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

Iran War Cost Tracker

iran-cost-ticker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 486 posts

Re: Iran War Cost Tracker

#471

Post by hedora »

anigbrowl wrote: post #332
hedora wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone except the president is suggesting this will turn into a regional forever war.

He was posting on Truth Social yesterday about how the US has enough materiel to fight forever. The United States Munitions Stockpiles have, at the medium and upper medium grade, never been higher or better - As was stated to me today, we have a virtually unlimited supply of these weapons. Wars can be fought "forever," and very successfully, using just these supplies (which are better than other countries finest arms…

Since you posted that, in congressional testimony, a member of the administration implied they're running out of the "high end" interceptors, and that drones will probably start getting through in higher numbers.

So, in a surprise to no one, your last paragraph has already been confirmed.

It's kind of crazy that he's already blaming the loss of the war on Biden.

If the US wins, then Biden balanced things with Ukraine pretty much perfectly. If it loses, then Trump should have known better to strike before rebuilding the stockpile.

He probably should have waited at least a month or two to blame Biden if he wanted to convince anyone with an IQ > 80.

Re: Iran War Cost Tracker

#472

Post by hedora »

baxtr wrote: post #210
hedora wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be curious to know what group thought that Ukraine would be taken in 2 weeks, but also thinks that the Iranian war will be a quagmire. Either they have a lot of information I'm missing, are complete idiots, or are being dishonest.

You’re missing my point. No one can know at this stage. It’s called fog of war. Those who pretend offer easy explanations because people crave easy answers. It’s not satisfying to say: "it’s very complex, we can’t know, here are the odds". But that’s the current state of affairs.

There's zero chance the US/Israel will win this war and stop 100% of their military actions in the next 8 weeks.

8 weeks is the absolute upper bound of the estimates from the officials of both countries. The officials are clearly lying.

Re: Iran War Cost Tracker

#473

Post by Quarrelsome »

hedora wrote: post #470
Quarrelsome wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This strike isn't even close to Hamas-levels of planning. Yes it is, its an attack without any surefire plans for later stages of the war. While they might fluke it, I don't see how just missiling a bunch of targets and murdering a nation's leader really achieves tangible change. Its like a bully taking a swing at someone in class, they can, so they do, but there's no thought about end outcomes. They might get lunc…

As of Saturday, Hamas achieved 100% of their objectives from those strikes. The primary objective was starting a regional conflict. That was way beyond their capabilities. Trump doesn't even seem to know what the US's objectives are in Iran. It changes every time anyone in the administration opens their mouth.

> As of Saturday, Hamas achieved 100% of their objectives from those strikes.

True, although I would imagine they had hoped the Arab nations would be against Israel as opposed to potentially fighting on the same side, especially since I imagine they gain a level of funding from within the UAE who are now apparently seeking to retaliate against Iran putting them on the Israeli side.

Re: Iran War Cost Tracker

#474

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

ajross wrote: post #467
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The democratic process inherently produces outcomes where not every action taken by a government has majority support. Always. Inevitably. Precisely -- you are repeating my point. And precisely because this is an inevitable result, arguments result of the form that such actions are what people want, because they voted for that politician, and that politician did that, therefore the people must have wanted it, there…

> arguments result of the form that such actions are what people want ... who are you replying to? Not me. I certainly didn't say that.

You clearly said that opposition to the Iran war was not a majority position [0] (i.e., that the Iran war is something voters want), which is incorrect. Your explanation of this claim was that voters don't care about Iran, which is also incorrect, per polling [1].

0 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47250233

1 - https://time.com/7382231/iran-us-israel-war-support-polling-...

Re: Iran War Cost Tracker

#476

Post by khazhoux »

throwaw12 wrote: post #359
khazhoux wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No offense intended, but that is an ignorant take. The law of the land in the U.S. was that one human could literally own another human being (with all the implications of property ownership, including disposing of it and abusing it at your leisure). How such a despicable mindset took hold and was allowed to go on for so long, is beyond modern comprehension. You mentioned many other injustices but none of those are "…

you are just describing the shades of grey, even if one looks brighter, doesn't change the fact that it is still grey, I think your take is too simplistic. Human nature didn't change, it is still power hungry, small percentage of narcissistic people want to control the masses and exploit, give them a chance (I mean to current capitalists), you will become a slave. Look at the Elon and what he did to X employees, some…

> So you think those people are different then slave owners?

You said "slavery wasn't abolished." Now you're comparing X and Amazon employees to the experience of American slaves. Those aren't shades of grey, they're not even in the same color space.

Re: Iran War Cost Tracker

#477

Post by ajross »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #474
ajross wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> arguments result of the form that such actions are what people want ... who are you replying to? Not me. I certainly didn't say that.

You clearly said that opposition to the Iran war was not a majority position [0] (i.e., that the Iran war is something voters want), which is incorrect. Your explanation of this claim was that voters don't care about Iran, which is also incorrect, per polling [1] . 0 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47250233 1 - https://time.com/7382231/iran-us-israel-war-support-polling-...

Cite 0 isn't what I said, though. I said people who care about Iran (in the sense of it being a primary driver of voting preference) are in the minority.

You're arguing with a strawman, or a mistake. You agree with me.

Re: Iran War Cost Tracker

#478

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

ajross wrote: post #477
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You clearly said that opposition to the Iran war was not a majority position [0] (i.e., that the Iran war is something voters want), which is incorrect. Your explanation of this claim was that voters don't care about Iran, which is also incorrect, per polling [1] . 0 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47250233 1 - https://time.com/7382231/iran-us-israel-war-support-polling-...

Cite 0 isn't what I said, though. I said people who care about Iran (in the sense of it being a primary driver of voting preference) are in the minority. You're arguing with a strawman, or a mistake. You agree with me.

> Cite 0 isn't what I said, though.

Yes it is. Here is the exchange in question:

>> I'm talking about the majority position, not minority (opposition to Iran war)

> So, no, you're not. Or you're misunderstanding how this works.

> people don't care about the war in Iran.

They were talking about the majority position (it is opposition to Iran war), and they weren't "misunderstanding how this works", and people do care about the war in Iran.

>I said people who care about Iran (in the sense of it being a primary driver of voting preference) are in the minority.

Close -- you were talking about people who care about the Iran war, and you omitted everything in parentheses. In contradiction to that thing which you said, however: People who oppose the Iran war are in the majority.

Re: Iran War Cost Tracker

#480

Post by hypeatei »

hereme888 wrote: post #466
hypeatei wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Iran was less than a month away from having a viable nuke Oh, I see, you've bought the propaganda that Iran is close to a nuke. That's been the scare tactic for decades. Did you already forget the strike we did on their nuclear facilities months ago that supposedly set them back? There was no justification for this war, the official US position is that we needed to get involved because Israel striked first and Iran…

Here you go: they were 7-10 days from weapon's grade enrichment. https://x.com/stinchfield1776/status/2029365225426649346 That's the guy who met to negotiate with the Iranians. They admitted it. You won't get clearer evidence than that.

Steve Witkoff is a real estate developer who, for some reason, got put into a special envoy for foreign affairs. The fact that you take his word (or really anyone in the executive) at face value says a lot. Many lawmakers were briefed recently and still have no clear motive for this war.

Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) on Monday said the Trump administration has not effectively explained the U.S. military objective in Iran, accusing the White House of giving “multiple definitions.”[0]

0: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5765223-warren-davidson-t...

Post reply on HN