undefined | Better HN

0 pointsnradov1mo ago0 comments

It's not rhetoric. I'm not trying to convince anyone, I'm just explaining how things work. Since the other countries largely lack the ability to act, their support or lack thereof is irrelevant. The US and Israel have no incentive to apologize or pay restitution; more likely outcomes are that they either escalate, or unilaterally disengage and leave others to clean up the mess.

0 comments

7 comments · 2 top-level

fmeahe1mo ago· 3 in thread

The world does have another much better option: they can pay the Iranian ransom and call it a day. No need to participate in another war.

nradovOP1mo ago

You're not thinking through the long-term consequences of that option. The Iranian extortion fees will likely escalate over time. Other countries will use that precedent to impose fees for passage through their territorial waters. Most of the countries that rely on maritime trade would prefer to avoid that outcome, even if it causes deaths and economic pain in the short term.

fmeahe1mo ago

The world must go multipolar. US has proved us repeatedly that it cannot lead.

It may mean that we'll have to pay tolls everywhere, but that's still better and cheaper than getting f*ked by the US now and then.

ImPostingOnHN1mo ago

> The Iranian extortion fees will likely escalate over time.

Nowhere near as much as the American extortion costs.

ImPostingOnHN1mo ago· 2 in thread

> Since the other countries largely lack the ability to act, their support or lack thereof is irrelevant.

How is their support, or lack thereof, irrelevant to our discussion that is literally about whether they support the war? Here is a reminder of the topic, from the post you replied to:

> Assisting the US with regard to Iran is phenomenally unpopular. The increase in energy prices isn't outweighing people's desire not to have their country assist.

That poster and I are just explaining how things work. Seems like you might agree with us here? Indeed, since most other countries do not support the war, their ability to act is irrelevant.

nradovOP1mo ago

You're really missing the point. Whether they support the war or not is largely irrelevant because support doesn't count for anything.

ImPostingOnHN1mo ago

> You're really missing the point. Whether they support the war or not is largely irrelevant

Am I? No, I don't think so: Whether they support the war or not is literally the topic of discussion, so by definition it can't be irrelevant to the discussion.

> support doesn't count for anything

Whether or not you feel "support doesn't count for anything" is irrelevant to the discussion of whether the support is there in the first place.

It's also sour grapes: the USA tried to gain the support of other countries, and because it failed, the support it failed to get is suddenly "irrelevant". Lol. It sure wasn't irrelevant when the USA was begging and threatening countries to help them.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

7 comments · 2 top-level

fmeahe1mo ago· 3 in thread

The world does have another much better option: they can pay the Iranian ransom and call it a day. No need to participate in another war.

nradovOP1mo ago

fmeahe1mo ago

The world must go multipolar. US has proved us repeatedly that it cannot lead.

It may mean that we'll have to pay tolls everywhere, but that's still better and cheaper than getting f*ked by the US now and then.

ImPostingOnHN1mo ago

> The Iranian extortion fees will likely escalate over time.

Nowhere near as much as the American extortion costs.

ImPostingOnHN1mo ago· 2 in thread

> Since the other countries largely lack the ability to act, their support or lack thereof is irrelevant.

How is their support, or lack thereof, irrelevant to our discussion that is literally about whether they support the war? Here is a reminder of the topic, from the post you replied to:

> Assisting the US with regard to Iran is phenomenally unpopular. The increase in energy prices isn't outweighing people's desire not to have their country assist.

That poster and I are just explaining how things work. Seems like you might agree with us here? Indeed, since most other countries do not support the war, their ability to act is irrelevant.

nradovOP1mo ago

You're really missing the point. Whether they support the war or not is largely irrelevant because support doesn't count for anything.

ImPostingOnHN1mo ago

> You're really missing the point. Whether they support the war or not is largely irrelevant

Am I? No, I don't think so: Whether they support the war or not is literally the topic of discussion, so by definition it can't be irrelevant to the discussion.

> support doesn't count for anything

Whether or not you feel "support doesn't count for anything" is irrelevant to the discussion of whether the support is there in the first place.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse