War in the Middle East, again

[rotting bones]

TLDR: For me, the best case scenario is all the officials from both governments being killed and preferably eaten without any civilian casualties.

MAGA has literally been worshipping a golden goat with Trump's name on it at Mar-a-Lago. (Christianity at its finest.) I'm not sure they are psychologically competent to judge what is or isn't "America First".

Iran is a regime of armed thugs. The only positive thing I can say about Iran is that they claim "Death to America" refers to the US government, not individual Americans. And it's true the US government sees reciprocity with other governments as silly and possibly terrorism. Other countries should realize that it's dangerous to talk to the US government. It could be a stalling tactic until they can take you out.

Same with Israel. Iran says they are not opposed to anti-Zionist Jews. Their leaders go out and meet anti-Zionist Jewish leaders at times. It's also true that Israel is an increasingly genocidal colonial state. The IDF has been openly arresting Syrian civilians.

But I see no evidence the IRGC takes a principled stance on issues like this. They have no accountability in Iran. They arrest Americans and their own citizens and torture them for no reason at all. They teach "classes" where students are taught conspiracy theories and hate for minorities.

Iran claims their ideology opposes building nukes. Maybe this has exercised some deterrence, given they have been a few months away from developing nukes for the past 20 years? I have doubts about this too, given they are now saying Pakistan will avenge them if they get nuked.

I also don't like Shiism because it takes one of the only positive things about Islam, its opposition to determining your place in society by descent, and inverts it. Then again, Rabbinic Judaism sees the world through the lens of descent as well. In both cases, there is some flexibility in determining the scope where it applies. Shiism is very explicit about it though. I've heard their scholars say a man carries all his descendants inside his body (IIRC on his back?). It's perfect ethical determinism. I'm sure only the most fanatical Shiites and Jews go that far. Shiites also practice self-mutilation on Muharram, and generally have extreme policies on religious matters. Of course, Sunni Wahhabism is even worse. I hope Iran isn't one of the main forces keeping Wahhabism in check.

(But if Iran falls, the Marxists would have been proved right on global nuclear non-proliferation. The only way to prevent invasion by the US Reich is to open your markets for aggressive takeover by global corporations or develop nukes. Despite the routine insults exchanged between the US and North Korea, a major reason Kim regime hasn't been invaded yet is because it has developed nukes. Being China's neighbor could also be a deterrent.)

Note that Nazis like Jorjani are already strategizing to make sure the post-clerical regime in Iran goes with capitalism instead of socialism. I can't believe people still fall for this. Capitalist wealth is for millionaires, not for you or me. I also hate that China is the face of socialism in today's world, given that their leadership has explicitly rejected "welfarism" in favor of national greatness.

I wish there were one project for pro-welfare socialism I could help build. There doesn't seem to be anything of the kind anywhere in the world. Everywhere, petty elites roll out projects for cultural revival and the people follow them like sheep, ignoring their starving brothers. Is it possible people are deliberately empowering dictatorial regimes as a distraction from the fact that they are doing a bad job? Huitzilopochtli has had his last laugh.

[rotting bones]

Speaking of targeting state media:

Voice of America Brings Back Farsi-Speaking Staff Amid Israel-Iran Conflict

https://ground.news/article/voice-of-am ... room-share

[malloc]

Israel strikes Iran. Looks like we are getting WWIII on top of everything else now.

It looks like the US is trying to avoid escalation, at least. But I’m worried for my family in Israel.

Well, so much for that.

[Yiuel Raumbesrairc]

Israel strikes Iran. Looks like we are getting WWIII on top of everything else now.

It looks like the US is trying to avoid escalation, at least. But I’m worried for my family in Israel.

Well, so much for that.

Great. After Ukraine, now this shit. Next, Taiwan?

[alice]

How likely is it that much of those in the USA who are currently bellligerent towards Iran don't understand that (1) it's actually quite a large country (about a sixth the area of the USA), (2) has an ethnically diverse population of nearly 100 million, and (3) is not going to be easy to defeat in any realistic kind of war?

[romddude]

Well, you have accused me of spreading antisemitism and Hamas propaganda because I criticized the IDF for targeting civilians. At least you agreed that Netanyahu is basically Putin.

Well in honesty, Putin might be a warmonger and war criminal, but he is not someone actively orchestrating a genocide like Netanyahu and the Israeli government.

[keenir]

How likely is it that much of those in the USA who are currently bellligerent towards Iran don't understand that (1) it's actually quite a large country (about a sixth the area of the USA), (2) has an ethnically diverse population of nearly 100 million, and (3) is not going to be easy to defeat in any realistic kind of war?

Tucker Carlson was recently in a discussion with one of his buddies, and one asked what the population of Iran was, and what the ethnic makeup of it was.

even two years ago, if a Democrat or anyone else had asked someone in the Republican Party (or even Fox News) those questions, they;d have been dismissed as "gotcha" or irrelevant to the conversation.

[Raphael]

Good short Bluesky Thread from Bret Devereaux:

https://bsky.app/profile/bretdevereaux. ... 2evbjqnk2v

How likely is it that much of those in the USA who are currently bellligerent towards Iran don't understand that (1) it's actually quite a large country (about a sixth the area of the USA), (2) has an ethnically diverse population of nearly 100 million, and (3) is not going to be easy to defeat in any realistic kind of war?

Two (partial) posts from over in the US Politics Thread might be relevant here:

I guess there are three things here:
- Trump is by nature a bully. He likes to threaten and to occasionally kick the weak, but he doesn't like protracted fights, because that means his bullying hasn't worked.
- He has no sense of commitment; his preferred mode is to build fences to the outside and have everybody paying for access and support. That's why he's ready to spend oodles of money on missile defence, but sees war or supporting allies financially as a waste of money.
- He doesn't understand ideals; he only understands power and money and transactions based on them, and is lost in situations where others aren't ready to give up their goals and commitments in exchange for material advantage.

The danger with Trump is not, I think, that he wants a major war, or even an ongoing medium war like Afghanistan. It's that he's an idiot who could mistake a high-cost operation for a low-cost one.

Especially relevant is the part where he doesn't understand ideals. He might well be thinking: "The Iranian leadership is clearly losing a lot of money on this, so why don't they give in?"

[Lērisama]

Well, you have accused me of spreading antisemitism and Hamas propaganda because I criticized the IDF for targeting civilians. At least you agreed that Netanyahu is basically Putin.

Well in honesty, Putin might be a warmonger and war criminal, but he is not someone actively orchestrating a genocide like Netanyahu and the Israeli government.

Yes, because not calling going to war claiming the existence of the other country is a historical error and the idea of it is false, requiring your own curriculum to be taught in the occupied areas of that country, which teaches that view as fact, abducting children from said country to get them adopted by Russian families¹, etc. on top of relentless akd indiscriminate killing a genocide while calling another country's relentless and indiscriminate killing² one is totally not hypocritical in any way.
¹ There's an ICC warrant for Putin and his children's commissioner for that somewhere

[Raphael]

Well in honesty, Putin might be a warmonger and war criminal, but he is not someone actively orchestrating a genocide like Netanyahu and the Israeli government.

Yes, because not calling going to war claiming the existence of the other country is a historical error and the idea of it is false, requiring your own curriculum to be taught in the occupied areas of that country, which teaches that view as fact, abducting children from said country to get them adopted by Russian families¹, etc. on top of relentless akd indiscriminate killing a genocide while calling another country's relentless and indiscriminate killing² one is totally not hypocritical in any way.
¹ There's an ICC warrant for Putin and his children's commissioner for that somewhere

I guess it depends on whether you accept gradations among genocide. Is a slow-motion, partly physical but mostly cultural, genocide the same as a high-speed physical genocide? Your answer to that question might determine how much, or how little, you see those two as alike or different.

[Lērisama]

Well in honesty, Putin might be a warmonger and war criminal, but he is not someone actively orchestrating a genocide like Netanyahu and the Israeli government.

Yes, because not calling going to war claiming the existence of the other country is a historical error and the idea of it is false, requiring your own curriculum to be taught in the occupied areas of that country, which teaches that view as fact, abducting children from said country to get them adopted by Russian families¹, etc. on top of relentless akd indiscriminate killing a genocide while calling another country's relentless and indiscriminate killing² one is totally not hypocritical in any way.
¹ There's an ICC warrant for Putin and his children's commissioner for that somewhere

I guess it depends on whether you accept gradations among genocide. Is a slow-motion, partly physical but mostly cultural, genocide the same as a high-speed physical genocide? Your answer to that question might determine how much, or how little, you see those two as alike or different.

Sorry, I shouldn't have snapped like that. I shouldn't have read that into romddude's post given the lack of context to it.

[Ahzoh]

Trump had three nuclear power plants in Iran struck, i dunno how long ago.

But, great, guess we're gonna have war with Iran.

[malloc]

Once again, my pessimism is vindicated.

[Ahzoh]

Once again, my pessimism is vindicated.

Well maybe your pessimism is manifesting reality.

[keenir]

Trump had three nuclear power plants in Iran struck, i dunno how long ago.

But, great, guess we're gonna have war with Iran.

nope, Trump says that, now that the sites have been struck, the war is over.

granted, earlier (today?), he was saying he demanded unconditional surrender from Iran, so that he can then have all of their nuclear sites bombed.

[keenir]

Once again, my pessimism is vindicated.

no no no, you said Trump is one of the authoritarians who will rule the world. you never said he was going to fight other authoritarians.

[rotting bones]

nope, Trump says that, now that the sites have been struck, the war is over.

granted, earlier (today?), he was saying he demanded unconditional surrender from Iran, so that he can then have all of their nuclear sites bombed.

IIRC Trump said he'd hit Iran even harder if they don't surrender immediately. Iran said Trump's actions are outrageous and all options are on the table now. They are trying to make deals with Putin.

Game theorists are arguing that it's in the individual interests of all parties to start a ground invasion of Iran even though it's bad for everyone as a whole:

Background: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XdL-7tAqnU
Argument: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4cs-8mrP_s

Meanwhile, the slaughter in Gaza continues: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTduwS3Dz7Y

Of course, "Israel", "Palestine", "Gaza" and "Iran" are just words humans are saying because they enjoy genocide. The true lord Huitzilopochtli is pleased. Like I said before, the difference between a barbarian and a civilized person is that there is some limit to the barbarism of a barbarian. There is some boundary beyond which further depravity exceeds his imagination. There is no such boundary for a civilized person.

[keenir]

Like I said before, the difference between a barbarian and a civilized person is that there is some limit to the barbarism of a barbarian. There is some boundary beyond which further depravity exceeds his imagination. There is no such boundary for a civilized person.

*raised eyebrow*

"Here I am a barbarian, for no-one understands me."

or are you trotting out the old argument that barbarians are barbarians because they aren't as intelligent as normal people?

[Travis B.]

Like I said before, the difference between a barbarian and a civilized person is that there is some limit to the barbarism of a barbarian. There is some boundary beyond which further depravity exceeds his imagination. There is no such boundary for a civilized person.

*raised eyebrow*

"Here I am a barbarian, for no-one understands me."

or are you trotting out the old argument that barbarians are barbarians because they aren't as intelligent as normal people?

rotting bones seems to be saying that only modern people are truly capable of genocide on a modern scale. Of course, that is doubtful (look at what the Bantu did to the indigenous peoples of southern Africa, for instance).

[rotting bones]

All I'm saying is, I have never come across someone identifying as "civilized" who wasn't trying to justify unqualified barbarism. Neither in my life, not across history. For military examples, see Zinn's People's History of the United States. But arts and manners are no exception.