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

[The Great Zaganza]

You might have noticed that I don't know how to embed tweets

 

[Safe-Keeper]

the US is the only country in the world that has a First Amendment that protects vague threats of assassination of government leaders.

Citation seriously needed.

 

[Andy_Ross]

You might have noticed that I don't know how to embed tweets

click the share icon at the bottom of the tweet, choose copy link rhen just paste where you want it

 

[jimbob]

You might have noticed that I don't know how to embed tweets

To be honest, the stuff around the tweet made more sense than most of the tweets in this thread. When we're supposed to work out which of the two liars is lying most. And the fact that we're comparing the trustworthiness of the US government to the Iranian regime is sadly telling.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

click the share icon at the bottom of the tweet, choose copy link rhen just paste where you want it

thanks!

 

[Ziggurat]

No, that's not the difference. The difference is between empty threats, and threats the threatener has the capability (and the will) to carry out. Circumstances can make the former excusable, or at least understandable. The latter is a different thing entirely.

And here are your excuses.

 

[Darat]

The Iranian deal should be to licence the Trump name for the straits

And that hound will be a dachshund puppy.

They can be vicious little buggers!

 

[Helen]

The Iranian deal should be to licence the Trump name for the straits

They can be vicious little buggers!

Oh yes, those puppy teeth are fearsome!

 

[johnny karate]

That is demented rubbish. Quite to the contrary, the US is the only country in the world that has a First Amendment that protects vague threats of assassination of government leaders. Doesn't mean people making such threats won't be investigated. But they won't be arrested unless they turn out to be genuine, imminent threats. Far cry from, say, Germany, where a citizen protesting that the interior minister was authoritarian was then arrested under orders from the interior minister. Or the UK, where citizens are getting arrested for mean tweets.

Retired cop jailed for 37 days over Charlie Kirk meme

Iowa Officials Arrested This Guy for Criticizing Them—Twice

Arresting Ohio official for criticizing sheriff at meeting violated her rights, judge holds

Took me about two minutes of googling to find these.

As much as I enjoy watching MAGA weirdos step on rakes, I will never understand why they insist on laying out the rakes themselves.

 

[johnny karate]

And here are your excuses.

Excuses you apparently bought into back when you opposed a war with Iran.

 

[Ziggurat]

Excuses you apparently bought into back when you opposed a war with Iran.

Nothing of the sort.

I was previously very skeptical about going to war with Iran because I thought it was within Iran's capability to destroy much of the oil infrastructure of the gulf, and the consequences of that could be severe enough to make an attack not worth it. But it turns out I was wrong about that. I overestimated their capability, at least in a US first-strike scenario. I doubt I'm alone in that regard. I suspect that if you had polled people here before the war about how much damage Iran could do, most posters would have guessed much more than they actually did.

Iran can do a bit of damage, sure. And it can temporarily close the Straits. But they can't do the massive damage I thought they could do to oil infrastructure. They can't keep the Straits closed forever either. Even future threats of closure will be diminished, because the Straits can be bypassed. Oil can be piped from the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea, and the capacity to do that is likely going to increase now that the utility has been demonstrated. And the Houthis can't block Red Sea oil exports even temporarily, because tankers can just head to Europe through the Suez, they don't even need to go to China. So the downsides have turned out to be MUCH less than I feared.

It remains to be seen exactly how much the war will accomplish, but there's room for optimism on that front as well.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

That is demented rubbish. Quite to the contrary, the US is the only country in the world that has a First Amendment that protects vague threats of assassination of government leaders. Doesn't mean people making such threats won't be investigated. But they won't be arrested unless they turn out to be genuine, imminent threats. Far cry from, say, Germany, where a citizen protesting that the interior minister was authoritarian was then arrested under orders from the interior minister. Or the UK, where citizens are getting arrested for mean tweets.

This morning, while driving through a rural part of the US that voted for Trump in 2024 (and it wasn't close), and listening to the least awful country and western music station I could find, I heard an entire set of songs about the first, second, and fourth amendments to the US Constitution. When the DJ told us the names of those songs and their performers, it sounded as though she thought her listeners have been asking to be reminded of constitutional rights the DHS and several other federal agencies have been disregarding.

Most of us can agree the IRGC has been even worse than the DHS (and it isn't close).

And, so far as I know, no US president has ordered the surreptitious dismembering of a journalist, as was done so memorably by one of our closest allies in the region. Although he wouldn't be likely to tell me about it if he had. Nor could he be prosecuted for it, or even investigated.

Just as he can't be prosecuted for the war crime he committed on Tuesday. (Threatening to destroy an entire civilization is a war crime, even if you don't follow through on that threat.) We're accustomed to war crimes being committed by other nations, and (much as we hate to admit it) by our own every once in a while. But some of us have not yet resigned ourselves to regular public announcements of an intent to commit war crimes. That's new. Give us time.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Some of us are old enough to remember just how much the Iranian people dislike Americans.

That's okay, I'm sure after the kind gift of hundreds of thousands of bombs raining down on them they now consider Americans their bestest buddies.

 

[johnny karate]

Nothing of the sort.

I was previously very skeptical about going to war with Iran because I thought it was within Iran's capability to destroy much of the oil infrastructure of the gulf, and the consequences of that could be severe enough to make an attack not worth it. But it turns out I was wrong about that. I overestimated their capability, at least in a US first-strike scenario. I doubt I'm alone in that regard. I suspect that if you had polled people here before the war about how much damage Iran could do, most posters would have guessed much more than they actually did.

Iran can do a bit of damage, sure. And it can temporarily close the Straits. But they can't do the massive damage I thought they could do to oil infrastructure. They can't keep the Straits closed forever either. Even future threats of closure will be diminished, because the Straits can be bypassed. Oil can be piped from the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea, and the capacity to do that is likely going to increase now that the utility has been demonstrated. And the Houthis can't block Red Sea oil exports even temporarily, because tankers can just head to Europe through the Suez, they don't even need to go to China. So the downsides have turned out to be MUCH less than I feared.

It remains to be seen exactly how much the war will accomplish, but there's room for optimism on that front as well.

So far all it's accomplished is dead Americans, a destabilized Middle East, and economic turmoil. I'm not sure how any of that gives you optimism, and considering that this war is being run by the dumbest people on the planet, such optimism veers into mental illness.

Regardless, your backpedalling rings laughably hollow. Trump was touted as the antiwar candidate. MAGA trumpeted this over and over again. You made this your number one reason to vote for him.

There were no qualifiers to this position.

No "Well, it depends...".

No cost-benefit analysis of a scenario in which war might be good.

It was simply and explicitly "Trump will not get us into any new wars". Full stop.

And now that he has, you all want the rest of us to pretend that this isn't a complete reversal of your previous position rooted in nothing more than the whim of your cult leader.

No one is buying it.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Donald J. Trump
@realDonald Trump
The Failing New York Times and Fake News CNN each reported a totally FAKE TEN POINT PLAN on the Iran negotiations which was meant to discredit the people involved in the peace process. All ten points were a made up HOAX - EVIL LOSERS!!! MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN

 

[Ziggurat]

So far all it's accomplished is dead Americans, a destabilized Middle East, and economic turmoil.

If that's the only thing you think has happened, you haven't been paying attention.

Regardless, your backpedalling rings laughably hollow. Trump was touted as the antiwar candidate. MAGA trumpeted this over and over again. You made this your number one reason to vote for him.

Not really. acbytesla asked,

Tell me why I should vote for Trump.

I was providing a reason that he might vote for Trump, because that's what he asked for. I don't expect or demand his reasons and mine to match.

There were no qualifiers to this position.

Why would there be? The post wasn't an analysis of Iran specifically, that level of detail would be unnecessary. Perhaps even more importantly:

It was simply and explicitly "Trump will not get us into any new wars". Full stop.

No it wasn't. My actual words were, "He didn't get us, or anyone else, into war." Note the tense there, and note that it doesn't match the tense in your made up quote. And as of the time of that post, my statement was true. I made no prediction about the future in that post. Statements of fact don't need the qualifiers you're demanding.

And now that he has, you all want the rest of us to pretend that this isn't a complete reversal of your previous position rooted in nothing more than the whim of your cult leader.

I'm not disputing that my position has changed. I just told you why. When the information I have available changes, I re-evaluate. Do you not do that?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Trump now pissing off Pakistan, which negotiated the deal that gave him the ceasefire he so desperately wanted.
The 10 points were clear, and Islamabad has been blunt that Israel and the US have violated the agreement multiple times already.
As I said: it's always "you cease, we fire".

 

[The Atheist]

Wow, the butthurt is palpable in here.

And I'm a little surprised by it, after all, America is winning!

Bigly!

 

[The Atheist]

When the information I have available changes, I re evaluate.

Ah, it's always good to add a bit of humour to a serious subject.

 

[Steve]

So far all it's accomplished is dead Americans, a destabilized Middle East, and economic turmoil. I'm not sure how any of that gives you optimism, and considering that this war is being run by the dumbest people on the planet, such optimism veers into mental illness.

Regardless, your backpedalling rings laughably hollow. Trump was touted as the antiwar candidate. MAGA trumpeted this over and over again. You made this your number one reason to vote for him.

There were no qualifiers to this position.

No "Well, it depends...".

No cost-benefit analysis of a scenario in which war might be good.

It was simply and explicitly "Trump will not get us into any new wars". Full stop.

And now that he has, you all want the rest of us to pretend that this isn't a complete reversal of your previous position rooted in nothing more than the whim of your cult leader.

No one is buying it.

The one common trait among all MAGArats is a complete inability to remember what they thought and said 2 weeks ago. If it didn't happen in the last 24 hours it never happened.