5 ms·

It's not rhetoric. I'm not trying to convince anyone, I'm just explaining how things work. Since the other countries largely lack the ability to act, their supp

by nradov 6mo ago

It's not rhetoric. I'm not trying to convince anyone, I'm just explaining how things work. Since the other countries largely lack the ability to act, their support or lack thereof is irrelevant. The US and Israel have no incentive to apologize or pay restitution; more likely outcomes are that they either escalate, or unilaterally disengage and leave others to clean up the mess.

fmeahe 6mo ago
The world does have another much better option: they can pay the Iranian ransom and call it a day. No need to participate in another war.
- nradov 6mo ago
  You're not thinking through the long-term consequences of that option. The Iranian extortion fees will likely escalate over time. Other countries will use that precedent to impose fees for passage through their territorial waters. Most of the countries that rely on maritime trade would prefer to avoid that outcome, even if it causes deaths and economic pain in the short term.
  - ImPostingOnHN 6mo ago
    > The Iranian extortion fees will likely escalate over time. Nowhere near as much as the American extortion costs.
  - fmeahe 6mo ago
    The world must go multipolar. US has proved us repeatedly that it cannot lead. It may mean that we'll have to pay tolls everywhere, but that's still better and cheaper than getting f*ked by the US now and then.
ImPostingOnHN 6mo ago
> Since the other countries largely lack the ability to act, their support or lack thereof is irrelevant. How is their support, or lack thereof, irrelevant to our discussion that is literally about whether they support the war? Here is a reminder of the topic, from the post you replied to: > Assisting the US with regard to Iran is phenomenally unpopular. The increase in energy prices isn't outweighing people's desire not to have their country assist. That poster and I are just explaining how things work. Seems like you might agree with us here? Indeed, since most other countries do not support the war, their ability to act is irrelevant.
- nradov 6mo ago
  You're really missing the point. Whether they support the war or not is largely irrelevant because support doesn't count for anything.
  - ImPostingOnHN 6mo ago
    > You're really missing the point. Whether they support the war or not is largely irrelevant Am I? No, I don't think so: Whether they support the war or not is literally the topic of discussion, so by definition it can't be irrelevant to the discussion. > support doesn't count for anything Whether or not you feel "support doesn't count for anything" is irrelevant to the discussion of whether the support is there in the first place. It's also sour grapes: the USA tried to gain the support of other countries, and because it failed, the support it failed to get is suddenly "irrelevant". Lol. It sure wasn't irrelevant when the USA was begging and threatening countries to help them.

by nradov 6mo ago

fmeahe 6mo ago

The world does have another much better option: they can pay the Iranian ransom and call it a day. No need to participate in another war.

nradov 6mo ago
You're not thinking through the long-term consequences of that option. The Iranian extortion fees will likely escalate over time. Other countries will use that precedent to impose fees for passage through their territorial waters. Most of the countries that rely on maritime trade would prefer to avoid that outcome, even if it causes deaths and economic pain in the short term.
- ImPostingOnHN 6mo ago
  > The Iranian extortion fees will likely escalate over time. Nowhere near as much as the American extortion costs.
- fmeahe 6mo ago
  The world must go multipolar. US has proved us repeatedly that it cannot lead. It may mean that we'll have to pay tolls everywhere, but that's still better and cheaper than getting f*ked by the US now and then.

ImPostingOnHN 6mo ago

> Since the other countries largely lack the ability to act, their support or lack thereof is irrelevant. How is their support, or lack thereof, irrelevant to our discussion that is literally about whether they support the war? Here is a reminder of the topic, from the post you replied to: > Assisting the US with regard to Iran is phenomenally unpopular. The increase in energy prices isn't outweighing people's desire not to have their country assist. That poster and I are just explaining how things work. Seems like you might agree with us here? Indeed, since most other countries do not support the war, their ability to act is irrelevant.

nradov 6mo ago
You're really missing the point. Whether they support the war or not is largely irrelevant because support doesn't count for anything.
- ImPostingOnHN 6mo ago
  > You're really missing the point. Whether they support the war or not is largely irrelevant Am I? No, I don't think so: Whether they support the war or not is literally the topic of discussion, so by definition it can't be irrelevant to the discussion. > support doesn't count for anything Whether or not you feel "support doesn't count for anything" is irrelevant to the discussion of whether the support is there in the first place. It's also sour grapes: the USA tried to gain the support of other countries, and because it failed, the support it failed to get is suddenly "irrelevant". Lol. It sure wasn't irrelevant when the USA was begging and threatening countries to help them.