4 ms·

> can help level as much as is necessary in Yemen That's not how it works. > risk a lot of collateral damage in land attacks in Yemen than give the impression

> can help level as much as is necessary in Yemen That's not how it works. > risk a lot of collateral damage in land attacks in Yemen than give the impression that a ceasefire happened through blackmail. This is just a very, very bad take, you're basically saying "it's better for Yemeni kids and women to get killed [my reading of collateral damage] than for the West to lose face [my reading of the blackmail thing]". Hasn't the West learned anything from Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, like, literally, anything?

alkonaut 3y ago
> you're basically saying "it's better for Yemeni kids and women to get killed [my reading of collateral damage] than for the West to lose face That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that these things (israel, vs merchant shipping) basically cannot be allowed to be linked, because they aren't. It's simply blackmail. If the merchant shipping is seen as isolated, then it's clear it can't be tolerated. We can't tolerate the attacks, and we can't tolerate disruptions such as caused by massive detours. > Hasn't the West learned anything from Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, like, literally, anything? Iraq and Afghanistan were invasions with the attempted (and nearly impossible) goal of regime change. That's not at all what I'm suggesting should happen. This is about removing the ability to engage in piracy/attacks on merchant ships. > it's better for Yemeni kids and women to get killed [my reading of collateral damage] than for the West to lose face No, it's even more crass than that! we are discussing accepting the loss of civilian life just to maintain shipping insurance prices! And what I'm saying is "yes that's terrible, but less bad than the alternative". The merchant ships are also civilian! The current attacks are deliberate attacks on civilians. We are talking about attacks on military (or paramilitary) targets, in order to stop attacks on civilians! Yet you are arguing that those would be the attacks that put civilian lives at risk?
- ethbr1 3y ago
  > If the merchant shipping is seen as isolated, then it's clear it can't be tolerated. Agreed. And there's no fundamental reason that "Israel doing what it's doing" justifies "attacking commercial shipping." It's a convenient moral and diplomatic fig leaf over an unrelated action.
- paganel 3y ago
  > The merchant ships are also civilian! The current attacks are deliberate attacks on civilians. I must have missed the part where those civilians couldn't take the Cape route. Also, saying that the West does this in the interest of a couple of dozens under-paid Filipino or Eastern European sailors and not because it's freaking out about a few percentage points added to the transport costs of the Chinese dildos and EVs being brought in by ship from China is beyond parody.
  - alkonaut 3y ago
    > I must have missed the part where those civilians couldn't take the Cape route. They can. But are you saying it's acceptable that they should have to in order to not be attacked? What else is acceptable? Would it make a difference if they were also attacked by the same attackers on that route so there were zero routes available? Why would that make a difference? This whole line of reasoning makes no sense to me... > Also, saying that the West does this in the interest of a couple of dozens under-paid Filipino or Eastern European sailors and not because it's freaking out about a few percentage points added to the transport costs of the Chinese dildos and EVs being brought in by ship from China is beyond parody. It's not. It's because in particular it's important for world shipping that merchant ships can travel freely where needed. In general though it's of course unacceptable to have piracy or attacks on civilian vessels. My comment about those sailors being civilian was merely made to point out that right now we already HAVE regular and deliberate attacks on civilians in this situations. And that the action called for is deliberate attacks on military targets where any civilian targets would merely be collateral damage.
foofie 3y ago
> That's not how it works. Israel annihilating Hamas looks like a winning strategy to decisively eliminate foreign interference from the likes of Iran. > This is just a very, very bad take (...) I don't agree. As Iran's control over the likes of Hamas proves, terrorist nations are actively killing the same innocent civilians they are using as human shields with the expectation that the humanitarian crisis inflicted upon their pawns hinders or even prevents any retaliation. The only effective strategy to prevent civilians from being thrown in arms way is to eliminate any perverse incentive leveraged by the likes of Iran to harm innocent civilians as a proxy war strategy.
- johnnyworker 3y ago
  Israel is also bombing refugee camps in the West Bank right now, destroyed water infrastructure last night. Hamas isn't in the West Bank. A few Politicians are criticizing Israeli politicians openly talking of complete ethnic cleansing of Gaza, but tacitly condone the actions. Terrorists aren't just a fixed group of people, and studies and common sense is that widespread and arbritrary attacks on innocent people increase resentment. It's like an employment program for war mongers and war profiteers. The civilian populations of Israel and the US also don't benefit from this, in addition to the innocents in Palestine Israel as occupying force is obliged to protect under international law. > The only effective strategy to prevent civilians from being thrown in arms way ... is to not do it actively. Obviously. Otherwise, preventing the harm to innocents can be ruled out as a motivation and justification.
  - foofie 3y ago
    > Israel is also bombing (...) Iran's strategy has been to use their proxy groups to force innocent civilians to be their human shields. Hamas has been thoroughly documented as using basic infrastructure such as hospitals as their command bases, prevent innocent civilians from fleeing war zones under the penalty of death, steal humanitarian aid to cause humanitarian crisis, and even infiltrating supposedly humanitarian organizations to abuse them to further their military and political goals. Let's face the facts: the likes of Iran actively places civilians in arms way expecting it to be a win-win scenario, as in either it prevents any retaliation or leads people like you to misguide your indignation hoping to weaponize it. There is a wealth of information on how Iran, through Hamas, is murdering palestinian civilians by playing them as expendable pawns. If you care about the problem then you'd be directing your indignation towards the root of the problem, and do your best to not create an upside to using civilians as sacrificial pawns.
hackerlight 3y ago
It's not about saving face, it's about the economic and deterrence consequences of the naval blockade that is being attempted.
corimaith 3y ago
Well it's more of when people in other developing countries find their daily fuel or food beyond what they can afford and spiral into poverty. Geopolitics is a cruel game, and unfortunately sometimes we wil be deciding whose lives are worth more / more aligned with our interests. If one dosen't like that, then one can try to enact their own peace on the world, but I doubt the world wants that.

alkonaut 3y ago

> you're basically saying "it's better for Yemeni kids and women to get killed [my reading of collateral damage] than for the West to lose face That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that these things (israel, vs merchant shipping) basically cannot be allowed to be linked, because they aren't. It's simply blackmail. If the merchant shipping is seen as isolated, then it's clear it can't be tolerated. We can't tolerate the attacks, and we can't tolerate disruptions such as caused by massive detours. > Hasn't the West learned anything from Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, like, literally, anything? Iraq and Afghanistan were invasions with the attempted (and nearly impossible) goal of regime change. That's not at all what I'm suggesting should happen. This is about removing the ability to engage in piracy/attacks on merchant ships. > it's better for Yemeni kids and women to get killed [my reading of collateral damage] than for the West to lose face No, it's even more crass than that! we are discussing accepting the loss of civilian life just to maintain shipping insurance prices! And what I'm saying is "yes that's terrible, but less bad than the alternative". The merchant ships are also civilian! The current attacks are deliberate attacks on civilians. We are talking about attacks on military (or paramilitary) targets, in order to stop attacks on civilians! Yet you are arguing that those would be the attacks that put civilian lives at risk?

ethbr1 3y ago
> If the merchant shipping is seen as isolated, then it's clear it can't be tolerated. Agreed. And there's no fundamental reason that "Israel doing what it's doing" justifies "attacking commercial shipping." It's a convenient moral and diplomatic fig leaf over an unrelated action.
paganel 3y ago
> The merchant ships are also civilian! The current attacks are deliberate attacks on civilians. I must have missed the part where those civilians couldn't take the Cape route. Also, saying that the West does this in the interest of a couple of dozens under-paid Filipino or Eastern European sailors and not because it's freaking out about a few percentage points added to the transport costs of the Chinese dildos and EVs being brought in by ship from China is beyond parody.
- alkonaut 3y ago
  > I must have missed the part where those civilians couldn't take the Cape route. They can. But are you saying it's acceptable that they should have to in order to not be attacked? What else is acceptable? Would it make a difference if they were also attacked by the same attackers on that route so there were zero routes available? Why would that make a difference? This whole line of reasoning makes no sense to me... > Also, saying that the West does this in the interest of a couple of dozens under-paid Filipino or Eastern European sailors and not because it's freaking out about a few percentage points added to the transport costs of the Chinese dildos and EVs being brought in by ship from China is beyond parody. It's not. It's because in particular it's important for world shipping that merchant ships can travel freely where needed. In general though it's of course unacceptable to have piracy or attacks on civilian vessels. My comment about those sailors being civilian was merely made to point out that right now we already HAVE regular and deliberate attacks on civilians in this situations. And that the action called for is deliberate attacks on military targets where any civilian targets would merely be collateral damage.

foofie 3y ago

> That's not how it works. Israel annihilating Hamas looks like a winning strategy to decisively eliminate foreign interference from the likes of Iran. > This is just a very, very bad take (...) I don't agree. As Iran's control over the likes of Hamas proves, terrorist nations are actively killing the same innocent civilians they are using as human shields with the expectation that the humanitarian crisis inflicted upon their pawns hinders or even prevents any retaliation. The only effective strategy to prevent civilians from being thrown in arms way is to eliminate any perverse incentive leveraged by the likes of Iran to harm innocent civilians as a proxy war strategy.

johnnyworker 3y ago
Israel is also bombing refugee camps in the West Bank right now, destroyed water infrastructure last night. Hamas isn't in the West Bank. A few Politicians are criticizing Israeli politicians openly talking of complete ethnic cleansing of Gaza, but tacitly condone the actions. Terrorists aren't just a fixed group of people, and studies and common sense is that widespread and arbritrary attacks on innocent people increase resentment. It's like an employment program for war mongers and war profiteers. The civilian populations of Israel and the US also don't benefit from this, in addition to the innocents in Palestine Israel as occupying force is obliged to protect under international law. > The only effective strategy to prevent civilians from being thrown in arms way ... is to not do it actively. Obviously. Otherwise, preventing the harm to innocents can be ruled out as a motivation and justification.
- foofie 3y ago
  > Israel is also bombing (...) Iran's strategy has been to use their proxy groups to force innocent civilians to be their human shields. Hamas has been thoroughly documented as using basic infrastructure such as hospitals as their command bases, prevent innocent civilians from fleeing war zones under the penalty of death, steal humanitarian aid to cause humanitarian crisis, and even infiltrating supposedly humanitarian organizations to abuse them to further their military and political goals. Let's face the facts: the likes of Iran actively places civilians in arms way expecting it to be a win-win scenario, as in either it prevents any retaliation or leads people like you to misguide your indignation hoping to weaponize it. There is a wealth of information on how Iran, through Hamas, is murdering palestinian civilians by playing them as expendable pawns. If you care about the problem then you'd be directing your indignation towards the root of the problem, and do your best to not create an upside to using civilians as sacrificial pawns.

hackerlight 3y ago

It's not about saving face, it's about the economic and deterrence consequences of the naval blockade that is being attempted.

corimaith 3y ago

Well it's more of when people in other developing countries find their daily fuel or food beyond what they can afford and spiral into poverty. Geopolitics is a cruel game, and unfortunately sometimes we wil be deciding whose lives are worth more / more aligned with our interests. If one dosen't like that, then one can try to enact their own peace on the world, but I doubt the world wants that.