36 ms·
Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea
- adolph 3y ago[flagged]
- thorncorona 3y agoMore relevant to the ongoing attack: > “The Yemeni position is clear,” Abdullah Ben Amer, a high-ranking Houthi official in a department that is part of the group’s defense ministry, told The New York Times. The Houthi escalation in the Red Sea will stop, he said, when “the Israeli war on the people of Gaza stops.”
- stefan_ 3y agoHouthis stopping to fire Iranian missiles does not in fact solve any of these problems, I'm afraid.
- literallyWTF 3y ago[dead]
- adolph 3y agoHouthi != Yemeni Houthi : Yemen :: Hamas : Palestine
- 29athrowaway 3y agoSounds like something taken from Team America: World Police or Command & Conquer: Generals.
- SEJeff 3y agoExcept this is real life and not a movie. They’re not cartoon villains. They’re actual real life villains.
- 29athrowaway 3y agoIt must be some kind of Pizza effect, where they assimilated all the silly depictions of radical groups from parodies. Life imitating art?
- aaomidi 3y agoThe Houthi movement really strengthened after the US invasion of Iraq, so yeah the real villains who destabilized the shit out of the Middle East?
- adolph 3y agoWhat a novel geopolitical theory reaching across Arabian peninsula. I suppose that once the US deposed someone in conflict with the Iranians, they could spend money on groups like the Houthis.
- wolverine876 3y agoBecause we're talking about real life, what exactly do you mean, and what does it matter? The concept is almost never true - and a strong signal of subjectibe bias - and also not useful for international relations or for any conflict. They are acting according to their interests, using the means they have.
- asylteltine 3y agoWonder why this is getting downvoted. It’s just a statement of fact.
- adolph 3y agoI can see how the slogans of the Houthis make them a less than sympathetic set of missileers. For example, it might be awkward for a person supportive of the Palestinian cause to be in goal alignment with a well funded group stating uncloseted hatred of Jews.
- ceejayoz 3y agoNo more awkward than supporters of Israel having to cope with Israeli ministers suggesting nuking Gaza, or having to deal with the ACLU defending Nazis in court. Every cause, even (sometimes especially) the righteous ones, has shitty people attached to it.
- mynameishere 3y agoWords are one thing, but actions are another. Their demands are basically to end an ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign.
- verelo 3y agoI’m fairly concerned this Red Sea thing can turn into what sets off inflation for real. These routes were major efficiency factors to the economy. If we lose them, there’s nothing but added cost coming for us all, and at the worst time for consumer confidence in central banks ability to manage the situation. Can we just keep our shit together? It’s been a rough decade and it’s only 3 years into the 2020s…
- dang_raw_insult 3y ago[dead]
- rayiner 3y agoThe Houthis official slogan is: “God is the Greatest, Death to America, Death to Israel, A Curse Upon the Jews, Victory to Islam." I’m petty sure they do not give a shit about making consumerism harder for Americans. In fact it’s probably a bonus.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- tptacek 3y agoOn the other hand, this is literally the oldest, best established casus belli in the American system.
- defrost 3y agoBlowing up your own ammnition by accident and blaming the Spanish? ADDENDUM: Clarification for those up|down voting like a yo-yo: On February 15, 1898, the American battleship Maine exploded while sitting in the Havana harbor, killing two officers and 250 enlisted men. Fourteen of the injured later died, bringing the death toll to 266. A naval board of inquiry concluded that the blast was caused by a mine placed outside the ship. Release of the board’s report led many to accuse Spain of sabotage, helping to build public support for war. Subsequent studies, including one published in 1976 and later reissued in 1995, determined that the ship was destroyed from the inside, when burning coal in a bunker triggered an explosion in an adjacent space that contained ammunition. Law Library of Congress: https://web.archive.org/web/20210424181239/https://www.loc.gov/law/help/usconlaw/pdf/Maine.1898.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20210424181239/https://www.loc.g... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Maine_(1889) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Maine_(1889) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish%E2%80%93American_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish%E2%80%93American_War
- nomilk 3y agoSomething I'm unsure about is what does and doesn't trigger wars. Russian jets downed a US drone over the black sea in March 2023, I thought for sure there'd be a commensurate US military response. But there didn't appear to be one. Was it because no human was aboard the drone (so no response was justified), from fear or escalation, or something else? In any case, if a large cargo ship were sunk, would the US or other nations go to war, would they retaliate with a similarly sized response, or would they do nothing (as with the Russian downing of the US drone). Does anyone have some good resources on this topic? As a layperson I find military responses difficult to predict. (I'm familiar with foundational game theory, but not specific to international relations and security)
- i67vw3 3y ago[flagged]
- nomilk 3y agoCompletely disregarding which president is in office, I always thought the paradoxical way to minimise war is to ensure you have a credible threat of retaliation. That means if you are attacked, you must fight back, otherwise your credibility falls and you become more of a target, thus emboldening adversaries and increasing violence.
- happytiger 3y agoThere are a lot of ways to prevent wars. That’s just one. - Promises not to go to war - Reduction of armaments - Machinery for the peaceful settlement of disputes between nations - Economic penalties against aggressors War doctrine is a very complicated subject, as is even the definition of war in modernity. What causes a nation to declare war is unclear and difficult to reliably determine, but there is often a period or circumstances of instability or a immoral act that precipitates them. The US appears to be going into a period of isolation and the world without global shipping protection is going to look radically different.
- 3y ago
- jmyeet 3y agoOnce again we see "blowback" in action. Here's the cycle: 1. A major power backs a side in an internal struggle for their own end. If necessary, a conflict is manufactured by propping up rebels, a coup, etc; 2. The other side, which tends to be the internally popular side, resists. Because of that popular support, they can survive, thrive and grow; 3. Insurgencies are incredibly effective. Counter-insurgencies are incredibly difficult. The insurgents are fighting for their lives. The boots on the ground for the major power backed forces don't tend to want to be there; 4. Reactionary forces are seen by the besieged populace as emancipatory forces; 5. When the resolve of the major power breaks or there is simply a policy shift, the unpopular government crumbles and is replaced by those reactionary forces. Classic example: the fundamentalist Iranian revolution of 1979. Go and look at what Iran was like before the 1953 coup. 6. Those former insurgents become a regional thorn in the side for that major power for decades to come; 7. The major power, unwilling to commit militarily, responds with economic sanctions. This does little more than starve people and kill people due to lack of medicine. But th eregime survives. It can even be strengthened as the citizens blame the major power for their plight. The Saudis committed genocide in Yemen. For years. And the world ignored it. They used US-supplied weapons to do it. At any time, the US could've ended Saudi atrocities in Yemen with a phone call. And now the Houthi rebels have become battle-hardened guerillas and insurgents, capable of projecting force into the vital shipping lanes of the Red Sea. Drones have become incredibly cheap, to the point that a ragtag group will tie up a US carrier group who will try to enforce security, much like they have done with, say, Somali pirates. The US carrier group may even adequately suppress the Houthis but this is attrition and Houthi investment is a drop in the ocean compared to the cost to the US. The last two decades saw a massive change in drone use by the military. It was always just a matter of time before that military technology filtered down to insurgents and it's going to have a massive effect. We saw this in Afghanistan in the 1970s when US-supplied Stinger missiles completely changed the battlefield as they rendered Soviet gunships ineffective at an incredibly low cost. This isn't a statement supporting the Houthis (or even denoucning them). It's simply an analysis of the pattern that has played out many times, particularly since WW2. This is what I mean by "blowback".
- anigbrowl 3y ago[flagged]
- dboreham 3y ago"anti-ship ballistic missiles" Interesting guidance problem.
- pclmulqdq 3y ago[flagged]
- dibujaron 3y agoThis may sound silly, but until this comment I, a non-gun-user, always vaguely thought that the AR in AR-15 stood for Assault Rifle. Apparently it's ArmaLite Rifle. Huh.
- sbierwagen 3y agoA division of Fairchild Aircraft, which explains how they got all those contracts with the USAF. Sadly, their connections inside the Army were not nearly as strong, resulting in the well known political/procurement issues they had turning the AR-15 into the M16.
- carbocation 3y agoThe United States Central Command referred to these as anti-ship ballistic missiles. https://x.com/centcom/status/1741259817602429357?s=46&t=AtAAe5CygVyrPs33NWR3hA https://x.com/centcom/status/1741259817602429357?s=46&t=AtAA...
- thunderbird120 3y agoThe Houthis possess both true ASBMs and land attack ballistic missiles which have been shot at and hit ships in the past few weeks. The second can only ever work if the ship is totally stationary but these were identified as ASBMs by U.S. Central command which can presumably tell the difference based on whether or not the missiles actually maneuver to hit moving targets. The US navy shot a few more down immediately afterwards.
- exabrial 3y agoIt went pointy end up I guess? Was scratching my head over the same thing.
- xwowsersx 3y agoHow much longer can this go on? It seems like there are so many parties whose economic interests all align that this would just be dealt with swiftly and decisively. Am I just naive? Is there no reasonably straightforward way to stop the Houthis? Wouldn't much of Europe, Saudi Arabia and others be very interested in ending this as quickly as possible?
- nozzlegear 3y agoFrom what I understand, and I could be very wrong, the fear is that directly attacking the Houthis will be seen as an escalation by Iran. The west doesn't want to get mired in yet another war in the Middle East, so instead they've adopted a defensive posture around their shipping lanes with Prosperity Guardian. This is also why Saudi Arabia's own navy vessels are conspicuously absent from the operation, despite the Houthis being a geographically prominent thorn in their side.
- pophenat 3y agoMy understanding is that the Saudi do not participate also because they do not want to be seen as Israel supporters.
- petesergeant 3y ago> the Saudis do not participate In fact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi-led_intervention_in_the_Yemeni_civil_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi-led_intervention_in_the_...
- JumpCrisscross 3y agoYes, and it was a disaster. The Houthis could aim their missiles at Saudi oil infrastructure again. Much simpler to let America handle both finding a solution and taking the fire.
- pophenat 3y agoThe parent comment is about the current operation in the Red Sea, which the Saudi do not participate in. The relevant link is: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houthi_involvement_in_the_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houthi_involvement_in_the_Is...
- AH4oFVbPT4f8 3y ago"The Singapore-flagged, Denmark-owned/operated container ship requested assistance, and the USS GRAVELY (DDG 107) and USS LABOON (DDG 58) have responded to the ship." Why does a Danish owned and operated container ship fly under the Singapore flag? Why did the US Navy get involved?
- kibwen 3y ago> Why does a Danish owned and operated container ship fly under the Singapore flag? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_convenience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_convenience > Why did the US Navy get involved? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maritime_security#Theoretical_approaches_to_maritime_security https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maritime_security#Theoretical_...
- kube-system 3y agoThe US navy guards international shipping lanes all over the world. Gotta keep the economy rollin’.
- mikewarot 3y agoThat was our bribe to the rest of the "first world" to stand with us as cannon fodder against the USSR (the second world) during the Cold War. Now that it is over, the US public has slowly but persistently pushed back on continuing that arrangement. We don't really need trade anywhere near as much as our trading partners overseas so. So we've scaled our fleet down. :I strongly suspect I'm about to learn I'm wrong about part of the above:
- givemeethekeys 3y agoDon't we protect in exchange for them trading in USD?
- mikewarot 3y agoInitially, that was the Bretton Woods agreement. The US at the end of WWII had 2/3 of the world's gold reserves, and it was part of the system set up to help the World's economy recover. As a result of choices made by Eisenhower, and subsequent administrations, the US began to spend more than it should have, slowly making a fiction of the price of gold being fixed at $35/ounce. Eventually, after shenanigans by de Gaulle of France, Nixon was forced to close the "gold window" at which nations could convert dollars back to gold reserves. This resulted in the Nixon Shock, and eventually the prime interest rate reached 20% in April of 1980. Then Nixon made a deal Nixon made with the Saudis, the creation of the Petrodollar. The Saudis would only sell their oil for dollars, then spend those dollars in the US for goods and services, recycling them. Without the Petrodollar, it possible the dollar would have crashed to zero.
- andsoitis 3y ago> The US set up a multinational naval taskforce to protect the Red Sea transit route, which carries up to 12% of global trade. Reminder that might is needed to create a peaceful space within which peoples can trade.
- 4gotunameagain 3y agoIs this irony ? That the US is creating a "peaceful space" ?
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> the US is creating a "peaceful space" ? On freedom of navigation, absolutely.
- andsoitis 3y ago> Is this irony ? That the US is creating a "peaceful space" ? Front page on the BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67851897 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67851897 It is worth educating yourself on the role of the US Navy in peace, safety, and stability around the world, including: - freedom of navigation (which underpins global trade, 70% of which requires sea transport) - security of global communication networks - deterrent to intimidation of countries, particularly in South East Asia - coordinating and supporting disaster relief efforts around the world - etc. US Navy and Foreign Policy: https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/sea-power-us-navy-and-foreign-policy https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/sea-power-us-navy-and-forei... History: https://www.fpri.org/article/2010/09/defending-u-s-maritime-commerce-in-peacetime-from-1794-to-today/ https://www.fpri.org/article/2010/09/defending-u-s-maritime-...
- aaomidi 3y ago[flagged]
- exabrial 3y agoThis is gonna seem sort of like an off-topic comment but once we have free, unlimited, clean energy that can’t be weaponized into things like dirty bombs, a lot of these wars will simply disappear. Yes, this is a pie in the sky dream probably another 250 years away at minimum, but think about it: Don’t have carrots? Build a greenhouse and turn the lights on all day/night. Don’t have water? Condense it from the air or desalinate it.
- kevingadd 3y agoIsrael-Palestine and Russia-Ukraine are not really about power or oil or gas. They're about land*, and no quantity of solar panels and wind turbines will fix that. * not just land, but ultimately, land
- huytersd 3y agoShoot, with free energy you could build your own land.
- exabrial 3y agoprecisely my point and what the downvoters are missing. ultimately all wars are energy wars... just maybe 2-3 times removed.
- kevingadd 3y agoThe people born in Palestine or Ukraine don't want to build a new country in the ocean using limitless energy. They want to stay in their homes. The same is true for most people, I'd wager.
- keefle 3y agoWouldn't justice be a cause for wars too? Even if energy was limitless or extremely cheap, this wouldn't mean people will stop being mean right? Something else will become too valuable and greed and other human traits will cause injustices and people will still fight to enforce/overthrow the injustice no?
- seo-speedwagon 3y agoThe Bab-el-Mandeb has tons of ships in it, and as far as I know the only ones Ansar Allah have attacked are the ones who have ignored their very clear criteria. It’s incredible to watch in near-real-time how hollowed out the US’s ability to project its will has become. They announced Operation Prosperity Guardian, and within days it seemed to collapse. Looks like there aren’t many folks signing up to be vassal states these days.
- cjbgkagh 3y agoIt’s such a cringe name, I wonder if that hurt the adoption. I think the real issue is that the Operation gives a bit too much power to the US to direct the participants. There is cooperation and then there is subordination.
- meepmorp 3y ago> It’s such a cringe name, I wonder if that hurt the adoption. Yeah, because governments make critical decisions about their economic and security interests based on how cringe the name a given operation has.
- cjbgkagh 3y agoI work a lot with governments and from my experience naming matters a lot, way more than it should. They’re basically always in campaign mode even when they’re in power. Often the first question is what will people think when they hear the name of the project. Most people don’t read briefs so often their entire perception is from the title and what they’ve been told to think about it by others. I’ve had to kill projects due to too much time taken up in committees over the damn name of the thing.
- userbinator 3y agoI wonder what cargo it was carrying, that got destroyed in the attack. It sounds like the ship itself is still intact, which is not too surprising given how absolutely huge they are.
- keefle 3y agoIt might be less about it carrying anything specific and more about who owns it or where its headed. This is part of an effort by the houthis to put pressure on Israel to allow humanitarian aid in (their declared reason at least)). Most of the ships they target are either own fully or partially by Israeli companies, or are headed to Israeli ports
- adolph 3y ago> Most of the ships they target are either own fully or partially by Israeli companies, or are headed to Israeli ports As I understand it, this is not true. If you have a citation listing strikes with manifests, I’d appreciate being able to update my priors. Wikipedia lists 17 strikes. I see that 3 have some Israeli ownership or port of call: Galaxy Leader, Symi, and Strinda. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houthi_involvement_in_the_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houthi_involvement_in_the_Isra...
- r00fus 3y agoIt doesn’t matter that some ships weren’t nominally owned by Israel but in reality owned by shell corporations in turn owned by Israel-supporting billionaires.
- adolph 3y agoDo you have a fact source or just vague associations? The statement at question is "Most of the ships they target are either own fully or partially by Israeli companies, or are headed to Israeli ports" From source Wikipedia, this is not true. Only 3 of 17 have Israeli ownership or ports of call. Do you have a source for Israeli ownership or ports of call for 6 more ships? Also, your stated class of "owned by Israel-supporting billionaires" is moving the goalposts. That is not the announced Houthi criteria.
- chatmasta 3y agoIt's not anywhere to be found on the front page of CNN... therefore the national security state has decided to ignore it.
- llimos 3y ago> The USS Gravely and USS Laboon responded to the incident, with the USS Gravely successfully shooting down two anti-ship ballistic missiles fired from Houthi-controlled areas in Yemen. Surely this is a defensive measure against the next incident, rather than a response to this one?
- keefle 3y agoI'm really confused as to why no where in the article do they mention the intent of attacking the ships. As if the houthis in yemen are attacking ships because they like it or just because they "hate developed societies". Their declared reason is to put pressure on Israel to allow humanitarian aid to Gaza at once. They target ships that have Israeli links or heading to Israeli ports. It can be seen as a form of treating Israel the way it's treating Gaza (as in Gaza is blockaded, so the houthis are trying to create a sea blockade from their region of control)
- mrtksn 3y agoThe same reason why when civilians in Gaza die it’s because a rocket explodes in a refugee camp or something. Damn rockets why do they do that? Unfortunately, propaganda is part of the war and I can’t really blame them for trying. You can be sure that the other side of the conflict is also not impartial. If the reasons about killing each other were openly discussed in a logical way without the emotional overload, People wouldn’t bother to kill each other. That’s something undesirable in the context of war. I also think this is not necessarily bad, because when you start thinking in cold blooded strategic way you may find out that exterminating certain people is beneficial for you. Therefore, you should do it. That level of thinking can be beneficial when you’re in the higher ranks, but a society shouldn’t be willing to destroy another society for material or political gains. You can see that among Russians, and how they think about conquering Ukraine and Europe. Scary stuff, it might lead to a war where one of the nations gets decimated.
- johnnyworker 3y ago> I can’t really blame them for trying. You can be sure that the other side of the conflict is also not impartial. Oh, I can for the both of us, and I do. Everyone is responsible for what they do, or tacitly consent to. War is not something that just "is" like rain or snow, it's specific actions of people specific people. And when you say "other side of the conflict" does that include the 1+ million of children, or are they just not relevant at all here? Because as Bill Hicks said, a war is when two armies fight. This is genocide, reducing Gaza to rubble, taking smug selfies in homes and mosques all along the way. Yes, Hamas is no better. That is, if they had the means, they wouldn't be. But Hamas is Hamas; not Gaza, not the West Bank. And Hamas isn't using police force in Western Democracies to prohibit demonstrations, it doesn't have vast media support to both silence discussion of what is going on and smear those who still have a conscience. https://www.ipcinfo.org/ipcinfo-website/alerts-archive/issue-94/en/ https://www.ipcinfo.org/ipcinfo-website/alerts-archive/issue... > Between 8 December 2023 and 7 February 2024, the entire population in the Gaza Strip (about 2.2 million people) is classified in IPC Phase 3 or above (Crisis or worse). This is the highest share of people facing high levels of acute food insecurity that the IPC initiative has ever classified for any given area or country. We don't even hear about this. The little facts that are brought up are all all couched between bringing up Hamas 50 times. No, we're expected to be content, admiring and grateful even, when Israel stops bombing little kids in a barrel -- and that the genocide will, predictably, continue without bombs via the inflicted wounds will barely get a mention, just like nobody really cared the last few decades. But there was a "flash" and no injuries on board of some ship, oh noes. Someone put it very well on this site 4 years ago: > And it is not a state of things, it is a process. It is going on now, it inches a bit further every day and every year. > You say you don't have an opinion, but in fact you repeat exactly the things that those who don't want this process to stop would like to hear from you: that the question has two sides, that it's impossible to say who's right or wrong, that there are many opinions. It's a form of denialism (let's hear the other side, some say this but some say that, etc.). -- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22649104 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22649104 But even more importantly IMO, even assuming "both sides are exactly equal" -- and they're not -- then my primary concern would still be what I am responsible for, and what the corporations and governments I am directly or indirectly supporting are doing. Hamas is on the polar opposite of that, they don't brag about sharing my values or any of the sort. You might even say it's more or less expected for islamist terrorists to behave like islamist terrorists. Doesn't make it okay, it's something I stand against; but getting upset at it is a weird sort of performance IMO. However, a nation that pink-washes genocide says "hi fellow human rights enjoyer" to me and gives me all that horse crap about even knowing what a nation recognizing human rights would look like, much less being one, they need to either a.) stop what they're doing b.) or be told in no uncertain terms they are deluding themselves. The world is full of murderers and genocidal racist assholes. It's the actually having one hand in my pocket and the other oscillating between rubbing my shoulder and covering my mouth that makes this something I am obliged to respond to, and have to respond to mercilessly. I felt the exact same way about the war of aggression in Iraq. To use me in that way for something I would never do, something so abominable, is not something I stand for or forgive.
- thinkingemote 3y ago2 hours after the missiles were fired the ship was attacked again by four small boats and attempted to board. US helicopters responding were fired upon and killed 3/4 of the boats and crews. (Reported after article written) Generally, I've found @TankerTrackers on twitter is good. "The ship did call on Israel's Haifa port in October and several other ports after that in Egypt, Italy, Slovenia, Croatia, Saudi Arabia, China, and others, based on shipping data. "
- bborud 3y agoWow, that's a pretty awful website. You navigate to it and you get three popups. One of which is modal and blocks out the entire site. It manages to piss you off before you can even read the headline.
- 1letterunixname 3y agoThe linchpin of this tactical situation in the Red Sea is the presence of the Iranian spy ship MV Behshad (the one that replaced the Saviz). It is giving precise targeting information of commercial ships to the Houthis to launch land-based missiles and drones. Without this ship, the Houthis would be shooting wildly into the ocean with the granularity of open-source maritime surveillance networks like marinetraffic.com. Behshad's transponder's last update: https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/shipid:657839/mmsi:422036200/imo:9167289/vessel:BEHSHAD https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/shipid:65...
- yetanother12345 3y agoIn other news: Four (allegedly Houthi-) motor boats attacked by American helicopter; one escaped, three downed with full crew killed. Consequenses for Maersk are hardly as dire as that.
- nojvek 3y agoWar is a huge escalation - usually when two countries see no other avenue than to fight it out. Most wars are fought over borders. Land ownership is 0 sum game. Especially land blessed with natural resources. (Middle East is great example of oil wars) In the 90s imperialism was popular - if you had the manpower and weapons, you’d take land from the weak. Russia is playing land grab card against Ukraine. Hamas is playing the land grab card against Israel. Although Israel being backed by US will inflict a lot more damage. Africa is full of border conflicts for centuries. We don’t hear much about it since it’s a poor continent. The US has the world’s largest military and a big part of what they do is to ensure their allies have their borders intact (NATO, Australia, Japan, S Korea etc). So sinking some ships is likely gonna be met with some bombs on their military production facilities where missiles are made (if they figure it out). For the world’s largest military, US holds much restraint not invading other countries borders, and helping democratic countries keep their borders intact. If US unleashed colonialism card, we could be much larger than British empire. However the bitter lesson is that conquering is easy, maintaining power is way harder. Seems China is holding restraint invading Taiwan until they see a clear win with a blitz, or another peaceful avenue.
- helixfelix 3y ago> "Hamas is playing the land grab card against Israel". What do you mean by that? Comparing Russia with Hamas seems like a massive distortion of reality, not sure you meant to do that. Israel is occupying internationally recognized Palestinian lands of West Bank and a blockade on Gaza. Just yesterday the Israeli foreign minister suggested sending Israeli settlers into Gaza illegally and drive Palestinians out for good. Hamas is a terrorist organization, who kills civilians, but let's not pretend that the IDF is any better. And the US is a colonial power of the 20th and 21st century. It just hasn't done it the same way as the Europeans of 17,18th,19th century, mostly because there are different tools available now: culture export, dependence on oil, dollar as reserve currency, global free trade, and the rise of corporations. Noan Chomsky says the issue of Palestine is resistance against colonialism. [1] [2] [1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lUQ_0MubbcM&pp=QAFIAQ%3D%3D https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lUQ_0MubbcM&pp=QAFIAQ%3D%3D [2] https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-12-02/israel-gaza-palestinian-american-history https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-12-02/israel-gaza...
- cafard 3y agoA German submarine sank the USS Reuben James in late October 1941. The US did not declare war for that incident. In fact Germany declared war on the US after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.