International events

[Jace, Extat]

1 hour ago, A True Kaniggit said:

Hmmm. 

@Jace, Extat

Have you been apologizing for warcrimes when I wasn’t looking?

Bad!

I don't recall doing... but I do so love being bad. It's my nature.

Only thing I can think of is my understanding of Israel's war with Hamas, maybe? 

30 minutes ago, Conflicting Thought said:

hard to know when she is "joking" and when she is not, if it was the first time it would be different, but she has said multiple times that she thinks that bombing iran is the right thing to do and its like she cant wait till it happens, its disturbing

I'm always joking, and I'm never not serious. 

Although it's true; my greatest anxiety these days is Iran's progress towards nuclear armament, and the fact that neither U.S. presidential candidate is equipped to lead the country against such a threat. I express that discomfort in art and song, and am not sorry if it offends.

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, polishgenius said:

I can't disagree that Jace is sometimes tone-deaf, but guys, she was pretty clearly not making fun of Iran there, come on. 

It's not clear at all.  What do you think she was saying then?  I'd ask her, but the response will be out of her own private Idaho, so 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Own_Private_Idaho

When we are being told for the last few days that a much larger expansion of the war in the ME is to be expected any moment -- no matter what the intent -- neither funny nor helpful.  Big part of the problem, not a solution.

Edited April 13 by Zorral

[polishgenius]

10 minutes ago, Zorral said:

What do you think she was saying then? 

 

Well I thought she was taking the piss out of the US politicians who think that way, but her last post says maybe I was wrong, since Iran's progression towards nuclear capability is such a 20-years-ago fear. 

[A True Kaniggit]

54 minutes ago, Jace, Extat said:

I

Although it's true; my greatest anxiety these days is Iran's progress towards nuclear armament, and the fact that neither U.S. presidential candidate is equipped to lead the country against such a threat. I express that discomfort in art and song, and am not sorry if it offends.

Pfft.  That’s a problem with your anxieties then. 

Edited April 13 by A True Kaniggit

[Jace, Extat]

57 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

 

Well I thought she was taking the piss out of the US politicians who think that way, but her last post says maybe I was wrong, since Iran's progression towards nuclear capability is such a 20-years-ago fear. 

20 years ago I was ten... And that probably would have been a better time to handle this problem, really. But thanks to Bush we wasted our Regime Change card on Iraq instead. 

25 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

Pfft.  That’s a problem with your anxiety’s then. 

The world could end in thirty minutes due to the actions of nine political actors. As is, the nine have played rationally with their apocalypse machines. But what cannot come to pass is a theocratic regime, that expects to kill billions of heretics and non-believers as a precondition to paradise, becoming nuclear armed. No, no go. Can't be allowed.

And to be fair to Iran, my personal position is that no more players are welcome at the nuclear table. 

No nuclear armed Egypt, or Sweeden, or Japan, or anybody. If you try to attain nuclear weapons it should be policy that America will come and break all your shit real bad.

Two nuclear powers is too many. Nine is insane. Ten is unthinkable.

[polishgenius]

3 minutes ago, Jace, Extat said:

But what cannot come to pass is a theocratic regime, that expects to kill billions of heretics and non-believers as a precondition to paradise, becoming nuclear armed. No, no go. Can't be allowed.

 

To be fair though that's gonna happen anyway when America breaks apart. 

[kissdbyfire]

2 minutes ago, Jace, Extat said:

But what cannot come to pass is a theocratic regime, that expects to kill billions of heretics and non-believers as a precondition to paradise, becoming nuclear armed. No, no go. Can't be allowed.

But this theocracy already has nukes, and plenty of them. 
Oh wait, you meant Iran! I thought you were talking about the US! 

[kissdbyfire]

And 1 nuclear power is one too many imo.

[A True Kaniggit]

5 minutes ago, Jace, Extat said:

20 years ago I was ten... And that probably would have been a better time to handle this problem, really. But thanks to Bush we wasted our Regime Change card on Iraq instead. 

The world could end in thirty minutes due to the actions of nine political actors. As is, the nine have played rationally with their apocalypse machines. But what cannot come to pass is a theocratic regime, that expects to kill billions of heretics and non-believers as a precondition to paradise, becoming nuclear armed. No, no go. Can't be allowed.

And to be fair to Iran, my personal position is that no more players are welcome at the nuclear table. 

No nuclear armed Egypt, or Sweeden, or Japan, or anybody. If you try to attain nuclear weapons it should be policy that America will come and break all your shit real bad.

Two nuclear powers is too many. Nine is insane. Ten is unthinkable.

Bold 1: Shit! I'm older than you are? No wonder my hair is so thin. 

 

Bold 2: So America when Republicans are in charge?

Ba dum tss. 

Edited April 13 by A True Kaniggit

[A True Kaniggit]

1 hour ago, Jace, Extat said:

I don't recall doing... but I do so love being bad. It's my nature.

Only thing I can think of is my understanding of Israel's war with Hamas, maybe? 

I'm always joking, and I'm never not serious. 

Although it's true; my greatest anxiety these days is Iran's progress towards nuclear armament, and the fact that neither U.S. presidential candidate is equipped to lead the country against such a threat. I express that discomfort in art and song, and am not sorry if it offends.

 

And I see no reason why President Biden could not lead the country against such a threat.

 

[Werthead]

One media outlet with links to the Iranian state has apparently signalled that Iran is considering a strike limited to military targets alone in the Golan Heights, on the ground this is territory recognised by numerous states (including Iran) as the sovereign territory of Syria. Thus, hitting occupying forces in the Golan Heights would be less incendiary than, say, hitting downtown Tel Aviv killing hundreds or thousands of civilians, which might trigger an Israeli-US retaliatory strike that could be existential (for the country or the regime).

There's also messaging in Iran and amongst allies that the "panic" the United States has gone into, including "pleading" with countries like China and regional players to ask Iran not to strike back, has in itself been highly satisfactory to the Tehran regime, and has de facto recognised Iran has the regional power, which in itself is a major political victory. This may not be enough to appease hardliners in the military, who have been urging a major strike on Israeli territory involving 100 cruise missiles and drones.

There is a perception - and this might be satisfying to some on the Israeli right - that Israel is considerably more likely to use nuclear weapons against Iran at the barest pretext than in just about any other circumstance on Earth, which modifies Iranian thinking until they have nuclear weapons of their own.

[kissdbyfire]

I’ve heard the exact same as @Werthead reported above at least twice. And the reports I heard also talk about the timing of these strikes and mind games. 

[Werthead]

Hang on. Jordan has closed its airspace to all civilian air traffic. The United States has scrambled fighters over Iraq and Axios is reporting multiple drones launched from Iran crossing Iranian territory.

The Israeli government's security aircraft, designed to provide continuity in the face of an attack on Israel's government headquarters, is reportedly in the air.

So far only Iranian Shahed drones are reported overflying western and southern Iraq. But if Iran is planning ballistic missile strikes, they would not launch until the drones were close to their targets. Using drones alone might be a signal of both taking retaliatory action but not escalating insanely.

Israel has now confirmed an attack is underway against its territory. It is deploying AA defences. US, Israeli and possibly UK aircraft may be deploying to intercept the drones, which have a 2-hour flight time from Iranian territory towards Israel.

Some Iranian sources reporting cruise missile launches but no video confirmation. No ballistic missile strikes as yet.

Edited April 13 by Werthead

[Jace, Extat]

16 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

 

To be fair though that's gonna happen anyway when America breaks apart. 

America is much better off demographically than almost any country on Earth. You'll be waiting for this a long time.

15 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

But this theocracy already has nukes, and plenty of them. 
Oh wait, you meant Iran! I thought you were talking about the US! 

 

14 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

 

Bold 2: So America when Republicans are in charge?

Ba dum tss. 

There is a gulf of lightyears between a major party that courts religious voters and a regime specifically dedicated to a religious worldview that demands the killing of non-believers.

17 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

Bold 1: Shit! I'm older than you are? No wonder my hair is so thin. 

 

Huzzah to the Young Millennials! Our hour of triumph is near!

15 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

 

And I see no reason why President Biden could not lead the country against such a threat.

 

Yeah... about that...

Look, I appreciate Joe Biden. I think he did a great service to his country in 2020 and by all accounts he seems as good a man as a politician can be.

But the best outcome I can forsee is that he wins reelection and then is replaced quickly by Kamala Harris as President. I don't like picking on him because he's old, but when the future of everything is at stake I can't feel confident in a man whose staff feels the need to hide him from public. It's not a nice reality to confront, but we have the systems we have. Some people fall apart as they age, it's just a fact of life, and a man whose best days are behind him is not who I want as the supreme executive on this planet. 

[Jace, Extat]

Meanwhile, CNN says that Iran has launched "dozens" of drones at Israel, according to Israeli intelligence and confirmed by U.S.

[polishgenius]

4 minutes ago, Jace, Extat said:

America is much better off demographically than almost any country on Earth. You'll be waiting for this a long time.

 

For someone so outwardly cynical this is surprisingly naive. 

You literally had a guy try to stage a coup on behalf of the theocrats at the last election. 

[kissdbyfire]

4 minutes ago, Jace, Extat said:

and a man whose best days are behind him 

What about a man who has never ever had a moderately good day? Because that’s the alternative.

[Jace, Extat]

5 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

 

For someone so outwardly cynical this is surprisingly naive. 

You literally had a guy try to stage a coup on behalf of the theocrats at the last election. 

Are QAnon crazies and MAGA Heads theocrats? I wouldn't call them such.

Trump is a cult of personality. It will die when he does.

4 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

What about a man who has never ever had a moderately good day? Because that’s the alternative.

I mean, by God of course Biden is better than Trump. He's still less-than-reassuring at his present condition.

[Werthead]

Shahed-136s are relatively easy to shoot down, especially with Patriot.

Assuming only drones are used (and even lighter classes of cruise missiles), US and Israeli defences should not have a lot of trouble with them unless they are launched in a massive swarm of many hundreds or thousands, which does not seem to be the case. Iran has launched at least two staggered waves.

One idea floating around has been that Iran might attack but in a way that can be shot down, and done in a way that gives maximum warning to Israel, again to limit the scope for a retaliatory strike.

Ballistic missiles would cover the distance in a fraction of the time, give limited warning (minutes rather than hours) and could potentially carry chemical or biological attacks. Israel would have limited alternatives but a massive retaliatory strike. So far this seems to be measured, but the risk of miscalculation is massive. 

Iraq has closed its airspace, rather tardily compared to Jordan.

 

[Jace, Extat]

30 minutes ago, Werthead said:

 

So far only Iranian Shahed drones are reported overflying western and southern Iraq. But if Iran is planning ballistic missile strikes, they would not launch until the drones were close to their targets. Using drones alone might be a signal of both taking retaliatory action but not escalating insanely.

Israel has now confirmed an attack is underway against its territory. It is deploying AA defences. US, Israeli and possibly UK aircraft may be deploying to intercept the drones, which have a 2-hour flight time from Iranian territory towards Israel.

Some Iranian sources reporting cruise missile launches but no video confirmation. No ballistic missile strikes as yet.