|
War On Iran: – U.S. Ratcheting Fails
A typical U.S. tactic is to ratchet things up in a conflict. This is done by continuously introducing additional hostile measures. Red lines get passed over bit by bit with the hope that each step is too tiny for the other side to really hit back. The war in Ukraine continues to be run like that.
Two days ago the U.S. attacked two Iranian boats which it had claimed were laying mines near Bandar Abbas. (There is zero evidence that Iran has laid ANY mines in the Strait.)
Iran did not allow for the ratchet to click. It immediately hit back.
Statement from CENTCOM on Recent Iranian Aggression – CENTCOM, May 28 2026
TAMPA, Fla. – At 10:17 p.m. ET on May 27, Iran launched a ballistic missile toward Kuwait that was successfully intercepted by Kuwaiti forces.
“Successfully intercepted …”
Americans Injured in Iranian Missile Strike on Kuwaiti Air Base – Bloomberg, May 30 2026
An Iranian ballistic missile strike on a Kuwaiti air base within the past 24 hours caused minor injuries to several Americans and seriously damaged two MQ-9 Reaper strike drones, …
That sounds like a spot on hit.
Kuwaiti air defenses intercepted the Fateh-110 missile, but falling debris struck the Ali Al Salem air base, according to a person with direct knowledge of the attack, who requested anonymity to describe details that aren’t public.
“Falling debris …”. Like in ‘The missile was falling, then there was debris.’
Interpretation:
أَبُو عِرْفَانِ پارسی @A_E_P_1979 – 11:20 UTC · May 30, 2026
It seems Iran’s recent attack on Kuwait inflicted casualties on the Americans. This is significant for two reasons.
1. Americans are still stationed in the Gulf and do not want to leave.
2. Iran showed the Americans that, unlike before, attacking Iran “under the threshold” will not grant them immunity, and Iran is willing to escalate massively even at the cost of war. Creating a credibility for its threats.
This attack is very significant, in my opinion, because it will directly affect the negotiations and erase any delusions the Americans might have.
Well, hopefully.
I still expect another massive U.S. attack on Iran combined with an unrealistic attempt to gain (fire-)control over the Strait of Hormuz.
@200 james
Government printing is a form of tax.
Government ownership of money supply is a form of dictatorship, the public have little or no say on its use, as per all current democratic arrangements.
A government is not ‘the public’ , nor can it be said governments act in best public interest, even were that able to be determined or that they actually intended to.
Governments serve government, increased bureaucracy, management, own position, pay.
What is called private finance today is heavily reliant on ‘public finance’. Without public finance available as monopoly, private finance would be limited to questions of trust, and so self regulating.
All the misdeed of private finance happens within and under the view of public law. That gives no confidence at all that ‘public’ somehow ‘knows better’, or would ever be able to.
Saying ‘China’, does not convince. China has its own particular system, that is more inclusive and suits its circumstance better. That that is what private individuals would want, is not certain because choice is as limited as in any other organised or centralised system. All that can be said is that China appears to have a better approach.
Saying ‘public’ is an opt out, because it means no-one in particular, is a bland homogenisation of a people or society.
With ‘public’, no one in particular is actually responsible. That lack of accountability, if not from start, eventually gets taken advantage of.
Posted by: Ornot | May 31 2026 14:51 utc | 210
@221 james
Just repying freehand, hope it is readable…
No, am not same mindset as Hudson, though he is very studied, experienced and somewhat intelligent (I jest on one of those).
His views tend towards money as a public utility, going back to possible historical origins which he has researched and provided hypothesis for ?
There are elements of his understanding and analysis that I have found incorrect, the order of evolution of modern settings for example (don’t ask me to quote them, those are from an article here, a conversation there etc.), from own point of view.
Austrian school, Mises for example, deals with human nature, individual decisions and anima. It is very disciplined in that sense. Hudson looks from a slightly more ethereal position, public good and coordination as the meaning behind money, selfless cooperation (in the sense of recognising the whole as more important to the individual ) and its overall benefit ?
Those values are tied into Austrian school also, but in a different manner, via morals and norms that are held in place by accountability, so encouraging responsibility of the individual, and os society as a working whole.
In essence, I don’t find Hudson’s approach workable as ‘an absolute’, i.e. a law, but it might provide a working alternative, a relief or way out, of the extremes that exist now. It is quite a natural presentation also, is echoed in practice in various forms, both modern and traditional.
“..what do you think the solution is to the ongoing class war where a small percent dictate the terms for the rest of us?”
Very large topic, especially as I tend towards minutia or specifics when looking at problems. Meaning ‘a solution’ is in fact many various lesser solutions adapted to each circumstance.
Class, although I understand what is meant, can be defined in many ways (race, wealth, say etc.)
Equally dictate, it is ultimately down the barrel of a gun.
The small percent that dictate, they do so via government (directly or indirectly) , which is via ‘public monopoly of the use of force’, which ‘the majority’ accept as status quo, public contract, necessary, what have you. This includes taxation (vast influences), right to respond, numerical advantage, ownership or legislation of payment systems, etc. etc. etc.
So I tend to view the solution as small state, conservative society values, freedom with individual responsibility, respect of public societal norms, but feedom of private individual norms (within basic morality) where they are not imposed or displayed in disrespect of more common sensibilities. Very roughly.
Libertarians tend to factor out the social side, go fully individualistic, and this is not workable in my opinion; it is an ideal that works while others are as well meaning or freedom loving as libertarians are maybe, but ‘no such place exists in practice’. In other words it remains an ideal lived, but within other realities that do not adapt to it.
Similarly classical anarchy (no rule) is a high ideal that some live as an ethos, and in spite of it not being respected by others; but you cannot impose that, by nature it disregards a top down structure or organisation, which any solution as phrased, would be.
Hopefully that sort of highlights the difference between a (meek but hopefully honest) individual approach to solutions that is effective and true at individual level (individual sovereignty) , and the ‘all powerful hand of state’ and its relationship with, or as a, public utility applied to any individual or group as a whole, as well as the kinds of middle ground that might exist ?
So many ways to approach the topic; today’s lower class are in luxury compared to a few hundred years ago, or compared to the lower caste in other countries , even if owned or enslaved somehow ? The rich or elite, apart from (maybe) having a nicer time, their wealth is only on paper, meaning they still sleep in only one of their thousand rooms. And so on.
Anyway, wasn’t the answer actually 24, or something, in hitch hikers guide to the galaxy…saw a quote of that somewhere ?
Posted by: Ornot | May 31 2026 21:00 utc | 231
|
