3 ms·

> 8 weeks isn't that long of a timeframe. To respond to the closure of a key naval route that supplies 20% of world oil supply? After months of closure already

> 8 weeks isn't that long of a timeframe. To respond to the closure of a key naval route that supplies 20% of world oil supply? After months of closure already, with zero response? This entire thing was started with zero warning, as far as your "diplomatic timelines" go. Asserting weird and strange judgement calls with extreme confidence, and belittling others' judgement at the same time, is a very weak argumentation style. Perhaps you could provide some evidence that a "watch out we'll talk about this in 8 weeks" is a strong sort of statement of any sort?

ericmay 5mo ago
[flagged]
- ceejayoz 5mo ago
  > Speaking of, you're also doing what you're accusing me of "months of closure with zero response" how is there zero response? As you noted, only today has it been reported that NATO is considering maybe doing something in the Strait. In a few months. "Don't be intellectually dishonest", indeed.
  - ericmay 5mo ago
    How is that being intellectually dishonest? You made a claim that NATO and Gulf States are closing bases to imply that they were denying support to the US, not that I think that claim is even true anyway, but even so I simply provided literal breaking news of NATO increasing support for the US here. They may ultimately decide to do nothing because, by July this whole thing could be over. Who knows? You are right though, Europeans do like to talk a lot and usually decide to do nothing. Maybe that'll play out again here. Plus, at least I provided a source for my claim. Where are yours?
    - ceejayoz 5mo ago
      > You made a claim that NATO and Gulf States are closing bases to imply that they were denying support to the US, not that I think that claim is even true anyway… Spain: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/02/world/middleeast/spain-denies-us-air-base.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/02/world/middleeast/spain-de... France: https://www.reuters.com/world/china/france-refused-israel-use-its-air-space-transfer-us-weapons-iran-war-sources-2026-03-31/ https://www.reuters.com/world/china/france-refused-israel-us... Saudi Arabia: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trumps-abrupt-u-turn-plan-re-open-strait-hormuz-came-backlash-allies-rcna343845 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trumps-abrupt-u... > even so I simply provided literal breaking news of NATO increasing support You provided breaking news that they're considering it, and that it's breaking news today perfectly illustrates the "months of closure with zero response" claim you're trying to knock down.
      - ericmay 5mo ago
        > You provided breaking news that they're considering it, and that it's breaking news today perfectly illustrates the "months of closure with zero response" claim you're trying to knock down. But saying there are "months of closure with zero response" is factually incorrect. The blockade itself is proof enough that there is a response lol. > Saudi Arabia https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/how-secret-u-a-e-and-saudi-strikes-on-iran-shattered-an-uneasy-coexistence-2e4502b6?st=QvBKT5&reflink=article_imessage_share https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/how-secret-u-a-e-and-s... > France Additional details are needed - this doesn't seem to be a very strong claim. France also as the article implies previously allowed these flights and resupply operations. They may change their mind yet again. > Spain Sure Spain doesn't support the war. I agree with you there. Ultimately, political hot potato on American overflights or strikes or usage of bases (which are being broadly used across NATO members) doesn't match the strong claim you seem to be wanting to make.
        ceejayoz 5mo ago
        > The blockade itself is proof enough that there is a response lol. No, the American-only blockade is not proof that NATO has responded. > https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/how-secret-u-a-e-and-saudi-strikes-on-iran-shattered-an-uneasy-coexistence-2e4502b6 https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/how-secret-u-a-e-and-s... Unresponsive; "in the early days of the war". > They may change their mind yet again. "I might be right! Someday!" > Sure Spain doesn't support the war. I agree with you there. Good; we now agree my claim was accurate.

ericmay 5mo ago

[flagged]

ceejayoz 5mo ago
> Speaking of, you're also doing what you're accusing me of "months of closure with zero response" how is there zero response? As you noted, only today has it been reported that NATO is considering maybe doing something in the Strait. In a few months. "Don't be intellectually dishonest", indeed.
- ericmay 5mo ago
  How is that being intellectually dishonest? You made a claim that NATO and Gulf States are closing bases to imply that they were denying support to the US, not that I think that claim is even true anyway, but even so I simply provided literal breaking news of NATO increasing support for the US here. They may ultimately decide to do nothing because, by July this whole thing could be over. Who knows? You are right though, Europeans do like to talk a lot and usually decide to do nothing. Maybe that'll play out again here. Plus, at least I provided a source for my claim. Where are yours?
  - ceejayoz 5mo ago
    > You made a claim that NATO and Gulf States are closing bases to imply that they were denying support to the US, not that I think that claim is even true anyway… Spain: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/02/world/middleeast/spain-denies-us-air-base.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/02/world/middleeast/spain-de... France: https://www.reuters.com/world/china/france-refused-israel-use-its-air-space-transfer-us-weapons-iran-war-sources-2026-03-31/ https://www.reuters.com/world/china/france-refused-israel-us... Saudi Arabia: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trumps-abrupt-u-turn-plan-re-open-strait-hormuz-came-backlash-allies-rcna343845 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trumps-abrupt-u... > even so I simply provided literal breaking news of NATO increasing support You provided breaking news that they're considering it, and that it's breaking news today perfectly illustrates the "months of closure with zero response" claim you're trying to knock down.
    - ericmay 5mo ago
      > You provided breaking news that they're considering it, and that it's breaking news today perfectly illustrates the "months of closure with zero response" claim you're trying to knock down. But saying there are "months of closure with zero response" is factually incorrect. The blockade itself is proof enough that there is a response lol. > Saudi Arabia https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/how-secret-u-a-e-and-saudi-strikes-on-iran-shattered-an-uneasy-coexistence-2e4502b6?st=QvBKT5&reflink=article_imessage_share https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/how-secret-u-a-e-and-s... > France Additional details are needed - this doesn't seem to be a very strong claim. France also as the article implies previously allowed these flights and resupply operations. They may change their mind yet again. > Spain Sure Spain doesn't support the war. I agree with you there. Ultimately, political hot potato on American overflights or strikes or usage of bases (which are being broadly used across NATO members) doesn't match the strong claim you seem to be wanting to make.
      - ceejayoz 5mo ago
        > The blockade itself is proof enough that there is a response lol. No, the American-only blockade is not proof that NATO has responded. > https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/how-secret-u-a-e-and-saudi-strikes-on-iran-shattered-an-uneasy-coexistence-2e4502b6 https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/how-secret-u-a-e-and-s... Unresponsive; "in the early days of the war". > They may change their mind yet again. "I might be right! Someday!" > Sure Spain doesn't support the war. I agree with you there. Good; we now agree my claim was accurate.