3 ms·

What are you on about lmao, what is "leftist thought". My ideology? I'm not my ideology, my ideology is an ever shifting set of ideals I explore to try to build

What are you on about lmao, what is "leftist thought". My ideology? I'm not my ideology, my ideology is an ever shifting set of ideals I explore to try to build an internally consistent model for decision making. How in the world does a belief in US/UK meddling being the proximal cause for many of the modern issues in the region have anything to do with the crimes of the Kremlin. Can you please engage with the substance of my claims in any way? I'm not here to defend whatever "leftism" means to you.

spwa4 6mo ago
> How in the world does a belief in US/UK meddling ... Because you exclude all other meddling as an explanation. The Kremlin is the other big source of meddling (if you rate them by success in actually changing things, US is on top. Moscow is a distant second, and the third is so far behind it's barely worth mentioning, also it's unclear who that even is), so the assumption is you implicitly defend if you attack US meddling. Compare to when 2 people are fighting in the playground and you complain only about ONE of them hitting things, without making any remark about the other, or taking any kind of measure to get the other to stop. People like to describe that as neutrality, but of course, it is anything but. Which then gets confusing because people who are badly informed might start to genuinely believe only one of them was hitting, and might even blame the first for all damages. Of course, this is exactly the point of one-sided reporting, even if the reporting itself is 100% true. Even the BBC is doing it these days, little to no reporting on what happens (imho, not because it's going well) in the UK, and "news in support of UK foreign policy" everywhere else. Oh and separate views for UK people and international viewers. And yes, that's in some ways the same Iran does, but there's no bullets or executions involved if you try to get around it, a pretty big difference. In this conflict the US is defending, let's call it "international liberalism" (in the French revolution sense, ie. laissez-faire), or what the UN calls "freedom of navigation". Which is a euphemism for tax-free international trade over the seas. I get that there are name clashes with for example US politics, let's please not focus the discussion on whether those names are deserving, or who they (don't) match in US politics. And, yes, preventing Iran from getting a nuke falls under liberalism, as in Iran getting a nuke will definitely kill a freedom of navigation in that part of the world. The other side, ie. Russia/China, if we're only counting UN SC members, is about locking down international trade behind political agreements (which is also a euphemism: these agreements were historically never agreements, but rather the outcomes of wars), ie. letting Russia and China, since they have nuclear weapons, decide who gets oil from the middle east and who doesn't. Through threats. So you when you attack one side, getting criticized for supporting the other side, is fair. If you don't know the other side, that's called being badly informed, that's literally just dumb and then really you should shut up.
- defrost 6mo ago
  > In this conflict the US is defending, let's call it "international liberalism" (in the French revolution sense, ie. laissez-faire), or what the UN calls "freedom of navigation". Utter nonsense - the majority of the world is well aware the Strait was open and free to navigate all the way up to the point the US stepped in. The country directly responsible for the current lack of freedom to navigate is the US.
  - spwa4 6mo ago
    Of course not. https://www.reuters.com/article/world/timeline-irans-recent-clashes-with-the-west-over-gulf-shipping-nuclear-plans-idUSKCN1UG0EU/ https://www.reuters.com/article/world/timeline-irans-recent-... https://www.reuters.com/article/world/britain-says-iran-seizes-two-oil-tankers-in-gulf-iran-says-captured-one-idUSKCN1UE26X/ https://www.reuters.com/article/world/britain-says-iran-seiz... https://www.reuters.com/world/us-navy-says-iran-seized-marshall-islands-flagged-oil-tanker-gulf-oman-2023-04-27/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us-navy-says-iran-seized-marsh... https://www.reuters.com/world/second-oil-tanker-week-seized-by-iran-gulf-us-navy-2023-05-03/ https://www.reuters.com/world/second-oil-tanker-week-seized-... By the way, I'm not going to provide references, but the same goes for the Bab El-Mandeb strait and the "East Coast of Africa" (in other words Iran is trying to tax ALL shipping between Asia/India and Europe, even if it goes around the Cape of Good Hope) > The country directly responsible for the current lack of freedom to navigate is the US. Did you really believe that when you wrote it? I mean you must realize that no matter the motivation or other circumstances, when push comes to shove the person pulling the trigger is responsible ... (and obviously that's Iran)
    - Hikikomori 6mo ago
      What might the reason be? Oh it's the first sentence. >Tensions between Iran and the West have escalated since U.S. sanctions on Iranian oil exports took full effect in May and British naval forces seized an Iranian supertanker.
      - spwa4 6mo ago

spwa4 6mo ago

> How in the world does a belief in US/UK meddling ... Because you exclude all other meddling as an explanation. The Kremlin is the other big source of meddling (if you rate them by success in actually changing things, US is on top. Moscow is a distant second, and the third is so far behind it's barely worth mentioning, also it's unclear who that even is), so the assumption is you implicitly defend if you attack US meddling. Compare to when 2 people are fighting in the playground and you complain only about ONE of them hitting things, without making any remark about the other, or taking any kind of measure to get the other to stop. People like to describe that as neutrality, but of course, it is anything but. Which then gets confusing because people who are badly informed might start to genuinely believe only one of them was hitting, and might even blame the first for all damages. Of course, this is exactly the point of one-sided reporting, even if the reporting itself is 100% true. Even the BBC is doing it these days, little to no reporting on what happens (imho, not because it's going well) in the UK, and "news in support of UK foreign policy" everywhere else. Oh and separate views for UK people and international viewers. And yes, that's in some ways the same Iran does, but there's no bullets or executions involved if you try to get around it, a pretty big difference. In this conflict the US is defending, let's call it "international liberalism" (in the French revolution sense, ie. laissez-faire), or what the UN calls "freedom of navigation". Which is a euphemism for tax-free international trade over the seas. I get that there are name clashes with for example US politics, let's please not focus the discussion on whether those names are deserving, or who they (don't) match in US politics. And, yes, preventing Iran from getting a nuke falls under liberalism, as in Iran getting a nuke will definitely kill a freedom of navigation in that part of the world. The other side, ie. Russia/China, if we're only counting UN SC members, is about locking down international trade behind political agreements (which is also a euphemism: these agreements were historically never agreements, but rather the outcomes of wars), ie. letting Russia and China, since they have nuclear weapons, decide who gets oil from the middle east and who doesn't. Through threats. So you when you attack one side, getting criticized for supporting the other side, is fair. If you don't know the other side, that's called being badly informed, that's literally just dumb and then really you should shut up.

defrost 6mo ago
> In this conflict the US is defending, let's call it "international liberalism" (in the French revolution sense, ie. laissez-faire), or what the UN calls "freedom of navigation". Utter nonsense - the majority of the world is well aware the Strait was open and free to navigate all the way up to the point the US stepped in. The country directly responsible for the current lack of freedom to navigate is the US.
- spwa4 6mo ago
  Of course not. https://www.reuters.com/article/world/timeline-irans-recent-clashes-with-the-west-over-gulf-shipping-nuclear-plans-idUSKCN1UG0EU/ https://www.reuters.com/article/world/timeline-irans-recent-... https://www.reuters.com/article/world/britain-says-iran-seizes-two-oil-tankers-in-gulf-iran-says-captured-one-idUSKCN1UE26X/ https://www.reuters.com/article/world/britain-says-iran-seiz... https://www.reuters.com/world/us-navy-says-iran-seized-marshall-islands-flagged-oil-tanker-gulf-oman-2023-04-27/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us-navy-says-iran-seized-marsh... https://www.reuters.com/world/second-oil-tanker-week-seized-by-iran-gulf-us-navy-2023-05-03/ https://www.reuters.com/world/second-oil-tanker-week-seized-... By the way, I'm not going to provide references, but the same goes for the Bab El-Mandeb strait and the "East Coast of Africa" (in other words Iran is trying to tax ALL shipping between Asia/India and Europe, even if it goes around the Cape of Good Hope) > The country directly responsible for the current lack of freedom to navigate is the US. Did you really believe that when you wrote it? I mean you must realize that no matter the motivation or other circumstances, when push comes to shove the person pulling the trigger is responsible ... (and obviously that's Iran)
  - Hikikomori 6mo ago
    What might the reason be? Oh it's the first sentence. >Tensions between Iran and the West have escalated since U.S. sanctions on Iranian oil exports took full effect in May and British naval forces seized an Iranian supertanker.
    - spwa4 6mo ago