The United States and Israel have launched a major attack on Iran
cnn.com810 points by lavp 13 hours ago
810 points by lavp 13 hours ago
https://archive.ph/VqSqj
I recall someone (name escapes me at the moment) defining WW3 as ignition in 5 flashpoints between belligerent groupings:
- Eastern Africa esp. Sudan, which we all nearly universally ignore
- Israel Iran
- Russia and a neighbor which we know today is Ukraine
- Pakistan Afghanistan India
- China Taiwan Plus Plus Attributes that distinguish WW3 from previous world wars were IIRC: Contained conflagration, short targeted exchanges, probability of contamination low, material possibility of nuclear escalation. Case in point: North Korea developed nukes without being invaded, and now that they have nukes, other countries are watching and seeing that NK won't be invaded. What lesson do those other countries draw? And what of a world in which many potential belligerents hold nukes? Hiroshima weeps. I'd like to add an important attribute here: The revolution will be live-streamed, more-or-less. And essentially none of us will know the truth, even the reasons. I predict this fact will not distress many people, such is the state of humanity. So to the 7 or so decades of stability we and our ancestors enjoyed, here's looking at you, going down me. But Brettonwoods serves the present the least of any time since its creation. Case in point, w.r.t. eastern Africa, the geopolitical bounds of those ~4 countries seems likely meld to a degree. If we are indeed heading into WW3, I expect the world map to be redrawn afterwards, and the only lessons learned is how to win better in future. And if we are, while disgruntled old geriatrics go at each others throats via their youthful proxies, I greatly prefer the nukes rust in peace. Reminds me of Blaise Pascal's quote: 'All human evil comes from a single cause, man's inability to sit still in a room.' Aspiration, you gotta take care man, it just might kill ya. > Attributes that distinguish WW3 from previous world wars were IIRC You're missing the commonalities, what defined world wars: the full might of industrial economies being dedicated to military campaigns. World War II's theatres' were incoherent–the Axis interests in e.g. China and the Pacific had basically zero stragegic overlap with Europe and North Africa. (The only parties having to consider a unified theatre being the USSR and USA.) But the entire economic surplus of Europe, Asia and North America was basically dedicated to (or extracted towards) making things that were reasonably expected to be destroyed within the year. British Empire was heavily involved in Europe, North Africa and South-East Asia. Events in India had great consequences on Europe The USSR on the other hand barely had any involvement in the Pacific theatre, entering in August 1945. The USSR had to carefully keep enough land forces in the Pacific region to deter a Japanese land invasion. (Remember that Japan controlled Manchukuo.) So, yes, the USSR had little involvement, and they had to be very careful to keep it from becoming an active front. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol (that was in 1939). looks at Russia's economy the "world" part of world war is also important. pretty much every economy involved was at least undergoing heavy handed rationing of goods, encouraging people to donate scrap metal, etc. Russians are not under food rationing yet. Another aspect of a WW3 is that people- pretty much ALL people everywhere- who have nothing to do with the war will find their lives threatened or completely changed by it. I'm less concerned about nuclear escalation than about biological escalation. It's quite hard to destroy the human world with nukes: you can only blow up big chunks of it, maybe take out enough power plants and supply chains to drop us into a multi-decade or multi-century dark age, or maybe cause a nuclear winter, although the actual risk of that is unclear. Whereas a year into a major war a kid in his/her basement can release something that is functionally the end of the human species. We currently have no real safeguards against this. If we ever have descendants, they'll think we were insane during this time period and they'll be right. There’s no chance a kit in a basement can produce a biological weapon that will be successful. > It's quite hard to destroy the human world with nukes what about bio weapons? smallpox in the americas, for an example of many at the page below. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_the_Indi... > 'All human evil comes from a single cause, man's inability to sit still in a room.' old men's* > Reminds me of Blaise Pascal's quote: 'All human evil comes from a single cause, man's inability to sit still in a room.' Ah but this is where modern technology comes in! Social media, Tiktoks, video games, porn... Check your thinking. Korea currently has a DMZ dividing it from a war that never really ended and was fought to a stalemate. Their nuclear program didn’t result in military action because they currently have a gun to the head of every South Korean citizen and the backing of a large nuclear neighbour. Those are circumstances you can’t easily recreate elsewhere. Adding to your point, Seoul is visible from North Korea, and vice-versa, and likely has enough conventional artillery aimed at it that even without nukes an invasion would be Very Bad for the Korean people. North Korea is in such poor shape that they probably can't maintain much of the equipment much less keep the personnel trained and ready to use it effectively. Not a reason to go to war, but the threat to Soul and SK in general is likely massively overstated. I think the strategic rational for unification completely swapped about 20 years ago. Up until the early 2000s it was likely in South Korea's, and the US's, interest to find a way to topple NK and unify the peninsula. The two populations had blood ties and common culture. Technologically the gap was growing but still reasonable. It would have been close to an east/west Germany type of situation where unification took effort but ultimately was clearly beneficial. China (and Russia) would have been losers in that unification would have brought a western friendly government even closer to their border. Additionally, NK still had a chance of re-energizing and becoming a real threat to SK. Now however NK is in such bad shape that unification would be traumatic. South Korea would take on a problem of epic proportions, caring for and bringing a population of that size back into the broader world would be exceptionally costly and definitely not guaranteed to end well, possibly destabilizing SK in the process. Their cultures have grown apart making it hard for them to understand each other. The blood ties are not really there anymore. China and Russia would likely be the winners in that everyone sees NK as crazy and anyone helping them is hurting the world so they could get rid of that baggage. China especially would gain by having rail access to massive shipping assets to deliver goods even cheaper to the world. Finally, the US would loose a major rationale for stationing forces that close to China. They could, rightfully, say that NK isn't a threat and the massive US assets in South Korea and Japan should be drawn down. > North Korea is in such poor shape that they probably can't maintain much of the equipment Sadly we know from events in Ukraine that NK artillery works and that they have plenty of it. Yes, it's poor quality, but far from harmless. Also to be clear: artillery is not exactly rocket science. They idea that NK doesn't have huge stockpiles is ludicrous. The only way unification can ever happen will be with Chinese blessing, with or without democracy. That would mean a full exit of US forces from the peninsula, and substantial pandering to the CCP and influence in Seoul. Which isn't that far off a thought honestly - for the most part, Korea was a tributary of China. With rapidly changing demographics and economic heft in both countries, it's even more likely SK will gravitate towards China, to the point that the Chinese will find more persuasion in unification and predictability. All probably close to correct. I wasn't arguing that unification would, or should, happen (especially by force). I was arguing that the strategic value to China, SK, the west, etc have flipped as well as the actual capabilities of NK are likely vastly overstated. Another fun trivia: Seoul and Pyongyang are closer than Washington DC (Union) and Richmond VA (Confederacy) by a considerable margin. None of that would stop the current US administration from launching a sneak attack as we've seen several times in other countries. They simply do not care about consequences. What is the analogous example or your argument? Was iraq sitting next to a china-grade neighbor? Who's venezuela china? What's missing here is the complex network of alliances that led to WWI. The Iranian regime has alienated virtually everyone, including many of its Muslim neighbors. Nor is the regime part of some overarching international movement, like the communist countries were. Who is going to lift a finger to help Iran? I'm not supportive of these strikes. Iranians created this government, and if they want to topple it they'll have to be the ones to do it, without foreign intervention. Agreed, nobody is going to help out Iran. If anyone does it'll be China giving them missiles to hit a US boat. That would make the US turn tail. Not start a war with China. As for Iranian leadership, they just need to dig deep and wait this out. I can't imagine they don't have plenty of hardened bunkers. First, I don't think this leads to WW3 although I would agree with you that there is a general global tendency towards escalation. Still, I think we can not call this WW3 and I am not 100% certain this is a build-up to WW3 either. As for North Korea: I think the situation is not solely about North Korea itself but China. China is kind of acting as protective proxy here. I don't see North Korea as primary problem to the USA, but to South Korea and Japan. Both really should get nukes. Taiwan too, though mainland China would probably invade when it thinks Taiwan is about to have nukes; then again China already committed to invasion - this is the whole point of having a dictator like Xi in charge now. The situation Russia is in is interesting, because even though they are stronger than Ukraine, Ukraine managed to stop or delay Russia, which is a huge feat, even with support. As Putin does not want to stop, and Trump is supporting him (agent Krasnov theory applies), I think this has escalation potential. Putin is killing civilians in Ukraine daily - I think he does that because he already committed to further escalation against all Europeans. So Europeans need a nuclear arsenal, but european politicians are totally lame - see Merz "we will never have nukes". Basically he wants to be abused by Putin here. > So Europeans need a nuclear arsenal, but european politicians are totally lame Are France's 240 submarines-launched thermonuclear ballistic missiles not adequate? Despite the need for security, nuclear proliferation is extremely bad. It seems ideal for France continue to maintain their nuclear weapons while the rest of Europe keeps their hands clean. Say what you want about France, but their military has generally been extremely pragmatic and forward thinking*. They've seen the writing on the wall about independent nukes for decades. * WWII front collapse being more of a political failure than a military one: politicians dictating unachievable military strategies) Taiwan needs nukes on low flying hypersonic cruise missles now. Seems that would halt Chinese aggression. “The revolution will be livestreamed” is not used correctly and not what “will be televised” means. You are using it in the opposite manner actually. Op made an evocative point but then immediately betrayed it. It is interesting to think about the difference of livestreaming versus television. > And essentially none of us will know the truth, even the reasons. Maybe not in the details, but the general geopolitical "axes" (USA/the "West" vs China/Russia/BRICS/"Global South"/etc) have become increasingly obvious in the last years. And so far, most of the recent conflicts fit pretty neatly into that pattern. Of course there are more things running in parallel, like the general shift to the right, Trump in the US, the specific situation with Israel/Palestine, the emergence of AI, etc. But I don't see why any of this needs any other "grand secret cause" to explain the current conflicts. BRICS is Russia wishing that China (much less Brazil, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, South Africa, and the United Arab Emirates) were aligned to its interests. A more accurate description of the way the world is trending: US / UK / Europe / Japan / South Korea (still tied by defense, if push really comes to shove) vs Russia vs China vs Non-Aligned Nations (India, Indonesia, Egypt, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Nigeria, etc.) And historically (1960s), in a multi-polar world, middle powers are best served by being ambiguously aligned to force advantageous courting by major powers. If this spreads into a broader conflict, it remains to be seen whether Europe sticks tightly with that block. They certainly won’t align with Russia, but they may be tied so closely to China economically that they can’t afford to be dragged into a direct conflict with them. I could see a situation where they try to remain non—aligned. Then have a look who is supporting whom with weapons, which militaries are running maneuvers together, who is cooperating - or not cooperating - economically, who is visiting each others' summits, etc. It's true that many countries are trying to have relationship with both sides or are trying to keep all options open - which is the most reasonable strategy, I think - but there are still two power centers emerging between which those countries are aligning themselves. Well, China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea seem to have a (fairly loose) "alliance of convenience" at the moment. "The enemy of my enemy", more or less. hmmm - but is it really "world war" 3 if it's a bunch of localized conflicts? I'm a little disappointed that the internet and social media had little impact on universal disclosure about geopolitical matters. My sense is that governments updated their playbooks to both defend against them (e.g. minimize leaking) and leverage them (e.g. bury inconvenient information with propaganda). By comparison, I'm more hopeful about cellphones and bodycams generally reducing excessive police violence and discrimination (emphasis on "reduce"). prediction: the nuclear threat will look quaint compared with disposable million-drone swarms on land and in the air, targeting anything remotely interesting via onboard AI. “A bunch of localized conflicts” is what contemporaries thought WWII was before people realized the larger pattern. I'm surprised such a superstitious reply is so highly-upvoted. There's no "WW3" any more than there is time travel or blue smirfs. It's a hypothetical, but you're talking about it like it's an inevitability. That's just not logically-sound thinking. WWII, contemporaneously, was thought of as several small regional wars: “wow, that Hitler guy has started a bunch of small limited conflicts.” It was only when one stood back to regard the whole picture that it became clear that something larger was happening. OP is making the same point. When Hitler invaded Poland, it took all of two days for basically all of Europe to realize that they were about to replay the Great War (which we now call WW1). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarations_of_war_during_Wor... Of course it took longer for it to blow up into a truly global war (Pearl Harbor etc), but a conflagration across Europe is hardly a "small regional war". We are not heading into WW 3. Those old rich men you worry about have to pay a much higher price in cash for their illusions of control. And that reduces what harm and how long wars can run. Keep an eye on what the markets tell everyone on Monday. The revolution will be notably public, but not live-streamed. It will come as a swift and decisive reaction to a shock-and-awe deployment that will de-stabilize the state apparatus of a big nation outside of the “west”. The movement will be initially localized but it will spread until a perimeter of containment is setup around developed nations. Much more will come after. Well hopefully this is short, minimally lethal, and leads to regime change for all those involved. >leads to regime change for all those involved Including for the U.S. and Israel? It is difficult to instigate regime change for democratically elected governments. Iran has an unelected supreme leader. Israel has a large portion of its population completely disenfranchised. The US has a generally democratically elected government. If one of these governments is going to fall during military instabilities, it would most likely be Iran. The US will have significant regime change in November if polling holds. > Israel has a large portion of its population completely disenfranchised. Care to elaborate? As far as I know, this is false. All Israeli citizens 18 or older can vote; there are no voting restrictions based on race, religion, gender or property; prisoners can vote (unlike in many US states for example); permanent residents who are not citizens cannot vote in national elections but may vote in municipal elections (not the case in the US). National turnout ranges between 65% and 75%. Minorities are well represented: Arab and Druze citizens vote and have representation in the Knesset. I struggle to find any dimension in which your statement is correct. Very obviously I’m referring to the Palestinians in the “Palestinian Territories” being de facto governed by Israel and are not allowed to vote in Israeli elections. The US is at “flawed democracy” in the Economist Democracy Index: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index > Israel has a large portion of its population completely disenfranchised. Does it? It’s possible Possible but unlikely. The midterms are going to get actually stolen by Republicans, 100%. I did not see the US butchering 30k protesters in 2 days. And no, stop your American exceptionalism, ICE is not the same. Nah you just bully your allies and illegally tariff the entire world, no biggy Your threshold for desiring regime change is the murder of 30,000 people? > And no, stop your American exceptionalism I don't think you intended to use this the way you did You didn't see anyone butchering 30k protesters in 2 days, because that didn't happen. The US mostly isn't interested in butchering it's own citizens, slavery is the approach we went with À la the U.S. prison system. We killed far more Indigenous Americans than that. I agree with you on the prison system though. > The US mostly isn't interested in butchering it's own citizens, slavery is the approach we went with À la the U.S. prison system. I hate to break it to you, but US prisons, while maybe worse than Scandinavian ones, are on par with France, and way better than like 70% of the world. This is not a competition who has it worse. You can acknowledge terrible things that IR does without trying to portray yourself as a victim. You are conflating issues. As a foregone conclusion the U.S. bombing the sovereign citizens of Iran is acceptable to you, only afterwards are you and other's justifying this by cherry picking recent events. If Iran hadn't just killed protesters, it'd be because they were working on nukes, or because they've launched missiles across borders. You blind yourself to the dozens of countries around the world doing these things and worse every day while picking and choosing enemies that are acceptable for the United States to attack like al la carte menu items. Justifying those attacks is an after thought. Protesters that took to the streets, according to what I read, because the US president said he would back them. Sounds like he led them to a slaughter to generate justification. Protests started way before Trumps tweet. Second, why are you legitimizing gunning down thousands of people? I'm delegitimizing the US president saying things he can't back up, causing death, and getting the US into another war that the American people didn't ask for. > I'm delegitimizing the US president No. You are saying that these people died because of Trump's tweet, and not because the IR goons gunned people on the streets. Seems to me that you place the fault on Trump, rather than on those who pulled the trigger. True but a lot of people would like to see Netanyahu and Trump replaced with other leaders. I mean we just killed a bunch of children. So give it a bit of time I’m sure we can get those numbers up. Trump is the kind of person who would kill protestors to stay in power. We all know it Iran says we did. I saw a report that it was an errant Iranian missile. This is the Zionist modus operandi. Bomb civilian targets, then claim it's a "stray weapon". When the truth comes out, just ignore it. Zionists have been the aggressors in this region since Zionism was invented. If you instigate a war you are responsible for all casualties. I can understand that viewpoint, but the stories are reading as if the school was targeted. I'll wait for some non-iranian confirmation. There is nothing ideal about that outcome. The "regime change" people talk about is intended to look like what happened in Libya: A failed state that falls in anarchy. > look like what happened in Libya: A failed state that falls in anarchy. This comment just shows that you have no idea what Iran is, and how it differs from Libya. Libya is a loose conglomerate of tribes. Iran majorly Persian that see themselves as one nation. Completely different dynamics. It doesn't matter - when a strong and stable political structures suddenly collapse, the state fails and disintegrates due to the political infighting. While I agree with you that the chances of Iran becoming a completely failed state is unlikely, I do see an imminent civil war in Iran's future if a regime collapse happens, and the Americans and Israelis install their Shahi (royal) puppet there. A regime collapse will of course mean Iran will lose its sovereignty (probably for a decade or more), till a truly independent stable polity emerges form the ashes. Iranian regime is neither strong nor stable though. Or did you miss the recent round of nationwide protests that led to a desperate brutal crackdown? That's just simplistic western propaganda. Sporadic protests, nationwide or otherwise, don't mean anything unless they are backed by long-term-opposition with strong grass-roots and singular political goals. Iran's regime remains strong and stable - it controls all the political institutions, it controls the civilian government at the local level, it controls the religious / cultural institutions, it controls the military and it has substantial support from the people. Why do you think Israel or the US isn't sending boots to the ground? Apart from the official military, the IRGC has a voluntary civil force, that can be armed by the Iranian military, in every district - if Israel or US send their soldiers to Iran, they will face a very brutal urban warfare with a high death toll. Well hopefully this is short, minimally lethal, and leads to regime change for all those involved. That would be ideal but unfortunately not likely. Nobody will like this comment but US ships are sitting ducks. They have minimal ammo per the pentagon and no oilers. No oilers and low ammo means no prolonged conflict. Only two of the ships are nuclear powered not counting submarines. Most of Iran's military and weapons are deep underground in a massive series of underground cities and tunnels. The US would require boots on the ground if they manage to breach the tunnel openings under the mountains. Should that fail the only viable targets are civilians and that won't win favor with anyone or accomplish anything. Iranian military could just wait it out if they wanted and then smoke Israel with supersonic missiles when the US leaves. Then we find out if Israel does have the nukes for the Samson option and that would result in the destruction of Israel. Iran's military could survive a nuclear strike but would have to clean up the fallout and I am not sure they could. Anyone not underground would likely get Acute Radiation Sickness and Cancer. On a positive note if the US can manage to get into the tunnels and send in enough munitions to start detonating the missile stockpile a chain reaction could crack all the concrete and collapse the tunnels. Satellite could detect which tunnel they try to evac from. They have less than 5 days to accomplish the chain reaction assuming this is the plan. From the videos I have seen the missiles are literally lined up like a double-strand fuse. [Update]: It seems my dear leader is hitting all the cities... [1] I am not OK with this. Save the handful of leaders and scientists for ground recon instead of whacking all the citizens. Take out the missiles first. Most of the military and religious leaders are under ground. Take out those underground complexes and Iran is yours. [1] - https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/28/us-and-israel-attac... The US military has seldom had problems with the blowing up the enemy bit. It's providing peace and stability after that happens where they tend to run into problems. The US military has seldom had problems with the blowing up the enemy bit. True however AFAIK they have never once been in this situation. Iran has spent 40+ years digging in and hunkering down. There were plenty of bunkers in WWII but this is a whole new setup, deeper under mountains, higher quality concrete assuming they knew what they were doing and dug in much deeper. To get this done in 5 days will be quite a feet. If they manage to do it I will be very impressed. It's providing peace and stability after that happens where they tend to run into problems. I think you are correct, what happens afterwards is usually a crap-fest. That would require a lot of boots on the ground to maintain stability for a very long time. It's not a great example but Korea is one such example. The payoff may be worth it if many of the Iranian funded terror groups are drained of resources as a result. Keeping boots on the ground for years will require funding from congress. Short of that it will just be another power vacuum filled by yet another zealot. The "if's" are doing a lot of heavy lifting in my comment. I think the crap-fest bit could go better with Iran. The Iranians are closer to European in culture than many places. Yeah, the possibility of a regime collapse / change due to this military action is unlikely. The military goal seems to be to destroy Iran's military-industrial complexes to hamper its missile production. Note however that while Iran has potent missile capability, Iran's underground complexes where it is stored presents its own problems - in the absence of adequate air defence and an Air Force, its enemies can just bomb the openings of these underground complexes, making it very, very difficult for the Iranians to use its missile arsenals from there. (This is what Israel did the last time). As for the scenario you outlined, I highly doubt the US would be willing to send boots to the ground to blow up their missiles manually - urban warfare takes a heavy toll and I doubt if the Trump administration can withstand the criticism if body bags start coming home. Even the MAGA crowd has been unexceptionally hostile to Trump's attack on Israel. I highly doubt the US would be willing to send boots to the ground to blow up their missiles manually - urban warfare takes a heavy toll and I doubt if the Trump administration can withstand the criticism if body bags start coming home. You could be entirely right. Honestly I hope you are right. We lost far too many in Iraq and Afghanistan. I was probably just being cynical. I trust the decisions of the senior leaders in the military but their commander and chief tends to trust the wrong advice. The only possible correction I might add is the Air Force probably will not drop bombs but would have to fire missiles. The openings are on the sides of mountains and require horizontal access or I suppose incredibly massive bombs. Earth shattering bombs. Something closer to tactical nukes which the US has not stockpiled in a long time AFAIK. I can't imagine a world where the US military only has the logistics for a five day offensive. There are some factors - this is an offensive being done to prop up Netanyahu's regime in Israel and distract the Americans from the Espstein files. The US thus means to keep it short-term. Moreover, in the middle-east, the American logistic chain runs through its Arab allies in the middle-east, and Iran has explicitly said that it will not hesitate to target its Arab neighbours, hosting American military bases, if the US attacks it. (And that's why it has retaliated against these American allies when it was attacked). Except for Saudi Arabia, these countries do not wish to get into a war with Iran for Israel, and have no interest in joining the war because Iran's missiles are quite precise and effective at short ranges (meaning they and their people will be facing the brunt of the war that they have no interest in). Thus, the US military is actually hampered because it cannot do anything without the host governments permission. (For example, during the last Iran attack, some allies did not allow the US to implement a nationwide jam of the GPS over its airspace). All this highlights the really hard balancing the US has to do to even agree to bomb Iran for a few days - one wrong move and the whole of middle-east can explode, and both the US and Israel will find itself on the receiving end as American and world public opinion turns against it. It is odd. Trump has been receiving advice on Iran from General Dan Caine. It was suggested Caine warned of risks and limited munitions Trump refuted these stating Caine believes a conflict would be easily won. Other senior officers were in shock that he said this could be done. The pentagon objected due to the lack of ammo and oilers. This is one case where I wish he would listen to the senior officers with substantial experience instead of the guy that often agrees with him. What yt channel? It's hard to find them now with all the AI slop being propped up but the best search terms may be "Iranian tunnel bunkers full of missiles". It is mostly YT channels run out of India. The oldest video I have seen was from CNN ten years ago. Iran will occasionally let journalists see their latest tunnel. This is a short one showing the 2nd to last generation of tunnels. [1] The latest tunnels are painted white including some that are under water. The older tunnels are not painted and one can see what appears to be reinforced concrete. When completed every tunnel is lined on both sides with missiles. This one [2] shows a couple generations of the tunnels. Found the old CNN video. [3] [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YQ1R7ZAKxE [video][1m] [2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQtSPFrnKvo [video][5m25s] [3] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_Gu_TjmV0E [video][2m12s] Iraq? Afghanistan? Vietnam? I don't think any of these were short. Desert Storm was short. The second Iraq War, the stupid one, was not. However, to be fair, Desert Storm hasn't resulted in regime change. The Coalition bombed the shit out of the Iraqi army, but never committed to the ground operation deep inside Iraq. And Saddam's regime survived until the next war. That alone hints that it is very hard to bring a dictatorship down with just aerial attacks - the ground component is also essential. Something tells me it is going to be the same here. Only a land operation or a total collapse of the government, with the armed police and military joining the opposition, can topple the Iranian regime. Was Saddam's Iraq (post Desert Storm when he no longer had the ability to wage offensive war) really that bad compared to what came after? That's because Desert Storm was launched by people who remembered the Second World War. Current wars are started by draft dodgers. This does not look like a smart one. A bit smarter would be to strike a month ago to support street protests. It would have confused the Iranians as the regime would then claim that the foreign military attacks prove that the protests are artificially engineered by the same foreign enemy with the support of the Shah. It would also mean the automatic imposition of martial law in Iran, thus making protests even more difficult to organise. Desert storm didn’t attempt regime change. Iran is not currently invading anyone. I'm glad someone else remembers. Desert Storm was fast (kind of) because it had a limited objective: Repel an invading army from another nation. It did not lead to an invasion (long term) of Iraq. Comparing any war with the objective of regime change to Desert Storm reveals that the commenter is grossly ignorant of recent history (36 years ago, it's not that far back to be so ignorant). Desert Storm also wasn't really fast, it led to containment operations lasting a bit over a decade in total, ending only when we decided to invade Iraq with the objective of regime change and nation building. And that one, predictably, turned into a quagmire. You can’t be short, minimal lethal AND regime change. Gotta be pretty bloody to make that happen. Unless like Venezuela. Or like 1953 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta... Based on previous American wars in the middle east wouldn't you say that's unlikely? Won't there be boots on the ground? We already bombed their facilities and at the time they said best that bombs can do is fuck up the entrance to these tunnels. > Minimally lethal “Israel strikes two schools in Iran, killing more than 80 people” https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2026/2/28/israel-strikes-... Welp, better luck next time This reminds me of the Al-Ahli hospital incident in Gaza, when a mysterious explosion at a hospital was immediately blamed on an Iraeli strike - first by Hamas, then by the international press. A precise death toll was immediately available: 500 killed. Israel urged caution as they investigated, but were ignored. Eventually, it was established that 1) the casualty number had been a fabrication, 2) the explosion was in the parking lot, 3) it was NOT caused by an Israeli strike, but by a Palestinian Islamic Jihad rocket that had fell short. Soon the press was forced to issue corrections - New York Times [1] , Le Monde [2], BBC [3]... This incident looks VERY similar. Which is not surprising, since Hamas was trained in information warfare by the IRGC. Note that Al Jazeera (the media arm of Qatar, who funds Hamas and hosts their leaders in Doha) is enthusiastically amplifying this story with no apparent effort to cross-examine Iran's official source. I predict that this story will turn out to be fabricated as well. [1] https://www.poynter.org/commentary/2023/the-new-york-times-e... [2] https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2023/10/24/a-no... [3] https://deadline.com/2023/11/bbcs-international-editor-grill... What are the chances that HN is getting astroturfed these days? Are mods strict about it? I lots of relatively new accounts coming with what seems to me extreme, but altogether pop-culture acceptable opinions I think this is probably happening, but also there are just a ton of actual Zionists and Israelis in the tech industry. Unfortunately they visit this site regularly and police it against honest reporting about their crimes. > Unfortunately they visit this site regularly and police it against honest reporting about their crimes. I think that's called "disagreeing". Today we call that misinformation. Which of course should be totally illegal and in no way protected by free speech. HN doesnt have any defense against it, and the userbase is small enough that it would be highly effective. 100%. Especially on topics involving countries with vast online propaganda operations. I've seen lots of suspiciously new accounts hoping into these conversations. Saying questionable things. What are the chances that HN is getting astroturfed these days? Happens all day every day. There are many AI agents starting discussions and replying to comments. This is how The Crappening started on 4chan. Some of them are just future grifters. Some are training AI (I have replied to a few for fun). Some are propaganda bots. Those running the bots will reply with something equiv to Errrm Proof?? when called out. Without root I can not empirically prove it and the botters know that. I predict about 2 years before the site will have more AI noise than real people. I have no idea what can be done about it aside from tracking the bots and reporting them via email to Daniel and I don't know what he could or would do. HN has always been very hands off which is mostly good but not for this scenario. If nothing is done it will just be bots grifting and AstroTurfing one another to the benefit of Google SEO and most of the humans would eventually go elsewhere with exception of some die-hards that refuse to recognize the situation. Anonymous internet forums will very likely die out if inference gets another order of magnitude cheaper. The only solutions are (1) private forums, (2) strict verification or maybe (3) some sort of "web of trust" thing, if someone manages to make it user friendly and not suck. I agree and my bet is on private and semi-private (invite only) forums making a come back. It is so much easier nowadays with so many Ansible playbooks and Dockerfiles to automate things. Maybe this comment is also AI. Maybe this comment is also AI. My nickname on here would at least suggest so. I think Grok is the closest option since they were working on making a snarky insulting version of their bot. Tame that down a bit and one could get the personality of Bender. [1] [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPNGFC7-t68 [video][16s] With things like Openclaw it’s kind of trivial to game forums now. You just have to tell an agent to “post arguments for/against this perspective on this forum.” Give it a few talking points to include if you want to get specific and let it run. Specify the tone so it sounds realistic. It’s literally going to do everything else essentially forever or until you run out of tokens. Comments in a forum are dirt cheap so it’s also going to be very cheap. Youd have to do a lot of work to make sure it's only a few short sentences, non-specific, and ultra-quippy though. I mean I'm sure it can be done but if you ask an LLM to produce comment reply without more instruction it's going to write something a lot more thoughtful, respectful, and substantive than a forum user would. I mean does it matter? At this point, lines have been drawn. In conservative land, everything conservative is good, everything liberal is bad. So the only sane position to take is the complete opposite. For example, if you see someone self proclaimed liberal being critical of liberals, that person is probably a conservative or its a conservative bot. That's not totally true when it comes to Zionism though. Much of the left and the right are united against Zionism. It's the older center liberals and right that are united in being pro-Zionism. I am just befuddled by how much of this violence is directly motivated by religious concerns, both on the side of Iran and on the side of Israel and USA. I have been reading on the topic of shunyata or emptiness in Mahayana Buddhism, and have been uncomfortably observing just how much of the artifacts we take to be real and substantial in the world are just "made up". They don't have an inherent reality of their own except what we attribute to them. And yet, made up stories can have very real consequences in terms human suffering. It ought to be possible to cut through the layers of reifications and simply defuse much of the strife in the world. And yet, we continue to inflict misery on each other unnecessarily. You’re mistaking the packaging for the product. Religion is the language leaders use. Power, territory, oil corridors, regional dominance, and domestic political survival are what they’re actually fighting over. Tehran isn’t calculating missile ranges based on sutras. Washington doesn’t position carrier groups because of metaphysics. Israel’s security doctrine isn’t a meditation retreat. Spiritual narratives make clean moral theater for the public. They mobilize bodies. They sanctify retaliation. But the machinery underneath runs on leverage and deterrence, not theology. Wake up to the real world. Calling it primarily religious violence feels tidy and tragic in a philosophical way. It’s harder, and more uncomfortable, to admit that it’s strategic violence dressed in symbols people recognize. Shunyata is a beautiful lens for seeing through ego. It doesn’t dissolve geopolitics. > Israel’s security doctrine isn’t a meditation retreat. "Security doctrine" is quite a euphemism for aggressive territorial expansion and ethnic cleansing, which is tightly wrapped in religious rhetoric. Territorial expansion and ethnic cleansing boils down to "more resources for me and those most closely related to me genetically." It's difficult to think of a course of action that is more materialist and less abstract. religious rhetoric is for the fools they've indoctrinated to their cause. it does not drive policy. I was being sardonic with "security doctrine". Israel today is run by a group of religious fundamentalists who do believe it is their "promised" land. And then we have an American ambassador publicly supporting this because he thinks that as a Christian he needs to support Israel's "Biblical rights" over the all of middle-east! I do this too. I think it is basically simulation out of fear. (modeling because of uncomfortableness with thinking with System 1 fast emotional / System 2 slow rational) I have a very hard time understanding how the US is attacking Iran because of Christianity. I cannot even anticipate the hypothesis. It makes a lot more sense if you picture a bunch of organized, strong and merciless chimps attacking some other chimps to plunder what they have. Chimps generally agree war is bad and horrific. But some smart, opportunistic and hard-working chimps can create situations that make war possible. Even though the war will only bring losses to most chimps on both sides. The best political insight in this thread. This is the planet of the apes. If any future historians are reading, some of us primates were aware of the absurdity of the situation, horrified by the senseless violence that erupts again and again, led by sociopathic chimps that somehow managed to organize whole societies against each other and profit from the whole primitive enterprise. What a waste of human potential. > I am just befuddled by how much of this violence is directly motivated by religious concerns, both on the side of Iran and on the side of Israel and USA. Can you provide an example of this in 2026? It seems a little tenable with the ayatollah and Iran. But even here you don’t hear much talk of this being a war in the name of religion anymore. Nowhere near a few years ago and certainly nothing like 9/11 and the Taliban. And I hear nobody in Israel or America talking that way. Just a war defending people against attackers at the gates. > And I hear nobody in Israel or America talking that way. The American ambassador to Israel recently publicly said that Israel has a "biblical right" to the whole of the middle-east! (Watch these two interviews to understand how cleverly, and strongly, Israeli politics is tied up with American evangelical Christianity to keep American polity tied to Israel's existence - https://tuckercarlson.com/tucker-show-fares-abraham-021826 and https://tuckercarlson.com/tucker-show-mike-huckabee-022026 . Both these interviews give you a very insightful picture of how religious fundamentalist Israelis in power are total nutcases, supported by the American Christian fundamentalist fruitcakes). The land promised to the Israelites generally extends from the Nile River in Egypt to the Euphrates River in Iraq/Syria, encompassing modern-day Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan, and parts of Syria and Saudi Arabia. If you're a religious Jew, then you believe you have a mandate from God (so an irrefutable right, or even obligation, needing no justification) to settle and rule not only the West Bank but the entire region. So there will always be that motivation, as long as religious Judaism exists in Israel. That is not the ruling Likud ideology in Israel nor the allied national religious ideology; both refer to Israel+Palestine+Golan as "the Whole Land of Israel". And in any case, the "most religious" (ie those whose politics are most totally driven by Judaism) bloc in Israel are at best ambivalent about the Israeli state and the settlement enterprise, and actively hostile to military service. Israeli hostility to Iran is driven by a "defensive" paranoia, not a religious mission. Israel literally has minted coins with the image of Greater Israel (they claim this is only in reference to some ancient coin designs). The US ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, has just a few days ago given an interview where he explicitly stated that Israel / the Jewish people has a right to that entire land, from the Euphrates to the Nile. The Israeli opposition leader was then asked about this, and he agreed with the US ambassador that yes, they do have this right, but that of course it must be viewed realistically given security and operational limitations. Of course it needs to be approached pragmatically. If Israel stated that its number one goal is to rule the entire region, they wouldn't have been as successful as they are. Also God didn't say when. But he did promise, according to the Book. This is insane conspiracy theory nonsense, and is also not how actual Jews read the Tanakh. (Which is also not referred to as "the Book", since it's a collection of books. This may seem like a nitpick, but I think is indicative of you getting your information from non-Jewish conspiracy theorist circles rather than anything related to Jewish theology or culture.) Try to resist the temptation to lump me in with the conspiracy theorists. If you can, provide facts. Thanks for your nuance about the Books. I was using the terminology I learned for the Bible (which also consists of multiple Books, but is referred to as the Book), but I'm happy to switch to "scripture". The Dati Leumi, the Religious Zionists, who constitute the ideological backbone of the settler movement, and have a lot of political influence in Israel, absolutely believe in their duty to govern the biblical land. For many, holding the West Bank is a religious obligation, and they consider the Golan settled and annexed. Religiously, the same principle that justifies them holding Golan applies to these territories. Here are some recent statements from political leaders: Bezalel Smotrich (Finance Minister, Religious Zionist party) "it is written that the future of Jerusalem is to expand to Damascus." Daniella Weiss (prominent settler leader) said in 2024: "We know from the Bible that the real borders of Greater Israel are the Euphrates and the Nile." Benjamin Netanyahu said he's on a "historic and spiritual mission" and that he is "very" attached to the vision of Greater Israel, which includes Palestinian areas and possibly also places that are part of Jordan, Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon. Yair Lapid, the secular centrist opposition leader (!). "I don't think I have a dispute on the biblical level about what the original borders of Israel are... I support anything that will allow the Jews a big, vast, strong land." Mike Huckabee (US Ambassador to Israel) "It would be fine if they took it all." > If you're a religious Jew, then you believe you have a mandate from God (so an irrefutable right, or even obligation, needing no justification) to settle and rule not only the West Bank but the entire region. Well not really , most Orthodox definitely don't believe this in fact some of them are anti Zionist and the ones who accept Israel's existence definitely do not think Israel needs to expand its borders like that. So no to that. Israeli have a diverse spectrum of religious denominations. This includes religious, non Orthodox Jews. Dati Leumi (the religious Zionists) are by far the most hawkish. They absolutely believe that the biblical land belongs to the Jewish people. They account for about 15% and are incredibly politically influential. The Haredim (the ultra-Orthodox) are more complicated, and in general don't want all the promised land (they believe that the state established militarily/politically isn't the "spiritual" state that was promised). But, when it comes to the currently occupied land, they have been shifting right in recent years. They vote in coalition with the nationalist right, and their communities increasingly overlap geographically with settlements. Tell that to the millions of Hasidic Jews in the United States who do not believe that a Jewish nation should exist at all. Thanks for this information, I'd like to offer something in return. Only certain Hasidic groups oppose Israel, including Satmar Hasidim (over 100k followers), and Neturei Karta (fringe, only about 1k supporters). That's less than millions, and a minority within the Hasidic world. Theologically, they oppose it based on an interpretation a Talmudic passage saying that establishment of Israel has to happen after the coming of the Messiah. Additionally, there are a lot different denominations of Jews within Israel, some of whom have more pragmatic views. But a significant, politically influential minority believes in their duty to govern all biblical land. This attack was literally lined up to coincide with the israeli holiday of purim, a celebration of murdering their enemies: That tweet does not support your claim, and it is in fact not Purim yet. How does that tweet not support my claim? It's CNN reporting, here's the actual article: https://edition.cnn.com/world/live-news/israel-iran-attack-0... The evangelicals support isreal due to religious obligation. Project 2025, a christian nationalist policy advisement widely followed by the current regime, prescribes supporting isreal It's not said in polite company, but Israeli concerns are racial, not religious. If you meet a Jewish zionist, then you've also met an athiest. An explanation of Christian Zionism deserves much longer discussion than can be made here, but how and why such an obvious contradiction to Jesus' ministry gained popularity is something worth studying. Not entirely accurate: 1. Many Israeli Jewish Zionists are either "traditional" (religious but not that much) or Religious Zionist, and they are generally part of the right wing coalition. Actual atheists tend to be in the Israeli (still-Zionist) left. 2. The Zionist conception of Jewish identity is not "racial" in the American sense. The most obvious sense in which this is true is that it considers converts and their descendants full members of the nation. Probably the closest analogies are some Native American nations' identities or Armenian nationalism. But you're directionally correct - Zionism is not a particularly religious ideology within the Jewish world, and outside of the Religious Zionist minority the political class is (openly!) on the less observant end even on the right. Once you realize the gospels and the epistles disagree, it becomes a lot easier to understand. Christianity is the practice of cognitive dissonance. The bible, due to the nature, has a lot of mixed messaging. Imagine, for example, you wanted to write the religion of Liberalism, so you collect the works of all the major thinkers on the subject of liberalism into one book. Now imagine someone gets the bad idea that all these authors must actually have a unified view on what liberalism is, means, and implies. You'll end up seeing that person teach a form of liberalism that's easily countered with other passages from their book and they'll mostly just wave it away because they have their passages and the others are simply you misinterpreting an "obvious" metaphor. That is christianity in a nutshell, just replace liberalism with god. That's why there are so many sects. Because it's just too easy to yell "Context context context!" when a difficult passage comes up you don't agree with and use "spiritual" as the excuse for why you don't actually have to follow that passage. There is also point of view that remembers that always right behind US military there is a team building next oil pipeline.
US tried to used China as cheap labor, lost a lot of intelligence and now - look at how much oil Iran has and who is it exporting to and what is the percentage at the destination.
The numbers add up and only the funny (?) thing is - China is (going to) be most eco country, because they already use nuclear power a lot and were forced to work on that. What a time to be alive, again!
And please, downvote me, comment that US is fighting for some country’s civilians freedom. It’s fun too. Fallacy. (Wrong) Knife fight: a fight between people about knives (Right) Knife fight: a fight between people using knives Religion poisons everything. Examples abound; but for good and ill, the language-using ape seems to be a religious animal, having co-evolved with mythological memeplexes. There's the old salt from DFW, "one can't choose whether to worship, only what to worship". Less apologetics, perhaps, than a realmythos (akin to realpolitik). Nature abhors a vacuum, and something inevitably fills the void: the "god-shaped hole" in individuals, and the game-theoretic basin of attraction, the actual realpolitik of loyalty-signaling, load-bearing fictions which bind an "imagined community". (The first might be manageable, but the second is a doozy: a faith which could not be more explicitly anarcho-pacifist mutated into justification for brutally violent hierarchies of domination and exploitation. So it goes.) Religious concerns are, IMHO, always a facade for the underlying economic/territorial/geopolitical reasons. These religious facades help sell the war effort: get young men to enlist and fight to the death for "preserving their identity". And "muh freedom" is just as much a religious motivation to me (unsubstantiated, indoctrinated, unthreatened). Religion isn't the facade, it is the medium through which other reasons are transmitted > I am just befuddled by how much of this violence is directly motivated by religious concerns, both on the side of Iran and on the side of Israel and USA. This just isn't true. Religion is never the reason for these conflicts. It's the excuse. It's how that conflict is sold to the rest of the world. It's how civilians are manipulated into dying in a conflict. The source of these conflicts is always material. Always. Reagan's Secretary of State, General Alexander Haig once said [1]: > Israel is the largest American aircraft carrier in the world that cannot be sunk, does not carry even one American soldier, and is located in a critical region for American national security. In 1986, then Senator and future president Joe Biden said [2]: > [Israel] is the best $3 billion ivnestment we make. Were there not an Israel, the United States of America would have to an invent an Israel to protect her interest in the region. Much of US Middle East polciy was aimed to sabotaging and undermining Pan-Arab Nationalism (particularly under then Egyptian President Nasser) [3]. Nothing about any of this has anything to do with faith. In this case it's about oil. Whatever crimes you think Iran might've done, I'll stack up the US crimes against Iran and it won't even be close, including: 1. Iran was a liberal democracy that the US deposed in 1953 at the behest of the British because BP didn't want to have to pay higher royalties, ultimately leading Mossadegh wanting to "nationalize" their own oil; 2. In 1978, then US-puppet Saddam Hussein expelled Khomenei from Iraq. This was about the time the US realized that Iran was likely lost. it is believed that the reason for this was that a fundamentalist regime was preferred to a Communist one (which was otherwise the likely outcome) as the US didn't want Iran to fall into the Soviet sphere of influence. So all this pearl-clutching about the current regime rings hollow when you realize the US helped created it; 3. As punishment for the Revolution, the US supplied weapons to Iraq and fueled the Iran-Iraq war for almost a decade that killed over a million people; and 4. Crippling economic sanctions, which is a fancy way of saying "starving people and denying them medical care", for daring not to be a US puppet. If you point me to any conflict you think is based on faith, I'll show you the material interests behind it. [2]: https://www.c-span.org/clip/senate-highlight/user-clip-joe-b... [3]: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v12... > Israel is the largest American aircraft carrier in the world that cannot be sunk, Airstrip one is disappointed. [flagged] Hey there I'm Israeli and I'm quite politically informed and moderately religiously educated and I have never heard of this "curse of the eighth decade" thing you've heard of. You probably know a lot more than me but my understanding is there have been two previous Jewish states in the Levant, the ancient Kingdom of Israel ruled by King David and then the Hasmonean dynasty during the Second Temple period. Both of those states lasted for around 80 years before collapsing. My (probably worthless) 2c is there's nothing magical or surprising about that, a lot of people have pointed out that political entities often last around the length of a human life before change occurs. The most prominent current theory is the Strauss–Howe "fourth turning" one but the idea goes back further than that Huh. Interesting. This is not a common narrative in Israeli discourse (especially since in that discourse David's kingdom is considered to have continued in the southern Kingdom of Judah, and to have lasted several centuries). Isreal did have some polarization among liberal-conservative sides recently. Protests and all that. Could be I'll know from how many downvotes I get whether I've touched a nerve or not 2 countries with the best war technologies on earth must work together to have a war with embargod-country-for-decades.
And those 2 counties are founder of Board of Peace. The reason it is hard is not due to a power balance. Both of those countries could have sent nukes with minimal efforts. But their goal is targeted and precise attacks, that effectively destroy targets based on specific, and high quality intelligence. The other part is that defense against missiles is significantly harder and more expensive than sending missiles. Iran, while relatively poor, has dedicated a significant part of its economy for missile development and production. To obliterate a nuclear program that they claimed was totally obliterated last year Well. Iran gets a lot of weapons from Russia which spends a whole lot of their GDP producing weaponry. Come on, you haven't lived if you were a high school senior and didn't stuff a bunch of middle schoolers in lockers with your bros for fun. yes, yes. Poor Iran. My greater concern is the people of Iran. Especially since Iran has conscription so the people who end up dieing in a war didn't even consent to being made soldiers. Yes. Poor Iran. Because America and Israel. Iran are the good guys? What topsy-turvy land have I wandered into? They've funded Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis for decades. They've assassinated dissidents on foreign soil. They sentence people to death for apostasy and flog women for not wearing hijab correctly. The sanctions aren't about race. They're about behaviour. > Iran are the good guys? Nobody said that. But they are a sovereign country that did not attack America. Bombing them because you find their internal politics distasteful is appalling, to say the least. There are no "good guys" in real-life. If you as an individual revile proxy conflict, assassination of dissidents abroad, torture and summary execution, then it's hard to stand on the American soapbox and demand change. Many Iranians still remember SAVAK, and are told stories of the last time they tried nationalizing their resources. The US doesn't need an interventionist policy with Iran any more than we need to invade North Korea. Israel needs it though, and their entire strategy is to risk American lives for their meaningless expansion campaign. > 2 countries with the best war technologies on earth must work together to have a war with embargod-country-for-decades It gives us a regional coalition partner. That's never a bad thing, regardless of circumstances. > It gives us a regional coalition partner. That's never a bad thing, regardless of circumstances. You missed the point. The fact that it requires two of them to gang up on Iran says something about how capable Iran is in defending itself. No it doesn't. No military power, however overpowered compared to its opponents, will ever say no to an even more unfair beatdown. I don't think they can accomplish their goal even with that. I will be very surprised by regime change. I'd say being an apartheid state and conducting a live-streamed genocide could possibly be a minor issue. Just a PR issue mind, Lord knows we've given up on our souls long ago. > conducting a live-streamed genocide For what it's worth, I think the American activists on this issue bungled the messaging to disastrous effect (in the same way we bungled criminal-justice reform). It's a saturated issue with low political salience outside a specific (and increasingly constrained) demographic. A win in Iran will be a short-term boost, in America and in Israel. Then we'll go back to being pissed about rising prices. The activism worked. Polling shows that support for Israel is dwindling especially among the younger population. When it comes to Israel, polling was always lower in younger populations, although yes - the trend worsened. Israel chose to trade popularity for having real geopolitical gains on the ground. Popularity could be won back later, but removing the Iranian ring of fire around it is a real and tangible achievement that would last decades and change the Middle East. You make it sound as if Israel merely made a few PR blunders.. They’ve killed 10s of thousands of Palestinian children. This is not salvageable without justice and accountability. [flagged] Not really sure what to say here. Maybe it’s a lack of empathy or imagination because the victims are Palestinians? Perhaps a good thought experiment would be to swap out Israel and Palestine with some other similar (real or fictional) conflict to help you think through your apparent confusion. Yes, they did and still do target children. We’ve all seen videos of Israeli soldiers shooting kids that are running away from them in the back. Yes, murder cases for each act of crime against humanity. Yes, Nuremberg style trials for the leaders of the genocide.
papaver-somnamb - 9 hours ago
JumpCrisscross - 8 hours ago
iso1631 - 5 hours ago
AnimalMuppet - 4 hours ago
ethbr1 - 6 hours ago
bobthepanda - 15 minutes ago
unsupp0rted - 29 minutes ago
NetMageSCW - a minute ago
jjtheblunt - 23 minutes ago
mandeepj - an hour ago
foobarian - 3 hours ago
throwthrowuknow - 6 hours ago
doubletwoyou - 4 hours ago
jmward01 - 38 minutes ago
jopsen - 10 minutes ago
fakedang - 23 minutes ago
jmward01 - 8 minutes ago
iwontberude - 17 minutes ago
leptons - an hour ago
627467 - an hour ago
rayiner - an hour ago
jopsen - 6 minutes ago
shevy-java - 8 hours ago
anonymous_user9 - 8 hours ago
ethbr1 - 6 hours ago
DivingForGold - 8 hours ago
righthand - 6 hours ago
throwpoaster - 3 hours ago
xg15 - 8 hours ago
ethbr1 - 6 hours ago
plaidfuji - an hour ago
xg15 - 4 hours ago
AnimalMuppet - 4 hours ago
asah - 8 hours ago
throwpoaster - 3 hours ago
phendrenad2 - 5 hours ago
throwpoaster - 3 hours ago
decimalenough - an hour ago
bcxdxc65 - 7 hours ago
AreShoesFeet000 - 8 hours ago
adverbly - 8 hours ago
Zealotux - 8 hours ago
scoofy - 2 hours ago
shykes - 14 minutes ago
scoofy - 2 minutes ago
robin_reala - 29 minutes ago
diordiderot - 14 minutes ago
methyl - 8 hours ago
ActorNightly - an hour ago
reliabilityguy - 5 hours ago
lm28469 - 4 hours ago
cosmicgadget - 3 hours ago
greggoB - 2 hours ago
sosomoxie - an hour ago
nullocator - 4 hours ago
sosomoxie - an hour ago
reliabilityguy - 4 hours ago
nullocator - 2 hours ago
unethical_ban - 4 hours ago
reliabilityguy - 4 hours ago
unethical_ban - 4 hours ago
reliabilityguy - 3 hours ago
tim333 - 4 hours ago
danny_codes - 3 hours ago
qup - 3 hours ago
sosomoxie - an hour ago
helaoban - an hour ago
qup - 12 minutes ago
jari_mustonen - 5 hours ago
reliabilityguy - 5 hours ago
thisislife2 - an hour ago
enraged_camel - an hour ago
thisislife2 - an hour ago
Bender - 6 hours ago
Bender - 35 minutes ago
tim333 - 4 hours ago
Bender - 4 hours ago
tim333 - 2 hours ago
thisislife2 - an hour ago
Bender - 30 minutes ago
cosmicgadget - 3 hours ago
thisislife2 - 30 minutes ago
Bender - 3 hours ago
scrollop - 3 hours ago
Bender - 3 hours ago
shevy-java - 8 hours ago
thomassmith65 - 8 hours ago
invader - 7 hours ago
platinumrad - 2 hours ago
torlok - 5 hours ago
ponector - 7 hours ago
thisislife2 - 21 minutes ago
UncleMeat - 8 hours ago
Jtsummers - 2 hours ago
markus_zhang - 5 hours ago
tim333 - 4 hours ago
Braxton1980 - 5 hours ago
franktankbank - 6 hours ago
plaidfuji - 42 minutes ago
shykes - 29 minutes ago
whearyou - 5 hours ago
sosomoxie - an hour ago
shykes - 12 minutes ago
nonethewiser - 10 minutes ago
nonethewiser - 11 minutes ago
hightrix - 3 hours ago
kilroy123 - an hour ago
Bender - 4 hours ago
nananana9 - 43 minutes ago
Bender - 27 minutes ago
worldsavior - 3 hours ago
Bender - 3 hours ago
dyauspitr - an hour ago
nonethewiser - 8 minutes ago
ActorNightly - an hour ago
spaghetdefects - 39 minutes ago
Arun2009 - 7 hours ago
rambojohnson - 3 hours ago
pphysch - 2 hours ago
rayiner - 36 minutes ago
rambojohnson - 2 hours ago
thisislife2 - 14 minutes ago
2snakes - an hour ago
nonethewiser - 6 minutes ago
ozgrakkurt - 4 hours ago
lioeters - 31 minutes ago
AbstractH24 - 7 hours ago
thisislife2 - 6 minutes ago
kubb - 6 hours ago
azernik - 5 hours ago
tsimionescu - an hour ago
kubb - 4 hours ago
azernik - an hour ago
kubb - 41 minutes ago
weatherlite - an hour ago
kubb - an hour ago
nyc_data_geek1 - an hour ago
kubb - an hour ago
sosomoxie - an hour ago
azernik - an hour ago
sosomoxie - an hour ago
samrus - 6 hours ago
violentapricot - 6 hours ago
azernik - an hour ago
cogman10 - 6 hours ago
misiek08 - 5 hours ago
mkoubaa - 6 hours ago
philistine - 5 hours ago
lukifer - an hour ago
cies - 6 hours ago
eleventyseven - 5 hours ago
jmyeet - 6 hours ago
gpderetta - 5 hours ago
ifwinterco - 7 hours ago
azernik - 5 hours ago
ifwinterco - 5 hours ago
azernik - an hour ago
samrus - 6 hours ago
ifwinterco - 6 hours ago
0x600613 - 9 hours ago
gpt5 - an hour ago
croes - 7 hours ago
IncreasePosts - 3 hours ago
NewsaHackO - 2 hours ago
SirFatty - 8 hours ago
harimau777 - 8 hours ago
Schmerika - 8 hours ago
dijit - 2 hours ago
tredre3 - 23 minutes ago
bigyabai - 2 hours ago
JumpCrisscross - 8 hours ago
guerrilla - 5 hours ago
andrewflnr - 4 hours ago
guerrilla - an hour ago
propagandist - 7 hours ago
JumpCrisscross - 7 hours ago
Cyph0n - 7 hours ago
flyinglizard - 7 hours ago
Cyph0n - 6 hours ago
flyinglizard - 6 hours ago
Cyph0n - 6 hours ago
hightrix - 3 hours ago