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 -
Decentralized cells of IRGC units could certainly survive and threaten the strait. I believe most could be convinced to surrender by remaining IRGC leadership if Tehran and other major cities are flattened by fuel-air bombs, cluster munitions, or whatever the modern equivalent is. Perhaps Trump also shares your doubts about a civilian infra-bombing escalation. To me though, it might be his only way out of the mess.
I want to clarify that I was totally against starting any military conflict with Iran to begin with. However, now that direct hostilities have started, we have to decisively finish any conflict with countries whose official slogan is "Death to America", or we will be leaving yet another problem for future generations to clean up.
…if your problem is with the slogan, then why oppose starting the conflict? Their slogan didn't change, though I suppose they now chant it with more sincerity.
Timing is everything in war, politics, and more. Just because you have an intractable enemy, it doesn't mean you should cast other priorities aside to immediately eliminate them. Trump started the war because he was convinced by Netanyahu that it was an excellent time to defeat Iran. Clearly, it wasn't.
Trump, the US, and possibly the entire oil-importing world now suffer the consequences of a poorly timed decapitation strike aimed at the IRGC. While Iran should have been dealt with eventually, the US could have waited for a more opportune moment, like a contested transition of leadership for example. It's clear that the US had already waited for a long time, but the status quo was tolerable and there was no immediate threat to US interests from Iran.
The country who benefited the most from this war's timing was Israel, who could use the US as a beat stick against Iran while they still had bipartisan pro-Israel support in US congress. Israel's support among younger republicans and the democrat base is fading, so this war is perfect for them while they can still count on the US military to soften up Iran for them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You could easily do that. Just withdraw unilaterally. Of course that would require the US to stop being a client state of Israel.
Well, the US is a client state to Israel, which is why unilateral withdrawal is impossible. Hence Trump's dilemma with Iran and the strait, and the likely need for bombing warcrimes to obliterate Iran to get himself out of a losing war.
What happens if Trump commits bombing warcrimes, they're ineffective and Iran returns the favor against the Gulf? Iran is a huge country that would take quite a bit of effort to actually depopulate whereas the Gulf is entirely reliant on a handful of desalination plants. Such an exchange could easily wind up going worse for America's allies than Iran. At that point what do you do, nuke Tehran to reestablish deterrence?
It seems like the reason the US is in this mess is because it keeps doubling down, losing, and winding up in an even more humiliating position than before.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link