9 ms·

I'm having a hard time not cheering for "the little guy" here before realizing that everyone actively involved here is actually bad.

spwa4 5mo ago
Let's see ... One side is responsible for the "pax Americana" (but everyone here was born into the time period and so doesn't realize how exceptionally peaceful it is) One side is responsible for at least 20.000 but more likely 60.000 Iranian deaths, just this year (and everybody seems to be worried about the other side's "warcrimes") Not having big issues to figure out between these 2 who is the good guy ...
- mcphage 5mo ago
  > One side is responsible for the "pax Americana" (but everyone here was born into the time period and so doesn't realize how exceptionally peaceful it is) The Pax Americana is great, but given America was one of the countries to start this war, I don't know how much credit they can get for something they just ended.
  - spwa4 5mo ago
    [flagged]
    - mcphage 5mo ago
      > Iran wasn't exactly peaceful before February and attacked shipping regularly before then too. Oh and they attacked their own people, foreign nationals, Iranians abroad, and committed terror attacks abroad. None of the nations involved in this fight have been peaceful. That's why I'm talking about just this specific war. > I find declaring the Pax Americana dead somewhat premature. If America wins, then yeah, probably it'll limp on. If America loses, and Iran gets to dictate terms in the Strait of Hormuz, then I'm not sure how long it will last before other nations follow suit.
      - spwa4 5mo ago
        > None of the nations involved in this fight have been peaceful. That's why I'm talking about just this specific war. Only if you take the 5 year old's definition of peaceful (ie. "not attacking") Any reasonable moral position will of course mean that doing nothing, even if that means not attacking, is not necessarily a peaceful position. Nor is an attack necessarily not peaceful. For example, how Europe treated Ukraine before and during the war with Russia can easily be argued is not peaceful, it's helping the war criminal and it obviously did not lead to peace. The most generous interpretation you can make is that Europe was funding war. Only an idiot would call that a peaceful attitude. And for another example, what you wrote. > ... then I'm not sure how long it will last before other nations follow suit. Strange how you say the US is not peaceful, immediately followed by an argument why US's attack not only leads to peace, but the "non-attacking" nation must be defeated for peace. Which I'm sure we'll agree requires more violence. In fact your argument that Iran "defending itself" leads directly to a bigger war is accurate, I think. Iran is basically fighting for a resumption of most parts, especially the bad parts, of colonialism (one definition of colonialism would be "taxing foreign nations" after all. I like that definition because a US audience will immediately realize why that leads to war) That's the moral difficulty here: If the US wins, the west will be at peace with Iran. If Iran wins, war may very well be inevitable. In fact, war with a great many countries may be inevitable (Indonesia has already announced they want to tax the Malacca strait, and China has responded exactly the way you'd expect) But yes at this point you have the ridiculous soundbite: "war is peace". The irony of that slogan, of course, is that it comes from 1984, as an example of "doublethink" which was George Orwell criticizing communism and totalitarianism. But the slogan is always used to defend totalitarian states, usually ones on the warpath.
        mcphage 5mo ago
        > Only if you take the 5 year old's definition of peaceful (ie. "not attacking") I'm not sure what definition of "peaceful" you're going with here, if it includes any of the US, Iran, or Israel, prior to the start of this war. I guess I'm not as sophisticated as you. > Strange how you say the US is not peaceful, immediately followed by an argument why US's attack not only leads to peace, but the "non-attacking" nation must be defeated for peace. Which I'm sure we'll agree requires more violence. In fact your argument that Iran "defending itself" leads directly to a bigger war is accurate, I think. I'm not sure why you think that's strange. There was a status quo: Iran lets ships through the Strait of Hormuz. It works well enough. Then the US attacked, and that status quo is gone. If the US ends this war without re-establishing the status quo, then the world will be worse for everyone, and other nations bordering critical shipping lanes will be encouraged to follow suit. So it's better for everybody if the US wins. But the US doesn't have much leverage to do so, and so the situation is: the US started a war that it didn't need to start, but can't easily win. The foreign policies that built the Pax Americana have been abandoned.
  - ericd 4mo ago
    My understanding is that “Pax Americana” isn’t the absence of all war, it’s the absence of major war. So they haven’t just ended it.
    - 1attice 4mo ago
      So, more of a rhetorical flourish than actual peace, while America keeps meddling and firing. Got it.
      - ericd 4mo ago
        I'm not making this up to make excuses for the US' behavior. Pax Britannica and Pax Romana weren't entirely peaceful either. Pax Romana had an unusual absence of civil war, but near-constant conflict at the edges of the empire. Pax Britannica refers to the absence of wars between great powers, but did have some brutal colonial conflict - the Opium wars, scramble for Africa, etc. Pax Americana has been very peaceful compared to WW1 and 2.
- barbazoo 5mo ago
  > One side is responsible for at least 20.000 but more likely 60.000 Iranian deaths, just this year (and everybody seems to be worried about the other side's "warcrimes") I can see people attributing this to the US as well after reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta....
  - spwa4 4mo ago
    We could be glib: when actually reading through that page, it's pretty obvious that the Iranian revolution was a leftist revolution (and Moscow was supporting a side, the side that "won"). But was anyone really expecting leftists to take responsibility for the consequences of what they did? Oh and it was Britain that was supporting the Shah. The US was involved, mostly to counter the KGB, but not much at all. I totally don't understand why Britain gets a free pass. And you'd think communists would stop supporting the mullahs, especially after the killings. You'd be wrong: http://marxist.com/imperialists-and-pahlavis-hands-off-iran.htm http://marxist.com/imperialists-and-pahlavis-hands-off-iran.... Sometimes one gets the impression the left now is reduced to ... well. Iran's government massacres protestors, tortures women, represses it's own people, has committed genocides and tries actively to commit more genocides, attacks and murders innocent people outside of Iran and makes weapons for Moscow. Leftists, at least the ones on online fora, care about exactly 1 of those things.
- queenkjuul 5mo ago
  Ah yes, the exceptional peace of, let me check... 1.5M dead Koreans 3M dead Vietnamese 500,000-1,000,000 dead or displaced Iraqis Coups in Honduras, Chile, Haiti, Guatemala, Venezuela, Syria, Libya... Pax Americana my ass. Tell that to the global south
  - jim33442 4mo ago
    [flagged]
    - arvid-lind 4mo ago
      aka, Them.
      - jim33442 4mo ago
        Yes them
  - Sabinus 4mo ago
    The world wasn't exactly a kind place before Pax Americana. If you check the stats, the American era does pretty well for peace and prosperity, and it's not realistic to expect the Americans would oversee a conflict-free utopia.
    - ebbi 4mo ago
      > oversee a conflict-free utopia Oversee is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
    - tdeck 4mo ago
      So in other words, while America is starting the most wars, it somehow gets credit for the hypothetical wars that weren't started? The assumption being that the natural state of the world is to have a world war every few years?
      - spwa4 4mo ago
- jim33442 4mo ago
  I'm fine with Pax Americana, even if you call it American imperialism, but this whole involvement with Israel and its problems is not in our interest. It's abundantly clear that we have traitors in our government working for another country. Sure Iran has a terrible regime, not supposed to be our problem though.
  - thomassmith65 4mo ago
    I'm no supporter of Trump, but the Iranian regime plotting to assassinate an American president - if true - poses a problem for America: https://justice.gov/opa/pr/iranian-intelligence-agent-convicted-terrorism-and-murder-hire-connection-foiled-plot https://justice.gov/opa/pr/iranian-intelligence-agent-convic...
  - thrance 4mo ago
    Not the first time I've seen this absurd "I'm fine with American imperialism" take on here. You must realize that if Iran is such as it is now, it's purely a reaction to the authoritarian regime of the Shah previously used to further American interests, and then to the sanctions imposed on the nation. Those 30K protesters that were murdered are a direct consequence of American imperialism. It's like suffocating someone for decades and then criticizing how they breath. And same goes for Cuba, Venezuela, etc. The situation can't improve while the USA are doing everything they can to antagonize these places, isolate them, alienate them from their neighbors. Seeing ruthless authoritarians prevail there is completely expected.
    - spwa4 4mo ago
      This sounds so incredible ... do you seriously believe that? "it's purely a reaction to the authoritarian regime of the Shah previously used to further American interests" Seriously? THAT is what you think Khomeini wanted and his grandson or whoever wants now? "And same goes for Cuba, Venezuela, etc." Oh, you're a "communism really only ever wanted good things for it's people, and it's America's fault they started shooting their own citizens" ... got it.
    - jim33442 4mo ago
- tyrrvk 4mo ago
  people are missing the 3rd actor in this trifecta/shit sandwich - Israel. Its the intentional bad faith actor who'll do whatever it takes to sink any peace talks - including genocide/invading Lebanon etc etc etc.
- adjejmxbdjdn 4mo ago
  The U.S. will almost certainly be responsible for an order of magnitude more deaths with the incredible costs that they’ve placed on the whole world just through the higher cost of oil. And we haven’t even gotten to the impacts of fertilizer shortages during growing season. And either way, how is replacing the leader of a terrible regime, with his even more hardline son, help with the killing in any ways? The pro Democracy forces in Iran have been completely discredited and the one best opportunity they would have had to reclaim their country, during what was likely to be a contested transfer of power if the 80+ year old Ayatollah had passed naturally, has been lost. Instead the U.S. allowed the Iranian regime to transfer power without any challenges, transfer power to a guy who is the son of the old Ayatollah and even more close aligned with the IRGC, and has destroyed the pro-Democracy bases in Iran while strengthening the orthodoxy because the U.S. has been blowing up cities, where the anti-regime forces live, while the rural areas, where the regime’s supporters live, have been largely untouched.
  - tdeck 4mo ago
    One of Israel's earliest airstrikes was a prison Iran used to hold dissidents https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp8621gnknjo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp8621gnknjo Calling in a massive airstrike on a prison where the opposition is being held isn't exactly the way to support the opposition.
    - throw37984 4mo ago
      [flagged]
      - tdeck 4mo ago
        Did you not have enough tokens to read the article?
        throw37984 4mo ago
        Oh, I’ve read it. Including this gem: "When you are in prison, it becomes your home. When I heard this morning that Evin prison was bombed, I felt a sharp pain in my heart. When I was released, I left a piece of my heart there." Racism really makes people dumb.
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
lawn 5mo ago
You can have two thoughts at the same time. It's good that Iran is teaching USA and Israel a lesson, while Iran (also) being bad guys.
- hasperdi 5mo ago
  Unfortunately they'll learn nothing. The rest of the world however... have to endure the consequences
  - Sabinus 4mo ago
    They will learn. If the Strait remains closed for two months it's a recession. The mid-terms will be a bloodbath.
    - JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
      > If the Strait remains closed for two months it's a recession Who is forecasting this?
      - toomuchtodo 4mo ago
        https://www.woodmac.com/press-releases/strait-of-hormuz-closure-risks-greatest-global-energy-supply-shock-in-decades/ https://www.woodmac.com/press-releases/strait-of-hormuz-clos... If Wood Mackenzie is not your cup of tea, lots of other resources with a search of “recession strait of Hormuz” keywords. The only reason we’re not in a global recession yet was because China paused oil imports, due to their >1B barrel strategic reserves. https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Chinas-Oil-Buying-Pause-Wont-Last-Forever.html https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Chinas-Oil-Buying-Paus... https://www.kpler.com/blog/why-the-real-oil-shock-may-only-begin-when-china-returns https://www.kpler.com/blog/why-the-real-oil-shock-may-only-b...
        JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
        That forecasts a global recession if "the Strait remains largely closed through the end of 2026." Even under that scenario, which would emerge after the Strait had been closed for over ten months, the forecaster only sees "US GDP growth" falling "below 1%," i.e. not a recession. (I'm ignoring the fact that the Strait has already been closed for more than 2 months.)
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]

spwa4 5mo ago

Let's see ... One side is responsible for the "pax Americana" (but everyone here was born into the time period and so doesn't realize how exceptionally peaceful it is) One side is responsible for at least 20.000 but more likely 60.000 Iranian deaths, just this year (and everybody seems to be worried about the other side's "warcrimes") Not having big issues to figure out between these 2 who is the good guy ...

mcphage 5mo ago
> One side is responsible for the "pax Americana" (but everyone here was born into the time period and so doesn't realize how exceptionally peaceful it is) The Pax Americana is great, but given America was one of the countries to start this war, I don't know how much credit they can get for something they just ended.
- spwa4 5mo ago
  [flagged]
  - mcphage 5mo ago
    > Iran wasn't exactly peaceful before February and attacked shipping regularly before then too. Oh and they attacked their own people, foreign nationals, Iranians abroad, and committed terror attacks abroad. None of the nations involved in this fight have been peaceful. That's why I'm talking about just this specific war. > I find declaring the Pax Americana dead somewhat premature. If America wins, then yeah, probably it'll limp on. If America loses, and Iran gets to dictate terms in the Strait of Hormuz, then I'm not sure how long it will last before other nations follow suit.
    - spwa4 5mo ago
      > None of the nations involved in this fight have been peaceful. That's why I'm talking about just this specific war. Only if you take the 5 year old's definition of peaceful (ie. "not attacking") Any reasonable moral position will of course mean that doing nothing, even if that means not attacking, is not necessarily a peaceful position. Nor is an attack necessarily not peaceful. For example, how Europe treated Ukraine before and during the war with Russia can easily be argued is not peaceful, it's helping the war criminal and it obviously did not lead to peace. The most generous interpretation you can make is that Europe was funding war. Only an idiot would call that a peaceful attitude. And for another example, what you wrote. > ... then I'm not sure how long it will last before other nations follow suit. Strange how you say the US is not peaceful, immediately followed by an argument why US's attack not only leads to peace, but the "non-attacking" nation must be defeated for peace. Which I'm sure we'll agree requires more violence. In fact your argument that Iran "defending itself" leads directly to a bigger war is accurate, I think. Iran is basically fighting for a resumption of most parts, especially the bad parts, of colonialism (one definition of colonialism would be "taxing foreign nations" after all. I like that definition because a US audience will immediately realize why that leads to war) That's the moral difficulty here: If the US wins, the west will be at peace with Iran. If Iran wins, war may very well be inevitable. In fact, war with a great many countries may be inevitable (Indonesia has already announced they want to tax the Malacca strait, and China has responded exactly the way you'd expect) But yes at this point you have the ridiculous soundbite: "war is peace". The irony of that slogan, of course, is that it comes from 1984, as an example of "doublethink" which was George Orwell criticizing communism and totalitarianism. But the slogan is always used to defend totalitarian states, usually ones on the warpath.
      - mcphage 5mo ago
        > Only if you take the 5 year old's definition of peaceful (ie. "not attacking") I'm not sure what definition of "peaceful" you're going with here, if it includes any of the US, Iran, or Israel, prior to the start of this war. I guess I'm not as sophisticated as you. > Strange how you say the US is not peaceful, immediately followed by an argument why US's attack not only leads to peace, but the "non-attacking" nation must be defeated for peace. Which I'm sure we'll agree requires more violence. In fact your argument that Iran "defending itself" leads directly to a bigger war is accurate, I think. I'm not sure why you think that's strange. There was a status quo: Iran lets ships through the Strait of Hormuz. It works well enough. Then the US attacked, and that status quo is gone. If the US ends this war without re-establishing the status quo, then the world will be worse for everyone, and other nations bordering critical shipping lanes will be encouraged to follow suit. So it's better for everybody if the US wins. But the US doesn't have much leverage to do so, and so the situation is: the US started a war that it didn't need to start, but can't easily win. The foreign policies that built the Pax Americana have been abandoned.
- ericd 4mo ago
  My understanding is that “Pax Americana” isn’t the absence of all war, it’s the absence of major war. So they haven’t just ended it.
  - 1attice 4mo ago
    So, more of a rhetorical flourish than actual peace, while America keeps meddling and firing. Got it.
    - ericd 4mo ago
      I'm not making this up to make excuses for the US' behavior. Pax Britannica and Pax Romana weren't entirely peaceful either. Pax Romana had an unusual absence of civil war, but near-constant conflict at the edges of the empire. Pax Britannica refers to the absence of wars between great powers, but did have some brutal colonial conflict - the Opium wars, scramble for Africa, etc. Pax Americana has been very peaceful compared to WW1 and 2.
barbazoo 5mo ago
> One side is responsible for at least 20.000 but more likely 60.000 Iranian deaths, just this year (and everybody seems to be worried about the other side's "warcrimes") I can see people attributing this to the US as well after reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta....
- spwa4 4mo ago
  We could be glib: when actually reading through that page, it's pretty obvious that the Iranian revolution was a leftist revolution (and Moscow was supporting a side, the side that "won"). But was anyone really expecting leftists to take responsibility for the consequences of what they did? Oh and it was Britain that was supporting the Shah. The US was involved, mostly to counter the KGB, but not much at all. I totally don't understand why Britain gets a free pass. And you'd think communists would stop supporting the mullahs, especially after the killings. You'd be wrong: http://marxist.com/imperialists-and-pahlavis-hands-off-iran.htm http://marxist.com/imperialists-and-pahlavis-hands-off-iran.... Sometimes one gets the impression the left now is reduced to ... well. Iran's government massacres protestors, tortures women, represses it's own people, has committed genocides and tries actively to commit more genocides, attacks and murders innocent people outside of Iran and makes weapons for Moscow. Leftists, at least the ones on online fora, care about exactly 1 of those things.
queenkjuul 5mo ago
Ah yes, the exceptional peace of, let me check... 1.5M dead Koreans 3M dead Vietnamese 500,000-1,000,000 dead or displaced Iraqis Coups in Honduras, Chile, Haiti, Guatemala, Venezuela, Syria, Libya... Pax Americana my ass. Tell that to the global south
- jim33442 4mo ago
  [flagged]
  - arvid-lind 4mo ago
    aka, Them.
    - jim33442 4mo ago
      Yes them
- Sabinus 4mo ago
  The world wasn't exactly a kind place before Pax Americana. If you check the stats, the American era does pretty well for peace and prosperity, and it's not realistic to expect the Americans would oversee a conflict-free utopia.
  - ebbi 4mo ago
    > oversee a conflict-free utopia Oversee is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
  - tdeck 4mo ago
    So in other words, while America is starting the most wars, it somehow gets credit for the hypothetical wars that weren't started? The assumption being that the natural state of the world is to have a world war every few years?
    - spwa4 4mo ago
jim33442 4mo ago
I'm fine with Pax Americana, even if you call it American imperialism, but this whole involvement with Israel and its problems is not in our interest. It's abundantly clear that we have traitors in our government working for another country. Sure Iran has a terrible regime, not supposed to be our problem though.
- thomassmith65 4mo ago
  I'm no supporter of Trump, but the Iranian regime plotting to assassinate an American president - if true - poses a problem for America: https://justice.gov/opa/pr/iranian-intelligence-agent-convicted-terrorism-and-murder-hire-connection-foiled-plot https://justice.gov/opa/pr/iranian-intelligence-agent-convic...
- thrance 4mo ago
  Not the first time I've seen this absurd "I'm fine with American imperialism" take on here. You must realize that if Iran is such as it is now, it's purely a reaction to the authoritarian regime of the Shah previously used to further American interests, and then to the sanctions imposed on the nation. Those 30K protesters that were murdered are a direct consequence of American imperialism. It's like suffocating someone for decades and then criticizing how they breath. And same goes for Cuba, Venezuela, etc. The situation can't improve while the USA are doing everything they can to antagonize these places, isolate them, alienate them from their neighbors. Seeing ruthless authoritarians prevail there is completely expected.
  - spwa4 4mo ago
    This sounds so incredible ... do you seriously believe that? "it's purely a reaction to the authoritarian regime of the Shah previously used to further American interests" Seriously? THAT is what you think Khomeini wanted and his grandson or whoever wants now? "And same goes for Cuba, Venezuela, etc." Oh, you're a "communism really only ever wanted good things for it's people, and it's America's fault they started shooting their own citizens" ... got it.
  - jim33442 4mo ago
tyrrvk 4mo ago
people are missing the 3rd actor in this trifecta/shit sandwich - Israel. Its the intentional bad faith actor who'll do whatever it takes to sink any peace talks - including genocide/invading Lebanon etc etc etc.
adjejmxbdjdn 4mo ago
The U.S. will almost certainly be responsible for an order of magnitude more deaths with the incredible costs that they’ve placed on the whole world just through the higher cost of oil. And we haven’t even gotten to the impacts of fertilizer shortages during growing season. And either way, how is replacing the leader of a terrible regime, with his even more hardline son, help with the killing in any ways? The pro Democracy forces in Iran have been completely discredited and the one best opportunity they would have had to reclaim their country, during what was likely to be a contested transfer of power if the 80+ year old Ayatollah had passed naturally, has been lost. Instead the U.S. allowed the Iranian regime to transfer power without any challenges, transfer power to a guy who is the son of the old Ayatollah and even more close aligned with the IRGC, and has destroyed the pro-Democracy bases in Iran while strengthening the orthodoxy because the U.S. has been blowing up cities, where the anti-regime forces live, while the rural areas, where the regime’s supporters live, have been largely untouched.
- tdeck 4mo ago
  One of Israel's earliest airstrikes was a prison Iran used to hold dissidents https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp8621gnknjo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp8621gnknjo Calling in a massive airstrike on a prison where the opposition is being held isn't exactly the way to support the opposition.
  - throw37984 4mo ago
    [flagged]
    - tdeck 4mo ago
      Did you not have enough tokens to read the article?
      - throw37984 4mo ago
        Oh, I’ve read it. Including this gem: "When you are in prison, it becomes your home. When I heard this morning that Evin prison was bombed, I felt a sharp pain in my heart. When I was released, I left a piece of my heart there." Racism really makes people dumb.
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]

lawn 5mo ago

You can have two thoughts at the same time. It's good that Iran is teaching USA and Israel a lesson, while Iran (also) being bad guys.

hasperdi 5mo ago
Unfortunately they'll learn nothing. The rest of the world however... have to endure the consequences
- Sabinus 4mo ago
  They will learn. If the Strait remains closed for two months it's a recession. The mid-terms will be a bloodbath.
  - JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
    > If the Strait remains closed for two months it's a recession Who is forecasting this?
    - toomuchtodo 4mo ago
      https://www.woodmac.com/press-releases/strait-of-hormuz-closure-risks-greatest-global-energy-supply-shock-in-decades/ https://www.woodmac.com/press-releases/strait-of-hormuz-clos... If Wood Mackenzie is not your cup of tea, lots of other resources with a search of “recession strait of Hormuz” keywords. The only reason we’re not in a global recession yet was because China paused oil imports, due to their >1B barrel strategic reserves. https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Chinas-Oil-Buying-Pause-Wont-Last-Forever.html https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Chinas-Oil-Buying-Paus... https://www.kpler.com/blog/why-the-real-oil-shock-may-only-begin-when-china-returns https://www.kpler.com/blog/why-the-real-oil-shock-may-only-b...
      - JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
        That forecasts a global recession if "the Strait remains largely closed through the end of 2026." Even under that scenario, which would emerge after the Strait had been closed for over ten months, the forecaster only sees "US GDP growth" falling "below 1%," i.e. not a recession. (I'm ignoring the fact that the Strait has already been closed for more than 2 months.)

deleted 4mo ago

[deleted]