Ed Israel/US Attacks Iran /Yet Another Country/Iran

[johnny karate]

I was asked what Europe should do right now. I answered. You're asking a completely different question not relevant to that original one. I'm not sure the importance of your hypothetical. Iran has already attacked ships of countries not involved. Do you think that was justified?

Do you think the hornets were justified in stinging everybody after I kicked their nest?

 

[theprestige]

Do you think the hornets were justified in stinging everybody after I kicked their nest?

Territorial, violent insects don't need justification. They just do what they do. Sometimes you just ignore them. Sometimes you try to mitigate or exterminate them, accepting that you'll probably get stung in the process.

Tell us more about this analogy, of Iran as a hive of territorial, violent insects, that should probably be exterminated.

 

[johnny karate]

Territorial, violent insects don't need justification. They just do what they do. Sometimes you just ignore them. Sometimes you try to mitigate or exterminate them, accepting that you'll probably get stung in the process.

Tell us more about this analogy, of Iran as a hive of territorial, violent insects, that should probably be exterminated.

No, but I'm happy to tell you more about metaphors for not doing stupid things that result in negative consequences, if you'd like.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Picture him in Flinstone type clothes, and club in hand. Bamm-Bamm's big brother Dumb-Dumb.

Chug-Chug

 

[Ziggurat]

Do you think the hornets were justified in stinging everybody after I kicked their nest?

Hornets do not have moral agency. They are animals that operate on instinct alone, with no ability to reason.

Is that what you think of the Iranians? That's pretty racist.

 

[Helen]

Chug-Chug

And then there's their crazy uncle Trump-Trump

 

[johnny karate]

Hornets do not have moral agency. They are animals that operate on instinct alone, with no ability to reason.

Is that what you think of the Iranians? That's pretty racist.

Looks like I need to extend another invite for my "What are metaphors and how do they work?" seminar.

 

[Ziggurat]

No, but I'm happy to tell you more about metaphors for not doing stupid things that result in negative consequences, if you'd like.

And you directed that analogy at a question about what Europe should do.

Yeah, so last season. Like Nato and the whole post-war rule based international order painstakingly built by the USA. So what the hell, why not? The US obviously doesn't care, so why should Europe?

The obvious answer is because freedom of navigation is still in their interest. I'm not sure why you think that Europe should abandon that because they don't like what the USA is doing. You seem to think they should cut off their nose to spite their face.

 

[johnny karate]

And you directed that analogy at a question about what Europe should do.

No, I directed that metaphor at you lamenting Iran attacking ships in the Strait of Hormuz, a thing happening as a direct result of the dumb pointless war the Trump administration started with them for no reason.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

So what's your view on the cost of confronting Iranian anti-shipping missiles versus not doing that?

Would it be more cost-effective for Europe to use warships to defy Iranian attempts to close the strait, or just to wait, or to negotiate directly or indirectly to pay for passage? What proportion of tankers would need to get through for the use of force to bring the cost of oil down versus raising it further and perhaps for longer?

 

[Ziggurat]

Looks like I need to extend another invite for my "What are metaphors and how do they work?" seminar.

You don't even understand your own metaphor. Let's recall what you said (hilight mine):

Do you think the hornets were justified in stinging everybody after I kicked their nest?

And this was your explanation:

No, but I'm happy to tell you more about metaphors for not doing stupid things that result in negative consequences, if you'd like.

Your metaphor wasn't really about negative consequences for the US or Europe. It was about justification for Iranian action. Had you wanted to make a hornet-based metaphor about negative consequences for stupid actions, you could have said something like, "If you kick a hornet's nest, do you think they will sting everyone?" That metaphor focuses on stupid actions and negative consequences. But you didn't. You didn't make it about the choice to kick, you made it about the choice to sting.

Because you're crap at metaphors. And racist against Iranians.

 

[llwyd]

The obvious answer is because freedom of navigation is still in their interest.

Well, luckily it's obviously not in the US interest any longer either, so you can relax and let us do our thing too, you do remember we are not friends and allies any longer? You break it, you don't own it etc.

 

[johnny karate]

You don't even understand your own metaphor. Let's recall what you said (hilight mine):

And this was your explanation:

Your metaphor wasn't really about negative consequences for the US or Europe. It was about justification for Iranian action. Had you wanted to make a hornet-based metaphor about negative consequences for stupid actions, you could have said something like, "If you kick a hornet's nest, do you think they will sting everyone?" That metaphor focuses on stupid actions and negative consequences. But you didn't. You didn't make it about the choice to kick, you made it about the choice to sting.

Because you're crap at metaphors. And racist against Iranians.

Oh no, A Trump supporter thinks I'm crap at metaphors and racist against Iranians.

This is definitely an opinion I take seriously because of how smart and well-informed Trump supporters have demonstrated themselves to be.

 

[Helen]

I just heard Francesca Fiorentino say that it's like your stupid cousin saying i can fix your car, goes on to total it, and goes "what do i care? I don't even use your car!".

 

[Ziggurat]

So what's your view on the cost of confronting Iranian anti-shipping missiles versus not doing that?

Would it be more cost-effective for Europe to use warships to defy Iranian attempts to close the strait, or just to wait, or to negotiate directly or indirectly to pay for passage?

Paying for passage might be cheap in the short term. But paying the Danegeld is always expensive in the long term.

It might be cost effective in the short term to wait for now, but this isn't a principled stand, it's a purely pragmatic one. There is value in establishing a precedent that combatants don't get to shut down shipping for everyone else. If Europe doesn't want to establish that precedent, that's short sighted, and it green lights the Houthis to control the Red Sea. If they want to wait a bit for Iran's military capability to be further degraded so that they can establish that principle at a lower price in the near future, that might make sense.

I'm not sure what anti-ship missile capabilities Iran still even has at this point. It seems like most of the ships hit so far were hit by drones, though the reporting isn't always clear. Large military ships are going to be largely immune to Shahed drone attacks, any close-in air defense system should be able to take them out easily.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Former Iranian foreign minister Kamal Kharazi seriously injured in US-Israeli strike

Kharazi previously said Iran had not rejected negotiations and was open to indirect talks with US to end war

www.irishtimes.com

us military seriously wounded iranian foreign minister who was in talks with pakistan an jd vance in a strike. at least they killed his wife

That should help the negotiations along. What could build a more convivial atmosphere than killing his wife and nearly killing him too?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I'm sure you hold the same view about the leaders of other countries mocking Trump, right?

It's genuinely remarkable how other world leaders manage to bite their tongues rather than say what they actually think of Trump.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/cuba/article314835809.html

US private companies are allowed to sell to cuba, but the US government cannot.

Not to Cuba but rather to private businesses in Cuba. Since most of the Cuban economy is state-owned that means most Cubans will see no benefit whatever from this small concession by Trump.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Paying for passage might be cheap in the short term. But paying the Danegeld is always expensive in the long term.

It might be cost effective in the short term to wait for now, but this isn't a principled stand, it's a purely pragmatic one. There is value in establishing a precedent that combatants don't get to shut down shipping for everyone else. If Europe doesn't want to establish that precedent, that's short sighted, and it green lights the Houthis to control the Red Sea. If they want to wait a bit for Iran's military capability to be further degraded so that they can establish that principle at a lower price in the near future, that might make sense.

I'm not sure what anti-ship missile capabilities Iran still even has at this point. It seems like most of the ships hit so far were hit by drones, though the reporting isn't always clear. Large military ships are going to be largely immune to Shahed drone attacks, any close-in air defense system should be able to take them out easily.

Yes, but now the question is who to pay the Danegeld to. The US, which has show to break any agreement made with them the moment their deranged leader changes his mind again, or Iran which has shown to be the more trustworthy of the two?

 

[gabeygoat]

The obvious answer is because freedom of navigation is still in their interest.

And thus, they are working on it. Not Trump style.