2 ms·

> 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" cla

by 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
  > No, the American-only blocade is not proof that NATO has responded. To be clear you're claiming that there isn't a NATO response? If so I apologize as I thought you were referring to a US response to the ongoing war. More generally NATO allies and Gulf States have participated in various ways in the war. UAE and Saudi Arabia for example are reported to have struck Iran. I don't recall the full extent but I believe the United Kingdom and France which both have facilities or operate in the area were going to assist in shooting down threats to civilian facilities but I don't recall where that landed. > Unresponsive; "in the early days of the war". Responsive - provided a link to an example. > "I might be right! Someday!" Well it's hard to tell, they issue statements all the time. Here's an example: "France has said it is "ready to help" defend Gulf nations and Jordan against Iran, signalling a firm commitment to regional allies as tensions spiral following a wave of missile and drone attacks." (https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/20260302-france-backs-gulf-states-as-iran-launches-fresh-wave-of-missile-strikes https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/20260302-france-backs-gulf-stat...) So yea, like they do change their mind. You know situations and stuff are dynamic and things change, right? France could decide tomorrow they've had enough and outright participate in the war. Who knows? > Good; we now agree my claim was accurate. I'd agree your specific claim about Spain is accurate, but it's inaccurate with respect to NATO as a whole. Why is it inaccurate? Because for every Spain there's another NATO member who is allowing overflights or whatever.
  - ceejayoz 5mo ago
    > To be clear you're claiming that there isn't a NATO response? You, in the comment that started this particular thread: "NATO just today as reported by Bloomberg said that if the Strait isn't open by July that it will take or consider taking action." To which /u/epistasis replied: "Oh, 8 weeks, and they'll think about doing something?" Your LLM needs bigger context.
    - ericmay 5mo ago
      > You, in the comment that started this particular thread: I was just asking for clarification to make sure we were talking about the same thing. I even apologized. > "Oh, 8 weeks, and they'll think about doing something?" And yea, like there's no like big time pressure or something here. The war isn't a big deal anyway.

by ericmay 5mo ago

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
> No, the American-only blocade is not proof that NATO has responded. To be clear you're claiming that there isn't a NATO response? If so I apologize as I thought you were referring to a US response to the ongoing war. More generally NATO allies and Gulf States have participated in various ways in the war. UAE and Saudi Arabia for example are reported to have struck Iran. I don't recall the full extent but I believe the United Kingdom and France which both have facilities or operate in the area were going to assist in shooting down threats to civilian facilities but I don't recall where that landed. > Unresponsive; "in the early days of the war". Responsive - provided a link to an example. > "I might be right! Someday!" Well it's hard to tell, they issue statements all the time. Here's an example: "France has said it is "ready to help" defend Gulf nations and Jordan against Iran, signalling a firm commitment to regional allies as tensions spiral following a wave of missile and drone attacks." (https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/20260302-france-backs-gulf-states-as-iran-launches-fresh-wave-of-missile-strikes https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/20260302-france-backs-gulf-stat...) So yea, like they do change their mind. You know situations and stuff are dynamic and things change, right? France could decide tomorrow they've had enough and outright participate in the war. Who knows? > Good; we now agree my claim was accurate. I'd agree your specific claim about Spain is accurate, but it's inaccurate with respect to NATO as a whole. Why is it inaccurate? Because for every Spain there's another NATO member who is allowing overflights or whatever.
- ceejayoz 5mo ago
  > To be clear you're claiming that there isn't a NATO response? You, in the comment that started this particular thread: "NATO just today as reported by Bloomberg said that if the Strait isn't open by July that it will take or consider taking action." To which /u/epistasis replied: "Oh, 8 weeks, and they'll think about doing something?" Your LLM needs bigger context.
  - ericmay 5mo ago
    > You, in the comment that started this particular thread: I was just asking for clarification to make sure we were talking about the same thing. I even apologized. > "Oh, 8 weeks, and they'll think about doing something?" And yea, like there's no like big time pressure or something here. The war isn't a big deal anyway.