4 ms·

> It's absurd to pretend you don't understand this. If you want to phrase what that person wrote in this way, then you're going to have to provide deeper analy

by ericmay 5mo ago

> It's absurd to pretend you don't understand this. If you want to phrase what that person wrote in this way, then you're going to have to provide deeper analysis than a Dragon Ball Z style power comparison. > What evidence is there that Iran would have shut down the strait at all? The only time they've done so in the last 40+ years is in response to a direct, unnecessary attack. While neither of us have intelligence on Iran, you can reason about their activities and speculate on future actions. In the case of the Strait, Iran was stockpiling missiles and drone capabilities and if they continued to do so at the rate they were there is a tipping point where even the mighty US military would struggle to deal with this. Someone else commented about the US Military not learning anything from the Ukraine war, but I'd submit it was the opposite. We saw how devastating cheap missiles and drones were, and realized if we didn't do something now then Iran could continue stockpiling, declare the Strait closed pending payment, and then work on a nuclear weapon as well leaving the United States (since we're the only one that can do anything) with very limited and unpalatable options. Now it's fair, certainly, to speculate that Iran had no intention of closing the Strait or whatever, but their actions seem to indicate the opposite. You can also ask why is it that Iran is the only country stockpiling these weapons systems, working on a nuclear weapon, chanting death to America, and whatnot? Maybe if they stopped doing those things we wouldn't be in this situation. But why would they stop when the IRGC and religious fanatical leadership want to actually do those things? I think it's unfair to characterize this as wild speculation when anyone can read for themselves from reliable sources about Iran's activities. There seems to be this impression that the Iranian government is like this peaceful government and oh if only the US would just stop bothering them, but that simply does not stand up to reality.

sophacles 5mo ago
> If you want to phrase what that person wrote in this way "That person" was literally you. I replied to you and quoted you. Are you sure DBz is beneath you? > Now it's fair, certainly, to speculate that Iran had no intention of closing the Strait or whatever, but their actions seem to indicate the opposite. It indicates only that they wanted to have a stockpile of weapons... the most common reason for which is to defend the country from attacks. It seems perfectly reasonable that they would want a bunch of weapons in striking range of both attacks from the sea, and of hostile military installations (which were located specifically within range to strike Iran). In fact, given that the 2025 project explicitly targeted Iran it seems very likely that it was a bolstering of defenses (absent other evidence). > You can also ask why is it that Iran is the only country stockpiling these weapons systems, working on a nuclear weapon, chanting death to America, and whatnot? They aren't the only country doing any of these things. (semantics aside... maybe they are the only country stockpiling those brands of missles and drones.... but certainly not the only country stockpiling missles and drones, etc). > I think it's unfair to characterize this as wild speculation when anyone can read for themselves from reliable sources about Iran's activities. The wild speculation is intent. Each of the actions that you bring up have many possible motives. The idea of Iran attacking directly and initially is a change in M.O. for Iran, and such a claim requires evidence that points directly to it beyond "this one of many possible motives". > There seems to be this impression that the Iranian government is like this peaceful government and oh if only the US would just stop bothering them, but that simply does not stand up to reality I don't think may people are saying that at all. They are saying this war was unnecessary for any of the reasons that have thus far been stated because there is no evidence pointing to those reasons being true. The consequential evidence does not add up to a single conclusion, and the direct evidence has not been presented. You seem to have had an awful lot of the "Iran is irrationally evil and stupid" kool-aid. I don't beleive Iran is a "good guy", but I don't believe in war justifications without good evidence either, particularly not ones that rely on cartoon-level villainy.
- ericmay 5mo ago
  [flagged]
  - sophacles 5mo ago
    > Do you really believe this? Anytime someone or some country does something, it only indicates that the specific action is taking place? > Here's one then: China has no intention of attacking Taiwan - it's just practicing its ability to blockade small island nations in case it comes under attack. By this logic the US war with Canada happened how many centuries after stockpiles of weapons were near the border? The direct conflict with the Warsaw Pact happened exactly which decade, given all the stockpiles of arms the US had on those border? China has had stockpiles of weapons ready to invade Taiwan for decades, when exactly did they do it? My point is - Most weapons stockpiles do not indicate imminent threat, and the do not require conflict. There needs to be evidence beyond "there's a stockpile of weapons". I have been asking for that evidence, for something that indicates that this is a situation different than the others. I really don't understand why you're so upset that I want actual evidence, not vague assertions like: > But I think you're taking an extremely charitable position which stands in stark contrast to Iran's actual activities and actions in the region. What activities are you fucking talking about. Show your work and bring receipts. I don't play "just trust me bro" on this shit. I saw enough of my generation come back dead, maimed and broken from the last time a conservative moron said "just trust me bro, they gonna do bad stuff". In fact - you clearly beleive this so much, go get on the front lines and catch bullets for it. Better you than someone who didn't sign up for this and actualy deserves to live. > This doesn't hold water since Iran has been working on these programs and projects since before 2025. October 7th, for example, which was a de facto attack by Iran on a US ally obviously occurred prior to 2025. Um... project 2025 is a plan for the repulican party, the goal of which was to begin action in 2025. The plan was named for (at the time of its writing) a future date. All this to say project 2025 plan was first publisht in early 2023. Simple facts are useful... see how i back up my statements with them. You should try one day, its nice. October 7 was not a direct attack by Iran. I promise you... the palestinians who are being genocided did the attack. Iran may have had a part funding and planning it, but they didn't use any of their stockpile of weapons to do that attack. I really don't see how this is evidence that Iran will be using a stockpile of weapons for a direct attack... particularly given that Iran generally does things via proxy. > It's not wild speculation though. You can look for yourself at Iran's activities. Why is it that only Iran has these problems? Why does Iran always need special treatment like the JCPOA? Why does Iran fund terrorist groups as recognized by the United States and European Union who launch missiles and blow people up, and kill and maim others? Do you just not care or pay attention to that stuff? Do you excuse it all away? It's truly something I find bewildering. The basic premise - that Iran is special in any of these regards, is fundamentally wrong. The US has funded plenty of terrorist organizations (recognized as such by the US and EU). The US launches plenty of missles that kill and maim children, etc. I do pay attention when Iran does it, and when the US does it, and when others do it too. I find all of it abhorrent. None of it justifies even more of the same though. It's even less of a justification for a full scale, poorly planned and excuted war that isn't accomplishing any one of it's stated goals. > But there is evidence haha. The drone and missile stockpiles and attacks, nuclear enrichment programs, providing Russia with drones to kill Ukrainians, funding terrorist groups, chanting death to America, killing 30,000 of their own peacefully protesting people. None of this is enough to justify intervention elsewhere, so its not evidence that justifies invading Iran. Whats the actual reason for going after Iran? Why didn't Bush use these arguments to go after North Korea before they had the bomb? > Do you want Iran to have a nuclear bomb? Do you think that's a good thing? I don't care if they have a nuclear bomb. Im don't drink the kool-aid that tells me that "scary brown people will use the bomb because they are stupid enough to beleive they will accomplish their mission magically after the retalliation leaves all their people dead". I think it's a rational choice for any nation without nuclear weapons to seek them in order to prevent random attacks from other nations. > Oh I don't think they're stupid at all. Incompetent or crazy at times, absolutely. Your characterization about cartoon level villainy is incorrect as it applies to me or any comments I've said. You literally are making more assertions of cartoon villany in the very post I'm replying to. It's tiring to deal with illogical zealots, take your kids, go to the front line, fight the war you want so my neighbors don't have to go off and die for your absurd and illogical stance.
protocolture 5mo ago
>We saw how devastating cheap missiles and drones were, and realized if we didn't do something now then Iran could continue stockpiling This is some crazy post hoc rationalisation. They met with Iran, they even had the outline of a deal. Trump was on the cusp of showing that he was a better deal maker than his predecessors (or at least trying to) Israel intervened via Israel aligned lobbyists and suggested they could easily headcap Iran and not need to have a deal at all. They tried and screwed up the strait. This wasnt some carefully planned "oh no the USA is really scared of cheap missiles we better for the good of the entire world stop Iran now". This was seat of the pants mercenary action on behalf of Israel, and its cost them. >Now it's fair, certainly, to speculate that Iran had no intention of closing the Strait or whatever, but their actions seem to indicate the opposite. Until Iran successfully develops a nuclear deterrent, it has literally 1 way of fighting back against the USA. Hurting the oil price. They did this in response to US provocation. Its insane to try and flip cause and effect here. Its like US haspara. >You can also ask why is it that Iran is the only country stockpiling these weapons systems, working on a nuclear weapon, chanting death to America, and whatnot? >stockpiling these weapons systems Heaps of reasons, including self defense. "Only country" is a stretch. >working on a nuclear weapon Only way to protect themselves against a larger power, as is the case with other small nuclear armed nations. >chanting death to America They are clearly intelligent and have good taste. >Maybe if they stopped doing those things we wouldn't be in this situation. Unlikely. Its threatening Israels domination of the region that offends the USA> >But why would they stop when the IRGC and religious fanatical leadership want to actually do those things? The USA and its religious fanatical leadership wouldnt recognise any change anyway. >There seems to be this impression that the Iranian government is like this peaceful government and oh if only the US would just stop bothering them, but that simply does not stand up to reality. The legitimate issues with the Iranian government that most people have, will not be resolved by bombing their civilian populace into the ground. There are more paths here than bomb them/dont.

by ericmay 5mo ago

sophacles 5mo ago

> If you want to phrase what that person wrote in this way "That person" was literally you. I replied to you and quoted you. Are you sure DBz is beneath you? > Now it's fair, certainly, to speculate that Iran had no intention of closing the Strait or whatever, but their actions seem to indicate the opposite. It indicates only that they wanted to have a stockpile of weapons... the most common reason for which is to defend the country from attacks. It seems perfectly reasonable that they would want a bunch of weapons in striking range of both attacks from the sea, and of hostile military installations (which were located specifically within range to strike Iran). In fact, given that the 2025 project explicitly targeted Iran it seems very likely that it was a bolstering of defenses (absent other evidence). > You can also ask why is it that Iran is the only country stockpiling these weapons systems, working on a nuclear weapon, chanting death to America, and whatnot? They aren't the only country doing any of these things. (semantics aside... maybe they are the only country stockpiling those brands of missles and drones.... but certainly not the only country stockpiling missles and drones, etc). > I think it's unfair to characterize this as wild speculation when anyone can read for themselves from reliable sources about Iran's activities. The wild speculation is intent. Each of the actions that you bring up have many possible motives. The idea of Iran attacking directly and initially is a change in M.O. for Iran, and such a claim requires evidence that points directly to it beyond "this one of many possible motives". > There seems to be this impression that the Iranian government is like this peaceful government and oh if only the US would just stop bothering them, but that simply does not stand up to reality I don't think may people are saying that at all. They are saying this war was unnecessary for any of the reasons that have thus far been stated because there is no evidence pointing to those reasons being true. The consequential evidence does not add up to a single conclusion, and the direct evidence has not been presented. You seem to have had an awful lot of the "Iran is irrationally evil and stupid" kool-aid. I don't beleive Iran is a "good guy", but I don't believe in war justifications without good evidence either, particularly not ones that rely on cartoon-level villainy.

ericmay 5mo ago
[flagged]
- sophacles 5mo ago
  > Do you really believe this? Anytime someone or some country does something, it only indicates that the specific action is taking place? > Here's one then: China has no intention of attacking Taiwan - it's just practicing its ability to blockade small island nations in case it comes under attack. By this logic the US war with Canada happened how many centuries after stockpiles of weapons were near the border? The direct conflict with the Warsaw Pact happened exactly which decade, given all the stockpiles of arms the US had on those border? China has had stockpiles of weapons ready to invade Taiwan for decades, when exactly did they do it? My point is - Most weapons stockpiles do not indicate imminent threat, and the do not require conflict. There needs to be evidence beyond "there's a stockpile of weapons". I have been asking for that evidence, for something that indicates that this is a situation different than the others. I really don't understand why you're so upset that I want actual evidence, not vague assertions like: > But I think you're taking an extremely charitable position which stands in stark contrast to Iran's actual activities and actions in the region. What activities are you fucking talking about. Show your work and bring receipts. I don't play "just trust me bro" on this shit. I saw enough of my generation come back dead, maimed and broken from the last time a conservative moron said "just trust me bro, they gonna do bad stuff". In fact - you clearly beleive this so much, go get on the front lines and catch bullets for it. Better you than someone who didn't sign up for this and actualy deserves to live. > This doesn't hold water since Iran has been working on these programs and projects since before 2025. October 7th, for example, which was a de facto attack by Iran on a US ally obviously occurred prior to 2025. Um... project 2025 is a plan for the repulican party, the goal of which was to begin action in 2025. The plan was named for (at the time of its writing) a future date. All this to say project 2025 plan was first publisht in early 2023. Simple facts are useful... see how i back up my statements with them. You should try one day, its nice. October 7 was not a direct attack by Iran. I promise you... the palestinians who are being genocided did the attack. Iran may have had a part funding and planning it, but they didn't use any of their stockpile of weapons to do that attack. I really don't see how this is evidence that Iran will be using a stockpile of weapons for a direct attack... particularly given that Iran generally does things via proxy. > It's not wild speculation though. You can look for yourself at Iran's activities. Why is it that only Iran has these problems? Why does Iran always need special treatment like the JCPOA? Why does Iran fund terrorist groups as recognized by the United States and European Union who launch missiles and blow people up, and kill and maim others? Do you just not care or pay attention to that stuff? Do you excuse it all away? It's truly something I find bewildering. The basic premise - that Iran is special in any of these regards, is fundamentally wrong. The US has funded plenty of terrorist organizations (recognized as such by the US and EU). The US launches plenty of missles that kill and maim children, etc. I do pay attention when Iran does it, and when the US does it, and when others do it too. I find all of it abhorrent. None of it justifies even more of the same though. It's even less of a justification for a full scale, poorly planned and excuted war that isn't accomplishing any one of it's stated goals. > But there is evidence haha. The drone and missile stockpiles and attacks, nuclear enrichment programs, providing Russia with drones to kill Ukrainians, funding terrorist groups, chanting death to America, killing 30,000 of their own peacefully protesting people. None of this is enough to justify intervention elsewhere, so its not evidence that justifies invading Iran. Whats the actual reason for going after Iran? Why didn't Bush use these arguments to go after North Korea before they had the bomb? > Do you want Iran to have a nuclear bomb? Do you think that's a good thing? I don't care if they have a nuclear bomb. Im don't drink the kool-aid that tells me that "scary brown people will use the bomb because they are stupid enough to beleive they will accomplish their mission magically after the retalliation leaves all their people dead". I think it's a rational choice for any nation without nuclear weapons to seek them in order to prevent random attacks from other nations. > Oh I don't think they're stupid at all. Incompetent or crazy at times, absolutely. Your characterization about cartoon level villainy is incorrect as it applies to me or any comments I've said. You literally are making more assertions of cartoon villany in the very post I'm replying to. It's tiring to deal with illogical zealots, take your kids, go to the front line, fight the war you want so my neighbors don't have to go off and die for your absurd and illogical stance.

protocolture 5mo ago

>We saw how devastating cheap missiles and drones were, and realized if we didn't do something now then Iran could continue stockpiling This is some crazy post hoc rationalisation. They met with Iran, they even had the outline of a deal. Trump was on the cusp of showing that he was a better deal maker than his predecessors (or at least trying to) Israel intervened via Israel aligned lobbyists and suggested they could easily headcap Iran and not need to have a deal at all. They tried and screwed up the strait. This wasnt some carefully planned "oh no the USA is really scared of cheap missiles we better for the good of the entire world stop Iran now". This was seat of the pants mercenary action on behalf of Israel, and its cost them. >Now it's fair, certainly, to speculate that Iran had no intention of closing the Strait or whatever, but their actions seem to indicate the opposite. Until Iran successfully develops a nuclear deterrent, it has literally 1 way of fighting back against the USA. Hurting the oil price. They did this in response to US provocation. Its insane to try and flip cause and effect here. Its like US haspara. >You can also ask why is it that Iran is the only country stockpiling these weapons systems, working on a nuclear weapon, chanting death to America, and whatnot? >stockpiling these weapons systems Heaps of reasons, including self defense. "Only country" is a stretch. >working on a nuclear weapon Only way to protect themselves against a larger power, as is the case with other small nuclear armed nations. >chanting death to America They are clearly intelligent and have good taste. >Maybe if they stopped doing those things we wouldn't be in this situation. Unlikely. Its threatening Israels domination of the region that offends the USA> >But why would they stop when the IRGC and religious fanatical leadership want to actually do those things? The USA and its religious fanatical leadership wouldnt recognise any change anyway. >There seems to be this impression that the Iranian government is like this peaceful government and oh if only the US would just stop bothering them, but that simply does not stand up to reality. The legitimate issues with the Iranian government that most people have, will not be resolved by bombing their civilian populace into the ground. There are more paths here than bomb them/dont.