371–380 of 737 posts
Why is everyone obsessed with US military when the news seems to be Bitcoin? Just like that the US Dollar suffered because clearly a crypto currency may well become what the US Dollar was, a commodity to exchange value in a way that nobody can reasonably refuse. Whether that is for better or worse, I think that is bigger news then whose got the bigger gun.
Why is everyone obsessed with US military when the news seems to be Bitcoin? Just like that the US Dollar suffered because clearly a crypto currency may well become what the US Dollar was, a commodity to exchange value in a way that nobody can reasonably refuse. Whether that is for better or worse, I think that is bigger news then whose got the bigger gun.
I guess it might work if shipping company is non-Western (such as Chinese or Russian) - but I’m not sure what the advantage of bitcoin is in that case, as opposed to simply paying in yuan or rubles
Now.. and I am speaking just from the perspective of trying to achieve specific goals ( and accepting a level of pain for what those goals can demand ), if there was ever a possibility that US may ban/fully sanction bitcoin use, this actually might be it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not about traceability, it's about not having to use the dollar as currency.
That's significant messaging though -- we don't have anything to hide, down with the dollar. I have read many comments that the regime wants to money launder the inflow. Bitcoin would be rather inconvenient for that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have abstracted things a bit too far. Unless your interceptor system is unobtainium laser system with unobtainium cooling system, backed-up by unobtainium power source, you are going to run out of interceptor missiles (or even Phalanx bullets) way sooner than 'million missile attempts'. Quite possibly 100-200 Shaheds + half a dozen proper anti-ship missiles will cause you to turn tail.
equally unobtainium as the 1 M missiles aimed at the ship.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think "Iran was considering a peace deal" is a bit of a stretch here. Iran was stalling for time, not willing to give anything, and the Strait was indeed open. If they won't give anything now why should they have given anything before. What does Iran still have to lose? Well, a lot. All their oil is exported through the strait that is now blockaded by the US. The regime while having survived so far and executing th…
> I think "Iran was considering a peace deal" is a bit of a stretch here. Iran was considering a peace deal. I agree that the most plausible was they would reject it. > What does Iran still have to lose? Well, a lot. The US could do this, sure, but then Iran would have even less to lose. This might work if the US started small and threatened escalation to try to compel Iran, but the US started at massive escalation s…
Iran does not think they are dealing with a madman. I don't believe for a second that they think that if all the demands made of them are met someone will harm them just for the fun of it. The maximalists demands. The problem is those maximalists demands run against everything this regime stands for. Not that those demands are bad for the Iranian people, they're actually good. What is true (and it's not a question of madman theory) is that the US and Israel will absolutely take some concessions and be willing to delay dealing with the rest of the problems. That is not irrational. That is 100% rational. And ofcourse the Iranians knows this as well. What the US and Israel want is a stop to the proxy wars, a stop to long range missiles, a stop to the nuclear program and a stop to "exporting the revolution". No workarounds or funny business.
I think the regime is very weak. Conditions in Iran are worse and a population that already wanted them gone now wants them even more gone. Their boisterous rhetoric is a sign of weakness that westerners misinterpret. The more they sound threatening and winning the more they are losing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The attack on Iran was an attack on the globe, causing energy and supply chain issues for everybody, including the attackers. Other countries are not volunteering to help prosecute more attacks on Iran, because they are already victims of those attacks, and it's bad enough that the USA and israel aren't even apologizing for hurting them, much less paying for the damages. Thus, the offer to "help patrol the strait" on…
So what? Attacking Iran was a stupid move, but the US and Israeli regimes don't particularly care about the other victims whining. If other countries are going to make themselves dependent on fossil fuels from the Persian Gulf region then they'll either have to secure their own sea lines of communication or accept that supplies are unreliable. Asking for apologies or payments won't accomplish anything. That is the ge…
That's without taking into account other things like high grade helium or specific niche products.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It did, however, allow the Khomeini regime to murder its own citizens with impunity. So someone paid.
That same regime is still allowed to murder its own citizens, now more so than before. The US attacks have only made the regime stronger.
This claim is not supported by evidence. The "best" we can say about the regime is that it persists. So far.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It’s territorial waters belonging to Iran and Oman. The trick is that it's still an 'international strait', or a segment of water that forms the only connection between two areas of high seas -- in this case the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. The principle of freedom of navigation establishes that innocent traffic (civilian traffic, and even warships in peacetime) have a right to use the strait to go from one b…
International Law now has no value when the America-Israel alliance has been skirting said laws to commit mass atrocities in recent history.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Countries that haven't signed do violate it. Israel prevents ships free transit to the Gaza strip. US does naval blockades and blows up boats.
Naval blockades of enemy ports during war are legal, that is what USA and Israel argue they are doing. That is not what Iran is doing, they are blocking fully neutral ships from going in other countries waterways.