6 ms·
A completely unnecessary war that benefits no one other than Israel and harms the rest of the world. The only positive to come from this is the annihilation of
by sosomoxie 5mo ago
A completely unnecessary war that benefits no one other than Israel and harms the rest of the world. The only positive to come from this is the annihilation of US military assets in the Middle East and an even deeper unity of the world against Zionism. It’s tough times but we will ultimately defeat this heinous ideology.
- jvanderbot 5mo agoThere was a time when USA guaranteed the safe passage of shipping, which helped secure a peaceful world order, apparently. I view this as a continuation of that legacy, but admit I only have 1-2 books supporting this view.
- armada651 5mo agoHow is closing the strait a continuation of a legacy of guaranteed safe passage?
- jvanderbot 5mo agoI wasn't aware USA closed the stait
- ajross 5mo agoThis is some extraordinary up-is-down construction. Hormuz was open in February, and for decades preceding that. It's closed now. How is this situation the result of the "guarantee of safe passage of shipping", exactly?
- jvanderbot 5mo ago1) Iran has been naughty v. shipping for a long time, directly and indirectly 2) Iran has been naughty v. USA's allies for a long time, directly and indirectly 3) Iran has been naughty v. USA itself for a long time, directly and indirectly So, in the interested of stable trade through Hormuz, someone decided to push Iran out. The intent was not to close the strait. The effect was to create a situation unsafe for trade, which is ironic and comical, but it's not the intent. So, since principles determine intent, I think I was not being contradictory.
- ajross 5mo agoDefinition for "naughty" and examples thereof might help. Because it doesn't mean "closed". The point isn't to make a moral argument for Iran's position, just a realpolitik one. We fucked with them, they fuck with us. They're winning, unfortunately as it might be. Ergo, we shouldn't have fucked with them.
- jvanderbot 5mo agoOh, well that's your point. My point was just that entering the war is consistent with the principle of ensuring bad actors can't act badly, esp re: trade and allies. So we both made our point.
- ajross 5mo ago> principle of ensuring bad actors can't act badly That's... not a principle though? Who else pursues geopolitics by that principle? When else has the US? It's... not a thing, unless you mess with semantics to define "bad actors" as "whoever we dislike" and "badly" as "whatever we dislike". Iran hasn't fucked with Hormuz since before most of the commenters here were born. Arguing that we somehow "had to" goad them into fucking with Hormuz in 2026 is just madness. I mean, look: this wasn't the plan. You know it. I know it. Trump and Bibi thought they'd get a quick win, and when they didn't their bluff was called and they don't have the cards. Hormuz opens WHEN WE PAY IRAN TO OPEN IT, and not before. We've lost. The world is just waiting for the surrender.
- jvanderbot 5mo agoI was being pithy - the principle was free trade and some mixture of "we dont negotiate with terrorists", as mentioned in top of thread. If you're going to take the weakest version of whatever I say, I'll end up writing paragraphs to lawyer my way into expressing myself at the strength required to justify a war, and that's just unfun. The entire global war on terror was basically a "We dont allow terrorist states to exist", and Iraq war 1 was pretty close to the same principles in action - feel free to shock and awe a state out of existence if it threatens global trade/oil. And you're wrong about Iran. They have two grievous sins in USA/EU's eyes. 1) they have launched increasingly severe attacks on shipping in the last 10 years (not to mention 100s of attacks on civilians through funded terror networks), and 2) they are a key supplier and ally for Russia's invasion of Europe and former Soviet states, and their shahed drones are killing a lot of civilians. 1 https://www.hrw.org/news/2026/03/23/iran-deliberate-attacks-on-civilian-ships-apparent-war-crimes https://www.hrw.org/news/2026/03/23/iran-deliberate-attacks-... 2 https://2017-2021.state.gov/irans-history-of-naval-provocations/ https://2017-2021.state.gov/irans-history-of-naval-provocati...
- AntiUSAbah 5mo agoSoooo just to be clear here with your argument: The USA was doing something to guarantee that stuff can flow through it, then they start a war, now they can no longer guarantee this? Did they suddenly loose the power to protect this flow? Just because USA is war mongering, doesn't mean no one else would have stepped up or that it wouldn't be better without all of this involvment.
- jvanderbot 5mo agoEverything I said was true : Bretton woods exists, and my opinion flows from that. Feel free to disregard it or correct the facts, I think that'd be a good discussion. And yeah, USA might do dumb things that put them into a bind, but ultimately the peaceful flow of traffic through Hormuz is a goal worth pursuing for the world economic health.
- AntiUSAbah 5mo agoI'm happy to endulge in a good discussion. My argument is not that deep for sure, but you are only referencing Bretton woods. The problem with US petro dollar is always the same: we don't know what would have been if it wouldn't exist. But my main point was very specific to the strait of hormuz and how it was flowing without the help of the USA, now stoped because of the influnece of the USA and how the USA can't restart it. So your point is not valid for the current state of the strait of hormuz. You are also moving the goal post now as you state that the peaceful flow of traffic is worth it. Of course it is but now we have to do it and its not the USA helping some other country to fix their problem, in this case every other country needs to do something to fix US Americas problem they created. USA also got very rich and powerful thanks to the petro dollar, which now shifts to China and now China is benefiting from this. This system was never fair though.
- jvanderbot 5mo agoPlaying devils advocate, the results are not always intended. I think the intent was to secure the area / prevent a state from becoming hegemonic, esp a state which has proven to be prone to harassing shipping and allies in the area (to say the last), as well as a state which is directly aiding an invasion of Europe/former USSR independent states. So, circling back to my original comment, the Iran war is in line with the principles of keeping peaceful free trade safe (perhaps only for "us"), but alas, as you say, free trade has paused while we try to do that. That's it. I dont think that's a hugely controversial statement or obviously false.
- ptaffs 5mo ago>benefits no one isn't correct. There are plenty of people on HN working in military contract industries, high tech arms manufacturing and such. They lobby Gov and benefit financially as do their employees.
- shaky-carrousel 5mo agoOk, benefits no one other than Israel AND American warlords.
- bee_rider 5mo agoI wonder if it does benefit arms R&D folks. At least, as someone not too well informed on the military stuff, it looks like the moral of the story has been that our high-end stuff hasn’t functioned as well as the price tag lead us to expect, and a bunch of cheap drones might be the way to go. If I worked in military R&D I’d be worried that focus might shift away from the more speculative/less delivery-oriented/fun to work on products…
- cyberlurker 5mo agoI could see this happening if the point of the arms industry was defense and not a jobs program.
- wk_end 5mo agoDomestically maybe, but international buyers aren't giving billions to American arms manufacturers to prop up American jobs.
- mullingitover 5mo agoThe mayor's rock-throwing spree is doing wonders for growth in the town's window repair sector!
- spauldo 5mo agoOnly certain types of contractors, and likely only in the short term. Military contractors do well when the military has widespread support from the voters. Congresscritters will happily approve tax dollars going to the military industrial complex when their constituents view the US as the global protector of democracy. Wars like this one that aren't popular and make us look like thugs open the floor up to anti-military candidates. So yeah, the companies building missiles do well while the war is on, but the people like me who automate military fuel farms see budget cuts and projects cancelled.
- dirck-norman 5mo ago[flagged]
- simianparrot 5mo ago[flagged]
- sosomoxie 5mo ago[flagged]
- bit-anarchist 5mo ago[flagged]
- myth_drannon 5mo ago[flagged]
- sosomoxie 5mo agoI’m a leftist and certainly Muslims will be against their own slaughter. There are plenty of right wingers who hate Zionism too though. Zionist’s only allies are the heavily propagandized baby boomers, and even they are shifting away from Israel.
- myth_drannon 5mo ago[flagged]
- phatfish 5mo agoIsrael and America sure managed to set the bar low didn't they?
- stephen_g 5mo agoNobody is saying Iran is good, this war if anything has solidified the rule of the hardline ideologues in its Government, by killing off a bunch of the more moderate ones. And all this bombing is definitely going to convince the local population that you are the good guys, right? Is it any wonder why the people haven’t risen up against the Iranian regime? And all that is not to mention that the war has handed the regime control of the Strait. And it’s fair for people to point out that the the US and Israel starting the war was illegal under international law and exactly the same crime most of the world is sanctioning Russia for… Just because you don’t like the target, you can’t ignore the facts.
- watwut 5mo agoRussia is also benefiting. China less so, but it gives them advantage in their competition with west.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 5mo agoChina is going to be selling solar panels and EVs at triple the previously projected rate after this crisis.