3 ms·

> If you want to argue from a power prospective then the US and Israel can just do whatever they want too Yes, that’s exactly my point. any country can do wha

by oa335 6mo ago

> If you want to argue from a power prospective then the US and Israel can just do whatever they want too Yes, that’s exactly my point. any country can do whatever they want … within the limits of their powers. What is currently stopping US/Israel from forcing Iran to open the strait of Hormuz? I don’t believe they have the ability to take out enough of Iran’s missiles/drones to prevent Iran from exerting its control of the Strait. > It’s a matter of principle “ Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” Thucydides

ericmay 6mo ago
[flagged]
- oa335 6mo ago
  > Sounds good - and the US can bomb Iran. Might makes right. Might doesn’t make “right” but it determines geopolitical realities. > Iran doesn’t control the straight though. Then why was Trump demanding that Iran “open the fuckin’ Strait”? “Transit volume through the Strait of Hormuz remains a fraction of what it was before the Iran conflict” https://maritime-executive.com/article/traffic-through-strait-of-hormuz-ticks-up-but-iran-retains-control https://maritime-executive.com/article/traffic-through-strai...
  - ericmay 6mo ago
    > Then why was Trump demanding that Iran “open the fuckin’ Strait”? It’s a figure of speech. The Straight is open. There are no ships besides the US Navy and those which it allows to transit the Straight. But ships are worried about potential attacks from Iranian missiles since we haven’t cleared all of the launchers and missile depots out yet - Trump wants them to stop launching missiles so folks don’t fear being indiscriminately shot at or blown up for exercising their right to trade. You are trying to play a semantic game around “closed” or “open” here because you think Iran has the upper hand and it makes you feel good. US said stop bombing ships or we will really come and obliterate your country, and they said yes great satan we will stop launching missiles at ships. Iran didn’t force the US to the table. Besides MAGA folks spending a boatload of cash on gas for their trucks the economic impact is minimal. We just had $5-$6/gallon gas in 2022 and got along just fine.
- albatross79 6mo ago
  That's veto power, what other kind of control do they need?
- 8note 6mo ago
  its not particularly might makes right, but bargaining knowing that war is costly. iran could attack every ship that goes through the strait, but that would cost iran both in actual missiles/drones, and an opportunity cost of getting its own ships through, missing a potential toll, and missing potential benefits from being neighbor to rich states. Not to mention that the shots mean that other countries will want to respond even with might, most conflicts end in a negotiated settlement, and that approximates what each side of a conflict thinks would be the result of fighting the war, plus or minus some bargaining range. its still expensive for the mighty to fight the war, and better for everyone to accept the result of war without fighting see: the youtube channel "lines on maps" aka "william spaniel" to hear it from an expert in the field of crisis bargaining
- kadoban 6mo ago
  > Iran doesn’t control the straight though. It just has the ability to launch missiles at ships and such. There is a difference. There really isn't a difference. They can turn off the flow at will, they're the only ones who can, nobody can stop them. They control it.
  - ericmay 6mo ago
    Ok we control it too. We can turn off the flow at will. We have 3 aircraft carriers plus a bunch of bases. No ship passes through the straight unless we say so. We should charge actually. Maybe a toll of, say, $2,000,000 until we recoup our costs for stopping Iran.
    - kadoban 6mo ago
      The US could do that for a while, a few months maybe. They'd get bored and overextended. The logistics are terrible. There's no way that would even be financially positive, even if you ignored how much good will from other countries it would destroy (if there's any left). > Maybe a toll of, say, $2,000,000 until we recoup our costs for stopping Iran. The US will never recoup their losses from this unwinnable folly of a war. Nothing positive came out of it unless you wanted the current Iran regime strengthened.
      - ericmay 6mo ago
        We could just raise the prices until it was financially viable. Just like Iran, we don't need to spend a bunch of money, we can just copy what they do. > The US will never recoup their losses from this unwinnable folly of a war. Nothing positive came out of it unless you wanted the current Iran regime strengthened. Incorrect. Well, sort of. Yet again the US has to do the dirty work to keep the world safe and stop chaos from spreading and that does come at a cost we are unlikely to recuperate. But the Iranian regime has been very weakened, leaders killed, lots of military equipment destroyed. Their only card is attacking the ships in the Straight but that's not the same thing as exercising control. It screws everyone, but the US least of all which is why we are there, doing the dirty work. You'd think the international community would want to prevent Iran from continuing to build up their missile capability until they can actually control the Straight which is what they aimed to do and we're preventing, but most can't think past the latest tweet.
thaumasiotes 6mo ago
“Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” —Thucydides You can't honestly attribute that quotation to Thucydides. The idea appears in his work, but he specifically attributes it to other unnamed parties. It receives this immediate response: As we think, at any rate, it is expedient — we speak as we are obliged, since you enjoin us to let right alone and talk only of interest — that you should not destroy what is our common protection, the privilege of being allowed in danger to invoke what is fair and right, and even to profit by arguments not strictly valid if they can be got to pass current. And you are as much interested in this as any, as your fall would be a signal for the heaviest vengeance and an example for the world to meditate upon.
- oa335 6mo ago
  The quote is part of the Melian Dialogue, which is regarded as a dramatization of the events leading up to the siege and conquest of Melos by the Athenians. I think it’s appropriate to attribute the quote to Thucydides. The arguments the Melians use against Athenians reasons for conquest end up going unheeded though - Athens conquers Melos and enslaves its inhabitants.
  - thaumasiotes 6mo ago
    The arguments that the Athenians give also go unheeded. Nobody gives any arguments that have an effect. What do you want to conclude from that? > I think it’s appropriate to attribute the quote to Thucydides. Sure, just as appropriate as attributing "Somalis should go back to where they came from" to NBC. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-calls-ilhan-omar-garbage-somalis-go-back-came-from-rcna247041 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-calls-il...

by oa335 6mo ago

ericmay 6mo ago

[flagged]

oa335 6mo ago
> Sounds good - and the US can bomb Iran. Might makes right. Might doesn’t make “right” but it determines geopolitical realities. > Iran doesn’t control the straight though. Then why was Trump demanding that Iran “open the fuckin’ Strait”? “Transit volume through the Strait of Hormuz remains a fraction of what it was before the Iran conflict” https://maritime-executive.com/article/traffic-through-strait-of-hormuz-ticks-up-but-iran-retains-control https://maritime-executive.com/article/traffic-through-strai...
- ericmay 6mo ago
  > Then why was Trump demanding that Iran “open the fuckin’ Strait”? It’s a figure of speech. The Straight is open. There are no ships besides the US Navy and those which it allows to transit the Straight. But ships are worried about potential attacks from Iranian missiles since we haven’t cleared all of the launchers and missile depots out yet - Trump wants them to stop launching missiles so folks don’t fear being indiscriminately shot at or blown up for exercising their right to trade. You are trying to play a semantic game around “closed” or “open” here because you think Iran has the upper hand and it makes you feel good. US said stop bombing ships or we will really come and obliterate your country, and they said yes great satan we will stop launching missiles at ships. Iran didn’t force the US to the table. Besides MAGA folks spending a boatload of cash on gas for their trucks the economic impact is minimal. We just had $5-$6/gallon gas in 2022 and got along just fine.
albatross79 6mo ago
That's veto power, what other kind of control do they need?
8note 6mo ago
its not particularly might makes right, but bargaining knowing that war is costly. iran could attack every ship that goes through the strait, but that would cost iran both in actual missiles/drones, and an opportunity cost of getting its own ships through, missing a potential toll, and missing potential benefits from being neighbor to rich states. Not to mention that the shots mean that other countries will want to respond even with might, most conflicts end in a negotiated settlement, and that approximates what each side of a conflict thinks would be the result of fighting the war, plus or minus some bargaining range. its still expensive for the mighty to fight the war, and better for everyone to accept the result of war without fighting see: the youtube channel "lines on maps" aka "william spaniel" to hear it from an expert in the field of crisis bargaining
kadoban 6mo ago
> Iran doesn’t control the straight though. It just has the ability to launch missiles at ships and such. There is a difference. There really isn't a difference. They can turn off the flow at will, they're the only ones who can, nobody can stop them. They control it.
- ericmay 6mo ago
  Ok we control it too. We can turn off the flow at will. We have 3 aircraft carriers plus a bunch of bases. No ship passes through the straight unless we say so. We should charge actually. Maybe a toll of, say, $2,000,000 until we recoup our costs for stopping Iran.
  - kadoban 6mo ago
    The US could do that for a while, a few months maybe. They'd get bored and overextended. The logistics are terrible. There's no way that would even be financially positive, even if you ignored how much good will from other countries it would destroy (if there's any left). > Maybe a toll of, say, $2,000,000 until we recoup our costs for stopping Iran. The US will never recoup their losses from this unwinnable folly of a war. Nothing positive came out of it unless you wanted the current Iran regime strengthened.
    - ericmay 6mo ago
      We could just raise the prices until it was financially viable. Just like Iran, we don't need to spend a bunch of money, we can just copy what they do. > The US will never recoup their losses from this unwinnable folly of a war. Nothing positive came out of it unless you wanted the current Iran regime strengthened. Incorrect. Well, sort of. Yet again the US has to do the dirty work to keep the world safe and stop chaos from spreading and that does come at a cost we are unlikely to recuperate. But the Iranian regime has been very weakened, leaders killed, lots of military equipment destroyed. Their only card is attacking the ships in the Straight but that's not the same thing as exercising control. It screws everyone, but the US least of all which is why we are there, doing the dirty work. You'd think the international community would want to prevent Iran from continuing to build up their missile capability until they can actually control the Straight which is what they aimed to do and we're preventing, but most can't think past the latest tweet.

thaumasiotes 6mo ago

“Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” —Thucydides You can't honestly attribute that quotation to Thucydides. The idea appears in his work, but he specifically attributes it to other unnamed parties. It receives this immediate response: As we think, at any rate, it is expedient — we speak as we are obliged, since you enjoin us to let right alone and talk only of interest — that you should not destroy what is our common protection, the privilege of being allowed in danger to invoke what is fair and right, and even to profit by arguments not strictly valid if they can be got to pass current. And you are as much interested in this as any, as your fall would be a signal for the heaviest vengeance and an example for the world to meditate upon.

oa335 6mo ago
The quote is part of the Melian Dialogue, which is regarded as a dramatization of the events leading up to the siege and conquest of Melos by the Athenians. I think it’s appropriate to attribute the quote to Thucydides. The arguments the Melians use against Athenians reasons for conquest end up going unheeded though - Athens conquers Melos and enslaves its inhabitants.
- thaumasiotes 6mo ago
  The arguments that the Athenians give also go unheeded. Nobody gives any arguments that have an effect. What do you want to conclude from that? > I think it’s appropriate to attribute the quote to Thucydides. Sure, just as appropriate as attributing "Somalis should go back to where they came from" to NBC. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-calls-ilhan-omar-garbage-somalis-go-back-came-from-rcna247041 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-calls-il...