The casualties are low largely because US troops simply abandoned their bases and moved to hotels, treating the citizens of their gulf allies as human shields.
This has massive strategic implications for the US. The US couldn't protect its bases in the middle east from a middle power like Iran and in fact its bases were the reason that its "allies" in the gulf were attacked. Iran would have no reason to attack those allies otherwise. The US has also shown that Israel is the only ally that it really cares about.
Japan, South Korea, Philippines and Australia are taking notes. Prediction: there is not going to be a war over Taiwan - Taiwan will gradually come to a Hong Kong like agreement with China.
Nah. Seeing how China reneged on the "one country, two systems" promise and wrecked Hong Kong has turned the Taiwanese people more firmly against reunification.
Iran would be attacking other nearby states regardless of whether they host US military bases. Iran has a long history of aggression, including sponsoring terrorist groups. Personally I favor a less interventionist US foreign policy but even if we completely disengaged from the Middle East it would still be a violent neighborhood — probably even more so.
During the Iran–Iraq War, which began with the Iraqi invasion of Iran on 22 September 1980,[1] the United States adopted a policy of providing support to Iraq in the form of several billion dollars' worth of economic aid, dual-use technology, intelligence sharing (e.g., IMINT), and special operations training.[2] This U.S. support, along with support from most of the Arab world, proved vital in helping Iraq sustain military operations against Iran.[3] The documented sale of dual-use technology, with one notable example being Iraq's acquisition of 45 Bell helicopters in 1985,[4][5] was effectively a workaround for a ban on direct arms transfers; U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East dictated that Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism because of the Iraqi government's historical ties with groups like the Palestinian Liberation Front and the Abu Nidal Organization, among others.[6] However, this designation was removed in 1982 to facilitate broader support for the Iraqis as the conflict dragged on in Iran's favour.
The USA sending support to a state during a war specifically for that war is not supporting terrorism, even if the recipient has supported terrorism in the past.
>This U.S. support, along with support from most of the Arab world, proved vital in helping Iraq sustain military operations against Iran.
>Is using chemical weapons on civilian targets in cities and villages not terrorism?
I'm not an expert on the Iran-Iraq war and I'm a bit tired for research ATM but I'm going to assume the USA did not provide it's help for chemical weapons use, and that there was plenty of conventional conflict going on to provide assistance for.
>Anyway, there are earlier and more direct instances of the US sponsoring terrorists groups.
Sure, but we should point to when that happened. Not when the USA supported a government to do something at the same time as they did something bad.
> I'm a bit tired for research ATM but I'm going to assume
Hilarious but sad that this is the state of HN.
After you get some rest consider reading the article. Maybe you can have it read to you like a audiobook, might be easier? Some of the original CIA documents are at the bottom.
In 1988, during the waning days of Iraq’s war with Iran, the United States learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein’s military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent.
The Reagan administration decided that it was better to let the attacks continue if they might turn the tide of the war. And even if they were discovered, the CIA wagered that international outrage and condemnation would be muted
senior U.S. officials were being regularly informed about the scale of the nerve gas attacks
declassified CIA documents show that Casey and other top officials were repeatedly informed about Iraq’s chemical attacks and its plans for launching more
The use of chemical weapons in war is banned under the Geneva Protocol of 1925, which states that parties “will exert every effort to induce other States to accede to the” agreement. Iraq never ratified the protocol; the United States did in 1975.
By 1988, U.S. intelligence was flowing freely to Hussein’s military. That March, Iraq launched a nerve gas attack on the Kurdish village of Halabja in northern Iraq
To be fair, such rhetoric in Iran was around long before this war.
It is also common knowledge [1] that more-pious followers of Islam - particularly in Middle Eastern countries - are considerably more receptive to Islam's more radical teachings and commands on the topic of the treatment towards non-believers (which makes up the bulk of Western nation populations), than Jewish or Christian followers are to their respective religion's teaching and commands in regards to the same.
Sharia Law. If you don't believe in Allah and the teachings within the Qur'an, feel free to look up how Sharia law dictates your treatment from its believers.
You are also mistaken, the Pew Research study explicitly lays out the percentages of individuals within Islam that believe in the death penalty for apostasy. For example, in Egypt, 86% of Muslims who favored making Sharia official law supported the death penalty for apostasy; in Jordan, it was 82%; in Afghanistan, 79%.
Hardly a reasonable take. Indeed, Sharia Law is a dog-whistle in Western nation talks, but that's a luxury on our part. It's a very real belief for a very real cohort of people, however distant they are from enacting action on us today.
I know what Shariah law is (incidentally, the word Shariah means "Law", that's like saying "law law" which is nonsensical). Now tell me what did you read about what it dictates form its believers?
Apostasy in classical Islamic scholarship is equivalent to treason - which many present day non-Muslim countries have the capital punishment for. Scholars have discussed this topic in detail, not every apostate has this applied to them.
>"incidentally, the word Shariah means "Law", that's like saying "law law" which is nonsensical"
I'm glad we could point out pedantic semantics - if you want to be outdone, "sharia" means "way". Nonetheless, "Sharia Law" is a term that means something in jargon and in colloquial, and it is understood to most (serious inquirers) as a mechanation of law, typically from a governing body, that is inspired and sourced by a mix of verses in the Qur'an, prophetic tradition, hadiths, and scholarly consensus between all aforementioned elements.
>"Now tell me what did you read about what it dictates form its believers?"
At least try to be genuine, please:
Surah 5:51: "O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you - then indeed, he is [one] of them."
Surah 9:5: "And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way."
The Jizya verse is all about sanctioning religious "freedom" and only even tolerating "People of the Book" outside Islam if they pay a special tax called a jizya.
And yes! To your point: "Apostasy in classical Islamic scholarship is equivalent to treason", it is with this belief that Islam is not predicated upon any belief of religious freedom - Western values are. Their beliefs are further predicated upon commands to treat People of The Book (Christians and Jews) with less-than-desirable behaviors, all of which I sourced above. We can talk about bans on places of worship and criminalizing proselytization outside of Islam if you're somehow not convinced?
But in any case, unless you want to play the excuse that Christians and Jews do from the other side of the aisle when they say that this was directed to a certain people at a certain time - which carries its own enormous pragmatic and theological flaws (and is often at great detriment to Muslims when logically exercised) - it is not possible to call the beliefs of a pious Muslim compatible with traditional Western Values. And this is just me appealing to the pragmatic, such conclusions follow logically what a pious Muslim's more-extreme beliefs are for religiously-tolerant cultures, and their beliefs towards the people that make them up.
Unconvincing. Wait till you see the percentage of modern Christians that disregard and ignore calls and commands for violence present in the bible, compared to believers within the other 2 Abrahamic religions.
Western values separated themselves from several beliefs demanded by the Christianity religions that inspired them. They self-governed and organically evolved beyond several parts of their source material (homosexuality and sodomy, slavery, religious violence, working on the sabbath, forced assimilation, torture and wartime measures, textile production).
> compared to believers within the other 2 Abrahamic religions.
Do you really want me to cite what israel has been doing for the past 75+ years and justified it from their own books? What did milekowsky literally say in one of his recent speeches?
> slavery
Still exists, but it changed forms.
> religious violence
Also still exists, but is a bit more concealed
forced assimilation,
See: europe
> torture and wartime measures
American and israeli war crimes are very well documented, and continue to this day
Most 'modern' Christians are barely even aware of the content of the Bible, and most adherents of all three religions are not acting on those commands anyway.
>They self-governed and organically evolved beyond several parts of their source material
Ah yes, wars, revolutions, general strikes, all famously acts of self-governance.
> if you want to be outdone, "sharia" means "way".
That's but one of its meanings. Arabic is a very rich language, and the word and its derivatives are used in the context of "canon".
As far as your citations, this has been responded to countless times [1]
Regarding Jizya, If you were being honest, you would know that (1) Muslims are reqired to pay more because of Zakat, (2) Jizya is only required from able males who can serve in the army, in exchange for them not serving. Women, children, elderly, and priests (regardless of age) are not required to pay the Jizya. You will find many occurrences in Islamic history where it was forgiven due to circumstances - read about cases involving the 2nd Caliph Umar Ibn Al-Khattab for example.
> with this belief that Islam is not predicated upon any belief of religious freedom
The Quran (which you cited when you thought it served your incorrect claims), Hadiths, and classical Islamic scholarship all refute this claim. Not to mention reality - Christian/Syriac people that exist in Muslims majority lands are but one example that prove that Islam enforces freedom of belief. Jews exist in Iran[2][3] who were bombed by israel, but you won't find it in the news.I bet you have not come across these Hadith before [4][5][6]
> all of which I sourced above.
No you did not.
> We can talk about bans on places of worship
Nope. Proof: churches and synagogues exist in Muslim lands, such as Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and (wait for it) Iran.
> it is not possible to call the beliefs of a pious Muslim compatible with traditional Western Values.
This is one thing we agree on. Classical liberal western values are at odds with Islam. The former has changed over time to fit the latest fad of the day; the latter is fixed at the core and root, while having branches flexible enough to encompass the needs of changing times and geographies.
You're trying to stir religious hatred through lies, my friend.
Before diving into your link, I'll start by saying that anyone who spends time around Muslims will know they're people like everyone else and not the evil caricatures you're attempting to portray.
Your comment sounds like Muslims the world over want to kill infidels. The link says that Muslims in majority Muslim theocratic countries support Sharia being the law for Muslims. There is a lot less support in secular, majority-Muslim countries.
The survey doesn't cover Western countries, and in the countries closest to the West (Kosovo, Bosnia, Albania), support for Sharia among Muslims is 18%, and the majority of those 18% believe it should only apply to Muslims.
Some Muslims think apostasy deserves capital punishment: this is about Muslims abandoning their faith, not infidels.
Some other headings from your survey:
Extremism widely rejected
Few see tensions over religions differences
Widespread support for democracy, religious freedom
> than Jewish or Christian followers
Israel is an apartheid state, where ethno-religious supremacy of part of the population is law, where dehumanisation and killing of Palestinians enjoy widespread support 2.5 years into the genocide. A few weeks ago, a law was passed that allows hanging and applies, in practice, only to Palestinians.
Christian theocracies do not exist anymore, or for now, but it'd be fair to say they'll be equally as bad as any other theocracy.
>"You're trying to stir religious hatred through lies"
Every thing I've said here is driven by collected data. To note, I conceded in my below-cited comment that active religious hatred towards Middle-Eastern Muslims from Westerners is often a political dogwhistle, due to how distant they are from us in almost every sense:
>>"Indeed, Sharia Law is a dog-whistle in Western nation talks, but that's a luxury on our part. It's a very real belief for a very real cohort of people, however distant they are from enacting action on us today."
But we should know - and recognize - those who identify us as an enemy to their beliefs or advancements, even if they're presently inconsequential. I am not contributing to the active Islamophobia towards Western Muslims with anything I am saying, and let's use caution when prescribing such.
With that in mind, let's quote you more directly:
>"I'll start by saying that anyone who spends time around Muslims will know they're people like everyone else and not the evil caricatures you're attempting to portray."
Yes. Western Muslims are good people, and you'll see points in my comments on this thread directly support that, I was predominantly talking about the beliefs of Middle-Eastern Muslims, which overwhelming hold beliefs that are incompatible with my - and most Westerners - moral framework, even if you can get along with them at a corner market or when asking for directions. I even say this in my first comment:
>>"It is also common knowledge [1] that more-pious followers of Islam - *particularly in Middle Eastern countries* - are considerably more receptive to Islam's more radical teachings and commands on the topic of the treatment towards non-believers"
You also say:
>"The link says that Muslims in majority Muslim theocratic countries support Sharia being the law for Muslims. There is a lot less support in secular, majority-Muslim countries."
No, it supports it being the official law of the land and within the jurisdiction of the respectively-polled nation. It was not a poll to see what standards Muslims desire to hold themselves and fellow Muslims accountable. It is a poll about the percentage of Muslims in various Middle-Eastern countries support Sharia as their nation's official law. Your motivation for skewing the dataset's conclusion? I remain unsure.
>"Some Muslims think apostasy deserves capital punishment: this is about Muslims abandoning their faith, not infidels."
Most*
>"Israel is an apartheid state"
I'll concede Israel is now another one. The original scope of this discussion was a country - and its inhabitants - religious actions and consensus beliefs for the last decades, and Israel has only brazenly shown its hand for the same within the past 5 years, so they weren't on my mind when I wrote my comment. But good point bringing them up
The high ranking Shia mullahs/religious teachers that run the Islamic Republic ordered 3,000-30,000 of their own murdered in the streets for not wanting religious police to rape/murder them/their children/their sisters/moms if they didn't wear hats.
The highest of the Shia religious leaders don't need much 'justification' they happily order their religious police/religious proxies to carry out acts of mass violence.
I'm pretty sure shaming someone for sharing their lived experience (especially form their childhood) is not in keeping with HN terms.
Crazy the attempts to normalize the calls for mass killing because 'it's desired revenge killing with historical context'.
They are very clear that they want American and it's society destroyed. It is not just a chant. This is literally 'don't believe what they say, don't believe what they do, don't believe your own ears' level of denialism. But because my country is rich/powerful, I am not allowed to call out their actual words? 10 year old me was not allowed to be impacted by their leaderhsips words/actions (i needed to understand the historical context of their desire for revenge killing)? That is your entire premise. I am to rich/powerful to have a right to call out those calling for my death/my societies destruction in revenge?
The 'some' are the countries leaders, religions leaders, and huge amounts of their followers, and has been going on for 40+ years and is 40+ years as the official government position. And it is a call for death of hundreds of millions, the majority innocent of the actions done. You hide a lot behind 'some people chant'. Trumps words were vile. Irans 40+ years of religious leaders words, political leaders words, and civilians chanting in the streets words, are vile as well regardless of what the country the USA has done.
They also call the same chant for Israel right after the USA. Does Iran not really want Israel and it's society gone/destroyed/people killed? Their proxies murdered/maimed/injured/raped thousands on Oct 7th. Sure seems like they want what they say and are happy when they can cause bloodshed. Israel is much smaller than Iran, so by your logic (8 million people versus 90 million), you believe Iran is in the wrong for calling Israel out? The Islamic Republic of Iran has spent billions surrounding Israel with their Islamic religious proxies who consistently direct attacks at Israeli civilians. Israel had to invent a whole as sci-fi missile shield in order to protect their civilians from Iranian attacks via their proxies. 'Iran doesn't mean death to Israel'? Does anyone believe that? But when they precede it with 'death to America' somehow you want us to believe that is a totally different context?
Your feelings do kind of matter, but you're putting the cart way before the horse. Let me try to open your eyes:
> Nov. 4, 1979 Iran took fifty two American's hostage and held them for 444 days.
That was 47 years ago, yet this act still burns in your memory. For Iran, it was 26 years prior that the US & Great Britain replaced their democratically elected primer minister Mossadegh with a tyrannical monarch. Why? Because the US was afraid of Iran 'turning red' and for cheap oil.
When the king of Iran publicly toughened his stance on oil and the Israel lobby (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RH2wXQtFdo), the US in response did nothing to stop Khomeini from taking over.
When Iranian students took the US embassy, embassy staff was actively shredding documents proving US' role in the 1953 coup. The Iranians dropped mountains of shredded docs into elementary schools and asked the kids to 'solve the puzzle,' which they did. The US didn't acknowledge its role in the coup until Obama threw them an olive branch during his second term.
If the embassy takeover was that bad, then maybe you should be upset at Reagan for working out a secret deal with the mullah to NOT release the hostages in order to make President Carter look weak, which cost Carter the election. The hostages were released minutes after Reagan was sworn in. In exchange, Reagan sold weapons to these muslim 'america-haters.' I've never seen Republicans upset at Reagan for selling weapons to Iran, have you?
> call for my and my families deaths and the destruction of my civilization my entire life
Words matter, actions matter more. The US supported the monarchy for years when it was killing and torturing Iranians. The US funded and armed Saddam against to kill Iranians between 1980 and 1988, including with chemical weapons. In 1988, the US shot down an Iranian passenger plane 655. Iranian families have lost many more people to the US than vice versa. That's probably why you've "never seen huge protests in the US calling for Iranian deaths."
You also might not know that post-9/11, Iran's moderate Khatami government and the US worked closely together in special operations in Afghanistan. That's because Iran had nothing to do with 9/11 and were in fact natural enemies of the Sunnis who did 9/11. That is, until George W. Bush was instructed by his team to include Iran in the "axis of evil." In response to Bush, the mullahs ensured that the next president was equally tough (Ahmadinejad). When Obama was elected, the Iran chose the moderate Rouhani to make a deal. I looked, but couldn't find one instance of Iran chanting 'death to america' before Bush's 'axis of evil' comment.
Hopefully you can appreciate why your feelings don't trump the ground truth.
"I looked, but couldn't find one instance of Iran chanting 'death to america' before Bush's 'axis of evil' comment."
Ah, I'm a liar, they didn't say it? That is your ground truth? I didn't actually grow up in fear, fear caused by Iran's actions (historical context or not) and calls for revenge killing America? I must have imagined them saying it?
And before you bring up the bullshit 'English interpretation' Iran makes the same call for Israel normally immediately after calling for death to the USA, and Iran is very explicate they want Israel's destruction. So don't project some definition on the first half that doesn't fit 'death to American death to Israel' knowing Iran want's Israels death actual.
They held those people for over 400 days.
Religious leaders, especially supreme ones, should not call for the death of entire societies. 10 years olds should not be giving the context for why it is OK to call for them, their families, everyone they knows death and destruction by supreme religious leaders and told 'actually, they are justified in their calls to revenge kill you, so relax'.
I said "I looked but couldn't find it." If you think that's calling you a liar then you have big problems. I grant that you were right on that point, I was wrong. Cool. You sound like you know a lot about Persian rhetoric. Maybe you speak Farsi? No, then where are you getting this information? Are you aware there was a cooling of US-Iran relations during the presidency of Khatami? You'd be aware if you read what I wrote earlier.
I assume that you're equally upset when the wife of the 'democracy-loving' 'crown prince of Iran' says "Death to the Left"?
Are you going to address anything else that I mentioned, or do you just do selective rebuttals?
> They held those people for over 400 days.
And? 200-500k Iranians died during the Iran-Iraq war, supported by the US. 290 civilians died when Iran Air Flight 655 was shot down.
Let me repeat a few things for you that you ignored.
Embassy staff was destroying evidence of the 1953 coup when the embassy was taken, and the US didn't admit to its role in the coup until 2009. But you trust everything Steve Witkoff says right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Shredded_1979-09-01_1305Z...
You don't care that Reagan had a deal with the mullahs to keep those 400 Americans hostage?
You don't care that Reagan & Republicans sold weapons to Iran, which apparently definitely wants to murder your parents and grandparents and your best friends?
You don't care that the US helped Saddam invade and gassing Iranian cities, villages, and civilians because Iran held Americans hostage for 444 days? Are you ok?
I literally googled 'death to america chant'. That was the extent of the depth of what you presented me immediately before stating "Hopefully you can appreciate why your feelings don't trump the ground truth.". A 10 year olds feelings are what they are. I grew up with an inherent distrust of Iran/Islam because of Iranian words/actions. Those actions that turned me off may be justified in your mind, but does not make their impacts/consequences zero, and part of that is I get to have my own feelings about Iran based on Iran's supreme Islamic religious leaders and their followers calling my my nation's destruction for over 40 years, 70 years after the 1953 actions. Over half of America wasn't even born then.
You are doing way to much defining some caricature of me to engage with you.
"But you trust everything Steve Witkoff says right? "
"You don't care that Reagan"
"You don't care that Reagan"
"You don't care that the US "
That is not engaging in discussion. Nor does it address what I said, it only attempts to justify calls for the death of millions by Iran (and two entire societies, the USA, then immediately the chant follows with calles for the death of Israel). I have stated elsewhere what the US did is vile. Nixon is vile. Read my comment history, I hate Reagan. But that doesn't then lead to a framework for why calling for revenge killing of millions and two entire societies is OK by a country's leaders and supreme religious experts/theologians. It is wrong. Especially coming from supreme religious leaders. Yet not one person replying to me is willing to admit that is vile coming from a religious leader. No one will admit calling for revenge killing is not acceptable, especially at the national leadership level/social death scale and against two entire societies.
And it is a call for death. It goes 'death to America, death to Israel' and Iran VERY VERY MUCH DOES want Israel dead/gone/destroyed. It would make no sense that the preceding reference to the USA (considered the great satan) would be more benevolent than that following "death to Israel" (the little satan).
Khomeini wrote a book about his views and plans. So why did the US and the West stand by and let him take over Iran? How come when Khomeini stepped off the plane he was flanked by a US ambassador and a rabbi?
You care more about words than the actual gassing and murder of Iranian civilians by US-supported Saddam Hussein?
When I visited Iran in 2008, half of my extended family had pictures of their kids on the wall who they lost during the Iraq-Iran war.
So why should anyone care how you felt when you were 10 years old?
Israel wants Palestine gone and everyone around them weak, Iran wants Israel gone. What’s actually happening on the ground? Who’s closer to achieving their goals? Are you aware Israel funded Hamas, Al-Qaeda, and ISIS? Do you think Israel actually wants a strong secular Iran?
I do believe you’re traumatized by what you heard when you were little, which is probably why you’re stuck at a child’s pathos-based reasoning, and you block out anything that doesn’t your childhood memory.
So you admit 'death to America, death to Israel' means death to Israel, and by extension the death to America means death to America?
I think both statements are vile. But the people who who called out Trump aren't willing to admit that when Iran says 'death to America, death to Israel' that is vile and evil as well.
Again, multiple things can be evil. You keep trying to imply only one thing can be, and that me caring about X means I don't care about Y when I simply am keeping to the discussion about X. You are free to start a separate discussion about Y or bring to light other horrible things. We have finally reached the point where you don't deny that 'death to America, death to Israel' means what it says but instead have to redirect so as not to address it.
> We have finally reached the point where you don't deny that 'death to America, death to Israel' means what it says but instead have to redirect so as not to address it
No, we haven't reached any such point. Death to the oppressor is a very reasonable thing to say. How you follow through is what matters. Reacting to actual violence with violent words is reasonable too. I know it's inconvenient, but there is in fact a rhetorical aspect to "death to XYZ" but you have not been informed of it because the US wanted you to be scared for life of Iran. Just like the US didn't tell you that they were helping Saddam gas Iranians.
The US (amongst other western powers) is responsible for the current situation in Iran, they have blood on their hands, and every time they do damage the regime or to the country without actually toppling the regime, they are strengthening the islamic republic, like a bad venereal disease that never goes away.
I wasn't redirecting, you keep selectively answering my replies and ignoring what's inconvenient. In terms of redirection though, here is a fun read about the immune system from the point of view of bacteria:
I think there is a lot to learn from how the body actually deals and effectively tames the trillions of microbe present on every mucosal surface of the body.
Key quote: "By selecting for evermore-devious parasites, the immune system is the cause of its own necessity."
It turns out that the solution is not to try to kill them or physically exclude them (that works only as long as they are not starved, they turn suicidal if they start dying too fast, and we actually need them around - just like we need Iran's oil), but to remove the cause of them trying to cross our barriers. That's what mucus does - it actually gives bacteria a slow but continuous source of energy (O-glycans) that they can live on but is too complex to digest quickly so that they can't take over. I'll spare you the details unless you're interested but it's kind of poetic the way natural selection came up with its version of "turn the other cheek" millions of years before us, then went on to ignore it for short-term gain - and now it's unclear again if the microbes or the vertebrates will win in the end.
I'm sorry your 'this is why religious leaders calling for death to two societies is valid because 1953 and 1980' doesn't resonate with me. I know you think it's intellectually lazy of me not to want to wipe out Saudi Arabia because of 9/11 but I'm just not connecting with what you are selling.
Religious leaders calling for death is wrong, 100% of the time. You aren't going to convince me to change that position, ever.
You never explained why 'death to Israel' means actually working for the death/destruction of Israeli society but the proceeding 'death to the USA' is just impassioned rhetoric.
In 1953, the UK and US collaborated to overthrow the democratically elected government of Iran in favor of strengthening the power of the Shah over the country. Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh was unpopular with the Brits after he attempted to nationalize the country's oil interests, which were being exploited by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. After convincing the Eisenhower administration that Mosaddegh's government would pull Iran into the Soviet sphere of influence, the CIA and MI6 helped plan and execute the coup by the royalists. Several hundred people were killed in the riots; Mosaddegh was convicted of treason and held in house arrest for the rest of his life; many of his supporters were jailed or killed.
The continuing bombing/killing of civilians in the middle east by Americans further highlights to me that the United States will never be able to overcome the violence it has inflicted on the world by continuing to inflict more violence.
"The continued bombing/killing of Americans throughout the middle east during the 1980s furthered highlighted to me that Iran targeted Americans for acts of violence."
was to say that there was actions and intent to act behind the supreme religious leaders calling for the death/destruction of my entire country/society (they weren't just words), not to say an entire peoples/society is irredeemable (as the Islamic Republican of Iran and it's supreme religious leaders have labeled mine).
I don't think they care about you, your parents, your grandparents, or your friends unless your family was doing some nefarious things with regards to iran.
> you see Timmy, some times religious leaders have to call for the death/destruction of a society because of something that happened 30-70 years earlier
Asides from the fact there are Timmy's in Iran too, which I guess don't matter, are you applying the same logic to every conflict? e.g. Israel/Palestine
When the Islamic Republic fo Iran calls for 'death to America, death to Israel' do they also not mean for death to Israel/Israelis? Do they simply want Israel to not do anything nefarious to Iran and they will stop chanting it? They seem very clear they want Israel gone. Their proxies thought Iran meant 'kill grandma' on Oct 7th. They videod it and shared it with the world.
It would be odd if half of the chant 'death to America, death to Israel' meant something other than death for America, while the other half meant death to Israel, would it not?
If I was to write 'death to Iran' here would you give me the such a benefit of the doubt? If the Pope was to chant it every weekend?
Where did I say Iran/Iran's Timmy didn't matter? I said it didn't invalidate my lived experience. I said calling for revenge killing against entire societies is wrong, I said Iran's acts were also wrong. I gave their impact on me as a child and how it has shaped my views. I never said Iran's Timmy didn't matter. I never denied Iran Timmy's lived experience. I (unlike others here) never said a childhood lived experience is invalidated because reasons or historical context.
Yes, they all can be evil and have deep impact, on all sides. What happened on Oct 7? Wrong. What happened in Gaza afterwards? Wrong. They can all be wrong. Do you agree? Oct 7th was wrong? What Israel did in Gaza was wrong? And calling for death to a country by anothers leaders/religious leaders, also wrong?
Childhood lived experience is not wrong, is not evil on the child's part, it simply is. However religious leaders calling for death is ALWAYS wrong, yet no one here will agree to that, they simply give context for why it is ok.
> Do you agree? Oct 7th was wrong? What Israel did in Gaza was wrong? And calling for death to a country by anothers leaders/religious leaders, also wrong?
Yes. I agree.
But I care way more about actions than words. There is way more Iranian blood on the hands of the US/Israel partners and allies (including Saddam Hussein and ISIS) than vice versa. Iran doesn’t have bases or any presence near US borders. Western powers have been playing puppet-master with Iran since the world wars.
You keep talking about your childhood experience. It doesn’t move me.
You can think of Iran having a disease, a recurrent infection of Islamism; I’m saying the medicine has caused more problems than anything else, strengthening resistance to antibiotics. And then you go back to “when I was little I was scared of getting sick.” Write that in your diary if you want but it’s not useful in our little debate.
The mullahs use anti-American rhetoric because it is popular, and it is popular because it is justified if you take a hard look at history.
You seem to think that if Iran’s government became secular they would automatically change their stance towards the US and Israel, and I disagree (assuming the secular government is a representative democracy).
In fact the 2026 Iran war probably made sure of this for the next 30 years.
Iran doesn’t have bases or any presence near US borders but Iran does have proxies (with IRG advisors) surrounding Israel. Like the USA Iran is not above using proxies/strategically placing forces outside of Iran's borders or exerting violence outside of their borders to achieve political ends. Iran's proxies bombed multiple American bases and killed many American troops greatly changing American perception of Iran from when Khomeini stepped off the plane and he was flanked by a US ambassador and a rabbi. It doesn't matter that the clash was not near US borders, Iran and US forces have physically clashed, with some of the attacks started by Iran.
The mullahs call for 'death to Israel' because they want Israel destroyed. They are public about it. When the chant is 'death to America, death to Israel' it would be weird to say 'the first part is just rhetoric' especially considering Iran calls the USA the big satan and Israel the little satan. Why would the same words mean 'just rhetoric' when applied to the big satan? That you think 'death to America' is justified again doesn't change that people here are wrong when the try to deflect that 'death to America' doesn't mean death... to America. That you just waive away the call for death to my country with 'but it's justified' doesn't change what Iran wants and has called for for 40+ years.
And Iran's calling for that has shaped US policy. You might not care, I don't care if you do, but Iran has shaped US policy towards it. Like you said, when Khomeini stepped off the plane he was flanked by a US ambassador and a rabbi, US policy was once different. Iran's actions may not be as evil as what the US has done to Iran, but in a discussion on a topic (especially geopolitical) it's worth understanding motivations of people on both sides. The US will always see Iran as an enemy as long as Iran calls for the death of America and Americans and wages a proxy war against American interests. Just like Iran have included protecting their interests in Lebanon and their proxy Hizballah into the current peace negotiations, because extra border interests are often of national interest. Iran included.
A random X post not related to Iran or our current discussion is weird as hell to add at the end.
The US also chose to fight Taliban alone and lost, rather than continuing their post-9/11 collaboration with Iran - Iran being local to the region would have been a great asset, as they were right up until Bush's "axis of evil" doctrine.
> Like you said, when Khomeini stepped off the plane he was flanked by a US ambassador and a rabbi, US policy was once different.
You mean to say that the US read Khomeini's book which talks about implementing Sharia law, violence against "corrupt people", destruction of non-Islamic religious centers, the West wanting to steal Iran's resources, etc.. but were willing to take the risk because they were so afraid of the left taking power in Iran.
Then they tried to fix their mistake by having Saddam attack Iran, which backfired and created another 50 years worth of resentment towards the US. And they likely ensured another 20+ years of distrust with their recent actions.
> Iran's actions may not be as evil as what the US has done to Iran
Glad to hear you say this - wish you said this earlier as I would not have guessed it from your previous comments. If you truly think that then I'm not sure why you're surprised at the slogans and Iran's defensive measures.
> The US will always see Iran as an enemy as long as Iran calls for the death of America and Americans and wages a proxy war against American interests
And Iran will always be aggressive towards countries that commit unprovoked horrors against them while calling them evil and strangling them economically. And mullahs will always use these convenient facts to their advantage to rile up domestic support.
> Like the USA Iran is not above using proxies/strategically placing forces outside of Iran's borders or exerting violence outside of their borders to achieve political ends
Right, Iran learned from the US on how to use proxy forces, but it turns out being Muslim has certain advantages when you are supporting Muslim proxies.
If 10 year old you was born in Shahist Iran, then you, your parents, your grandparents, your friends and your political leadership might be tortured or executed by the American regime for exercising free speech or opposing domestic policy.
You are indeed luckier than those 10 year olds, for enduring death threats and not summary executions. Your fears are the ones lucky enough to be considered silly, theirs are mortal panic.
"You see Timmy, your kneecaps are smashed because Mr. Nixon doesn't think you deserve free speech. Don't take it personally, and don't oppose us or your teeth are next."
Wild take but I condemn both. My nation removed Nixon in disgrace and we despise him almost universally. I condemn him and I condemn the horrible acts done by the United States. Do you not agree that supreme religious leaders shouldn't call for the death and destruction of entire societies ever? You can be against both.
No one called for the destruction of the american society as a whole, but trump did call for the erasion of their civilization. You're worried about words that are misinterpreted, while leaving the actual terrorism and death conducted by the US and israel and their supporters over the past decades. Remind me again, how much blood of millions do they literally have on their hands?
"death to America". Crazy the gaslighting here. Iran has been loud and clear what they want, for 40 years. Also crazy that no one is willing to say "Supreme religious leaders should not call for the destruction of a society it is wrong they have done that for 40 years"
Chants against the government, as they themselves have made clear, not against the individuals. Chants vs. actual blood of millions on the hands of the US and israel.
So when the Islamic Republic of Iran and it's supreme religious leader calls for 'death to Israel' immediately after 'death to America' they only mean the government, they don't actually want Israel gone? If Israel agreed to never interfere in Iran, Iran would stop the chants?
On Oct 7th did Iran condemn when their proxies murdered random Israeli grandmothers, Isreali parents and clarify that is NOT what they mean by 'death to Israel'? Because it seems like basically the execution of Iran's policy/calls for violence exactly matching what childhood me feared.
I think 'death to America, death to Israel' means death to Israel. And it would therefor be really odd to interpret the 'death to America' part as something other than death to America.
> If Israel agreed to never interfere in Iran, Iran would stop the chants?
It's not about what Israel says they will do but actually do, but yes they would definitely mellow down especially if Israel stopped terrorizing the Palestinians, stopped blocking their path to statehood, and allowed all Muslims visit their holy sites in the region.
Oct 7 was a reaction to the decades of brutal occupation, terrorism, massacres, and land grabbing that the Palestinians have faced, just like the rest of western Asia faced at the hands of the european colonizers post WWI. Occurrences like these [1][2][3][4] are normal unfortunately, and they've been facing it since the start of the occupation.
The Palestinian issue is not just for Iran, it's for the 2 billion Muslims on this planet.
Again, the blood of millions of people because of war crimes by the US and israel is recorded by history.
Reminder 'death to America' is followed with 'death to Israel'. You can't gaslight that one away as 'Iran doesn't really want to destroy Israel'. And Iran considers Israel the small satan compared to the USA. So it is beyond ridiculous to claim the 'death to America' in 'death to America, death to Isreal' has a different meaning to Iranians from 'death to Israel'.
Reminder: blood of millions on the hands of the US and israel. They're justified to react, just as how the people of many parts of West Asia and Africa reacted to their european colonizers.
"Chants against the government, as they themselves have made clear, not against the individuals. "
and
"No one called for the destruction of the american society as a whole"
when I point out they also call for death, (and very much mean death of a society) for Israel immediately after they call for death to America. Chants that the Islamic Republic of Iran and it's supreme religious leaders very much mean as the destruction of Israeli society as a whole.
They are calling for death to Israel, and by extension that means they also literally mean death to the USA, and it is justified in your eyes. Religious leaders are justified to call for death in your eyes.
Where's the shift? The chants are still against the US government.
They are also against the israeli government, not the jews themselves. Israel bombed synagogues of iranian jews[1]. The are calling for the end of occupation of Palestine, just as all Muslims do.
You are putting words in their mouth that they didn't say. And using that to excuse the war crimes committed by the US and israel which caused millions to die.
The Taiwanese know they can't take on China directly, they now know that Western support is meaningless - in fact it pushes them more into conflict with China. Given a choice, I think the Taiwanese would prefer a Hong Kong like outcome to a Ukraine/UAE like outcome.
AFAIK Iran never directly attacked several countries (e.g. UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi, Bahrain) before this war.
The question you have to ask is, in the story of offense vs defense, can Taiwan mine that srait and deny China access, or does China posses anti-mine technology that counteracts that.
TW gets most of energy and calories from strait shipping. It would be PRC mining/denying TW for lulz if anything. Ultimately TW going to have to look to see if they want to be HKers, who got less retarded after kissing PRC boot (see HK kids going to SZ to party) or whether TW wants to be Gaza who capitulates to Israeli demand, because reality is with sufficient force asymmetry, one can destroy civic life enough to force capitulation. And PRC can do that to TW, trivially, with mainland fires alone. The only hold back is the "family across the strait" narrative.
TW forceful reunification even if depopulated husk basically done deal, the real question is whether PRC wants to do an Iran and push US security out of east Asia, which is ultimate grand strategic goal. And to be blunt TW is perfect casus belli to spark this. PRC would be net worse off long run getting TW peacefully and but still deal with US security in region. Hence whether Iran can squeeze US out of CENTOM (even marginally) will set huge precedence.
The down votes to this suggest that many in the west are in denial. China doesn’t need to fight a hot war with Taiwan, they can incrementally pressure Taiwan while their western allies issue impotent statements.
China also doesn't need to annex Taiwan. Chinese people have been brainswashed by the PCC into thinking that it was a life-or-death issue for the country. It is not, and China could live another millenia without controlling the island.
If anything, Taiwan proves that Chinese people can be perfectly fine and rich without the authoritarian grip of the PCC. That's the most likely reason why the PCC clique wants to invade TW.
It's not an existential issue for China. It's an existential issue for the CPP, because Xi made it so. He made reunification with Taiwan by... 2049 (IIRC, but I admit I'm fuzzy on the exact date) a test of the legitimacy of the CCP. So it's an existential issue for the CCP because Xi ran his mouth, basically.
The downvotes suggest that many in the West see it as unconscionable to call people “retarded” for preferring not to be invaded. If someone made a comment like this in my house, I would kick them out immediately and might well never speak to them again.
Isn't a big draw for reunification the advanced manufacturing in Taiwan?
Forced reunification would risk destroying that, either as incidental damage through military operations, or as sabotage.
Far better would be to sit back and allow the US to continue proving itself incompetent and unreliable, until being subsumed like Hong Kong doesn't seem like such a bad deal.
Leading edge semi that's already largely denied to PRC via export controls that overwhelmingly underpins US semi advantage and economy. Glassing TSMC would actually only close advanced semi gap between US and PRC by simply taking most of US semi high end pipeline offline. Meanwhile PRC retains the most complete semi supply chain, they don't have leading edge but they do have almost fully indigenized semi vs decentralized western semi, a lot of which are in PRC missile range.
> doesn't seem like such a bad deal
This fundamentally doesn't address that US would still retain security architecture in region, i.e. TW doesn't host much US hardware anyway - taking tw does not meaningfully shift security balance. The only way to ensure relative geopolitical sanctuary is to boot US forward basing out of East Asia, and to be blunt that is not something done peacefully from PRC side, i.e. unless US voluntarily abdicate from theatre and I don't see that happening. Now maybe PRC can establish overwhelmingly advantageous regional force balance that it's obvious to all US posture no longer security dilemma for PRC, but I wouldn't discount PRC simply wanting to remove US forces from regional equation just to be sure.
TSMC is building US fabs though (or so they claim) so it's not solely a question of denial.
I guess more generally PRC can play a much longer game than the US, which seems intent on destroying its standing with the rest of the world by electing absolute buffoons every 4 years. How many years of this can allies tolerate?
Shutting down the strait of Hormuz for example is extremely damaging to US allies in Asia and we can expect more incompetence over time.
There are many sole source fab suppliers in TW, Arizona fabs will run out of inputs and shut down. There maybe effort to fully indigenize TW semi supply chain outside TW, but I've not heard any credible policy/efforts.
There is scenario where US incompetence will negate security dilemma, but see how hard JP is hedging. I would not put money on it. The additional layer to this is US security architecture of of East Asia is not just US basing, but US hardware in general... forcing region to no longer operate US platforms that gathers intel for US MIC / break region interoperability (including data sharing) with US. PRC unlikely to convince JP/SKR/SG etc to abandon F35s politically (because alternative worse vs PRC), at least within lifespan of platforms. That requires glassing hardware and coercing alternate procurement.
The water between Taiwan and China makes it pretty hard to invade unlike Ukraine or Hong Kong. It's how Taiwan came to be in the first place - the Chinese government retreated there to escape the communist take over and it's held for the last century. If anything modern tech had made things worse for an invading navy if the fate of Russia's Black Sea fleet is anything to go by.
Hong Kong was actually pretty defensible, it is hemmed in by mountains and then water. The problem is that all of Hong Kong’s utilities and food came from the mainland, it just wasn’t a viable city without mainland cooperation.
I think an EU type agreement might be the way to go. Separate countries but in a union. I know Xi would hate it as he wants to be the ruler of all but compare say France and Germany - years of peace under the EU arrangement with Ukraine / Russia with both countries getting wrecked.
That'll be far too close to the 'one country two systems' promise that China broke when it got control of Hong Kong to get Taiwan to voluntarily to sign up to it.
have you spoken to anyone who grew up in China? every single chinese-born person i interacted with (all in the USA) seemed to approve of the government. these were students and professionals working in the west, so probably more educated and western-leaning than the average chinese. not once did i hear a chinese person i knew complaining of repression. not saying it doesnt happen, but i don't believe its a major concern for vast majority of chinese. im happy to be proven wrong though if others have conflicting data.
I have spoken with people who grew up in China. I have also spent time there. The education system is geared around brainwashing the children as early as possible, into thinking that the PCC is China and criticizing the PCC is criticizing their country.
China is not a free country; there isn't free information or free speech. I'm sure that many North Koreans also think that their country is perfectly fine and Comrade Kim is the best leader they could have. The pig in his sow likely thinks that he lives his best life. Does it mean that it's true?
Most people I discussed it with, including PhD students, had very little knowledge of their country's history in the 20th century, of what really happened during Mao's rule and after.
Besides, China is a country socially deeply divided, and the PCC doesn't incentivize social empathy in its population - quite the inverse. So I'm not really surprised that rich kids in USA universities (so, the top of the cream of the regime) don't complain about the system and have never experienced hardship personally.
Have you discussed it with people who were locked up in their buildings during Covid? Or farmers who were evicted to make place for promoters who bought their land on the cheap? Or maybe the Tibetan monks that immolated themselves to protest against the destruction of their culture? Lu Xiaobo, Nobel Peace prize, who spent the rest of his life in prison, for saying the wrong (non violent) things?
Your abbreviation PCC suggests to me you're francophone. So you're probably not aware that everything you say about China has an equivalent in the US (deeply divided, lacking empathy etc)
The political content of the respective education systems is different though. What one observes is, Chinese seem unwilling to criticize the government, but Americans seem to be unable to filter out misinformation. In the US, church or other "civic institutions" are conduits for divergent narratives; imagine the French Catholic church but much more fragmented or independent.
It also depends on the time period. As China modernizes it has become less repressive to the average citizen-- though probably still as repressive to dissidents. Rural versus urban divide exists too, just like in the US. (Modern Vendee?) What were the religious background of the people you talked to? PCC is terrified of cults which spread alternative politics under the guise of spirituality. For historical reasons. You will notice that mainstream Islam is fine.
In any event, when wars happen due to decisions taken by government, civilians take the bulk of the damage. It is not a noble thing to speak on the side of violent foreign policy, especially when its couched in the language of "liberation" or "security"
Stop with this sophism where there are only two models - either the US or China. It's false and Taiwan is here to prove it.
Chinese people are much more unable to filter out misinformation because the government tightly controls information flows and manipulates it toward its interest - at least in the US people can hear different voices and make their own mind about it. It's quite ironic to post such idea on HN, which is an American forum that would be censored if it was in China.
Competing religions are indeed a great concern of the largest cult in China, whose church is the CCP. The CCP hates "mainstream Islam" (what is it?) and Uighurs have been jailed for things like reading the Quran. But repression is not at all solely religion-oriented.
And what you are saying regarding the regime becoming more liberal with time is also wrong - the dystopian surveillance of society and the absurd crackdown during Covid is a good example that the CCP is always ready to go back to its mad totalitarian roots when time is right.
Just like it ordered to kill all sparrows in the past, the CCP ordered to seal buildings and their inhabitants during covid. Nothing really changed.
FWIW I think both CPC and US "system" are _both_ fundamentally doomed versions of liberalism. (Are we forgetting that Marx was a liberal?) As is Taiwan's DPP. They are losing the youth vote to the more consistent but pragmatic 3rd party, which will likely lead to the loss of the Presidency to the pro-unification KMT.
CPC are not so much banning the Qur'an as making it subservient to Confucianism (which is a liberalish ideology that human nature is basically wholesome and does not need to be benchmarked against a higher standard)
More "nuanced" criticism here (facts here may be triggering)
How about instead of getting angry with the heuristics of _fellow liberals_, thus shilling for the deaths of essentially apolitical billions, we get angry with our liberal selves for not being able to see how to fix the fundamental issues with liberalism-- itself not immune to cultlike thought patterns
Start by studying the work of Karp, ex-student of Habermas, you may learn something about yourself :)
There is nothing liberal about the CCP's ideology. Karl Marx wasn't a liberal (in the philosophical sense) at all, argued that dictatorship was necessary and against the free market, among other things.
Confucianism nowadays doesn't really play a part in the CCP politics, it may be pushed at the individual level as a way to promote social "harmony", but certainly not as a general policy. For instance, the party recently judged that increasing the ultralow pensions (30$/m) of agricultural workers was not necessary.
In general, modern china is mercantilist economically, but not really liberal: the State heavily intervenes, property rights aren't guaranteed and the legal system isn't predictable at all (no jurisprudence). Socially, it's even less the case, with omniscient surveillance and repression of the information flow and expression.
Chinese workers still need internal temporary residence permits to work in cities like Beijing, and have no access to public services if they don't. The framing of "CCP policies as liberalism" is plainly wrong, and you ought to do some wikipedia reading about liberalism first.
By the way, Taiwan doesn't have a one-party rule, so its political system is not tied to the DPP. KMT also won elections and it didn't become a dictatorship either.
>Karl Marx... only criticizing the freedom in the great inequality of wealth and power.[3]
Confucianism is mostly CPC marketing; its gerontocratic heart really beats for Legalism, though some still hope for the "tail wagging the dog, peacefully", just like we'd want "civic individualism" (now represented by Mamdani?) to wag the genroto-corporatist dog in the US.
Regarding the pensions, it's not like national-level legislators are getting censured for supporting their raise.
I'm glad Taiwan's not tied to the DPP, because I'd rather support this:
Sorry, it's just immoral to me to sow discord against CPC in an US-based geronto-corporatist forum. If you want we can continue this on a PRC youth-forum (where I'd think it would be immoral to cast aspersions on US :)
Regarding Taiwanese fix for liberalism, Audrey Tang (with Glen Weyl) is not wasting time:
>As Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson famously argued, free democratic societies exist in a “narrow corridor” between social collapse and authoritarianism. From both sides, information technologies seem to be narrowing the corridor, squeezing the possibility of a free society.
> an authoritarian regime, with no respect for human rights
I mean Alex Pretti was murdered because he was exercising his 2nd amendment rights and was getting beaten after having been disarmed and never displaying his firearm.
Headlines are full of people who are dying without medical care because they're being incarcerated and shipped overseas due to legal technicalities.
Nice whataboutism, nothing has changed since the USSR, I see! The US also has its problems; this doesn't give the PCC a free pass. And those issues will likely go after the elections, something people in China haven't been able to do since the PCC took over the country.
Anyway, shall I discuss the cultural genocide being committed on the Uighurs, or the Tibetans? Or, in a quite bizarre fashion, the descendants of the Mongols? [1]
The goulags created during covid? And let's not talk about all the horrors of the Mao-era PCC. Etc, etc...
You are aware that there are not only two countries in the world, right? And that China could have been something in between the current maoist regime and America? Like how Taiwan is, or Hong Kong was?
The KMT is not in power right now because they are pro-one china/unification. If it was just western-filtered copium, the KMT would not keep losing popular elections. The DPP remains in power because it isn’t the KMT.
Your view, as a matter of fact, is mainland-filtered copium. Yes, the rich Taiwanese mainlanders who used to dominate Taiwan politics want a return to the past, but native Taiwanese are more populous and have less vested interest in unification with the mainland do not.
> Your view, as a matter of fact, is mainland-filtered copium. Yes, the rich Taiwanese mainlanders who used to dominate Taiwan politics want a return to the past, but native Taiwanese are more populous and have less vested interest in unification with the mainland do not.
Fair enough,
and it seems that polls of Taiwanese support this view as
well.
> Japan, South Korea, Philippines and Australia are taking notes.
Donny also goes back on his word constantly. Look at all the trade agreements that he signed before 'liberation day'. Look at really everything afterwards too.
Even if Iran wanted to sign something, they can't. It will mean nothing. They know that.
China not intervening in Venezuela or Iran situation does not make them paper tigers.
It makes them ... not idiots. They are not interrupting the ennemy while that ennemy makes a mistake.
And also, saying that "US struck and removed most military threats in Iran in a few weeks" is massive overstatement. Iran military targets went from being obliterated, to almost half destroyed, to 60% remain working and active, to "a lot more then we think is still functional" which only god and Iran knows what it means.
I don't doubt that the Iranian regime has committed some atrocities during the recent protests. However, I would discount any person/source who - supported the Iraq war, cheered America/Israeli bombing of Iran in 2025 and has nothing to say about Israel's genocide in Gaza, as being a reliable source of information on Iran.
It doesn't work that way. The dedicated machine for running agents will have very limited utility because it will not have access to anything it needs like your credit card to automatically purchase stuff on your behalf etc.
> credit card to automatically purchase stuff on your behalf
Why would anyone _want_ that?
Or, let’s pretend for a moment they did, wouldn’t it make more sense to grant access to a purchasing account (e.g. Amazon) with payment info pre-linked?
Especially given the “record absolutely everything for evidence” approach companies are taking, giving them auto access to payment info isn’t very smart.
Any idea roughly how many $100M offers have been made. I initially thought that there were maybe 1-2 such offers and the remaining were maybe around $10-25M. However, judging by this particular case and another report where a $1.5B offer was made to a someone at Thinking Machines, I think that the actual number of such offers is much higher.
Any idea if the Googles/Apples are offering similar retention grants to prevent key employees from leaving?
That's true, but the advantage of having a head start does eventually diminish. They won't catch up to Nvidia in the next couple of years, but they could eventually be a real competitor.
I was curious so I looked it up, it turns out that the men’s world record for a mile is 3 minutes and 43 seconds, the women’s is 4 minutes and 7 seconds. These are the very best in the world at their prime. I would conjecture that less than 50% of adults in an industrial society would be able to run a 7 min mile, which is less than twice the world record times.
reply