3 ms·

Definition 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

by ajross 5mo ago

Definition 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 ago
Oh, 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 ago
    I 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...
    - ajross 5mo ago
      > the principle was free trade Trade was free in the gulf, pre-war. > and some mixture of "we dont negotiate with terrorists" Negotiate for what? Iran was making no demands. Pithy or not, you seem to be just being obtuse. You're taking as a prior that there was a threat, something for which you (and the administration) have absolutely no evidence. And to repeat, in a PRACTICAL sense, even nodding to your incorrectly framed "principled" stance, the EFFECT of the war was 100% opposite to the thing you claim to be... defending? It's just insane, to be blunt, and I genuinely can't understand why a reasonable person could hold these opinions. It seems like trolling, honestly.
      - jvanderbot 5mo ago
        You're ignoring Iran's negative effects on the world, and their increasing harassing of shipping, and their support of Russian wars and terrorist actions throughout the middle east (at least). Those are worth opposing, and fall under the "peaceful" part of the statement. The effect is to (at least temporarily) cause a war, which has diminished trade. If trade was the only thing anyone cared about, we'd acquiesce to any demand anyone with a boat made. (e.g. Somalian pirates). That's clearly not the stance anyone has here. This is an exercise in good faith. You have to assume there's a consistent set of beliefs that are not crazy that lead to this outcome, or else you fall into the trap of just assuming anyone who disagrees with you is crazy. So, I have not claimed any effect intended or otherwise, only an intent. You can with all love of peace intend to depose a terrorist regime (even violently), and have the effect of disrupting trade. All at once, and all without violating your intent, and from a consistent set of principles about peace, love, and free trade and all that. OK, that's just circling back to my prior comments, so I think we're done here.
        ajross 5mo ago
        > You're ignoring Iran's negative effects on the world, and their increasing harassing of shipping, and their support of Russian wars and terrorist actions throughout the middle east (at least). Literally none of which have been addressed by this ridiculous adventure! In fact that "harassing of shipping" has been amplified immensely, with no apparent recourse on our part except to just surrender and bribe them to open Hormuz again. Again, EVEN ADMITTING YOUR "PRINCIPLE" ARGUMENT IN GOOD FAITH, a correct (!) implementation of that principle would have been not to start slinging bombs around without an exit strategy. Your point amounts to "This would have been a good war if we had won it." But we lost it. So it wasn't.

by ajross 5mo ago

jvanderbot 5mo ago

Oh, 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 ago
  I 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...
  - ajross 5mo ago
    > the principle was free trade Trade was free in the gulf, pre-war. > and some mixture of "we dont negotiate with terrorists" Negotiate for what? Iran was making no demands. Pithy or not, you seem to be just being obtuse. You're taking as a prior that there was a threat, something for which you (and the administration) have absolutely no evidence. And to repeat, in a PRACTICAL sense, even nodding to your incorrectly framed "principled" stance, the EFFECT of the war was 100% opposite to the thing you claim to be... defending? It's just insane, to be blunt, and I genuinely can't understand why a reasonable person could hold these opinions. It seems like trolling, honestly.
    - jvanderbot 5mo ago
      You're ignoring Iran's negative effects on the world, and their increasing harassing of shipping, and their support of Russian wars and terrorist actions throughout the middle east (at least). Those are worth opposing, and fall under the "peaceful" part of the statement. The effect is to (at least temporarily) cause a war, which has diminished trade. If trade was the only thing anyone cared about, we'd acquiesce to any demand anyone with a boat made. (e.g. Somalian pirates). That's clearly not the stance anyone has here. This is an exercise in good faith. You have to assume there's a consistent set of beliefs that are not crazy that lead to this outcome, or else you fall into the trap of just assuming anyone who disagrees with you is crazy. So, I have not claimed any effect intended or otherwise, only an intent. You can with all love of peace intend to depose a terrorist regime (even violently), and have the effect of disrupting trade. All at once, and all without violating your intent, and from a consistent set of principles about peace, love, and free trade and all that. OK, that's just circling back to my prior comments, so I think we're done here.
      - ajross 5mo ago
        > You're ignoring Iran's negative effects on the world, and their increasing harassing of shipping, and their support of Russian wars and terrorist actions throughout the middle east (at least). Literally none of which have been addressed by this ridiculous adventure! In fact that "harassing of shipping" has been amplified immensely, with no apparent recourse on our part except to just surrender and bribe them to open Hormuz again. Again, EVEN ADMITTING YOUR "PRINCIPLE" ARGUMENT IN GOOD FAITH, a correct (!) implementation of that principle would have been not to start slinging bombs around without an exit strategy. Your point amounts to "This would have been a good war if we had won it." But we lost it. So it wasn't.