3 ms·

After thinking it over I'm on the side of the people of Iran. Why aren't they blowing up refineries in Corpus Christi, Texas?

by jeffbee 7mo ago

johsole 7mo ago
[flagged]
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
Argonaut998 7mo ago
I’m probably missing some subtext or sarcasm here but because they don’t have ICBMs to reach the US?
- clydethefrog 7mo ago
  They could stage a "Operation Spiderweb" inspired attack [0], but this seems highly unlikely with the current powerful surveillance state of the USA. I once read a wild theory that some Mexican cartels might be able to, since they have access to military hardware too nowadays. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Spiderweb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Spiderweb
srean 7mo ago
Even if they could I don't think they would. It is not in their interest. Their target selection does make sense from their point of view and it has been a restrained and capability constrained tit for tat. For now all they seem to want is to have a financially viable future as an independent country, not as anybody's vassal, not as a country for other superpowers to play games for geopolitical reasons. Essentially to control their own destiny. That was scuttled in 1953. Their civilian aircraft was shot down without apology. Saddam Hussein was foisted against them. They pulled through 8 years of wars that saw attacks with chemical weapons to which they lost several tens of thousands lives. If they do not like the people who have messed with them, I cannot say that their feelings are unjustified. I am not even Iranian.
myrmidon 7mo ago
To state the obvious: 1) It is not clear that the people of Iran actually want to blow up refineries in general right now, but living in an autocracy they don't have much of a choice. 2) Because there is a pretty big ocean between them and most American civilians/infrastructure (this also enabled past colonial powers to wage war very pretty cost effectively and at their convenience). I'd like to argue that the prospect of retribution on home soil is important to stem aggressive wars, but at least for medieval Europe this apparently did not work that well either.
- skinnymuch 7mo ago
  (1) is written as if other forms of govt like a typical liberal democracy in the west or Europe give their citizens much of a choice.
  - myrmidon 7mo ago
    In a typical democracy you just vote the government out if it starts an unpopular war. Even if elections are far away, you can just protest on the streets at basically zero risk until the government behaves again. If you try the same in Iran you get murdered by the thousands.

After thinking it over I'm on the side of the people of Iran. Why aren't they blowing up refineries in Corpus Christi, Texas?

by jeffbee 7mo ago

After thinking it over I'm on the side of the people of Iran. Why aren't they blowing up refineries in Corpus Christi, Texas?

johsole 7mo ago

[flagged]

deleted 7mo ago

[deleted]

Argonaut998 7mo ago

I’m probably missing some subtext or sarcasm here but because they don’t have ICBMs to reach the US?

clydethefrog 7mo ago
They could stage a "Operation Spiderweb" inspired attack [0], but this seems highly unlikely with the current powerful surveillance state of the USA. I once read a wild theory that some Mexican cartels might be able to, since they have access to military hardware too nowadays. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Spiderweb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Spiderweb

srean 7mo ago

Even if they could I don't think they would. It is not in their interest. Their target selection does make sense from their point of view and it has been a restrained and capability constrained tit for tat. For now all they seem to want is to have a financially viable future as an independent country, not as anybody's vassal, not as a country for other superpowers to play games for geopolitical reasons. Essentially to control their own destiny. That was scuttled in 1953. Their civilian aircraft was shot down without apology. Saddam Hussein was foisted against them. They pulled through 8 years of wars that saw attacks with chemical weapons to which they lost several tens of thousands lives. If they do not like the people who have messed with them, I cannot say that their feelings are unjustified. I am not even Iranian.

myrmidon 7mo ago

To state the obvious: 1) It is not clear that the people of Iran actually want to blow up refineries in general right now, but living in an autocracy they don't have much of a choice. 2) Because there is a pretty big ocean between them and most American civilians/infrastructure (this also enabled past colonial powers to wage war very pretty cost effectively and at their convenience). I'd like to argue that the prospect of retribution on home soil is important to stem aggressive wars, but at least for medieval Europe this apparently did not work that well either.

skinnymuch 7mo ago
(1) is written as if other forms of govt like a typical liberal democracy in the west or Europe give their citizens much of a choice.
- myrmidon 7mo ago
  In a typical democracy you just vote the government out if it starts an unpopular war. Even if elections are far away, you can just protest on the streets at basically zero risk until the government behaves again. If you try the same in Iran you get murdered by the thousands.