JarJarJedi
Streamlined derailments and counteridea reeducation
User ID: 1118
JarJarJedi
10hr ago
If we did it for no reason, then it would be disproportionate.
What does it have to do with "proportion"? Hitting a public school with no military purpose behind it is wrong. This is because of how our society and our morals work, not because Iranians didn't hit exactly the same school before. Even if they did, it still would be wrong. If Iranians killed 100 random US civilians, would "proportionate" answer be killing random 100 Iranians civilians? I don't think a lot of people in the US would endorse such notion of "proportionality", neither should they.
If you're saying we should not inflict unnecessary civilian casualties, and if there is a collateral damage, there must be a very good justification of why that was unavoidable - I totally agree. But "proportionate" doesn't sound like a very good term to use in such case.
As for hitting power facilities, that depends on the goals of the campaign. If the goal is to degrade Iran's capacity of making trouble, then destroying its energy system is a reasonable step towards this goal. It's hard to manufacture advanced weaponry - or in fact any weaponry beyond light arms - without a functioning power grid. If, however, the goal is to cause the regime change, then it may be less effective, since people would be disorganized and depressed by the lack of basic necessities, and may not be able to resist the regime troops who probably have generators and other provisions to survive independently. Maybe also specific power plants are important for specific weapons factories or communication facilities and knocking them out will disable some important pieces. That's a tactical question.
JarJarJedi
10hr ago
Given how densely populated the area is, and the inherent imprecision, I think it would be significantly harder to exclude Al-Aqsa than to include it. In other words, even if Israel wanted for Iran to hit Al-Aqsa, allowing it to do it without risking the lives of a lot of civilians would be impossible. And a fragment after interception could still hit it, but it's not predictable or controllable.
Look for example at this picture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Aqsa_Mosque#/media/File:Jerusalem-2013(2)-Aerial-Temple_Mount-(south_exposure).jpg (the actual mosque, btw, is not the golden dome, it's the square structure with the smaller dome lower in the picture) - there are a lot of buildings close to it, most of which likely don't have protected spaces that can withstand a rocket strike. So while I know of no official policy about it, I am pretty sure the answer is "yes".
JarJarJedi
11hr ago
What legal technicalities are we talking about? If we talking about war with other nation, I am not sure "legal" has any meaning here. We have a legal system in the US. You know, Congress, laws, courts, lawyers, police, 9th Circus, SCOTUS, all that beautiful arrangement. But none of it - beyond trivial cases of military cook stealing supplies and selling them on the side - has any bearing on military actions against a foreign country.
Are you referring to a fictitious notion often called "international law"? If so, I think naming it "law" is one of the biggest swindles ever perpetrated on humanity - it's just a network of voluntary vows taken by various sovereigns, each of them could be at any moment revoked or ignored by any of them. It has very little in common with that we call legal system within the US, and probably as much with any legal system in any existing country. So I don't see any problem in the military not being super-concerned with those. It doesn't mean military should not have any rules or limits - the military is ruled by the civilian leadership, and the civilian leadership can impose on it limitations stemming from our culture and sensitivities. Like, trying to minimize collateral damage, not harming noncombatants if possible, not using munitions that cause excessive harm to noncombatants, not acting in a way that may be repugnant to our culture, etc. But I don't think those can be properly called "legal technicalities", and I think it's not the military's position to define those - it's the outside constraints placed on the military (necessarily and justly), but within these constraints, they should do their thing.
JarJarJedi
11hr ago
I admit I don't really understand what their strategy of "make everybody hate you" aims to achieve, but I think there's clearly a strategy. Maybe a crazy one, but there's a method in this craziness.
JarJarJedi
12hr ago
Working through Christopher Ruocchio's Sun Eater saga. Not bad at all, though I find comparisons with Tolkien, Herbert and other giants unwarranted so far. I mean, it's not bad - it's pretty good, actually - and probably would make an excellent TV series if anybody (outside woke Hollywood) would take it, but it's not Tolkien. Still, it's a good read - even if excessively long-winded at times - so I plan to spend some time on it.
As a side note, he is one of the good examples how one can handle "progressive" settings without falling into annoying wokeness. In his world, Christian sexual limitations do not exist. There are gay people, hermaphrodites, sexless creatures, and all other combinations you can imagine - and it's not treated as some kind of huge deal. It is described very early that the protagonist's own mother is a lesbian, and there are several gay characters along the story, and other "deviant" characters too, and it's not like everybody is woke there - there's prejudice, hate, bigotry, various phobias, all the normal stuff - but it's handled in-world, as stuff that normal humans do, good or bad or neither, and none of it is used to badger the reader into something contemporary political. That's how fiction used to be, but a lot of it isn't anymore. Good to see people still know how to do things properly.
Also started Lying for Money - extremely interesting and fascinating so far.
JarJarJedi
12hr ago
How could they aid to Iran? There's not much material they can send them, and given complete US/Israel air superiority, any shipment beyond a pack of mules could be easily destroyed before it reaches its target. Also, Russia has its own war to fight, so they are not exactly bursting with extra resources to begin with. They could share some knowledge maybe - like technology, etc. - but short-term, nothing would really make much difference, as if Russia had some technology that Iran didn't, it'd be an advanced technology taking years to adopt and scale. Of course, Russia knows how to make all kinds of nukes, but Iran probably by now does too, at least in theory. It's the practice that US/Israel intend to make difficult for them, and Russia is not going to send them their nukes. Maybe Russians have some intelligence info, but given how deeply Mossad seems to be inside Iran's everything, it'd be stupid for Russia to share anything really useful, as it would only reveal Russian cards to Israel and thus to the US. So what aid could they really provide?
Oh yes, they could just let Khamenei live somewhere in Rostov, but I don't think ruling a country of the size of Iran from Rostov is a sustainable action, so if he leaves, he's probably done with being Iran's leader.
JarJarJedi
15hr ago
It's true that Iran can't target very well over long distance, but accidentally hitting Azerbaijan is probably too far fetched. Like, when they want to hit "something" in Israel and end up hitting Arab village, that's likely random. But if they hit Azerbaijan or Cyprus, that's likely on purpose, whatever that purpose might be.
JarJarJedi
1d ago
Strategic reserve is being refilled, after being raided by Biden, who dropped it to levels not seen since early 1980s. It's just going slowly, because buying so much at once would spike the prices, which aren't exactly low (even before the war) and defeat the purpose of the exercise. Oh yes, before that, Trump tried to fill it up at $24 per barrel, and had been blocked by Dems in Congress because it was clearly just "a bailout for big oil".
We could have waited for Venezuelan oil production to ramp up
That could take a while, and in the meanwhile Iran would build more missiles and recover his nuclear program. I don't have enough information to say March 2026 is the best moment and why, but saying "let's just wait and see maybe it gets better" doesn't seem to me like an obvious winner either.
We could have brought-in Ukrainian experts to teach our forces about drone warfare
There's not too much in "Ukrainian experts" that is not known in the US and that goes beyond PR. US military (and Israeli military) knows how to shut down Iranian drones. The problem is it's not 100% effective (no defense is) and it needs to be done cheaply, on existing US capacities, because wasting a million dollar interceptor on a 50k drone is unsustainable. There are solutions for that, but most of them are not scaled and deployed yet at the necessary scale, AFAIK. You can have perfect defense system, in a single prototype somewhere in Arizona - it's not going to do you much in Iran right now. Ukrainians won't help much there - they can't magic in a wide deployment of newly designed drone system (not in Middle East, and not in Ukraine). They have some useful battlefield empiric knowledge, and this knowledge is being studied (though sometimes slower than optimal, NIH syndrome is real) but they have no magic bullets. People talk like they have some magic spells that if only we could ask them we could make all Shaheds drop out of the skies - there's nothing like that. "Tons of cheap shitty drones" is a new problem, and deploying new solutions takes time, especially in a system as large and complex as US military. And again, waiting for several more years until US military fully scales to this new thing has the same problem I described above. Plus, of course, dealing with 10x more drones then.
And, of course, none of that would prevent Iran in any way from closing Hormuz. And, of course, Iran would not sit and wait until we make their strategic threat irrelevant - they could sabotage the pipelines built to bypass their zone of control, they could develop new drones that are not effectively dealt with by existing systems, they could cooperate with Russians to integrate whatever recipes Russians found to break whatever defenses Ukrainians figured out - just waiting for more time and assuming everything would be better is not really founded on anything. And there's a time boundary - as soon as Iran has enough uranium to make several nukes and does their first nuclear test, the whole construct goes out of the window and we have another Russia - except managed not by a kleptocrat with a fixation on going back to 18th century, but by an apocalyptic cult with a fixation on going back to the 7th century.
JarJarJedi
3d ago
Chuck Norris once told a woman to calm down, and she did.
JarJarJedi
3d ago
It was not unforseeable that Iran would close the strait.
It was. So what? There's no "plan" in existence that may preclude this possibility - of course, except ignoring the treat from Iran until they make nukes, and then face the consequences. Calling it "bad plan" is assuming there's some "good plan" that somehow magically makes it impossible for Iran to close the Hormuz. What would be that "good plan"? I submit it does not exist and can not exist.
JarJarJedi
3d ago
People demand a credible justification
The word "credible" is load-bearing here - you just declare any justification "not credible" and demand another, can go forever this way.
a coherent goal,
Same here. Is a goal "diminish Iran's capacity of stirring shit up for years to go as much as possible" "coherent" or it must be "bring peace and happiness to all the world forever"?
plausible argument that the goal is achievable
Is the argument "this is actually being achieved in front of our own eyes" "plausible" or not? Of course you always can say no, not plausible, gimme another.
their plans, such as they are, seem very reactive to extremely predictable problems.
Wait wait, you're saying the fact that they are reacting to things that happen and actually change their actions in accordance with actual events that happen - is a bad thing? How do you usually handle it - do you ignore things that happen and never change any initial plan no matter what?
And this was carried out with zero effort to build support
Support from whom? Would France or Germany go for war with Iran if we asked really nice? Or maybe the Islamic Republic of Britain would? Maybe Spain? Italy? There's a lot of support from one ally - Israel - who do a lot of the work, but that leads only to various conspiracy accusations.
The appeal of socialism is primarily that it promises economic security
If the plan works, that is. Which it never does.
JarJarJedi
4d ago
As a general note, it kind of makes me sad to see how strange the thinking patterns had become, I think maybe because to incessant electoral campaigning. Everybody should have an ultimate plan to solve everything, forever, perfectly, or it's even not worth talking about. And if the solution takes more than a week, we don't have enough attention span to comprehend what is going on.
The saddest part is everybody knows literally 100% of people who propose these nice rounded-up solutions are liars - we know it is not going to work this way, they know it is not going to work this way, and it never ever worked this way. It will always be more complicated, more chaotic, things will change and go to off directions, unexpected things will arise and all plans will have to be changed or abandoned altogether. But somehow still everybody demands A Man With A Plan - even fully knowing (though frequently not realizing) that any such plan must be bullshit, no one can have a perfect plan for decades forward for 90 millions of people, especially those same people submerged in an ocean of 9 billion other people. If we can do something that will make the picture a little more predictable and less dangerous for a little forward, if we cut off some of the ugliest branches on the possibility tree (such as "Iran gets nukes and uses them to initiate the coming of the Twelfth Imam") that's already a huge achievement. But imagining you can control the whole tree and shape it to your will - isn't it a bit too much to expect? And yet, though we know it's impossible, we routinely demand our leaders to pretend they can do it easily and routinely.
I guess that's what attracts people to socialism - they promise there would be a Plan. Maybe some people will starve, and some will have to be killed, but look - we have a Plan! Nobody has a better Plan than we do! No matter this plan is never achieved - having it is enough, somehow.
JarJarJedi
4d ago
Minimal goal: destroy Iran's capacity and will to make trouble for significant time (years, if lucky decades) Maximal goal: IRGC regime falls
JarJarJedi
4d ago
Keep bombing them until the list of primary targets is completed, then see if there's somebody there to take over or just leave it to smolder and come back when they ask for seconds.
JarJarJedi
4d ago
Probably not. I mean, if Iran is anything like any other country I am familiar with, most courts are relatively boring and very replaceable government buildings, and most judges are the "banality of evil" kind of functionaries, also entirely replaceable. They do not control the system, they do not influence how the system behaves (there's no independent judiciary with strong tradition of guarding its independence, AFAIK), they are just a cog in the machine. Sure, if you take out enough cogs, the machine may slow down or even break, but I don't think going individually after each one of 10000 judges is an efficient use of resources. If the regime falls, Iranians will take care of them by themselves, but killing some of them is not what would make it fall.
JarJarJedi
4d ago
You are repeating the claims of Iranian prosecution as if it were an established and indisputable facts. Are you sure it's smart to do that?
JarJarJedi
9d ago
They may not be good at a lot of things, but so far they are pretty good at one thing that matters - keeping the power.
JarJarJedi
9d ago
I think Babylon Bee summarized the conversation we've been having much better than I ever could: https://babylonbee.com/news/jew-converts-to-christianity-after-twitter-user-says-christ-is-king-you-filthy-money-grubbin-jew (that's why they are The Prophets and I am just a guy on the internet).
JarJarJedi
12d ago
That's like me saying open borders is "Catholic politics" because Catholic Charities USA spent billions of taxpayer dollars enabling those policies. Would you say blaming every Catholic for the consequences of open borders policies enabled by this is fair?
I am not being obtuse, I am trying to figure out if there's a way for me to explain to you what kind of fundamental error you are making. That, of course, involves understanding the essence of your complaints, and figure out why you erroneously chose to single out Jews as a source of these complaints.
JarJarJedi
17d ago
I don't think I understand what are you talking about. Do you mind speaking plainly? What kind of "hate propaganda" specifically Jews run against you since 1970s? Why do you call it "Jewish politics"?
JarJarJedi
20d ago
Yes, of course, frozen conflicts exist. But Iran had been in no way "frozen" - it was actively seeking to establish long-range strike and nuclear capability. While at the same time engaging in a proxy war with the US.
You can't compare Iran with USSR though - US could not get into a hot war with USSR that it could have any hope of winning (at least if your definition of winning does not include nuclear wasteland). In fact, it can't even do this with Russia, which is much smaller and weaker than USSR. With Iran, there is a possibility of direct kinetic action that can be successful in removing the threat. But that window would be closed forever once Iran gets nukes and long-range strike capabilities. The latter he had already possessed, and reportedly was within months of the former. So the choice was a potentially short hot war now (I mean didn't have to be February 28, but sometime within 2024-2028), or 50-year-long cold war later. And given as US pretty much lost the capability to wage long cold wars anyway (the first Democratic president would immediately roll back any gains made by preceding Republican administrations), I don't think "it will eventually work out" was really a viable option. There are a lot of nations that hate America, and that's fine, as long as their hate is, as you noted, "frozen". But then there is Iran, who does not want to remain frozen. They want to arm themselves for the battle with Great Satan. That's the whole underpinning of their ideology - coexistence with Great Satan is not something that you intend to do long term, it's something that you do while you gather your forces for destroying it. Well, they got their final battle a bit sooner than they expected, hopefully it would be final enough.
JarJarJedi
20d ago
Is there a difference between Democrats and Jewish Democrats?
Not sure what you mean here. Obviously, there are non-Jewish Democrats, in fact, over 90% of them are, so these sets are not identical.
Aren’t they the ones pulling the strings and setting goals.
No, not really. I mean, some of goal-setters, to the extent they can be personally identified, may be of Jewish descent, but not a significant number and not as any identifiable block distinct from an average white woke Democrat in any way.
Like MAGA started winning elections when the Democrats started replacing Jewish house wives with black females.
"When" does a lot of work here. It is true that The Great Awokening turned many Jewish voters away from Democrats, but the replacement you are quoting is the result of the Great Awokening, not its cause. MAGA was born as a reaction to the GA, so yes, there is a link, but you've got the casual relationship all wrong. And the GA is much wider and deeper phenomenon that Jewish Democrats (though of course quite a few of Jewish Democrats participated, they are Democrats after all).
They are willing to strike by means available and convenient to them. I don't think it makes sense to debate the meaning of the word "any" - the point is Iran is at war with the US, and this has been confirmed by many hostile actions, costing lives of many US citizens (as well as many other people). Is it "any" means or only "some" means that Iranians use to murder Americans, is immaterial for the question.
I note besides the case of ADL in 1990s (which is not very political anyway), you didn't really mention anything specifically you're sick of. I mean, I am not happy about a lot of things Jewish Democrats do, I can make a long list, but this is my list. And I don't use terms like "Jewish politics" - beyond somewhat less virulent hate of Israel, the politics of Jewish Democrats is not different from the politics of any other Democrat (which is kinda exactly the problem). So, what is "Jewish politics" you are sick of?
Yet the experience with most totalitarian regimes suggests they do. Stalin could execute anyone anytime, from a lowly peasant to a decorated general, and yet he bothered to make show trials with elaborate fictitious stories of espionage and sabotage. A lot of effort has been spent on making people admit all kinds of crazy shit and invent more crazy shit to accuse others of. Evidently, this is how totalitarian society works - you need to have something, even if nobody really believes in it, but you can't simply
walk into Mordormurder people, you need to have a story behind it, even if a completely ridiculous one. So yes, actually they need to fabricate the evidence, if they are like every other totalitarian authorities that ever existed on this planet. This is how it always worked.I don't think he "sacrificed" anything. I think he was a dude who wanted to be free, just as I do. And for that, he was murdered. Under which circumstances - it's hard for me to know, but surely I am not going to believe ayatollahs' word on it. Maybe indeed he went to far. Maybe he didn't and they are lying. I don't really know. But one thing I know is that Iranian police is not a reliable source on these matters.
Are you trolling right now or do you genuinely unable to see the difference between "he did not murder policemen" and "he had nothing to do with the anti-government protests and just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time"?
More options
Context Copy link