Live data from Hacker News

F-15E jet shot down over Iran

theguardian.com

961–970 of 1001 posts

Re: F-15E jet shot down over Iran

#961

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you support the general rhetorical tactic of taking a single example and expanding it to the entirety of a group? If so, I assume you're also upset about the bad hombres crossing the US southern border. After all, they are killers and rapists, right?

You’re generalising from some criminals to an entire civilian population. The parent generalized from military to military. There’s a slight difference in the two. Also, remember that it was the US who declared “no quarter”, not the Iranians.

> You’re generalising...

Yep

> The parent generalized

Yep

Re: F-15E jet shot down over Iran

#962

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US has lost mutiple KC-125 tankers and an E3 as well, although those were destroyed ont he ground rather than shot down. building all of this military infrastructure at the expense of living conditions for its people Just yesterday, Trump was talking about another $1.5 trillion for defense in the coming fiscal year, and saying the US can't afford things like daycare, medicare etc. Iran's military budget as a % of…

> The US has lost mutiple KC-125 tankers and an E3 as well, although those were destroyed ont he ground rather than shot down. Which makes them irrelevant here in this discussion but sure yea. Russia (those sneaky guys who invaded Ukraine and are being supplied by Iran) provide targeting information to Iran, Iran has missiles, we can't shoot them all down, and here we are. It's unfortunate but that's what happens in…

>if we end up in another war.

If you end up in another war.. the coming month? Do you think Trump has had enough? Ans that the coming presidents wont start one?

Re: F-15E jet shot down over Iran

#963

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you concerned that the clear victim of foreign aggression get help? They don't need it though. Our top brass knew this war is stupid twenty years ago. Without nukes we'll lose this war and badly.

> victim of foreign aggression Excuse us of being unsympathetic to the greatest state sponser of terrorism in history. The Muslim country all other Muslim countries love to hate. The only real theocracy left in the world. Wannabe North Korea. The country that killed 30,000 progressive protestors in a few days.

Nothing of what you said (all wrong, btw) is relevant to the fact we attacked first and getting our butts kicked.

"The country that killed 30,000 progressive protestors in a few days."

Ya, if you believe this you're poorly informed. Where does this number come from? Who sourced it? What is their relationship to Western powers? How are they able to count so many Iranians dying in dungeons so well? How about the logistics of killing 30 000 people?

BS American propaganda. Kuwaiti babies redux.

Iranian progressives have one thing that unites them: they remember that the CIA deposed the only democratically elected, progressive, president and installed a brutally repressive "Shah". [1]

"The only real theocracy left in the world."

That would have to include Israel, an apartheid state along religious lines where the Chief Rabbinate decides who can get married.

"the greatest state sponsor of terrorism in history."

Not according to the State Department; Iran and proxies don't crack the top 10. Sunnis (ISIS, Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood, etc) loath Shia and are not coordinated by Iran.

"The Muslim country all other Muslim countries love to hate."

Nope, only Sunni Gulf states hate Iran. Mostly because their rulers are colonial mandarins; the best example is Bahrain, a majority Shia population ruled by foreign Sunni elite installed by the UK 100 years ago. The native Bahrainis loath their rulers.

"Wannabe North Korea."

Say what you will about N. Korea, it isn't getting attacked though.

[1] Shah in quotes because, as a monarchist myself, the deposed, CIA installed, Pahvali was the son of a deposed peasant and the father of a traitor (something, to be fair, the other two Pahlavis weren't).

Re: F-15E jet shot down over Iran

#964

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think we'll see anything close to reliable reporting any time soon. The story of whether Iran had a nuclear program has been reported every which way but loose for the past 6 months. By the time Trump started pushing that they were close to a nuke again, those that claimed he was wrong 6 months ago and the nuclear program was intact. Had started claiming it was in fact destroyed. Gosh that sentence is hard en…

That Iran had a nuclear program was not in dispute. It was regulated under international supervision based on the terms of Obama's agreement with Iran, which Trump promptly tore up because he has the mental capacity of a fourth-grader. That Iran was on the verge of building bombs was far from clear. Khameini had previously issued a fatwa against doing so, on the grounds that it would be haram, or un-Islamic. All sign…

> which Trump promptly tore up because he has the mental capacity of a fourth-grader.

That would be an insult to fourth graders IMO, my son happens to be one.

Re: F-15E jet shot down over Iran

#965

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plot twist: The Dem leadership (Schumer, Jeffries, et al) also supports this. That's why their main complaints have been procedural: "Why didn't you come to us first with your plans?". And why they slow-walked the vote on a war powers act.

The dems have no power against a unified GOP front, and they already look pretty weak on issues like this. They are trying to figure out how they can mollify their base while attracting enough centrist voters to retake Congress later this year. I don't care for the dem leadership but I feel a little sympathy for them. Catering to their loudest supporters is a pretty big reason they are the minority party right now.

Sorry, your analysis is completely wrong

> The dems have no power against a unified GOP front

They absolutely do. The war powers act is “bi partisan” And they can protest the war strongly on moral and budgetary grounds for starters. The war is incredibly unpopular with the Dem base and even independents. Opposing it is a layup. (But, like I said, the truth is Dem leadership wants the war)

> and they already look pretty weak on issues like this.

Fighting (whether winning or losing) shows strength not weakness and is what voters react to. Standing down is exactly NOT what they should do. C’mon, man!

> They are trying to figure out how they can mollify their base while attracting enough centrist voters to retake Congress later this year

Like I said the war is UNPOPULAR so OPPOSE it. Winning stat.

> year. I don't care for the dem leadership but I feel a little sympathy for them

NO! They’re “blundering” when they don’t have to. (But see points about Schumer wanting the war)

> Catering to their loudest supporters is a pretty big reason they are the minority party right now.

Also a backwards take. They’re a minority party because they’d rather lose and maintain power than oppose the capitalists who own them.

Re: F-15E jet shot down over Iran

#966
post #734

So how is this not flagged, whereas this other post lasted literally minutes before being flagged? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47612053 75000+ palestinians killed, arguably one of the defining crimes of our age are not worth HN discussion (“politics”) but one F15E shot down in a war of choice is (apparently, “tech”)?

Yeah an F-15 shootdown is about tech. Palestinians being killed is horrible, but that doesn't mean it fits here.

Re: F-15E jet shot down over Iran

#968
post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ignoring the spicier broader debate of if the whole Iran campaign was the right call or not How spicy of a debate is that really? How many people outside of the admin and the dwindling hardcore trump base actually thought this was a good idea?

Apparently 37.7% of Americans, so roughly 116 million people, support the war. I'm not sure "this was a good idea" was a the exact question though. https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/54454-most-americans-oppos... https://www.natesilver.net/p/iran-war-polls-popularity-appro... Clearly this war isn't popular but that's a far cry from saying there's no debate. Like many other topics/questions we're seeing people followin…

The number for boots on the ground is more like 12% though. And the people opposed to the war span various bubbles or tribes, including some right-wing influencers. You can easily find critiques of the conflict from various former military and intelligence officials across many podcasts, news media and Youtube channels.

Re: F-15E jet shot down over Iran

#969

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Being the most technologically advanced aircraft in history... More advanced than the F-117? The B-2? The SR-71? Nah. Maybe you're confusing the F-15 and the F-35?

My mistake, yes I was. Some F-35 did get damaged recently, I assumed it would be another one since it made the top list of hackernews. It stands peculiar this post wasn't flagged and removed as "politics". I was being sarcastic, even if another F-35 was shot, why should it go through the strict guidelines.

And another mistake (sorry). The F-22 is more advanced even if it is older.

The F-35 was developed because the US didn't want to export the F-22 tech to other countries.

Re: F-15E jet shot down over Iran

#970

The Hormuz issue proves that the west never had an ability to economically sanction Iran, au contraire Iran can actually sanction us - and they are. This is what real sanctions look like. The west broke the deal, attacked like terrorists, and are now being sanctioned.

The west could easily start to sink ships and stop global trade. It would likely be the start of WWIII.
Post reply on HN