FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
And every gimmick hungry yob
Digging gold from rock n roll
Grabs the mic to tell us
he'll die before he's sold
But I believe in this
And it's been tested by research
He who fucks nuns
Will later join the church
User ID: 195
The convenient thing about Trump is that you know he's lying because he'll say two entirely different things in the same day.
I'd like to see one, because it would allow for smaller updates that don't fit into broader conversations already existing.
That was always the dumbest part of Dune though, wasn't it?
The idea of targeted bombings is a lot like the idea of shooting people in the legs, the old canard that emerges after every iffy police shooting.
The reality is that you can't reliably shoot people in the legs and when you do you might kill them anyway, so we wouldn't encourage police officers to think they can shoot people in the legs to disable them because they'll end up killing more people shooting them when they don't want to kill them.
Similarly, innocent people die in bombing campaigns. Pretending they don't encourages us to bomb more people and cause more innocent deaths. We need to stop pretending we can target perfectly.
Citing Hitler in international law precedent is kinda iffy, as the modern international order is essentially built on a repudiation of Hitler and Imperial Japan. The starting postulate of modern international law is: "Hitler was bad, don't be Hitler."
See my longer reply below to omw for more detail, but this is a long running position in the American approach to international law and morality, especially illustrated by the two World Wars. The Lusitania was attacked, and that was a national tragedy and an affront to American sovereignty, there's no question that Germany would not have been seen as justified if they attacked a gun works in Missouri. Pearl Harbor was a "day that will live in infamy," it was a bad thing that Japan did that, despite the United States taking explicitly anti-Japanese policy positions in the Pacific prior Pearl Harbor.
-
Yes, if not more-so, though I think it's better framed as "NATO" or "The Western Bloc" more broadly than just the U.S.A as countries like the UK, France, Poland and Germany have also played important roles in the process. Significant numbers of volunteers/mercenaries from western countries have fought on the Ukrainian side, and no effort has been made to prevent them from transiting to Ukraine. The U.S.A. has provided targeting information, restrained Ukraine from hitting certain targets at certain times and given the green light at others, provided training, and encouraged them to continue fighting. Russia has covertly attempted to hit shipments in Europe, and I'm still not convinced Russia wasn't involved in destroying a Tennessee munitions plant that killed sixteen people, but Russia has stopped short of bombing shipments across the Ukrainian border.
-
Historically, no, that has not been considered a justification for direct action against a state sponsor. Rumors of Russian arms and intelligence supplied to the Taliban did not lead to strikes against Russia. Chinese "Volunteers" in Korea did not lead to bombing of Red China in the Korean War, nor did we strike against the major Communist bloc nations during Vietnam, nor did the USSR strike America during their own Afghan adventure. The major powers have mostly agreed that they are all allowed to sell weapons and give equipment and information to proxy fighters, even if those proxy fighters are in direct conflict with another major power, without it igniting a major power conflict.
Now, the operative point there doing a lot of heavy lifting is that we're mostly talking about "major powers," and Iran may or may not qualify. Right now Iran is fighting for its sovereignty, trying to avoid becoming a fake country like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, or Lebanon where everyone (USA, Israel, Iran itself) has agreed that everyone can launch limited bombing campaign on occasion without it qualifying as a "war." Sovereignty and the laws of war have degraded, there's a big list of countries that lack the kind of sovereignty where the international community appear to have decided that a limited bombing campaign is allowed whenever another country judges it necessary.
I am extremely skeptical of your claim that proxy attacks do not count.
It seems extraordinarily obvious that proxies do not count, based on common international practice. Russia isn't nuking NATO over Ukraine, and in Vietnam and Korea the US didn't nuke the USSR or China.
Exactly, if the war is worth fighting then it's worth killing some civilians over. If the war isn't worth fighting, than it isn't. Lying about the strike is lame and stupid, but what more do we expect?
I feel the same way about the attitude around the American dead. Trump and Hegseth appear to be accidentally telling the truth here. If this war was just and a good idea, you have to be willing to trade a dozen dead Americans for an Ayatollah, or you're just not serious about it.
Thus the interesting argument, being had below, is: is this war a good idea? Is it just? Is it likely to succeed? Because the answers to those questions answer the question about the civilian and military deaths and costs of the war.
Depends how you score Okinawa as part of Japan, no?
And certainly Japanese ground forces were joined in battle before the surrender.
Well that's another objection to op bringing Machiavelli into it...
I think the fear of the USA also more or less peaked after the Axis of Evil speech and Iraq invasion. For twenty years American politicians have made bombing Iran everything from a punchline to a campaign promise. They knew it was coming and didn't come to the table. My worry is that at this point, the surviving leadership decides that a bomb is the only path to security.
Being afraid of the bully can make you give in, it can also make you bring a gun to school.
Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated...
I always read this as Love > Fear in and of itself, but Love can easily turn into Hate, while Fear will not turn to Hate as easily and is therefore preferable to Love.
But I guess it takes all sorts.
My father, who grew up a witness before leaving the faith when he went to college, would tell you that the poor witnesses get favors off the rich witnesses, and the rich witnesses take advantage of the poor witnesses. It's like intentionally joining an ethnic minority!
My uncles and cousins over the years have stuck us with all kinds of Witness contractors, at varying levels of competency. They make sure their co-religionists get work! But, they would often call my dad and yell at him for paying the Witness contractors too much, telling him if my father paid them that much then they would start expecting that much from my uncle. They exploit the poor witnesses!
It's mostly just like a serious version of any other sect of Prots. There's a sense of community, there's a strong religious set of teachings and morals, there's family. The theology doesn't seem any stupider, really, than most. Certainly less difficult than Mormonism.
And of course there's the missionaries, door knockers will get some people by nature who happen to be at a vulnerable moment. A family friend became a witness when he was involved in some unfortunate dealings with some unfortunate characters, and one day his car was set on fire by way of persuasion. Well his wife told him to clean up his life that very day or she was leaving with the kids. That very day a knock came at the door, and a copy of Watchtower in his hand.
It's sort of like the Taxi theory of marriage in Sex and the City: men are like Taxis, you can wave at them all you want when they are off duty or have passengers, but the moment the light comes on the first woman to wave at them can get in. The same goes for a man looking for a wife, you can date a man for years and if he isn't ready for marriage he won't propose while once he is ready for marriage he will propose to the next woman he dates, or in this case for a religion. If you happen to run into the Witnesses at a time in your life where you need a religion, you will become a Witness, just as surely as you would have become a Mormon or a Baptist or a Muslim. The Witnesses (and the Mormons) stack the odds in their favor by constantly recruiting, they are more likely to run into a person ready to adopt a religion by constantly Witnessing to those around them.
There's an entire half of my family that are Witnesses, yeah. I can go into the religious history of the family FiveHour if you'd like but I'm not sure it's particularly interesting.
and/or the Kurds invading.
Kurds don't really invade. It's not their thing. Kurds are basically hillbillies, they hold onto Kurdish majority areas easily enough, but there's no amount of weapons you can give them to get them to march on Tehran.
In terms of ability, I agree with the others that the US seems to be pretty good at taking out speedboats.
There's a big difference between taking out a random speedboat, and taking out every single speedboat.
Maduro’s party preferred making a deal with America to dying.
Has Delcy actually done anything that benefits America and goes against their interests? So far it seems like sanctions shuffling or limited sanctions relief with oil being redirected to US refineries. I'm not plugged into what the flow of drugs looks like at a statistical level, but it sure doesn't feel like there are fewer drugs around.
If Iran was ruled by people with the character and belief system of EU bureaucrats they would have surrendered on the day, shaking their heads.
Has this ever come true? The same was said about Ukraine wasn't it, that surely they would surrender their fake bullshit country? I don't know what country has ever actually surrendered under bombardment without even a threat of ground invasion.
Which eliminates the entire idea of inspiring fear to avoid hatred.
Keep reading
Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated, which will always be as long as he abstains from the property of his citizens and subjects and from their women. But when it is necessary for him to proceed against the life of someone, he must do it on proper justification and for manifest cause...
Russia sells oil, reducing the global supply of oil benefits their bottom line.
And there's a big difference between the number of missiles required to make it physically impossible to transit the strait, and the number required to make it too risky to want to transit it.
A guy on his porch with a shotgun can't stop my bicycling club from riding down the road, he can't shoot all 20 of us before we get through! We'd probably change the route, regardless.
I pray for my loved ones, unfortunately on both sides of the guns here.
In WWII, the same situation lead my ancestors to become Jehovah's Witnesses.
Many Iranians in America had said to me before the war, for years in the past, that if Trump just dropped a few bombs on Iran and killed Khamenei it would be the best thing for Iran. Let's not totally ignore that things could improve over time even if right now it seems unlikely. The American and French and Russian and Chinese revolutions all seemed certain to fail at different times.
Iran has done some of that recently: what did the Azeris do to them?
In pure utilitarian terms Iran can inflict more pain on the United States (and by extension Israel) by attacking parts of the world economy than it can by attacking Americans. In two weeks Americans as a whole have suffered more from gas prices jumping $.75 than they have from six or a dozen dead servicemen. Bombing other countries harms the world economy.
I also think the IRGC, just like every other bomb commander in the world, is under the impression that the enemy population in the Gulf is uniquely weak and cowardly and will surrender as the result of bombing. This despite knowing that brave Iranians will get angry and rally to the flag under enemy bombing.
So, assuming for a second that the Trump administration is telling the truth, the Iranians are two weeks from the bomb in perpetuity?
- Prev
- Next

THE OUTCOME OF THE BATTLE OF STANCILGRAD STARTS TO BECOME APPARENT
Jumping back to the pre-war CW topics. There was a lot of debate during Operation Metro Surge about the wisdom of the tactics and choices being made in Minneapolis. We won't be able to really assess the results for years if not decades, but we're getting some early returns. After the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, Greg Bovino was removed from Minneapolis and there was debate over whether this represented a pullback by ICE, or just a shuffling of personnel. Politico reports a decline in immigration cases.
So we're seeing a drop in cases, related to a shift in administration priorities. I noticed less ICE in the news, and local activist networks were talking about ICE less, but they still seemed to be around and there was no declaration that things were cooling off. Trump has periodically made noises about laying off of workers in certain industries, but that’s never been really confirmed as official policy. Statistics and reporting now seem to be confirming a pullback after the deaths in Minneapolis. Obviously, some are not such big fans of this. Elsewhere in Washington
((Prince, notably, had this to say about the recent Iran war:
It remains to be seen what Mar’Kwayne and his homeboys will do when they are put in charge of DHS. Possibly, given that we are now on a war footing with the largest state sponsor of terrorism, he will have other priorities altogether. I suspect the confirmation hearings will be an opportunity for Democrats to put Mar’Kwayne on tape about ICE policies, and to force Republicans to vote on the record before the midterms.
But if we see a sustained pullback in ICE raids along the lines of Metro Surge, and a net reduction in deportations, we have to call this a victory on the part of the protestors. Renee Good and Alex Pretti will have been successfully, if not exactly willingly, martyred for the cause. The whistles, the Telegram chats, the aggressive policy of confrontation with authorities, will have at least temporarily forced the administration to change course. A sufficiently determined and brave protest movement was not defeated. Love them or hate them, they appear to have succeeded, and others interested in changing American policy should take note. If enough people are willing to put themselves in the gunsights, the government will not be willing to slaughter Americans wholesale.
Does this reflect a fundamentally bad plan in Metro Surge? What adjustments can be made to neutralize this kind of aggressive protest against ICE? Does this reflect an underlying shift in public opinion?
My theory remains as ever that the plurality of Americans would broadly like to see immigration normalized, with illegal immigrants removed or otherwise punished, but that they are unwilling to accept the steps necessary to get there. So we're trapped in a permanent state of exception.
More options
Context Copy link