General News Thread

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

So if there was a war with China, you think the SSNs wouldn't sink every ship they set their sights on?  Sounds like peacetime policy to me.

I'm not 100% clued up on military policy, but I'm pretty sure naval rules of engagement, even unwritten ones, exist for a reason, and even the grossest regimes have mostly stuck to them, if only for the reason that if they don't, the side fighting then would have no reason to either. 

 

NB. Moot point, but if there was a war with China then this kind of thing would be the last thing that needed discussion anyway, given such a war would escalate catastrophically for all parties involved. 

Edited 5 March by leicsmac

[Jon the Hat]

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I'm not 100% clued up on military policy, but I'm pretty sure naval rules of engagement, even unwritten ones, exist for a reason, and even the grossest regimes have mostly stuck to them, if only for the reason that if they don't, the side fighting then would have no reason to either. 

That is a bit my point, I don't believe for a second Iran/ China / Russia would hesitate, so if the US does, Iran has an advantage.

[Zear0]

3 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

So if there was a war with China, you think the SSNs wouldn't sink every ship they set their sights on?  Sounds like peacetime policy to me.

But that's a hypothetical situation completely different to what's happening now so not sure on the relevance of that comparison.

 

As I said above, the US are being very clear they're hitting Iran to stop them developing nuclear weapons, having a ballistic missile programme and to change regime.  This is the legal basis for their attacks.  Randomly hitting targets (such as school) or ships that don't align to those objectives is illegal.  Now they clearly don't care, and a few posters here get confused with what's legal and what they want, so they're doing it anyway.  Whether it was a Los Angeles Class, or more than likely a Virginia, they have other weapons that could smash a hole in the side of the boat incapacitating it and not cause the loss of life they've inflicted.

 

Trump keeps saying "War" as he's a moron who doesn't understand the context, all the others in the leadership are being careful to ensure it aligns to the "military objectives".  For me this event is the difference between sending a JDAM through a bad guys apartment window compared to dropping a MOAB on top of the block killing everyone.  It was unnecessary and excessive.

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

That is a bit my point, I don't believe for a second Iran/ China / Russia would hesitate, so if the US does, Iran has an advantage.

I disagree, and I think this viewpoint comes from a dehumanising viewpoint of the "opposition" as mindless killers rather than human beings looking to fulfil their own objectives, rather than one that has any hard evidence. Unless there's such evidence of them repeatedly and knowingly flouting the "rules of war" ready to be presented?

Edited 5 March by leicsmac

[Zear0]

Even slinging stuff at Azerbaijan, going down swinging at least.

[danny.]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I disagree, and I think this viewpoint comes from a dehumanising viewpoint of the "opposition" as mindless killers rather than human beings looking to fulfil their own objectives, rather than one that has any hard evidence. Unless there's such evidence of them repeatedly and knowingly flouting the "rules of war" ready to be presented?

I know you think all cultures are equal, but I think the Islamic Republic of Iran, as a theocratic culture happy to execute women for showing hair, might be more inclined to go along with "fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them" than a non Islamic country.

[Guesty]

6 hours ago, Jattdogg said:

Despised her during Bidens term. It's crazy how she has done a complete change which is somewhat refreshing. She was speaking truth about what's going on although you always have to ask what is her angle.

 

I am all for accepting of people who see the light, I just hope it's not all for show.

 

 

 

 

MTG hasn't really changed. You have to look at her as a true believer when it comes to America First. She wants no involvement in any foreign wars. She wants all their tax dollars spent at home on the American people. She was never just anti-Ukraine. She's always been one of the only American politicians pointing out how many American politicians take money from AIPAC - and how much they take. She always wanted the Epstein files released. Now she's realised she got played - she fell for Trump's/MAGA's con. 

 

It is odd when you see her saying something you agree with. Always worth remembering she used to believe all the school shootings like Sandy Hook and Parkland were staged conspiracies. She mocked and harassed some of the victims. But it is nice seeing these hard-core right-wing people turn on themselves.

 

She always was a horrible bully. It's just now she's on the other side, so she's striking a different tone - cause she isn't that brave. It's much easier to bully and mock school shooting survivors than it is the Trump. 

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, danny. said:

I know you think all cultures are equal, but I think the Islamic Republic of Iran, as a theocratic culture happy to execute women for showing hair, might be more inclined to go along with "fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them" than a non Islamic country.

And when such a place is clearly shown to show that lack of regard for life clearly and repeatedly in the sphere of military operations against a variety of opposition, as opposed to keeping the brutalising in-house, then I'll share that as more than a working hypothesis.

 

Until then, it is simply just that working hypothesis, and appears to be based on the exact dehumanising point of view that the Iranian leadership has shown to its own citizens in recent times.

Edited 5 March by leicsmac

[danny.]

Just now, leicsmac said:

And when such a place is clearly shown to show that lack of regard for life clearly and repeatedly in the sphere of military operations against a variety of oopposition, as opposed to keeping the brutalising in-house, then I'll share that as more than a working hypothesis.

 

Until then, it is simply just that working hypothesis, and appears to be based on the exact dehumanising point of view that the Iranian leadership has shown to its own citizens in recent times.

So you need to wait for them to show that in a military sense first? That sounds like a terrible tactic for war "I'll shoot that enemy only after they've already shot me". I think there are more factors that would go into a less black and white strategy. Iran also seems pretty happy to send missiles all over the Middle East at people with little to no provocation so they haven't exactly demonstrated to be peaceable and honourable. Side context: I don't think the US or anyone else from the West should have attacked Iran, it's meddling where they have no right or jurisdiction, but they have, and I'm just talking about their operations now they are already engaged.

[Lionator]

13 minutes ago, danny. said:

I know you think all cultures are equal, but I think the Islamic Republic of Iran, as a theocratic culture happy to execute women for showing hair, might be more inclined to go along with "fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them" than a non Islamic country.

But we’re told that the Iranian public are oppressed pro-westerners waiting to be rescued by their crusade knights in shining armour hence why this is all necessary?? Which one is it?? 

Edited 5 March by Lionator

[danny.]

5 minutes ago, Lionator said:

But we’re told that the Iranian public are oppressed pro-westerners waiting to be rescued by their crusade knights in shining armour hence why this is all necessary?? Which one is it?? 

Why are you bringing the public into a discussion about military operations? And I haven't mentioned anything close to "the Iranian public are oppressed pro-westerners waiting to be rescued by their crusade knights in shining armour" so maybe you confused me with someone else if you're not using a straw man.

Edited 5 March by danny.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, danny. said:

So you need to wait for them to show that in a military sense first? That sounds like a terrible tactic for war "I'll shoot that enemy only after they've already shot me". I think there are more factors that would go into a less black and white strategy. Iran also seems pretty happy to send missiles all over the Middle East at people with little to no provocation so they haven't exactly demonstrated to be peaceable and honourable. Side context: I don't think the US or anyone else from the West should have attacked Iran, it's meddling where they have no right or jurisdiction, but they have, and I'm just talking about their operations now they are already engaged.

Yes, viewpoints rather have to be based on actual action to be certain, otherwise they're not certain at all. 

 

The whole idea of there being 

"black and white" parties in this whole mess (and other messes in the recent past and present) is the very idea that I'm looking to disabuse people of, because it's responsible for so many problems. The moment you see another people, another demographic, as "lesser", no matter which group you being to yourself, is the moment you give yourself free reign to do what you want to them. And that, most of the time, makes you a pretty terrible human being. 

 

And yes, of course the US shouldn't have attacked Iran, because firstly such interventions are historically proven to not work in their supposed objectives, and secondly because as they know that, the US intervention is based totally on self-interest and that of the Israelis. 

[danny.]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Yes, viewpoints rather have to be based on actual action to be certain, otherwise they're not certain at all. 

 

The whole idea of there being 

"black and white" parties in this whole mess (and other messes in the recent past and present) is the very idea that I'm looking to disabuse people of, because it's responsible for so many problems. The moment you see another people, another demographic, as "lesser", no matter which group you being to yourself, is the moment you give yourself free reign to do what you want to them. And that, most of the time, makes you a pretty terrible human being. 

 

And yes, of course the US shouldn't have attacked Iran, because firstly such interventions are historically proven to not work in their supposed objectives, and secondly because as they know that, the US intervention is based totally on self-interest and that of the Israelis. 

I genuinely love your opinions and sentiments and I agree with them too at a deep level, but they are so far from pragmatism in so many situations.

[ramboacdc]

With claims there are some warnings and shit still flying Cyprus' way, I don't think sending the Defence Secretary over to say "well we can't send anything of merit for another week" is going to go down as well as a fart in a crowded lift. 

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, danny. said:

I genuinely love your opinions and sentiments and I agree with them too at a deep level, but they are so far from pragmatism in so many situations.

Appreciate the compliment there. 

 

However, in my view my viewpoints here are incredibly pragmatic - because they are the difference between our species surviving for any length of time and it dying in the mud in the final war over the last remaining reserves of food and potable water.

 

But then I guess that comes down to whether a person considers survival a pragmatic objective or not. People view that differently, too. 

[danny.]

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Appreciate the compliment there. 

 

However, in my view my viewpoints here are incredibly pragmatic - because they are the difference between our species surviving for any length of time and it dying in the mud in the final war over the last remaining reserves of food and potable water.

 

But then I guess that comes down to whether a person considers survival a pragmatic objective or not. People view that differently, too. 

I see your point but I think in a world with bad actors that may ensure species survivability but at a cost of a genuinely dystopian future. Hopefully its not a binary choice bit unless everyone is aligned (obviously they aren't) we are back to the tolerance paradox. 

[Lionator]

15 minutes ago, danny. said:

Why are you bringing the public into a discussion about military operations? And I haven't mentioned anything close to "the Iranian public are oppressed pro-westerners waiting to be rescued by their crusade knights in shining armour" so maybe you confused me with someone else if you're not using a straw man.

Because for the US strategy to work, it’ll need the Iranian public to overthrow the theocracy. Which just isn’t going to happen.

[leicsmac]

Just now, danny. said:

I see your point but I think in a world with bad actors that may ensure species survivability but at a cost of a genuinely dystopian future. Hopefully its not a binary choice bit unless everyone is aligned (obviously they aren't) we are back to the tolerance paradox. 

Yep, and then it comes down to the choice between 1984 and Mad Max followed by extinction. 

 

Personally, as bad as it may be, I'd go with the former, because at least with that there's a chance of some kind of future at all. 

 

But yes, let's hope it isn't a binary choice, because that would be a truly horrific choice to make.

[danny.]

3 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Because for the US strategy to work, it’ll need the Iranian public to overthrow the theocracy. Which just isn’t going to happen.

Yea... so I think you picked a comment out of context. I don't disagree with that you're saying but it's nothing to do with the thread I was talking about.

[danny.]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Yep, and then it comes down to the choice between 1984 and Mad Max followed by extinction. 

 

Personally, as bad as it may be, I'd go with the former, because at least with that there's a chance of some kind of future at all. 

 

But yes, let's hope it isn't a binary choice, because that would be a truly horrific choice to make.

Fair. I think I'd rather go Max! That's a preference, and a fecking bleak one at that either way!

[leicsmac]

Just now, danny. said:

Fair. I think I'd rather go Max! That's a preference, and a fecking bleak one at that either way!

 

Tbf I can see the appeal 

[Guesty]

 

Might have been idea to ask Zelensky who's been fighting these drone for years before they launched this war. Unless of course this hasn't gone to plan.

[Trav Le Bleu]

16 minutes ago, Guesty said:

 

Might have been idea to ask Zelensky who's been fighting these drone for years before they launched this war. Unless of course this hasn't gone to plan.

What plan?

[Lionator]

Seems like we’re at the stage of indiscriminate civilian attacks against the ‘oppressed local population’. 

[MPH]

24 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Seems like we’re at the stage of indiscriminate civilian attacks against the ‘oppressed local population’. 

 

and it appears that this tactic is beginning to backfire. The Kurds   ( backed by American hardware and intel) are starting to fight back. Long time victims of Iranian targeting,  have started cross border raids against  Iranian military positions,

 

 

when people discover their bully is not as strong as they thought err they were, the bully’s downfall can be brutal.