is giving them more leverage with respect to Yemen's agenda which has seen years of war from US-Saudi aggression. https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2023/12/22/beyond-gaza-how-yemens-houthis-gain-from-attacking-red-sea-ships https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2023/12/22/beyond-gaza-ho...
- ceejayoz 3y ago> Their demands and intentions are quite clear and solely focused on Israeli-bound ships... Their actions haven't been, though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houthi_involvement_in_the_2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war#Attacks_on_shipping_in_the_Red_Sea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houthi_involvement_in_the_2023... > On 12 December 2023, the Houthis launched an anti-ship cruise missile attack against the Norwegian commercial ship Strinda, an oil and chemical tanker operated by the J. Ludwig Mowinckels Rederi company, while it was close to the Bab-el-Mandeb. The Strinda was on its way from Malaysia to Italy (via the Suez Canal). The attack caused a fire aboard the ship; no crew members were injured. The ship was carrying cargo of palm oil. The French Armed Forces Ministry and U.S. Department of Defense reported that the Languedoc shot down a drone targeted at the Strinda, and the USS Mason also rendered aid. The Houthi attack on the Strinda was an expansion of its series of attacks against maritime shipping in the strait; the Houthis began to attack commercial vessels without any discernible tie to Israel. Several more attacks since then, on ships with nothing to do with Israel.
- yard2010 3y agoSurprising - violent terrorists are being violent terrorists just for the sake of it. Also, with their religion, it just doesn't make any sense..
- aaomidi 3y agoIt’s not just ships directly going to Israel but also ships going to countries that are aiding Israel (basically, all of Europe). It’s effectively a shut down of trade to make _basically everyone_ hurt until the world forces the US to stop vetoing UNSC resolutions.
- sgift 3y agoPeople told them to stop. The Houthis don't want to stop and instead continue to attack others. Mist it is.
- Geisterde 3y agoRight, telling them to stop, that addresses their greivances, you should be a diplomat.
- sgift 3y agoTheir grievance is that Israel doesn't wait anymore until its killers come and try to kill people there, but has decided to make them go away. How exactly do you think we should address the Houthis grievances? Tell Israel "sorry, but the Houthi will only stop shooting rockets on ships if you accept getting murdered. Would this be okay?"
- j4yav 3y agoTheir grievances are pretty simple and straightforward, they even put them in writing on their flag, which is just green and red text on a white background. Which ones specifically are you willing to support or concede for peace? Here's the list: 1. God is the Greatest 2. Death to America 3. Death to Israel 4. A Curse Upon the Jews 5. Victory to Islam
- Geisterde 3y agoDoes it make you feel intelligent to reduce a complex organism to whats on a flag?
- JumpCrisscross 3y agoVersus ignoring it, and all other evidence, to push an anti-American narrative?
- csomar 3y agoYou've got to give them credit for their flag, though. Talk about adhering to the KISS principle :)
- newsclues 3y agoAssuming people are peaceful and rational is unrealistic.
- Geisterde 3y agoRight, we havent spent the last 30 years trying to summon khorn over there, they are clearly irrational evil people that we just need to kill.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> they are clearly irrational evil people that we just need to kill We don’t need to kill them. But it’s naive to think appeasement will work with folks calling for the destruction of an entire people. I suppose if I’m going to complain about us having to learn this lesson time and again, I should learn that well-meaning but tragically-naïve people will keep trying it, time and again. (Appeasement isn’t always irrational [1]. But only if done for force conservation, not out of misguided humanitarianism.) [1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/3877861 https://www.jstor.org/stable/3877861
- Geisterde 3y agoPeople argue about what motivated the 9/11 highjackers. Some will say, bin laden hated America, forget what he says about dual containment, he actually just hates us and is using that as a justification. Others will say, look, hes pointing out exactly what hes mad about, he says it right there. The former calls the latter naïve, the latter calls the former bellicose, they could well be both wrong. Maybe bin laden did just hate us, and maybe that doesnt matter, because his little empire was built on a different message that he could convince people it was worth dying for. In Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism, Robert Pape shows that all suicide bombings from 1980 to 2005 were the result of a people being occupied. I am not convinced that anyone actually wants conflict, not once theyve seen it and are subject to it at least, unless there is a direct incentive. You might think these people wont stop until they are dead or accomplish their most hardline public talking points, but I find it far more likely that theyd rather be home with their kids than out in the field guarding an unguardable missile launcher.
- yard2010 3y agoExcuse me, talking with whom? If you want to shoot, shoot! Don't talk
- Geisterde 3y agoWell yes, the goal is to shoot, talking wont bring more profit to lockheed after all, only killing can do that.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- yard2010 3y agoYou're oversimplifying I'm afraid. Just because people make money out of war doesn't necessarily mean it's for no reason. Just like the war on Nazis, some wars have to be fought, especially if your goal is to save lives.
- Geisterde 3y agoYou should really read more about world war 2, we didnt save lives with our actions
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> like the war on Nazis, some wars have to be fought The commenter you’re responding to would have preferred we’d let the Nazis do their thing [1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38734555 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38734555
- Geisterde 3y agoThat is quite disrespectful, on the contrary hitler did have a lot of support fron the US, and I wont quickly forget the all star cast of bankers, politicians, and media that supplied that aid. Nor will I forget the top picks from the Nazi experiment that were wisked away to safety. I believe it far more likely that you would come to their defense than I.