3 ms·
> 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?
by 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.
- ceejayoz 5mo ago[flagged]
- ericmay 5mo agoHey. Two things. 1) I re-read that thread and realized that person was talking about ship traffic. Of course the analogy isn't great because of course yea that "road" is closed but roads are generally open. I thought they were talking about actual car traffic as a comment about gas prices. 2) Friendly advice but HN tends to skew one direction politically at least when it comes to this Iran war, but you are going to in fact find folks such as myself who disagree with you and others and voice good arguments in those disagreements. I'm an actual person, and I can tell you that for a fact and Dang will also tell you that because he's in the past emailed me directly and warned me about engaging in flame wars on the site, which I am earnestly trying to do while engaging in debate and discussion. I enjoy debating and discussing these topics, and using an LLM wouldn't serve any purpose for me. The fun is in the debate, and so if an LLM was doing that for me, I'd just not engage. Really, trying to be friendly here but it's probably not great if you just suspect people who disagree with you to be bots. I was incredibly confused when you (I think?) called me an LLM, hence the "Are you an LLM?" question/statement.
- ceejayoz 5mo ago> I re-read that thread and realized that person was talking about ship traffic. That person was you. You made the car analogy. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48195588 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48195588 The Hormuz context was further clarified for you, and I got a suggestion to… watch Ohio highway webcams. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48196113 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48196113 Twice! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48196301 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48196301 I don’t make LLM assertions frequently or lightly.
- ericmay 5mo agoThe confusion came from what we were talking about. I was comparing the ineffectiveness of the toll to me just saying hey car pay me to drive down my street. You interpreted that in a different way to compare the shipping traffic. Fair enough, I didn't catch that which is why my comments probably seem so weird - I thought what was being pointed out was the impact of the Strait being closed as in nobody can afford gas, there aren't any cars on the road! The reason the car analogy is bad in the way that you used it is because when you use it, you have to look at the entire map and you just see like yea some lane is blocked. An important one sure, but it's just one piece of the overall flow of traffic. You're saying hey look at how bad it is that this one lane is closed, and I'm looking at the broader picture there.