Yes, in some contexts absolute truth/falsity exists. For example, in a list of exercises about Boolean logic. Or circuits modelled after Boolean logic.
As a sovereign country, Cuba has the right to nationalize economic activity if it deems it necessary. It compensated all countries whose businesses were nationalized, such as Switzerland, France, and Canada. Except the United States, which refused the compensation and began attacking its neighbor.
They shot at neutral ships when they closed the strait, where do you get your info from?
If it was just USA and Israel and Nato even then you'd see a ton of ships go through and the world wouldn't be very affected, since almost all ships that go through the strait are not Nato aligned.
Because neutral ships also need permission to cross the strait, even if they have not been explicitly banned. Because the status of the blockade has changed and continues to change according to tensions in the region. Several countries have obtained permission to cross: China, Russia, India, Iraq, Pakistan, Malaysia, Thailand, and the Philippines. Even so, it is understandable that ships are hesitant to pass through there and are seeking less uncertain routes, because of the tensions, risk of war and because in addition to Iran, the United States also claims to have imposed a blockade and has attacked ships.
> Many of us (worldwide, I'm not American) watched China massacre thousands of its own children at Tiananmen Square. The US is descending into totalitarianism, but it hasn't reached that level yet.
Wasn't the US bombing its own children just 4 years earlier in Philadelphia?
Since the beginning of the war, the American presence in the region has weakened, with military bases having their infrastructure destroyed or even being expelled and attacked by local groups, as in the case of Iraq. Many of the dictatorial regimes that are allies of the United States are learning that the United States will not effectively protect them if they host American military bases on their territory. This makes such bases a huge disadvantage, as they drag these regimes into a war they never wanted to start. Meanwhile, Iran has grown stronger by effectively controlling the Strait of Hormuz without anyone being able to stop it, while the American hope for a change of government in Iran to one more docile to its demands is further away than before the war.
To me, this looks something very close to "winning." Which isn't much of a surprise. The United States has never been very good at winning wars against those who can defend themselves. Of course, Iran cannot survive a total war with the United States. But a total war would also be too costly for the United States and the global economy, making such a scenario more difficult to pursue.
> allies of the United States are learning that the United States will not effectively protect them
Worse yet, the Americans are led by a guy who thinks with his ego first, then his wallet, then all other considerations later. He seems to be withholding resupply shipments of interceptor munitions to “get a better deal” from the same allies who wouldn’t have been attacked if they had not participated with the US in this optional war.
I doubt that the US would win a war that far away without their allies providing infrastructure and Trump has alianated all western allies. I believe he is even capable to end those alliances in the middle of a war, resulting in effectively closing down military bases in Europe that are essential for the US.
Only Cuba is socialist. The other three are capitalist. Considering that Cuba suffers from sanctions, like Haiti, it is impressive how they managed to achieve an HDI almost as high as the DR, a value considerably higher than the average in the Caribbean.
Sure, starting a prolonged war, having the Strait of Hormuz closed and its military bases destroyed while having the largest aircraft carrier forced to retreat, is all part of a larger plan. Everything going as predicted.
If you look at what has been achieved versus what was achieved in the same time period in the previous Gulf wars (which had much more buildup), the military strategy so far is going better than history would have indicated and is probably way ahead of what was planned.
GWB’s Gulf “war”, one of the biggest modern blunders this country has made, being a measuring stick for the new foray in killing civilians in the Middle East, is not a great starting point for any “actually we’re doing well” narratives.
None of that changes that militarily the start of that war was considered extremely militarily successful, and this one is off to an even more successful start.
And your original response to me had nothing, at all, to do with what I originally wrote, hence me expanding on what I wrote that you responded to, not your new tangent.
Military/tactical success does not mean strategic victory, but understanding the current reality of both is worthwhile. There is plenty of other discussion here on strategic victory for you to comment on/add your insight.
So I guess we are both just talking past each other.
My man, you said "If you look at what has been achieved versus what was achieved in the same time period in the previous Gulf wars ... " - I responded directly to that, saying it was a stupid measuring stick.
If you wanted to say different things, you should have said them. What you said was bizarre and silly. Come on, now.
During the first 2 weeks of the Gulf War we lost 12 aircraft to enemy fire. 8 to Iraqi SAMs, 3 Iraqi AAA, and 1 lost in air combat (an F/A-18C Hornet shot down by an Iraqi MiG-25). Losses resulted in 19 deaths and 10 POWs. We had a 70% interception rate on Iraq's ballistic missiles versus 90% on Iran's. We were not able to find/stop Iraq's launchers during the entire war, meanwhile we have footage of eliminating some of Iran's.
We now have drones allowing us to do lots of recon without risk to our planes. Last I know we've lost 14 drones. In Iraq that would have been 14 piloted jets. This allows us to do more/more risky recon, and at a higher operational tempo as they can be in the air longer, don't have pilot fatigue, etc.
We have removed the top government officials, and continue to remove high value targets. Today Ali Larijani, one of the orchestrators for the mass killing of Iranian protestors, was killed along with Basij cheif Gholamreza Soleimani who bragged about personally beating protestors and whose forces use rape against women routinely, along with Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf.
Militarily we have been extremely successful in our objectives. How that translates politically in Iran is unknown. But militarily it can't be denied. The start of the Iraq war is unilaterally considered militarily successful, and this war so far is wildly more successful than that was.
You are talking about political success, and we won't know how that goes until the final outcome, but if we are successful we may never know (if we stopped a nuclear program that would have happened, how do we know we did?).
Currently we can look at military success, and it's pretty easy to see militarily we are meeting our goals.
It reads like military analysis of a military action. Strategic and tactical/military success are not the same thing, but both are worthwhile discussions to understand events. You seem to want to comingle the two but it'd probably be more productive for you to discuss your proffered topic of strategic success in one of the many threads here related to that.
How so, will Iran be less likely to send rockets and drones at their enemies? Or will they ramp up as soon as they are able? They might be okay with it taking days, weeks, months or even years to rebuild and redeploy their munitions. Has the oppressive regime changed over, or are they more angry than ever for yet another violation of their sovereignty? Iran contains one of the longest running civilizations on earth, you seem to be assuming a lot after ~3 weeks, especially since the U.S. and Israeli sides are dishonest in their proclamations of accomplishment.
Thinking about it from a first principles pov, the regime lost many of its key people, officers, and a lot of infrastructure and resources.
This 100% had some effect on its ability to function. The question is what effect.
Since it is a religious ideological movement, it has very strong cohesion, so its not going to break apart, demoralize or change its core principles.
It will also maintain the support of the highly religious Shias, however,while millions, they are a minority in Iran.
What its probably going to lose is its logistical capabilities, and its ability to exercise power and to make decisions in the periphery.
So it might still hold Tehran and places where it is strong, but Iran is a huge country, with an enormous population and mountainous geography. Places farther from the center might slip out of the regime's control. And it will need to work much harder to maintain the same level of control that it had before the war in Tehran and large cities.
This means that when the dust settles it will be either challenged by oppositional forces, or be forced to make concessions to gain back authority.
If it will try to massacre itself back to power, there will be a civil war.
You are forgetting the criminal economic and trade embargo against Cuba. With what money would they buy these Chinese solar panels? How exactly would they obtain the dollars? What economic activity do you propose for them to industrialize and become internationally competitive, given that they are an island with very few natural resources and, thanks to the embargo, have to pay much more for any resource compared to any other country?
I'm not - clearly going against a superpower hell bent on destroying you and making you a colony hasn't exactly worked for them. I'm just pointing reality as it is - you can't force the US to change - it will remain imperialist.
economic activity - export labor to China, Africa they've already been doing that already.
they still receive money from other countries not just the US.
I have lived under a US sanctioned country - blaming the US doesn't help - most of the fault lies in administration of said country - the effects of sanctions is less than say the effect of an incompetent administration
Yes, they are already doing that. Tourism, exporting skilled workers (doctors), exporting rum and cigars. Exactly the economic activities that do not require external raw materials. And with that, they have achieved social indicators vastly better than all their neighbors. So I don't really see the basis for your accusation of incompetence: Cuba does well what it can.
But what it can do is fragile. Without industrialization, there is no way to have stable wealth. China and Vietnam themselves only industrialized and followed that path after trade blockades were lifted. Without that, the Chinese reform and its opening to the market would have come to nothing.
Moreover, it is strange to defend a crime by naturalizing the idea that the criminal will always act that way. That may well be the case. In that case, it is morally necessary to turn against him and stop him.
reply