Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nowhere is safe

steveblank.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–329 of 329 posts

Re: Nowhere is safe

#321

Post by verdverm »

anovikov wrote: post #312
verdverm wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nothing else Iran could possibly do, matters at all. This is a naive belief and contains the same hubris as Trump held when entering this war. They have also destroyed billing of US military planes and radars on the ground, taken US company data centers in the region offline, and damaged refineries for oil, aluminum, and water (desalination). They can still get missiles and drones through air defenses in the region…

[flagged]

Where are you getting your information? Civilians still die every week from drones in Ukraine

https://understandingwar.org/

> Just keep pounding them till Iran dissolves.

Are you calling for genocide like Trump? There's a difference between Iran, Iranians, and the IRGC. History also shows that bombing does not remove regimes nor gets people to rise up. Trump promised to show up if they tried, they did and he didn't hold up his end of the deal (to the surprise of no one).

Re: Nowhere is safe

#322

Post by mikestorrent »

nradov wrote: post #187
mikestorrent wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the reasons for this is that the financial system - which is supposed to serve as a mechanism for representing value in a fungible way - does not assign value to many forms of structured, engineered creation. For instance, a high-performing team within an organization has value, held in the agreements and trusts between the people; organizations will destroy this in a second if it suits them because there is n…

Capitalism offers a means of dealing with the problem. Workers are free to start their own companies. People can just do things and don't need permission. Henry Ford himself started from nothing.

> Workers are free to start their own companies.

You're falling into the liberatarian trap of assuming a level of agency on the part of average people that lines up with your own. Turns out that most normal folks do not feel empowered or capable in any way of starting their own company, or we'd see a hell of a lot more of it. Regulatory capture, tax and accounting, the need to drum up sales and do marketing - these are all things that prevent normal folks from bothering at all, because the juice doesn't feel worth the squeeze.

You can't just do things. You need permission from all kinds of folks to do anything anymore. We've strung ourselves up on that for good reasons - to prevent environmental catastrophes, labour exploitation, etc - but it does also serve to make the "free market" sort of an anachronism. Free for whom? Not for you and me, and honestly I don't want to go back to buckets of white paint being sold as milk, so I'm okay with a little less freedom there.

Re: Nowhere is safe

#323

Post by type0 »

dTal wrote: post #292
kakacik wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Iran itself in its current form is a continuous line of failures of CIA and MI6 that led to their revolution against highly unpopular shah that was undemocratically installed only by those powers. Why do you think back then the us embassy situation evolved as it did. 'Embassy' my ass, full of cia folks regardless what shallow hollywood flicks try to propagate, meddling with internal affairs for profit and power of br…

I keep seeing comments that refer to Iranians as "brown people" - usually to emphasize their perceived "otherness" by the ignorant, as in this case. But Iranians aren't brown, or Arab apart from a small minority, and relatively speaking their culture isn't even that "other" - it would probably feel more familiar to the average American than some European countries even. Do Americans really hear "Iran" and think of du…

> Do Americans really hear "Iran" and think

and think: oriental culture, as do other westerners. Some think "Not Without My Daughter"

Re: Nowhere is safe

#324

Post by anovikov »

verdverm wrote: post #321
anovikov wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Where are you getting your information? Civilians still die every week from drones in Ukraine https://understandingwar.org/ > Just keep pounding them till Iran dissolves. Are you calling for genocide like Trump? There's a difference between Iran, Iranians, and the IRGC. History also shows that bombing does not remove regimes nor gets people to rise up. Trump promised to show up if they tried, they did and he didn't h…

[flagged]

Re: Nowhere is safe

#325

Post by some_random »

throw310822 wrote: post #174
some_random wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

No, there is no "or else", you are plainly making it up. As I've said, this is the exhortation part of the letter and it's not listed among the reasons for the attacks. Regressive, certainly. Brought as a justification for terrorism, no.

He orchestrated a terror attack that killed almost three thousand people, that is the "or else".

Re: Nowhere is safe

#326

Post by cherrycherry98 »

cogman10 wrote: post #295
dTal wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I keep seeing comments that refer to Iranians as "brown people" - usually to emphasize their perceived "otherness" by the ignorant, as in this case. But Iranians aren't brown, or Arab apart from a small minority, and relatively speaking their culture isn't even that "other" - it would probably feel more familiar to the average American than some European countries even. Do Americans really hear "Iran" and think of du…

Iranians tend to have a little more pigment in their skin and it's not a minority. I get why you'd say this, Iranians don't have particularly dark skin and some are as white as my English/swedish ancestors. > Do Americans really hear "Iran" and think of durka-durka from Team America? Some do. But usually the "killing brown people" is a shorthand for the fact that US policy has mostly focused on immiserating non-weste…

Western European nations have gotten a pass in recent history because they've been deferential to the US, are liberal democracies (ideologically aligned), and are not especially rich in strategic assets like oil. The same could be said of South Korea and Japan, highly civilized and in ideological alignment with the US.

In its history the US has engaged in military action against western and white majority nations: Great Britain (twice), the Confederate States, Spain, Germany (twice), Italy, and Yugoslavia. Not mention the perpetual rivalry against Russia/Soviets since the end of WW2 which has meant doing things like backing the "brown" mujahedeen against the predominantly "white" Soviets. Today it backs Ukraine against Russia, arguably making that war of "white" nations more deadly than it otherwise would be.

The US may have never fought against lilly white Scandinavian countries but neither has it done so against "brown" India or sub Saharan Africa.

Re: Nowhere is safe

#328

Post by squibonpig »

DeathArrow wrote: post #211
squibonpig wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Human cooperation is another survival strategy, and a very effective one when achievable. Peace in no way disagrees with what you said, anymore than plant cooperation with bacteria is a counterexample.

You think we live in a world shaped by prisoner's dilemma?

Nope?

Re: Nowhere is safe

#329

Post by sidewndr46 »

nostrademons wrote: post #224
sidewndr46 wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the immense capabilities of the United States government, I don't think there is going to be a war inside the US. Or at least not one that lasts any amount of time.

This isn't really a given. Historically, whenever you have a civil war the existing state's military splits down the middle, with people generally unwilling to fire on friends, family, and neighbors. Former military officers usually form the core of the rebel military, taking their training, experience, and oftentimes equipment with them to fight for the other side. The mistake here is thinking of the U.S. government…

The mistake you're making is assuming "historically" applies to the US. We had one Civil War, where part of the existing government decided to fight other parts of the government. They then sent the citizens to fight (often against their own interest) against each other via conscription.

An actual war against the people of the United States by the United States by the standing military would be so utterly one sided as to be incomprehensible. Let me just put it this way: no one at Waco was stopping those tanks.

Post reply on HN