4 ms·
> The US has protected global sea lanes for 80 years. But rather than protect global sea lanes, the US is bombing Iran. That’s not the same thing. The idea th
by adriand 8mo ago
> The US has protected global sea lanes for 80 years.
But rather than protect global sea lanes, the US is bombing Iran. That’s not the same thing.
The idea that the war isn’t costing money for personnel because those people would be doing something anyway makes no sense. They could be doing something else. In fact, they could be doing something that increases the wealth and wellbeing of the world, rather than destroying things. So from that perspective, the cost is far higher than what is shown here.
Then there’s the loss of innocent lives. It would be unconscionable to put a price tag on the lives of dozens of Iranian girls killed when their school was flattened and to show it on this website, and yet, this is not “free” either.
- bawolff 8mo ago> But rather than protect global sea lanes, the US is bombing Iran. That’s not the same thing. Arguably the primary threat to modern sea lanes is Iran. Right now Iran is harrasing traffic. Previously the Houthis, generally considered an Iranian proxy, were harrasing traffic. Its all kind of the same war, this is just the end game.
- RobRivera 8mo agoPeople should begin quantifying the commercial freight global costs incurred from the Houthi harassment. There is a basic ROI one can do that impacts not just US interests, but global interests.
- Terr_ 8mo agoIf it were that straightforward, right now the US would (A) have a consistent set of demands/goals that include shipping security and (B) a large international coalition of support. Neither are true. P.S.: Plus, of course, the whole problem where "protecting global sea lanes" typically requires a different approach than "start a war by assassinating the leadership you were negotiating with."
- bagels 8mo agoJD vance whined that we shouldn't protect middle east shipping lanes because he believes it helps Europe more than the US.
- IncreasePosts 8mo agoDon't make me defend JD vance. He said Europe should pay their fair share for protection since 40% of their trade passes through those lanes but only 3% of America's.
- tw-20260303-001 8mo ago[flagged]
- IncreasePosts 8mo agoYou really think the US should stop supporting Ukraine?
- tw-20260303-001 8mo agoWho's talking about Ukraine here. Have you lost your mind? The comment you replied to talks about Middle East shipping routes.
- IncreasePosts 8mo agoThere's a war in the shipping lanes?
- Jensson 8mo agoYes, Iran sits next to one of the most important shipping lanes in the world.
- tw-20260303-001 8mo ago
- RobotToaster 8mo ago> Right now Iran is harrasing traffic gee, I wonder why they're doing that.
- edm0nd 8mo ago[flagged]
- seattle_spring 8mo ago"The terrorists hate our freedoms." This seems like a perfect opportunity for a revival of David Cross's standup career.
- nielsbot 8mo ago"terrorism" who bombed them first and repeatedly? and embargoed and sanctioned them before that? and tore up the nuclear deal? and before that installed the shah so we could get the oil?
- Jensson 8mo ago> who bombed them first and repeatedly? and embargoed and sanctioned them before that? and tore up the nuclear deal? and before that installed the shah so we could get the oil? Not the people they are attacking. Intentionally attacking people unrelated to those you have a grievance with is terrorism, Iran has a terrorist regime. Russia doesn't do that, Ukraine doesn't do that, and so on.
- nielsbot 8mo agoMy point is that the US and Israel especially are committing terrorism. (See examples given) Who are they attacking that isn't attacking them?
- carefree-bob 8mo agoA total mystery!
- mothballed 8mo agoHouthi harassments was also a byproduct of the Israel-US "self defense" against the Iranian backed hamas attacks. Maybe it is pointless to pontificate whether the the tic-for-tat would have been initiated had the Israel-US coalition had stopped at punishing the Oct. 7 terrorists rather than leveling half of gaza, although I'm not convinced it was an inevitable byproduct.
- mikepurvis 8mo agoThe first gulf war was 1990. The US has been at war with various factions of the Middle East more or less continuously for thirty five years. The current president specifically campaigned on no new foreign wars and repeatedly tried to bully the Nobel committee into awarding him a peace prize before accepting a second hand one from another world leader and a sham one from FIFA of all things. What makes anyone think that this latest attack is the "end game" vs just the latest expensive chapter?
- karmakurtisaani 8mo agoThe only end game here is distraction from the Epstein files and a potential coup to prevent midterm elections. The whole war is just plain stupid.
- Terr_ 8mo agoMe-of-2000 would be utterly incredulous at just one auto-coup [0] in the US, let alone the potential for two in 6 years. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-coup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-coup
- antod 8mo agoAs an aside, I remember before the 90s when the Iran/Iraq War was called "The Gulf War".
- PieTime 8mo agoThe end game is when the US backed dictatorships collapse, this is the end of American power, not the beginning.
- bawolff 8mo agoThat seems pretty unlikely at the moment.
- throwaw12 8mo ago> Arguably the primary threat to modern sea lanes is Iran. Such a strange take. Can you share number of attacks by Iran in the last 10 years in sea lanes, where it was started solely by Iran? > Right now Iran is harrasing traffic As a response to attacks, Iran AFAIK wasn't harassing anyone in the ocean traffic up until 3 days ago
- rwyinuse 8mo agoWhat about tens of thousands of peaceful civilians who have been killed by the Iranian regime during past decades? The alternative to this war is allowing the Iranian government to keep doing that, business as usual. In my opinion bombing people responsible for these atrocities increases the well-being of the world. Most Iranians seem to agree.
- lejalv 8mo agoNow turn your argument towards Saudi Arabia, or any of the human-rights violating countries that the US supports or has supported recently. Your opinion is respectable, but not compatible with any idea of “justice”.
- khazhoux 8mo agoThe point being that eliminating a murderous tyrant is bad, because there are other murderous tyrants?
- we_have_options 8mo agowonder what your view is of ICE actions against peaceful protesters in MN?
- postflopclarity 8mo ago
- tick_tock_tick 8mo ago> But rather than protect global sea lanes, the US is bombing Iran. That’s not the same thing. With Iran's support of the Houthi I think you'll find they are exactly the same thing.