> I'm puzzled why we talk about "US decline" when we're pretty much creating paeans to marginal energy construction.
It's literally just a mind virus and folks hear it on the news and like the Chinese hypersonic missiles they just hear some capability or reporting and then don't know what to do with it except to parrot it.
They don't think about China's lying down culture [1], for example, ghost cities and over-building doesn't seem to phase them [2] (communism tends to waste a lot of money and drive economic inefficiency), China's over-capacity for manufacturing and now struggling to find markets for goods [3], local corruption, disappearing of folks who disagree with their government, and more. Even with respect to infrastructure. Yea they built a lot. Good luck maintaining it at an affordable cost. China has more manpower to do literally throw bodies at the problem, but economic physics will still win out and China's declining population and demographic crises and xenophobic culture don't help.
Now, with that being said, China has done some absolutely amazing and wonderful things. But we shouldn't confuse China's progress with a corresponding American decline. Instead, the more sophisticated model is looking at both American and Chinese progress while other nations, and the EU are struggling.
Yeah I see that we're entering a multipolar world, where China and the US form 2 dominant poles but other countries/alliances like India and the Gulf States create stiff competition. A world with more prosperity for more people seems good to me.
> A world with more prosperity for more people seems good to me.
Agree with that sentiment absolutely. I’m not totally sure that is a given, however. The primary reason being that as America declines economically from the post-war boom, it no longer has the resources to simultaneously fight or contain many belligerent actors (Russia, Iran, China, &c.) and without the other dominant power (China) stepping up to assist in what I would loosely describe as a bipartisan way we are likely to see more conflict, not less, in my view.
Interesting discussion. Something it made me think about is trading cards or other items you typically might want to sell as graded items. If you’ve got a physical GameStop with the digital eBay footprint maybe you’ve got the makings of a nice little ecosystem for selling Pokémon cards, video games, antiques, and other items in an inspected condition.
As a general comment, I'd like to say that getting out of the house is a hell of a lot easier when you don't have to drive everywhere to participate in daily life. So and so family member sits at home and watches TV all day is a phenomenon caused primarily by our car-centric culture which, for the elderly, is a barrier to staying healthy both mentally and physically.
I do think that once an elderly person loses the ability to drive, it's often a big tipping point towards their decline. I would suspect that losing the ability to drive usually (but not necessarily) comes before losing the ability to navigate public transit.
But I don't immediately believe the link that 'car culture' -> 'earlier cognitive decline'. Car culture, for example, is usually associated with living on larger plots of land, which comes with its own set of tasks and chores that can keep someone older occupied. A smaller apartment requires much less ongoing work.
I think a lot depends on the individual and how they best stay active. More dense living probably provides easier opportunities to do things, whereas less dense living sort of forces you to perform ongoing tasks.
If the additional area is used for new hobbies, hosting guests, or something fulfilling and interesting, then sure it can help keep the mind active. But people don't usually retire so they have more time for vacuuming or dusting. Many elderly people simply don't have the energy or interest to maintain their homes, it slowly falls into disrepair.
One thing we do in Ireland is that all public transport is free for people aged over 65. While I don't think this was the original _intent_, it definitely seems to encourage people to get out of the house more.
(In particular, some people seem to go places just to get the value out of the free pass, which probably keeps them more active than they would otherwise be.)
I'm no fan of car culture but I think to say it's the primary cause of living a sedentary life at home is an overstatement. I deliberately moved somewhere where I could walk to everything I needed including a fantastic central train station, I no longer even own a car, and yet... over the years my habits changed and I now spend a ton of time at home. My motivation to go out has simply declined.
There is a relevant concept in psychology called activation energy, James Clear provides a good introduction to it. Certainly in recent years screens seem to be incentivizing more stay at home behavior. People used to not own a TV, many quite intentionally, before our other screens were invented. But it is a very complicated topic.
Of course our activity levels change and in some cases go down as we age, but I'd like to submit that is a given, and that car-only infrastructure is an additional barrier on top of those natural tendencies.
It's simply much easier to walk to a coffee shop, or park, or wherever for those who have maintained their mobility (probably in part by living in a walking-centric environment) than it is to hop in a car, sit in traffic, for small things. It's less of a barrier.
Respectfully but strongly disagree. I'll argue you don't have to be a victim and can choose where you live if you plan ahead a little.
There's plenty of places where a car is not necessary and even if people think a car's necessary I'm often the only one on a bicycle in many places.. It's doable if you're willing to put in the effort.
I think that suggesting that an octogenarian either uproot their life to a less car-centric place or start riding a bike everywhere is a bit unreasonable.
As far as I’m aware, every US city where it’s at all common (let’s say 10%+ of households) to live without a car, it’s extremely expensive to live. Are there gems that I’m unaware of?
There are cities in the Midwest with a large carfree share by necessity (income) but as far as by choice/design, Philly and Baltimore appear to hover around 25-30%
You can choose to live where you don't need a car, but those places become fewer and fewer because of the distances needed for cars. (as in parking space minimums mandated by the city).
"Not just bikes" on Youtube goes into this a lot. Car-centricism is self-reinforcing. Eventually you have no such thing as a mid-density neighbourhood.
Yea that's a good one. The problem is folks don't have patience. They see an airline fail and instead of waiting until a new competitor enters the market, as they inevitably will, they want to start regulating or look to other "solutions" but these things take time to work themselves out. It's a free market, not an instant free market.
Or maybe a new competitor doesn't enter the market, and we're stuck with a mere four major, three mid-sized, and some smaller airlines in the US. It's still a highly competitive market even with Spirit gone.
England has gotten more liberal over time, not less. I'm not following your logic here. It seems you're wanting to criticize the government of the UK for being authoritarian and ratcheting up the surveillance state, but simultaneously criticize nationalists and link them to this government, but nationalists and right-leaning groups haven't really been in charge of the UK.
No, I didn't. But I wouldn't claim that a referendum that was voted on by the people of the country to be the same thing as right-leaning groups being in control of the government of the UK.
No it doesn't. If the right was in charge of the government of the UK they wouldn't have needed to have a referendum or drum up support for it.
Here's perhaps a concrete example to help piece this together. I live in Ohio. Our state government is right-leaning, and controlled by the Republican Party. The Republican Party has an anti-abortion platform.
A couple of years ago, citizens got together, created, and then passed an amendment to the Ohio Constitution providing abortion access as a legal right.
The right is still in control of the government, and that is true regardless of who paid to support the referendum, or how it was voted.
> I'm not American and I was not thinking from the perspective of an American inclined to join the US military.
I would have thought your first inclination would be to say you're not Russian and not thinking from the perspective of a Russian inclined to join in on the unjust invasion of Ukraine.
But you could also perhaps look at it from the perspective of someone who is a member of Hamas, bombing and attacking civilian targets, or the IRGC launching one of the hundreds to thousands of drone attacks unjustly.
> The positive aspect of drones is that maybe war will turn in a purely economic contest, drones against drones, until one side has exhausted their supply and are forced to declare defeat.
I think in an age of more deadly drone warfare and less human intervention you'll start to see more deaths and more destruction.
This is awful and perhaps what is most awful is that this is the headline folks see, then they have a gut-reaction that because this project is so fucked up that all transit projects must be like this. And of course, there's the fun fact that many highway and road construction projects come in way over budget too.
If you don't live in California, the lesson to take away here is to figure out what the transportation departments and highway lobby did to secure the space needed for highways, and copy those tactics, not to look at California's failure and believe that extrapolates to your state or area.
In Central Ohio voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure to fund bus transit and dedicated lanes in high-density corridors in Columbus. Now the project is already being set back perhaps as long as a year and a half, because the Ohio Department of Transportation is concerned car traffic may be negatively affected and wants a new traffic study. Huge waste of time, the exact kind of thing you would have wanted a DOGE in its most idealized form to nuke. You have to imagine these kinds of tactics x1000 because once California and others see the success of rail the jobs programs that are most state DOTs are going to be in serious trouble.
We'll get there, it's just going to be a long battle against entrenched lobbying and special interest groups (highway departments, construction companies, auto manufacturers, &c.) which need to profit off of your requirement to have a car to participate in society.
By the way, I'm not "against" cars or anything. Have one and love it. But the primary mode of transportation in our more dense areas has to change.
Just requiring it for social media companies is probably enough of a win to not have to pursue any further. We require age verification for sports betting and things like that, I'm not sure why we wouldn't do the same or some variation of that for other massively addicting products that we know as a matter of scientific study have a very bad impact on some number of kids.
That's the cynical view, yes, but we can see educational standards and performance going down in the United States, we have seen plenty of scientific and medical studies showing problems with children and more specifically teenagers using social media. I'm not one to want to want to limit someone's rights, but it seems like the trade-off here is in favor of requiring age verification at least for social media companies.
Separately I still don't fully agree with concerns raised regarding social media and identification for everyone. Bots, people who are online just stirring up trouble, &c. are causing pretty significant challenges and problems for society. If you spew a bunch of racist stuff for example I think people deserve to know who you are.
And you know we do this all the time. Folks want gun registries and things like that (and I agree, as a matter of practice, but not principal) so I'm not sure why we're ok with that form of requiring identification to exercise your rights and against this one other than political priorities.
Maybe requiring identification to speak online is not the intent but it would likely be the practical effect of the laws that were originally intended just to help children. It's not enough to think about laws' intent, but also their practical effects.
We haven't even mentioned the censoriousness that already takes place in various online forums not because a user said something racist or was stirring up trouble, but because moderators were vindictive, petty, or lazy, or because the automated moderation tools in place were heavy-handed and unintelligent. I don't look forward to that kind of moderation spreading everywhere and made more efficient by reducing everyone to a single identity. (Maybe Joe Contrarian has some opinions worth listening to, but it's just easier for the moderator of a forum to see that he was already publicly blacklisted by another unrelated forum, and just blacklist him on this one, too.)
At the end of the day they are private websites and the owners get to decide all of that stuff. Start your own, or just stop posting and let such folks have their echo chambers. One of our problems in society is that folks seem to think there is a need to post on the Internet on some forum - stop giving others power over you. You’re just posting to a bunch of anonymous people. They may be bots for all you know. Who cares?
> Maybe requiring identification to speak online is not the intent but it would likely be the practical effect of the laws that were originally intended just to help children. It's not enough to think about laws' intent, but also their practical effects.
Right we should analyze trade-offs. But you are quite focused on censorship which I am also generally concerned with. But are you really being censored by being identified and associated with what you say online? In public you aren’t anonymous - why must that extend to this digital public square?
It will spread to everywhere else if we allow it for social media. In Australia for example, mandatory age verification has already spread to video games.
Big social media companies are likely overjoyed to be able to get discrete, government issued info of a person's full legal name, date of birth, residential address (as is printed on US drivers licenses) for advertising and demographic profile targeting purposes. And then be able to correlate it with their existing social media history/clicks/profile, browser fingerprinting, IP address, daily usage patterns, geolocation. It's a massive gift to them.
I doubt they need that to identify you. There are also lots of other problems like algorithmic manipulation. But also just stop using these junky websites. Everyone always complains about Meta doing this, TikTok doing that, and it's like if all they do is make you mad, stop being their user/customers?
It's very hard to stop being their users/customers when they're the only platform where people are gathering for that particular purpose. The nature of walled gardens and network effects often mean that there isn't a viable alternative.
It's bad when the choice one has is between 1) using a platform that's significantly problematic or 2) being disconnected from everyone you'd like to connect with because they're only using that platform.
It’s pretty easy. I haven’t had social media besides LinkedIn since, I think 2013? I participate in all sorts of events, I know about things going on in my neighborhood and city, and I have quite a few friends. You don’t need this stuff and it’s just going to suck up more and more of your time and attention misleading you in to believing you need it.
You’re not connected with anyone. It’s a surrogate activity.
Be careful saying you don’t use social media or soon you’ll have a wholly off-topic sub-thread about whether or not HN is social media too, even though we’ve all read the same tired arguments from both sides about a billion times in other threads.
You're right, and if someone wants to say I have social media because of this forum that's totally fine. I just mean I don't use any of the major social media platforms, well, except LinkedIn. And I just haven't gotten over the hump yet on deleting that one too.
> the US petrodollar promise to protect UAE states from aggression in exchange for trade in USD could not be upheld
Well the war is still ongoing, and Iran's regime is already feeling the pain of the blockade [1]. Pricing oil in Yuan because, I guess, the US is somehow not protecting the UAE doesn't make sense because China won't be there to protect them either. The US can just say, well fine you can sell your oil in Yuan. But we'll just blockade the Straight and seize oil priced in Yuan or something. Who exactly does the UAE need protection from? Iran? China's ally?
I swear I read this same story over and over again. There's always just an accusation "thing happened, here's how the US is now in a state of being screwed" and there's just never any follow-up or perhaps imagination that the US could just do something too. Hypersonic missiles? US Navy is done for, no possible counter. Iran has drones? Boom. US is done for no way they can spend Patriot missile money on $30,000 Iranian drones. Nope, nothing anyone can do at all. Iran "closes the Straight", well the US can't do anything. Now they are "embarrassed" and "slammed".
> OPEC cartel membership didnt gain it access to Hormuz
> Pricing oil in Yuan because, I guess, the US is somehow not protecting the UAE doesn't make sense because China won't be there to protect them either.
It is an admission that US protection was always a paper tiger. Perhaps in the 1960s it meant something, but Iran has shattered the illusion that Washington has any credible defense of the country.
> The US can just say, well fine you can sell your oil in Yuan. But we'll just blockade the Straight and seize oil priced in Yuan or something.
The UAE primarily sells its oil to China, which is its largest export partner, followed by countries like India and Japan. the United States cannot do this without not only obliterating energy markets for an ally, but strengthening alliances between china and india. It is likely that should the US attempt such a move, China would respond with retaliatory technology tariffs and a reduction of agricultural trade.
> Who exactly does the UAE need protection from? Iran? China's ally?
the UAE did not "need protection" from any regional military threat until the United States used regional peace talks as cover to launch a surprise attack against Iran. the UAE would still likely be an OPEC member state had the US not unilaterally chosen to obliterate global energy markets for no consistent or clearly defined reason.
> there's just never any follow-up or perhaps imagination that the US could just do something too.
This conflict was well defined as geopolitical suicide for nearly forty years; its what kept the peace. All simulations and tabletop exercises predicted such an incursion would send global energy markets into panic, trade markets into recession, and produce no meaningful advancement of either regional security or regime change. Iran is backed by powerful allies and has shown numerous times it can meet each US escalation with yet more regional attacks. We have tried escalation and failed, burned through a decade of advanced missiles fighting cheap drones, and have no defined objective politically or militarily for this conflict.
> It is an admission that US protection was always a paper tiger. Perhaps in the 1960s it meant something, but Iran has shattered the illusion that Washington has any credible defense of the country.
sigh No, it's not. There are 3 aircraft carriers parked in the region, plus US air bases. Iran launched over 2500 missiles at the UAE alone. The US destroyed much of Iran's military, the only thing they have left is the ability to launch missiles and drones at ships or do terrorist style attacks.
But if you want to suggest that the US is a paper tiger here, that just makes everyone a paper tiger. Nobody can stop Iran. Ok.
> The UAE primarily sells its oil to China, which is its largest export partner, followed by countries like India and Japan. the United States cannot do this without not only obliterating energy markets for an ally, but strengthening alliances between china and india. It is likely that should the US attempt such a move, China would respond with retaliatory technology tariffs and a reduction of agricultural trade.
Then we would react with export controls, additional weapons shipments to allies in the region, work with Japan and South Korea to start weapons programs, blockade Chinese trade, there's a million things we can do too.
> the UAE did not "need protection" from any regional military threat until the United States used regional peace talks as cover to launch a surprise attack against Iran. the UAE would still likely be an OPEC member state had the US not unilaterally chosen to obliterate global energy markets for no consistent or clearly defined reason.
And yet, UAE wants the US in the region and in UAE soil. Iran launched over 2500 missiles at the UAE, including civilian targets. Not sure your comment here reflects reality.
> This conflict was well defined as geopolitical suicide for nearly forty years; its what kept the peace.
Things change. US is the #1 energy producing country in the world in terms of oil, gas, &c. We're less dependent on the Middle East, plus we've basically secured the Venezuelan oil supply. Seems to me that what was once geopolitical suicide is no longer the case. We're here today, and life in the US just goes on as normal.
> All simulations and tabletop exercises predicted such an incursion would send global energy markets into panic, trade markets into recession, and produce no meaningful advancement of either regional security or regime change.
TBD
> Iran is backed by powerful allies and has shown numerous times it can meet each US escalation with yet more regional attacks.
Yes, Iran, who is supplying Russia with drones and such for its war against Ukraine is an ally, as is China.
> We have tried escalation and failed, burned through a decade of advanced missiles fighting cheap drones, and have no defined objective politically or militarily for this conflict.
We have not burned through a decade of advanced missiles fighting cheap drones. We can build our own cheap drones and are working on scaling production, and just because you don't understand the political or military objective doesn't mean that there isn't one, however poorly or well-thought it may be.
The US has very much escalated and sits now at the top of the escalation ladder. Iran has been trying to get the US to the negotiating table due to the blockade. Iran can launch its missiles as it likes to at civilian targets in the Gulf. We + allies will just get better at shooting them down. Who cares? If Iran wants to try to escalate we'll just escalate further, blow up more stuff, keep the oil from flowing if we decide. It doesn't really hurt us much.
people tend to forget the exorbitant privillege of the US. originally this idea applied to USD being the global reserve currency. but it goes so much further. critics of american foreign policy simply lack a sense of proportion. there is so, so much leverage the US has. which they use to do things that wouldn't make sense for any other country. while still coming out on top. i'm glad to see specifics being provided in support of this idea
> Iran "closes the Straight", well the US can't do anything.
Well, Iran closed the Straight and the world is facing biggest oil crises since 90ties. US was in fact incapable to prevent it. Even if the Straight opened today, harm already happened and will continue to happen for months. And I dont think it will open today.
The war did not had to start at all and is causing considerable harm already. Iran feeling pain does not mean surrounding states were protected - instead they were put into harms way.
> Pricing oil in Yuan because, I guess, the US is somehow not protecting the UAE doesn't make sense because China won't be there to protect them either.
At this point, China is more predictable and crucially, more likely to keep their word. Not exactly entirely predictable and not exactly truth teller, but the difference here is huge.
> The war did not had to start at all and is causing considerable harm already. Iran feeling pain does not mean surrounding states were protected - instead they were put into harms way.
They were always in harm's way. The war could have waited, and Iran could have doubled or tripled its missile stockpile and then they really would have been in harm's way. You're falling in to the same trap I mentioned "country does X, end of analysis".
> Well, Iran closed the Straight and the world is facing biggest oil crises since 90ties. US was in fact incapable to prevent it.
Any country is incapable of preventing it then. Iran could always just mine the straight and threaten to launch missiles and go hide in the mountains. If Iran wasn't doing all of these awful things in the region, none of this would be happening.
> They were always in harm's way. The war could have waited, and Iran could have doubled or tripled its missile stockpile and then they really would have been in harm's way.
I keep hearing this line defending US intervention but it doesn't really make sense. Iran was not threatening shipping traffic in the strait regardless of how many missiles they stocked up until they were forced to do so as an asymmetric warfare response to an attack by a superior military.
The missing ingredient has never been how many missiles Iran has stockpiled, it was external military action from someone like the US that gave them the window to assert that control.
The US didn't do the world any favors by getting it out of the way sooner or something, that's just absurd apoligism for a poorly planned war of choice that has obviously been a net negative for basically the entire world.
It would be like if the US nuked China and then shrugged after they predictably retaliated saying it just proved the threat from their stockpile that had always existed.
> I keep hearing this line defending US intervention but it doesn't really make sense. Iran was not threatening shipping traffic in the strait regardless of how many missiles they stocked up until they were forced to do so as an asymmetric warfare response to an attack by a superior military.
Why would they threaten to do so prior to being ready? Have you ever played a strategy game where you build up your forces for an advantageous offensive or defensive position? Countries do this too. If we were playing a game where my actions would provide some advantage or victory over you in some area or a broad area, why would I announce what my intentions were to you so you could react or anticipate my actions?
Separately, you can just ask: why are they even stockpiling missiles in the first place? Why isn't Singapore stockpiling missiles, or perhaps Portugal, or Panama, or Morocco? Of course, this then introduces the circular reasoning "because of a potential US attack", but of course if Iran wasn't funding Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, and more, building up these missile stockpiles, continuing to pursue a nuclear bomb, helping Russia with its invasion of Ukraine, we wouldn't be here. At some point you just have to look at their actions and their actions suggest implementing a plan.
> The missing ingredient has never been how many missiles Iran has stockpiled, it was external military action from someone like the US that gave them the window to assert that control.
They don't have control over the Straight of Hormuz. It's a bit of semantics, but control would mean they can allow or disallow ships to pass based on their own decision making. They can disallow ships, but the US can also disallow ships. If Iran controls the Straight of Hormuz because they can fire missiles at ships, the US also controls the Straight of Hormuz because of that very same capability.
> Of course, this then introduces the circular reasoning "because of a potential US attack", but of course if Iran wasn't funding Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis
I think the first step of thinking about war objectively is to consider how each side sees it. The US POV is no less circular, from Iran’s perspective - they could list any number of provocations from the US to justify arming themselves, none more obvious than the war itself.
The debate around who started the hostility is ultimately pointless, the question is what to do about. Ideally the answer isn’t “arm for obliteration because the other side started it”
So let's say Iran stops building up massive amounts of missiles, funding these terrorist groups, stops pursuing a nuclear weapon, stops mass killing of its own civilians, and stops helping Russia prosecute its war against Ukraine (we can even leave this optional just to not introduce additional complexities).
What will the United States now have to do on its side as it pertains to Iran?
are you implying that the US share in the hostilities is only direct military intervention? because that's not correct. through their alliances, they are additionally responsible for more
It is not a game. And this war happened because Israel and USA assumed Iran is weak.
This had squat zero with acute danger of military buildup. This happened because Hegseth thought Iran will fold and found it super unfair they did not.
> Separately, you can just ask: why are they even stockpiling missiles in the first place?
To protect themselves when America starta Another war. It cant go without war for long. As brutal as iran is, there was no imminent threat of expansion
It is israel who just displaced millions of people.
Is the idea here that only USA gets to have missiles?
Iran is weak compared to the United States. The war wasn't started because Iran is weak, it was started because Iran is engaging in various activities that have effects in the world that the United States finds unacceptable.
> To protect themselves when America starta Another war.
Yet, only Iran has to protect themselves. Why is that? Well it's because they're doing bad things, and they know that we may do something about it. Why isn't Peru stockpiling missiles, or Thailand, or Iceland? It's because Iran's government was seized by an authoritarian regime that hates America and decided we would be the enemy forever and has continued to attack, and take other violent or non-violent actions that destabilize the region and global trade. If they just stopped doing this stuff, there wouldn't be a reason to "attack".
> It is israel who just displaced millions of people.
I don't think so. But Iran is responsible for Syria and those millions of people too. Like Maduro is responsible for the 8 million + refugees from Venezuela.
Your point of view of the world does not match reality. Stop making excuses and defending brutal authoritarian dictatorships.
> Is the idea here that only USA gets to have missiles?
Well you believe in nuclear non-proliferation, right?
> Stop making excuses and defending brutal authoritarian dictatorships.
this style of argument really falls flat in 2026 tho. at least for a global audience. it seems you don't appreciate how much america's image as a champion in good faith of freedom, democracy and prosperity has been shattered. not least because the old neoliberal guard has been busy undermining it (see carney's speech at WEF, where he started by pointing out that not only was the rules based order a lie, but that it is no longer acceptable to pretend otherwise). but now also because US aggression is perceived as directly responsible for the global energy crisis, which is affecting everyone else. america simply doesn't have a high horse to get on anymore
Part of the problem here is that folks have become so angry about Donald Trump that they've forgotten the broader picture. Taking out Maduro, taking action to stop Iran's regime, and more are unambiguously good things from the prospect of "freedom and democracy". There's a lot of conflict and anger and whatnot regarding trade and Trump's general idiocy, but if all of the world order, all of the good faith, all of that stuff is shattered so quickly? It wasn't very strong or valuable to begin with and so I don't mourn its loss.
If we no longer have a high horse, that gives us much more flexibility to act in our own self-interest since we no longer have to focus on taking losses to placate an image.
as i mentioned elsewhere. i don't disagree that america is in a strong position, relatively to everyone else. and has the means to achieve its interests. even without the superficial image of acting in good faith. but the old messaging ("america's tide is lifting all boats" etc) comes across uncalibrated
agreement on fundamental principles at a global level was the american (liberal) context. stepping outside of it leads to discovering a diverse world that you didn't account for before. as an example, even among iranians there doesn't seem to be enough support for the attack on their regime
Those states could export oil entirely reliable. They had tourism and finance industries dependent on them being safe.
Iran did not mined strait until USA and Israel bombed it twice during negotiations, threatened civilisation destruction, murdered political leaders and attacked BOTH civilian and military infrastructure.
You dont get to start a war or bomb and then blame the other side for not passivele accepting the situation.
Iran threatens to erase Israel and the United States off the map pretty much daily. So I just don't care that Trump did the same back to them. If they don't like threats like that, perhaps they should stop issuing them yea?
> murdered political leaders and attacked BOTH civilian and military infrastructure
What civilian infrastructure was deliberately attacked? We do know that Iran deliberately attacked civilian and military infrastructure. Did you mix the two up?
> You dont get to start a war or bomb and then blame the other side for not passivele accepting the situation.
Who started the war isn't an easy question to answer. I can easily and obviously argue that Iran started the war when they attacked Israel through their proxy forces. Ultimately though who "started" the war doesn't matter that much. Both sides have had grievances for quite a long time and things are just finally coming to more direct conflict.
> What civilian infrastructure was deliberately attacked?
Its clear you have only been getting your information from a certain set of sources. a lot of civilian infrastructure has been destroyed in Iran.
One of Israel's goals is to cripple the economy of Iran.
"Israeli leaders, including Defense Minister Israel Katz, have ordered the military to carry out strikes on targets that cause economic blows to the Iranian regime."
"This included a strike on major Iranian gas infrastructure in the country’s south nearly two weeks ago, and strikes on two of Iran’s largest steel factories on Friday. "
"Missiles also struck one of Iran’s biggest state-run pharmaceutical companies, Tofigh Darou, destroying its production and research and development units, state media said on Tuesday, blaming the strike on Israel. It’s a major producer of anti-cancer drugs and anesthetic in Iran"
"A century-old medical research centre (Pasteur Institute) set up to fight infectious diseases like plague and smallpox has been heavily damaged in strikes on Tehran"
In addition, one of my friends who lives in Iran reported that a dialysis center, a refrigerator factory, a public park (that had "police" in the name),
a popular chicken restaurant, and an entire apartment building full of people were each separately targeted and destroyed (apartment building was double tapped,
killing rescue workers)
the above is just a small selection, universities, factories, bridges, oil infra has all been targeted as well.
would you consider US Steel factories, universities that do research for the military, factories or companies that make components that go into US weapons, apartment buildings where one military leader lives as military or civilian infrastructure?
> would you consider US Steel factories, universities that do research for the military, factories or companies that make components that go into US weapons, apartment buildings where one military leader lives as military or civilian infrastructure?
I would consider it military infrastructure, but if you don't then you can't really complain about the US attacking, say, a petrochemical facility while Iran is/was simultaneously attacking infrastructure in the Gulf and attacking actual civilian targets like apartment buildings.
So you have to be consistent. It's either military or not. Iran is doing the same thing the US is doing or neither are doing it. Either way there's no room for moral superiority or outrage when both countries are somewhat acting the same, of course with Iran attacking and killing more civilians and whatnot.
true, but there's some evidence that was unintentional. whereas Trump and Israel are openly saying they are targeting bridges, oil
infra, economic targets etc.
>Well, Iran closed the Straight and the world is facing biggest oil crises since 90ties. US was in fact incapable to prevent it. Even if the Straight opened today, harm already happened and will continue to happen for months. And I dont think it will open today.
Adjusted for inflation the price of oil isn't even the highest it's been this decade, let alone historically.
The price tripled from 2003-2008 as well.
>The war did not had to start at all
We probably won't know for twenty years if that's true or not. It's not as Iran's been some peaceful country for the last twenty years, they actively have sponsored terrorist organizations with the purpose of destabilizing the region. The country also sits on a wealth of natural resources but was solely researching nuclear power for peaceful purposes.
Really the big lesson for the next superpower is to simply act earlier. If you don't care about winning and just being a thorn in everyone's side, ballistic missiles are a great investment, and it should have been taken more seriously when Iran started stockpiling thousands of them.
> Adjusted for inflation the price of oil isn't even the highest it's been this decade, let alone historically.
I dont think UAE cares about American oil prices that much. Nor does Europe nor does Asia. That just meand America is less motivated to solve clusterfuck it created.
And yes, it is huge issue already. With flies cancelled for summer, with strategic reserves already being used, with homeschool and home office in some countries, shorted workweek in others, factories producing less.
> We probably won't know for twenty years if that's true or not.
We do know that. There was no urgent reason to start badly prepared war. And no involved country is peaceful.
> The country also sits on a wealth of natural resources but was solely researching nuclear power for peaceful purposes.
It was entirely legal for them, because literally USA teared down agreement to do the opposite.
And what everybody knows now is that the only way to be safe from aggression is to have nuclear.
"Strait" refers to something which is narrow, especially at sea. It can be pluralised as "Straits" in many cases. "Straitjacket" also comes from this root.
"Straight" refers to something which is not curved. The "gh" used to be pronounced and still is in some parts of Scotland.
Yea there is some truth to that. The US is still in a wartime economy and cultural mode of thinking post-WWII (military budget, highway and infrastructure build, cultural characteristics around guns [1] and such). The downside is the degradation of quality of life, rage-bait, stress, those sorts of things. But if we have Americans constantly freaking out (and to some extent they should - being #1 is tough) about Chyna that does put pressure on the government to take these concerns seriously if they previously were not.
[1] Not a 2nd Amendment criticism, I’m a strong supporter. More so the folks who load up on ammo and “cool” gear and all that stuff.
It's literally just a mind virus and folks hear it on the news and like the Chinese hypersonic missiles they just hear some capability or reporting and then don't know what to do with it except to parrot it.
They don't think about China's lying down culture [1], for example, ghost cities and over-building doesn't seem to phase them [2] (communism tends to waste a lot of money and drive economic inefficiency), China's over-capacity for manufacturing and now struggling to find markets for goods [3], local corruption, disappearing of folks who disagree with their government, and more. Even with respect to infrastructure. Yea they built a lot. Good luck maintaining it at an affordable cost. China has more manpower to do literally throw bodies at the problem, but economic physics will still win out and China's declining population and demographic crises and xenophobic culture don't help.
Now, with that being said, China has done some absolutely amazing and wonderful things. But we shouldn't confuse China's progress with a corresponding American decline. Instead, the more sophisticated model is looking at both American and Chinese progress while other nations, and the EU are struggling.
reply