VIM
1d ago
It's not a Kafka trap, it's an army sitting outside a castle building siege weapons shouting "when these are done are we'll kill you all with these weapons." You attack before they are done, and "wow that was fucking close."
Alternatively, it's seeing a big fortress, choosing to attack it directly from the front, taking heavy casualties, failing to take the fortress and then going "Whew, we sure took heavy casualties but if we had waited longer for them to improve their defenses then we would have lost even harder" while failing to consider the possibility of attacking from a less defensible angle or even avoiding the fortress entirely.
VIM
1d ago
Both the Germans and the British used indiscriminate blockades as a tactic during both world wars. Is Winston Churchill basically a pirate serial killer mass shooter?
An interesting variation on the "It's not my job to educate you" line.
Actually, it was an interesting variation on "Sorry but I'm not your research assistant".
Of course here, you could have simply used the "cut and paste" function to quote the relevant parts of the articles you linked to. Which you didn't. Because you couldn't. Because your sources don't support your claims.
Of course, here you could have simply used basic reading skills to analyze the sources and, if I were making untrue claims, refute them using said sources.
But you aren't interested in making an actual argument, you're interested in wasting time.
My conclusion is simple: your factual claims are false and you are tedious.
VIM
6d ago
I'm afraid I'm not your professor.
Consider reading some books, even perhaps an article or two before engaging with a topic you clearly have zero knowledge of next time
VIM
6d ago
One persistent shitposter can have bigger effect than all lone wolf shooters and bombers combined
Depends on who the shooter shoots. If Thomas Matthew Crooks had slightly better aim we'd live in a radically different world
VIM
7d ago
There is nothing shown so far to imply that they have the capacity. So far - every launcher they use is single use only.
If the USAF is so incredible at hunting launchers then why were they unable to take out Houthi launch capabilities after over a month of total air supremacy during Rough Rider?
VIM
7d ago
Ok, I think I understand your position now. And I am extremely skeptical. Please show me your evidence that (1) on or about December 8, 2024, Syria "pretty much unconditionally surrendered" to Israel;
and (2) shortly thereafter "Israel bombed Syria into oblivion"
I disagree, but in any event, it sounds like you are conceding that Israel has not attempted to annex or absorb Jordan or area A, correct?
Hitler didn't attempt to annex Vichy either but that might have changed had he won the war. Israel has, for it's entire existence (with the partial exception of the Rabin-Sharon era), been in an unending state of attempting to absorb territory from one or more of it's neighbors.
But the fact that they're currently "only" annexing Area C kind of proves my point: The PLO tried making peace with Israel and they were rewarded with annexation, whereas Hezbollah hit them in the nose and were given withdrawal from southern Lebanon. The weakest, most conciliatory neighbors are the ones Israel robs land from first.
I am extremely skeptical of this claim as well. Please show me your evidence. TIA.
VIM
7d ago
Looking at Ural crude prices I'd say that Shaheds sent to Iran pay for themselves in increased oil revenue, though we're nowhere near the point where the Iranians have any need to import Shaheds
VIM
7d ago
That does sound annoying, but a coast / strait seems easier to police than a bunch of caves on land. How long can Iran disrupt a very important shipping lane while the US navy is hanging around? France just sent an aircraft carrier to the Mediterranean and the UK is sending an air defense warship.
Between Operation Prosperity Guardian and Operation Rough Rider it's pretty clear that the answer is "basically indefinitely".
VIM
7d ago
Hezbollah just launched the largest volley of the war a few hours ago so clearly you've got a funny definition of "destroyed"
If Iran is "destroyed" yet they continue lobbing missiles and drones at every country with an American presence and the Strait remains closed weeks if not months later then clearly being "destroyed" doesn't count for much
VIM
7d ago
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.
It's not like Maduro was incredibly uncooperative either, he was even helping out with deportations. I've yet to hear anyone explain what major concession Delcy made that Maduro was obstinate on.
Who knows, maybe it was actually a rescue operation to free Maduro from the Cubans, give him an easily beaten trial to avoid the resulting political turmoil of flipping on a bunch of big public pledges (that the real elite in Caracas don't give a damn about) and then return him once things have calmed down.
VIM
10d ago
This is very recent and I don't remember hearing anything about this in the news. To be clear, in your view (1) after December 8, 2024, Syria took essentially no aggressive actions towards Israel; (2) Syria fully cooperated with any demands made by Israel and did not resist Israel in any way; and (3) nonetheless, Israel bombed Syria into oblivion.
Is that your position?
Essentially, yes.
Edit: Looking back on your post, it seems you have defined "unconditional surrender" a bit differently than how I would understand it. It seems that in your view "unconditional surrender" doesn't foreclose the possibility of (1) continued attacks by the party who has unconditionally surrendered; (2) preparation for future military strikes by the party who has unconditionally surrendered; or (3) refusal to cooperate by the party who has unconditionally surrendered.
No, I would define "unconditional surrender" as a state in which the party surrendering allows the other party totally unconditional access and control of their country without any attempt at resistance or in this case, actively preventing anyone else in the country from attempting to resist.
I'm a little confused by your response. Do you dispute that Israel has NOT attempted to absorb or annex any parts of Jordan, Egypt, or Area A?
Israel did attempt to absorb the Sinai, they constructed several resorts during their occupation there and it was the preeminent position among the Israeli public including high level elites like Moshe Dayan. The only reason they didn't is because Egypt launched an attack that nearly wiped them out and forced them to resort to nuclear blackmail for American support. It was only after Egypt demonstrated the ability to put Israel's whole existence on the line that Israel was willing to make land concessions.
That's the consistent pattern with Israel, by the way: if you surrender without a fight they push as far as they can, like the West Bank, whereas if you give them a bloody nose they'll consider negotiations, as with Egypt. If Egypt had followed your advice after 1967 they never would have recovered the Sinai at all.
VIM
11d ago
Yeah, sometimes I get the impression people here are posting from a different universe.
The obvious conclusion I'd imagine the Chinese are taking from this is "they abandoned 5th Fleet HQ because they couldn't protect it from Iran so there's no way they'll stick around to try going toe-to-toe with us"
VIM
11d ago
So you decline to tell me WHEN this unconditional surrender took place? I'm asking so I can look it up and see if there is any merit to what you are saying. It's a very simple question. You claim that Syria "pretty much unconditionally surrendered to Israel" -- I am asking WHEN this unconditional surrender took place. What month and year?
December 8th, 2024.
Israel clearly has the power to roll in and cause mucho damage in Jordan; same thing with Egypt; same thing with Gaza; and same thing with Area A. But as the saying goes, one of these things is not like the others.
Like any conqueror, rather than causing mucho damage they would greatly prefer to absorb their territory with minimal resistance, like Area C. The current generation of Israeli leadership is also considerably less patient than that which made peace with the Jordanians and Egyptians (who, might I add, receive billions of American taxpayer dollars every year to stay at peace) and has demonstrated far less goodwill towards those who chose collaboration or submission.
VIM
13d ago
When exactly was this unconditional surrender?
They gave up as much territory as the IDF was willing to seize without even trying to fight for it and then stationed troops to prevent any other Syrians from trying to fight the invaders. I'd call that "unconditional surrender".
And what do you suppose is the reason for the failure you are alleging?
Because their ground forces are totally inept, because they have zero tolerance for casualties and because they have no coherent strategy for actually winning wars.
VIM
13d ago
He's increasingly popular with the "MAGA base" because if a member of the MAGA base feels betrayed they cease to identify as "MAGA" or even "Republican".
The coming midterms are probably going to be a generational slaughter for Republicans.
VIM
13d ago
Perhaps if Trump didn't want to lose voters for attacking Iran he should have ran on it and tried to justify it.
Of course, if Trump ran on "we've been at war with Iran for 47 years and under my administration we'll start a regional war" my guess is that he would have just straight up lost the election
VIM
15d ago
In this case, it's not that hard to know. Israel clearly has the power to roll in and crush Jordan; same thing with Egypt; same thing with Gaza; and same thing with Area A. But as the saying goes, one of these things is not like the others.
-
Syria is an obvious counterexample: they pretty much unconditionally surrendered to Israel and were rewarded by getting bombed into oblivion, having their territory seized, and just generally getting humiliated.
-
This is obviously not true. We've had a two year test case in which Israel tried and failed to roll in and crush Hamas, the smallest and weakest of its opponents.
Houthi air defenses were, to be fair, constantly being replenished by Iran. The Houthis are also a tribe who spent decades hiding out in the caves and mountains of Yemen, and still have forces concentrated there. The Iranians have a conventional military built along standard lines with standard bases, supply chains, etc.
Okay, so if the Houthi air defenses couldn't be stopped because of Iranian resupply then doesn't attacking Iran just move the problem a chain up to Iran getting resupplied by the Russians or Chinese? If anything it's a harder problem because the Houthis were nearly landlocked and reduced to smuggling in supplies by tiny fishing boats whereas Russia and China have fairly direct access even if they don't outright fly cargo planes directly to Iranian airports.
Also, the Iranians have a conventional military and an irregular force known as the IRGC which utilizes the exact sort of tactics (mobile launchers, mountain bases, ambush air defenses) that the Houthis used. Perhaps you've heard of them?
In addition, there were ways of defeating the houthis but they involve a return to the brutal counterinsurgency tactics of the mid-20th century that are still considered, for now, too inhumane.
I've seen this claim thrown around but it was put to the test in 2018 when Trump let the Saudis go full bore and while hundreds of thousands of Yemeni children died the Saudi gains were proportionally tiny. Even getting to the point where you could apply brutal counterinsurgency tactics of the mid-20th century would first require taking Houthi territory, which would require an actual, serious ground invasion with actual casualties.
The limiting factor on foreign intervention (usually) isn't public sympathy for the suffering of the countries being attacked but the cost in blood and treasure not being justified by the potential benefits of victory.
VIM
17d ago
Was Operation Rough Rider a great demonstration of American invincibility too? They brought in multiple carrier groups, bombed Yemen endlessly and assassinated plenty of Houthi leaders even up to the Houthi Prime Minister but the Houthi missile/drone capabilities were basically untouched and Trump effectively gave up after a month when stockpiles started running low.
So if this goes the same way and Iran is still firing missiles and drones a month at every country hosting American military assets, shutting down the Strait of Hormuz and possibly obliterating all of the soft oil infrastructure between the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea would you still consider it to be a great victory for Trump?
VIM
17d ago
The death of Khamenei has spurred protesters to rise up and assault the security forces of the failing regime!
VIM
17d ago
The US bombed Yemen for years and yet during Operation Rough Rider the Houthis nearly downed American jets before Trump ultimately chickened out and cut a deal.
If Rough Rider couldn't disable Houthi air defenses then why would anyone expect a similar operation against a much larger opponent to succeed?
VIM
17d ago
The desired end goal is to blow Iran to pieces and leave a bunch of squabbling separatist factions fighting each other, like Libya on steroids.
VIM
18d ago
Last I checked they've been firing missiles and drones more or less nonstop almost immediately after they were hit. At the current rate they're going to exceed the total from the 12 Day War within a few days and that was sufficient to drain global interceptor stockpiles by a quarter.
Another way to look at the current situation is that Dubai, Doha, Kuwait and Bahrain invested billions in American hardware under the premise that it would protect them and instead Trump evacuated and parked all of his assets as far as possible, leaving his hapless clients to get smoked.
Well no, that doesn't follow at all.
Morally, if they're reasonable then the solution may be to solve the underlying issue.
Practically, if you don't have the ability to stop them by force (as Prosperity Guardian and Rough Rider have amply demonstrated) then the easier solution is to pull the leash on the country you actually have some influence over.
Strange how this principle doesn't apply to those who wish to engage in neutral trade with Gaza. Blockades interfering with neutral trade evidently are only an issue when they're imposed by the wrong countries. Woodrow Wilson never exercised his right to "defend free trade" when it was the Brits blockading Germany during the First World War either.
More options
Context Copy link