This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Iran's hostility to America starts with the hostage crisis and continued through its support for Hamas and Hezbollah, through attacks on Americans in Iraq, through its tendency to kidnap American citizens passing through Iran, through cyberattacks, through missiles and drones used to attack American allies, through dozens if not hundreds of attacks on America and its allies in the Middle East. Really, this is ridiculous, Iran is not poor little innocent Iran, they are one of America's greatest and most consistent enemies. They have been for fifty years. They call us the Great Satan. Maybe in some alternate timeline where we weren't allies with Israel we could hold hands and sing kumbayah. So what?
The Hill: Inside Iran’s long history of attacks on US: A timeline
Do you know how hard we are now attacking Iran from our bases and military presence in Iraq and Iraqi airspace? Why were we in Iraq in the first place? You are just explaining how this all goes back to the same answer. We topple Hussein for Israel, Iran arms militias that resist. Oh well now the story is Iran just hates us for no reason, so we have to risk the world to achieve regime change in Iran as well.
How long are people going to fall for this circular logic?
I know why Iran hates us and it's even rational within the context of enmity. But I also don't care. I'm not taking the perspective of some neutral third-party, I'm taking the American side, I'm American. Iran won't absolve me of their hatred just because I'm critical of some things we've done in the Middle East. And until Iran makes peace with us even if Israel disappeared tomorrow or we dropped all support, Iran would still be our enemy and still hate us.
My enmity toward the Iranian regime does not dissolve on learning why they are hostile to me. That's actually not how we break the cycle of violence. Either we shake hands and make peace or someone has to surrender.
It matters because the "they're Islamo-Fascists who hate Americans for our freedoms", or as Trump put it yesterday "the worst people since Hitler", has been the conventional wisdom used to justify violence. They are rational actors. The notion they they are incapable of reaching and maintaining an agreement through negotiation is false. The idea they are some Rogue State that has to be put down immediately at any cost is false. The idea people propose here "the damage Iran is doing to the region is proof we should have started this war" are wrong. They are rational actors, we had other paths to balancing power and maintaining regional stability, we chose this catastrophic path for a very specific reason.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The governing elements of Iran hate us for reasons that are ideological and have realpolitik interests contrary to ours. This isn't "no reason" - the USSR opposed the US under similar conditions. It's a very normal set of reasons for states to fall into conflict. Furthermore, it is worth pointing out that the US engaged in hostilities with Iran well before its invasion of Iraq.
How exactly is the world at risk from US operations with Iran? The US and Russia playing footsie over Ukraine is much more high-stakes and even then it's probably an exaggeration to say that "the world" is at stake.
The world is at risk from US operations in Iran because Iranian regime faces an existential crisis, and its deterrence is folded into the threat of eliminating regional infrastructure that would cause humanitarian and global economic crisis. This ought to be a very strong incentive to avoid the escalation ladder, the problem is Israel wants to climb the escalation ladder, they will burn down the region to become the regional hegemon even if America is sacrificed as a result (especially if it is). They just bombed Iranian gas facilities today and Iran has ordered the evacuation of Gulf facilities in a possible retaliation.
I agree that knocking out regional oil infrastructure would, at least temporarily, worsen the quality of life of the world generally, but that doesn't "risk the world."
The Iraqis set fire to Kuwait's oil fields, and on a quick Google it looks like the damage was repaired in about 2 years. It seems unlikely that Iran will be able to hit Saudi oil infrastructure both horizontally and vertically (causing long term damage to all Saudi oil infrastructure) so they would focus on chokepoints like refineries and export terminals that would be expensive and difficult to repair or replace.
In your scenario we're basically looking at, potentially, severe but imperfect risk to about 30% of the world's production, which can be at least partially mitigated in the short term by reserves, in the medium term by repairs and production elsewhere, and over the long term by repairs and new construction. It's not going to end the world.
Is this a good reason not to attack Iran? It's definitely worth throwing into the hopper. Is it "risking the world"? Nah.
If Iran could somehow snap its fingers and delete oil production for the Middle East, it would plausibly strengthen the United States (as a massive oil producer with huge reserves) over the medium-long term.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Most of this argument is pretty weak if you don't agree with the underlying implications that we should care about collateral damage done to Americans who willingly choose to head into the volatile middle east.
To me it's like going to North Korea, I feel bad for you but it's still your own fault if they kill you, not our responsibility. If you do contract work in Iraq instead of staying home, you're willingly putting yourself into that situation. If you get kidnapped in Israel, blame Israel and yourself. Especially when we already give them billions of dollars.
Why should we not care about Americans attacked abroad? To me this reads like a kind of nihilism, it's ok if part of the world is made ugly and dangerous because it's not my responsibility. So, retreat? Americans bombed in Israel are fair game because neighboring Iran is unstable. What's the logical next step? Americans in Europe are fair game because neighboring Middle East is unstable? Americans in London are fair game because neighboring Europe is unstable?
I don't want to suggest infinite responsibility here either, but it's not compelling to say that we have no responsibility anywhere. The Founders went to war in Tripoli over this kind of stuff.
"To me it's like going on the bus, I feel bad for you but it's still your fault if someone assaults you, not our responsibility." How is this different in principle?
If we should care about what happens to people for their own choices to travel into dangerous parts of the world, honestly where does it end? Do we start bombing if a tourist gets pickpocketed in Spain? If a US citizen in singapore gets a lashing for chewing gum?
We are not the world's police.
Why should the US be responsible for defending London? The British should be able to defend themselves. I'm all for alliances, defense agreements, etc but if a country can't handle themselves then we should be able to tell them to fuck off.
A bus in the US should have the people following our laws. Criminals will still exist, but we have police for that. Or at least are suppose to have police for it.
If you leave the US and travel to Assaultistan and get assaulted, well too bad. We aren't the world's police.
Who patrols the sea lanes? Who keeps the oil flowing? When Russia invades Georgia or Ukraine, which country does the world turn to do something?
This is just words, it doesn't mean anything. You're for alliances that help British defense but they "should be able to defend themselves". Well which is it, should we help them or should they help themselves? This is the question I posed in the first place. You have to actually draw a line somewhere.
The example was Americans traveling to Israel getting assaulted by Iran.
It sure seems it was flowing until war started. As for Ukraine and Georgia, what much have we done? We've provided financial aid and sold Ukraine weapons, but that's not being the world's police. I'm fine with charity or trade. It should make sense and be efficient, like PEPFAR saving individuals lives in poor countries makes more sense as a charity than giving money to Israel's military so they don't have to divert from their universal healthcare and free upper education.
But being charitable to victims isn't the same as rushing in guns blazing.
Alliances like this are supposed to be mutual. We get help when we are attacked and they get help when they are attacked. But they still need to be pretty sufficient on their own. If Britain is slacking, I think we would be perfectly in the right to tell them to do better or we quit our end.
Then Israel should do better, or Americans should wisen up to the risk and not take it instead of expecting everyone else to spend billions and billions to bail them out for their dumb choices. Once you leave the country, you've given up most of our responsibility to you (unless you're like an official representative or something).
The idea that we should go to war for Americans abroad because we are responsible for them but not get them out of war zones because we aren't responsible for them is a pretty major contradiction here too. If anything, the latter is something we're more responsible for given the whole we started it part of the war.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link