BruceVC

Obviously if you at war with someone you could and would target there economy. Thats expected and not cowardly But thats not why Iran is attacking Gulf State oil fields or closing the Straits. They want to create pressure and chaos on the global economy and even countries that are not part of this war are impacted by that decision. The petrol price in South Africa is going up because of the Straits, Iran has no legal mandate to close an International Strait which Hormuz is. Why should South Africa be negatively effected because of this specific Iranian decision? I dont think they are the same , sanctions are a tool that countries can and do use for various reasons. Its typically used to get a government to change a policy or decision Its legitimate because any country can decide to sanction another country, you may think its unfair or selective but its not illegal The Straits of Hormuz are considered an International Strait similar to International Waters, no country can unilaterally or legally decide to block this type of waterway or attack ships that aren't directly involved in the war So its not legitimate what Iran is doing The ConversationHow the law of naval warfare applies to the Strait of HormuzIn the law of naval warfare, the line between belligerents and neutrals is not always an easy one to draw."Once there are armed hostilities between two (or more) states, the law of armed conflict – or international humanitarian law – applies. The law of naval warfare is part of the law of armed conflict. Some laws of naval warfare can be traced back to the Hague Conventions adopted at the start of the 20th century. Most commonly, states will rely on the 1994 San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea. Under the law of naval warfare, states are generally divided between belligerents (those engaged in armed hostilities) and neutrals (those not involved in the war). The line between belligerents and neutrals is not always an easy one to draw. In the Middle East, at a minimum, Iran, Israel and the US could be classified as belligerents. According to the San Remo Manual, ships flagged to neutral states, including their warships, may exercise their navigational rights under general international law through a belligerent’s strait. It is recommended that neutral warships give notice of their passage as a precautionary measure. A belligerent must not target neutral ships – they are not considered military objectives and must not be fired upon. During this conflict, Iran’s territorial sea (which includes the waters within the Strait of Hormuz) counts as an area of naval warfare. The belligerent states are legally required to have due regard for the legitimate rights and duties of neutral states in an international strait."

And closing down the Straits, do you also think that is a suitable target?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/woman-says-bill-cosby-drugged-182950365.html A long waited but appreciated legal verdict around the Bill Cosby story for one of his victims " A woman who claims Bill Cosby drugged and raped her in 1972 won a $59.25 million jury award on Monday, decades after first stepping forward as Jane Doe Number 8 in the 2005 lawsuit filed by former Temple University athletics director Andrea Constand against the disgraced comedian. Jurors found Cosby liable for the sexual assault of an intoxicated woman as well as sexual battery. They awarded plaintiff Donna Motsinger $17.5 million for past mental suffering and $1.75 million for future suffering in their initial verdict Monday morning. Later in the day, they added another $40 million in punitive damages after finding that Cosby acted with “malice, oppression, or fraud.”

Cowardly because the war is between the US and Israel vs Iran But Iran is attacking Gulf States who have not attacked it because they have weaker defenses. Its well documented the responses from all the Gulf States. Qatar has actually gone out its way to help and negotiate with Iran in the past but they still getting attacked Its not about the type of weapons you use or whether you invade a country. Its about attacking countries that are not at war with you because your objective becomes about economic chaos. Like I said I cant recall any war in the history of wars that has been fought like this, maybe someone can think of something similar? Iran is perfectly justified to attack any and every Israeli or US target but threatening, for example, to destroy Saudi Arabias oil fields is cowardly even if it an understandable Iranian strategy

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iran-threatens-retaliate-against-gulf-energy-water-after-trump-ultimatum-2026-03-23/ I still haven't learnt my lesson about Trump, stop believing certain things he says But its hard to distinguish between him saying something for impact and the truth especially in the middle of attacking Iran in the first place "TEL AVIV/JERUSALEM/WASHINGTON, March 23 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said on Monday he had given orders to postpone any military strikes against Iranian power plants for five days, hours ahead of a deadline that threatened further escalation in the conflict now in its fourth week. Trump added in a post on his Truth Social platform that the U.S. and Iran had had "VERY GOOD AND PRODUCTIVE" conversations over the past two ‌days about a "COMPLETE AND TOTAL RESOLUTION OF HOSTILITIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST".

https://edition.cnn.com/2026/03/06/media/israel-iran-war-media-censor-journalism Here is an official link from CNN explaining how censorship in Israel works. Its not quite the level of censorship you suggesting but it exists on certain levels which is common in most countries that are at war Here is a relevant quote from parts of it "There’s no doubt that the Israeli public has posted videos of missile intercepts and more during this war. A quick search of social media and Telegram channels reveals plenty of these videos. But the censor focuses more on the international media, and it has tightened the restrictions since the war began. After the Hamas-led attack on October 7, 2023, when Hamas launched thousands of rockets at Israel, there was no problem showing intercepts in the skies over southern and central Israel. Now the censor has prohibited live broadcasts showing the interception of Iranian ballistic missiles, even as the vast majority have been stopped. To be clear, international news networks don’t submit every piece of video to the military censor for review. Far from it. CNN has not submitted any video to the censor for review since the war started on Saturday morning. But the censor does prohibit us from putting out live broadcasts of intercepts that could reveal the accuracy of Iranian ballistic missiles or the location of interceptor missile arrays. "

Yes, that is the possible response Iran's overall response has been a cowardly but predictable one They cant target the US or Israel effectively so they go after the Gulf States which have less defenses and hopefully the economic chaos will end the US attacks which will end the Israeli campaign as well It must be unique in the way countries fight wars and it sets a terrible precedent. But the hardliners in Iran will justify it because they will argue they facing an existential crisis But as I said its not surprising and Iran threatened to do this, if any state is prepared to kill thousands of its own citizens who protest what lengths would they go to in a war where they have an obvious military and resource disadvantage?

There is going to be a big development in 36 hours or so with Trump threatening to blow up Irans power plants if the Straits arent open Iran wont open the Straits and Trump is now committed. I wonder what the Iranian response will be? NBC NewsIran unswayed by Trump's 48-hour deadline and threats to...President Donald Trump threatened a major strike if Iran ignores his 48-hour ultimatum, but experts say it's unlikely to change Tehran's resolve.

I completed RDR1 after about 50 hours and it was good fun Its unfair to compare it to RDR2 which is more complex and better than RDR1 on almost every single level and mechanic and its understandable because RDR1 is an older game and Rockstar would have had a much smaller budget with less developers I looked this up just to confirm the budget and development differences RDR1 : Development Team: Primarily developed by Rockstar San Diego, with a core team size estimated around 150 people at times, though the total effort involved more over its multi-year development. Budget: Estimated at roughly $80–$100 million for development, with total costs (including marketing) estimated around $130–$150 million. Development Time: Approximately 5–6 years. RDR2 development Team: Involved roughly 1,600 to 2,000+ people total across all of Rockstar’s worldwide studios collaborating as one team. Budget: Estimated development costs of $170–$200 million, with combined development and marketing expenditures reaching $370–$540 million. Development Time: Approximately 7–8 years. RDR1 is still well worth playing and it has several unique features that RDR2 doesn't have like going to Mexico and specific cowboy activities like hearding cattle and horses I enjoyed the main narrative, I didnt realize it was set after RDR2 and it explained a few things I wasn't aware of Overall it gets a solid 65\100 on the globally followed "BruceVC game rating system " I then had an unexpected positive gaming experience. I decided to play the DLC Undead Nightmare because its included. I thought this would just be a silly but fun, quick shooting sojourn but it ended up being an excellent integration of a Zombie apocalypse into the RDR1 world and Im enjoying it as much as the main narrative You dont just fight zombies but you meet other supernatural creatures and its an enthralling alternative reality for RDR1 Im still busy with it, its a full game with side quests and new mechanics and weapons 🧟‍♂️

No it was never the situation, it was just your opinion where you believed Israel was censoring damage Iran was doing with its missile attacks. That was what we were discussing, Im not talking about other things like Gaza Do you believe Israel is censoring damage that Iran is doing with its attacks? And if you do how is this story being reported on? How can it be worse than Russia, Israel at least has an independant and liberal media that criticizes Netanyahu and the state on a regular basis? There is nothing even closely resembling Haaretz within Russia

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/21/wounded-iranian-missile-strikes-southern-israel I remember the last time Iran launched missiles against Israel having a debate on this thread, I think with @Zoraptor , that Israel had control over the media and it was underreporting or censoring the actual damage done by Iran That Israeli media censorship doesn't seem to exist anymore?

Yeah, that makes sense But you also could argue he is resigning because as a real right-winger\Nazi the idea of the US being manipulated or convinced to fight a war by Israel\Jews is unacceptable to him. Obviously he wont acknowledge this is the reason. But this is a big part of the anger towards this war from the right-wing extremist groups within MAGA Thats why I ignore all the possible motives and rather focus on what he is saying which is more or less true The entire US strategy on Iran was initially a reasonable one, stop Iran getting nukes through negotiations and then military action if this fails Then suddenly the US and Israel attacks Iran and the objectives are nebulous and unreasonable Trump was clearly influenced by what Israel wanted

I didnt think Kent was taken seriously by much of the media because of his links and associations to right-wing groups like the Proud Boys. He seems to be getting lots of positive news reporting now? Saying all that he is right of course. Trump was very much influenced by Israel around deciding to attack Iran and as we have discussed the US and Israeli objectives are different which makes the objective of a US " win " confusing and difficult to define

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/14/us/politics/marines-iran-war.html The US is sending another ship to the region and it has the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit They could be used to secure the Straits and protect international shipping. The Iranian attacks on the Straits has become the biggest headache for the global economy and this is an important strategy if its true "The unit, officially known as the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, according to two U.S. defense officials, will be in an unusual position given the problem vexing the Pentagon: the Iranian military’s ability to mine the strait, a narrow waterway through which a fifth of the world’s oil passes. U.S. airstrikes have forced the Iranians to forego their larger naval vessels and deploy fast boats carrying mines that can evade aircraft. These boats would likely launch from an archipelago of islands closer to the strait. With the arrival of the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit from the Indo-Pacific region in the coming days, the Pentagon will be able to quickly launch raids onto the islands with infantry Marines who will have logistics and air support, said a retired senior defense official with knowledge of the unit’s capabilities."

You often hear on AJ guests who support the Iranian state and they very anti-US and anti-Israel Thats why its relevant to watch AJ because they have interviews with people that are not typically included on CNN or BBC They have there own biases and agendas but thats the same as most political commentators. But you still get to hear from people who are pro the Iranian state and the state obviously has support The real question which we will never know is how much support if Iran had a free and fair election, I would guess 35-45%?

Yes that also complicates domestic regime change in Iran but you could argue in Syria it was similar. You had different ideological groups with a common objective of ending Assad's regime But in Syria's case they were armed and had resources. In Irans case having a common objective is moot if you cant actually overthrow the state militarily Its amazing how NATO suddenly becomes relevant to Trump when he wants there help. Thats why I always I ignore his selective criticism of NATO and his threats of leaving NATO The US also benefits from NATO when it can like it benefits from the UN. No single country is greater overall than these institutions But its easy to generalize and find fault but you still better to be part of them for the US

I have watched several gameplay videos on this game and it looks excellent, almost too good to be true but its real

There is a real and active large segment of Iranians that would love to see a new type of government Tens of thousands of them protest in every large protest we have seen over the last 20 years and thousands of them get killed by the state You wont find domestic regime change in Iran because the state has complete control of its security forces like all similar autocracies and they will crush any protests using maximum force. Also the protesters have limited access to weapons so they dont represent a real opposing force like we witnessed in Syria. That was domestic regime change because the groups opposing leadership had the resources to fight Assad So as much as it would be preferable its almost impossible to see the current leadership being overthrown by an internal uprising

Can they be used on civilian ships or is it only for military use?

Yes, I looked it up and one of its purposes is destroying drone swarms So that would be effective at stopping drones attacking ships but not missiles or mines in the Straits? I imagine its not widely used because most of these ships are private sector and or ships that belong to countries outside the US So there would be cost involved and someone qualified needs to operate it Its definitely a good idea, it just requires an additional level of resources that these shipping companies would have to absorb

Is this a real weapon, where are they used outside of potentially protecting ships?

Every international news agency has a dedicated webpage page to the war in Iran and hourly updates on what is happening Its also almost all they talk about on the likes of CNN and Al-Jazeera but its confirmed news Im not sure where you get your information from but this war is been heavily discussed and reported on from the mainstream media and this includes daily attacks on Iran Al JazeeraSirens blare across Israel; Trump says US not ready for a...US President Donald Trump says allies who rely on Gulf oil must help keep the Strait of Hormuz open.US-Israel war with Iran | Latest News and Updates | BBC NewsFollow the latest news about the US-Israel war with Iran. Get expert analysis, reports from the ground, maps and verified videos from BBC journalists around the world

That looks good, a Jaws theme integrated into a massive flood disaster 🦈

Yeah, no Oil companies will make great windfall profits but for everyone else cost of living and inflation goes up with sustained high oil prices

One of the best things about being a gamer is looking at your list of unplayed Steam and GOG games and deciding what to play next Another best thing is finding a game on a sales special that you have always wanted to play I am finally playing Red Dead Redemption 1, I have waited 14 years to play this game on PC I spent close to 300 hours on RDR2 and Im looking forward RDR1 🤠