Between this, the LPG gasification barge near Suez hit a month or two ago, houthi control of South Red Sea, Iran control of Hormuz and Trump denial of military assistance other than intelligence, SA is cooked. Can a wider regional War be avoided?
All these Arabian Oil Magnates, sitting in their high-backed chairs, thinking that they could play 4D chess with regional politics at the expense of everyone else, just because they could splash around some cash.
If the fallout didn't effect the rest of us, I'd be downright gleeful at the rude awakening that they have gotten.
I'd say their idiocy goes even further. If they had just picked a lane—either leave the Houthis alone or go all in on destroying them—then the outcome would have been a lot better.
The current SA strategy of picking fights with the Houthis, only to cower and sue for peace when they bite back, is the worst possible course of action they could take. It shows profound weakness and will only encourage the Houthis.
I mean this sincerely, how exactly? I feel like the past few decades have made it exceedingly clear that a decentralized guerilla force is practically impossible to concretely wipe out.
Full invasion and occupation, biting the bullet on financial and PR costs. I doubt that they could truly tame Yemen. Still, if they did weaken the Houthis, force them into the mountains and prevent them from building up military infrastructure that would allow them to threaten Red Sea shipping or Saudi oil fields, that would be a better situation than they are currently in.
Saudi Arabia can never wipe out the Houthis completely, but they are capable of severely weakening them if they commit to eating the cost of a prolonged occupation.
Because it worked so well for Napoleon in Spain? The UK in Afghanistan? The US in Iraq? Besides, while they may have the money, they don't have the population to field a military large enough to occupy. I suppose they could hire guest worker mercenaries - a new Janissary - but that usually doesn't end well.
That was the one "safe" route to bypass the Hormuz chokepoint. The US has basically drained it's SPR. No one knows for sure how much of China's SPR has been drawn down. It's hard to imagine oil and inflation gong anywhere but up.
5% 10 year Treasuries isnt far away.
6% 30 year Treasuries incoming? Bessent can't buy his way out that with short term debt.
The curse of the electoral system. In 2007 the Dems swept into majority in the House but by 2010 they were kicked out because they didn't solve the GFC fast enough.
If Dems win Congress much of the damage already done will become more apparent and be put at their door even when it's the fault of the executive.
The reserves are set to drain by Dec. By the time Dems win, gas will hit 7 or 8$ and trump will declare it was all their fault and republicans will sweep the next election.
It worked in Afghanistan. It worked in Iraq. It worked in Covid. The vast vast majority of Americans are simply not smart enough to direct their own future.
Honestly, I hope the GOP just keeps Congress but with the thinnest of thin majorities. This country needs to crash definitively while the GOP is in control.
Lately I’ve realized America is the Republican Party. We had all evidence Trump was a demented criminal and his racism was enough to secure the presidency.
We can use EVs and use electrically powered Magnus effect based sails or go back to sails for ships. We could use planes with electric propulsion (actively being worked on now and could scale up to short-medium flights), drones, and airships for air travel/transportation.
Hydrogen could also be a potential replacement for fossil fuels but it has a ton of downsides and would probably be for luxury or emergency services.
It hasn't happened yet because it would hurt short term profits which would lead to a debt crisis which would lead to a depression which would require government intervention and a green new deal. This is very dangerous to the current paradigm of economics and politics.
The people in power (and just people in general tbh) don't want the party to stop and want someone else to face the repercussions of their actions or hope that some magical technology will save us.
The US always has the nuclear option of blocking exports to Western partners then going all in on fracking / Venezuelan oil (plus Canada if relations can be restored). It's enough for domestic consumption without causing too much catastrophic economic damage.
The rest of the word including key Western partners are stuffed though.
I've got about 70 gallons stored up incase your right but you have to realize at that time there was no reserve and we produced way less oil. It will be bad but never as the 70s. Not without a major world war.
I have encountered MAGA who are so utterly convinced of the "America is energy independent" myth that they know, as an unshakable fact, that NOTHING in the Mid-East can ever have the slightest effect on any prices in America. Therefore, all this inflation and gas price stuff must be the Democrat's fault. Somehow.
I don't want oil rationing even if it's "political advantageous" If it comes to that however I will ask every fucking Republican I know why they're fine with it
Harris didn't even try to tamp down the flames of war.
By Election Day of 2024, the war against Russia in Ukraine was already deeply unpopular, although Redditors can be forgiven for missing that since this place is a pro-war echo chamber.
>But a New York Times investigation reveals that America was woven into the war far more intimately and broadly than previously understood. At critical moments, the partnership was the backbone of Ukrainian military operations that, by U.S. counts, have killed or wounded more than 700,000 Russian soldiers. (Ukraine has put its casualty toll at 435,000.) Side by side in Wiesbaden’s mission command center, American and Ukrainian officers planned Kyiv’s counteroffensives. A vast American intelligence-collection effort both guided big-picture battle strategy and funneled precise targeting information down to Ukrainian soldiers in the field.
>One European intelligence chief recalled being taken aback to learn how deeply enmeshed his N.A.T.O. counterparts had become in Ukrainian operations. “They are part of the kill chain now,” he said.
Yes, Harris should have read the tea leaves and backed the fuck off on war.
Yes.
It literally got the orange idiot reelected.
Get a grip. The anti-war sentiment literally put the orange idiot over the top, while Harris was promising nothing but an extension fo Old Man Biden's policies.
But sure, "muh sexism and racism" is all this fucking Reddit hivemind understands.
Even the main numbers show that - basically, those who showed up for Trump in 2020 continued to support him, while the Dems lost 7 million voters, who didn't show up. And disgust with the war(s) was a not insignificant part of that.
In other words, Trump didn't really win, the Democrats lost.
i'm trying to think if she should have "moderated" her position by trafficking kids and threatening to nuke north korea like the winning candidate. if you wanna win, you have to act like a winner, am i right?
No, more people said we should keep aiding them. And a majority of the people who wanted to keep aiding them wanted to INCREASE that aid.
55 (keep or increase aid) is a larger number than 33 (reduce aid).
You literally claimed that the war was "deeply unpopular," while polling shows that a majority of American voters wanted to keep supporting Ukraine. Which is the exact opposite of "deeply unpopular."
The other side are warmongers states the party that’s started the last 7 ~~wars~~ operations. Look, I’m not going to carry water for democrats and their penchant for following along with the military industrial complex once these things kick off. But don’t piss on my leg and tell
me it raining when the last 30 years of wars have been initiated by Republicans and continued through with Democrat folly.
Republicans love war, and love spending for war and the DOD, it’s simply a fact. There hasn’t been a budget they’ve passed that doesn’t shower the war industry with funding. The last candidate was being cheered while he sang bomb Iran. If you’re voting for republicans for the anti-war vote you’re going to have a hard time, it’s what they do.
Ukraine was invaded, we did not start that war. If you ask me Ukraine was a failure of Obama and NATO for not holding Putin accountable for Crimea and their limp response to Putin consolidating a standing army at the border for over a year with blankets and clothing for Ukraine. We should have provided deterrence to our allies prior to invasion. Despite all that Ukraine still stands, regardless of how many times Trump has attempted to shift things in Putin’s favor.
Nor did we bring it to a conclusion in Ankara in March of '22.
>Despite all that Ukraine still stands, regardless of how many times Trump has attempted to shift things in Putin’s favor.
This lie has civilizational consequences.
Go back to the Mueller Report. We did intervene in February 2014, and the Mueller Report picks up the thread in summer 2014, when Russia responded by interfering in our elections, as we were doing in their neck of the woods.
Your idealism is understandable, because it's the only allowable view.....
Realistically, this was all insane, and Ukraine has as much freedom as Mexico does.
Well we could start at the most obvious which is what he was impeached for. Cutting aid and then threatening to cut more unless Ukraine produced documentation proving that Biden was responsible for inside dealings with Gasprom. Regardless of whether or not said evidence was even existed or was true.
I mean he literally tried to strong arm our ally into lying about a political opponent for an election. A lie that had catastrophic implications for both the people of Ukraine and the US. And bolstered Putin’s argument that NATO meddling in Ukraine was responsible for their invading Ukraine.
> Well we could start at the most obvious which is what he was impeached for. Cutting aid and then threatening to cut more
Trump withheld aid, which was later released, to try and get Ukraine to make up dirt on Biden.
Which is soliciting foreign interference in elections. But there's nothing there that "shifts things in Putin's favor" at all. In fact, it was likely to put the then President in the debt of the Ukrainians . . . so how does that help Russia?
> A lie that had catastrophic implications for both the people of Ukraine
It did not though. The aid was released. And this was prior to the war.
> And bolstered Putin’s argument that NATO meddling in Ukraine was responsible for their invading Ukraine
That's in no way related to Trump digging up dirt on Biden though.
The war in Ukraine got out of control Because Trump was no longer the US president giving Russia everything it demanded from him. Why invade when you are getting sanctions relief and outing all the CIA spies in the Kremlin?
Trump explicitly said he want going to start new wars, and he didn't during his first term. There's plenty of other reasons to call voting for Trump foolish, but it was reasonable to think he wouldn't start a war with Iran
His last term ended with him assassinating an Iranian commander and led to them launching missiles at American bases. His handling of Iran even before this is why Iran ramped up the use of terrorist proxies to harass the world, which would give them leverage to work their way out of a hole trump had needlessly kicked them into when he tore apart a nuclear deal that had given Iran some relief from sanctions. Fast forward to now and he attacks Iran while pointing to the onsequences of his actions (nuclear weapon development), just as he now attacks to open a strait..... that is only closed because he made a stupid move.
It would have been surprising to me that he chose to go to war in such direct ways BEFORE Jan 6 and reading insider comments that more or less amounted to "yea, this guy's solution to x problem was basically to just kill them though I put the breaks on that," but it's not surprising that more wars manifested under his second term at all. He creates conditions for others to escalate and capitalize on. Whether that be because of his stupid punitive approach to everything, his weird obsession with dictators and weakening allies, or his transactional greed that enables him to weaken whole countries (including the U.S.) if he personally gets paid.
Which Iranian government official did Obama assassinate? Let me be clear here, I view Obama and Biden as genocide supporting war mongerers. But they didn’t assassinate Iranian government officials
I disagree. If you paid attention to politics or world history the writing was on the wall. He was already in working to weaken NATO. I’d say dismantling the defensive framework that allowed the largest period of relative world peace since WW2 is the act of a warmonger.
Ah yes, because most people weaken their appliances before starting wars. If you paying attention to politics or world history every indication was that he want going to start a war with Iran that would do nothing to advance US interests.
I'd say dismantling the framework that has always been a tool of US power projection and has enabled previous wars in West Asia does not indicate you are interested in staying wars in West Asia
LMAO "NATO is a tool of US power projection" does not somehow imply "It's fine for Russia to invade its neighbors". What, did you think the US founded NATO out of the goodness of it's heart or something?
Try actually responding to what people say instead of making up things about them because you can only think in categories
I did respond, you just seem to think NATO power and projection is a bad thing. And anyone else that says otherwise gets catagorized by mr. “I don’t categorize”. I don’t think NATO power and projection is inherently bad. Just bad when it’s used for illiberal reasons. Given the alternatives here it’s either Putin and his Mafia state or Xi and the CCP. Or we go with Trumps desire to return pre-WW1 era imperialist America that goes it alone.
'cept his record from his 1st term, as evidenced by how he handled the pandemic, showed VERY CLEARLY that he was a complete fu€king IDIOT...and then, fitting the pieces together about how he said Obama would probably start a war with Iran and how he said that "if you vote for Kamala, the US would be at war with Iran within 2 years"...gotta hand it to him on that last one...he was absolutely correct about that haha...he's such a POS, the only thing dumber than him are his supporters.
> Trump explicitly said he want going to start new wars, and he didn't during his first term. There's plenty of other reasons to call voting for Trump foolish, but it was reasonable to think he wouldn't start a war with Iran
remember trump's deeply anti-war sentiment, "north korea will be met with fire and fury the likes of which this world has never seen before" that one time?
i like jesus, i like ghandi, i like MLK, but when i think "anti-war" i go right to this clip.
i think what you're saying is that electing a man who threatens to nuke everything whenever he is upset is a rational anti-war strategy. is that your view?
Even Bessents mentors are calling him a dumbshit for doing what hes doing.
What do we expect though, the smirking fuckface is just like Trump as a failing upward fraud hedge manager that turned $5 Billion into $400 million. He was rewarded with the biggest financial job in the country.
There is however a thread that it is fully intentional. The Trump Crime Syndicate is attempting to usurp the Federal Reserve with their own twisted crypto version of it with Dummie Jr and IM ERIK at the center of it. All of these Epstein bastards have heavy ties to Tether stablecoin.
It was wild how people were acting like these pipelines are immune to attacks. It’s a metal tube of pressurized gas, the whole thing is just a bunch of segmented bombs waiting for a spark.
If he wants to strike that bunker under the mountain, as he said he would, then he will have to use one. There's no conventional weapon that can penetrate so far below ground.
You won't see a mushroom cloud or much radioactivity above ground, but the weapon will be nuclear.
If you mean strategic nukes then pretty much 0 chance, even he is not that insane, Iran might not be able to retaliate in kind to the US, but Israel would likely be erased alongside Iran.
Oil market is now irreversibly broken. World is racing to adopt green energy faster than ever. Most of the leftover global oil will stay buried underground forever.
No, but road vehicles are about half of the total petroleum consumed, while plastics are maybe 15% or so. Cutting our petroleum consumption by half or more, replacing that with far more efficient and cleaner technology, would be a great achievement.
Actually refineries crack [hence the term cracking tower] raw petroleum into different fractions for different uses - av gas for one fraction, diesel for another, etc. So decreasing usage of one wouldn't decrease the demand for other fractions.
BTW most plastics, surfactants, and fertilizers use natural gas as feed stock.
Depends. Cutting demand in the short term makes the price go down. Cutting demand by half makes some companies go bankrupt, mergers and buyouts happen. However, the cost of production would not decrease at the same rate. With less volume, cost of production becomes more significant, meaning less profit which could drive cost back up for products still in demand but others may essentially become nearly free as there would be much more supply than demand. I’m sure it will all be interesting from a business perspective.
New oil isn’t going to be drilled while the world moves to green energy. Most countries are embracing green sources of energy, they will buy less overtime if not already.
The instability will further push more to the cheaper alternatives that aren’t reliant on the stability of another region, solar and wind.
With less countries buying, less drilling, less production, costs probably won’t go that low, they have to make a profit, but also OPEC is basically over now too, so just having oil isn’t enough, you’ll need to be able to sell it cheap enough, only a few can do that. Oil will still be around, but will probably be mainly plastics or fertilizers, and even then some of that might change. But transportation and general electricity production will go green (solar, wind and even nuclear). Oil will not be the future. The Gulf countries know this, they were trying to diversify, not sure why America thinks oil will still be as big in 25 years.
There are 10-20-year-old hybrids and electrics that are very affordable and in good shape if you search around long enough. The Gen2 Prius, for example. Also, electric bikes should be more popular than they are and the US ought to have better bike infrastructure.
Yeah that’s great. But in feb petrol was starting to dip below £1.30. So I’d much rather the yanks stopped chucking shit at Iran and Iran stopped chucking shit at everyone within range.
Yeah, but how will the internet tough guy that’s in charge of the pentagon be able to stand up and prattle about strength and lethality if we pull out of the conflict now? 🤔
Independent third parties could easily, trivially, be convinced we're cobelligerents.
When a sniper team is shooting at you, you target both the spotter and the triggerman.
My link up there to the NYT makes it totally clear, we're cobelligerents.
We weren't just "providing intelligence" we were/are pointing at Russians and saying, "Shoot that guy" and sometimes....."shoot that strategic infrastructure."
>Summary. Following a muted first reaction to
Ukraine's intent to seek a NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP)
at the Bucharest summit (ref A), Foreign Minister Lavrov and
other senior officials have reiterated strong opposition,
stressing that Russia would view further eastward expansion
as a potential military threat. NATO enlargement,
particularly to Ukraine, remains "an emotional and neuralgic"
issue for Russia, but strategic policy considerations also
underlie strong opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine and
Georgia. In Ukraine, these include fears that the issue
could potentially split the country in two, leading to
violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force
Russia to decide whether to intervene. Additionally, the GOR
and experts continue to claim that Ukrainian NATO membership
would have a major impact on Russia's defense industry,
Russian-Ukrainian family connections, and bilateral relations
generally. In Georgia, the GOR fears continued instability
and "provocative acts" in the separatist regions. End
summary.
No, the correct answer is "Putin decided to invade Ukraine because he doesn't believe it has a right to exist, and wants to relive his Soviet glory days."
Russia invaded Ukraine in an imperialist land-grab. Period. NATO expansion (which, unlike Russian expansion, is voluntary and sought after) was the laughable cover story.
I’m not here to debate equivalency between different events. Go to r/politics if you feel like doing that.
I’m pointing out that continuing to engage in this war/military operation, or whatever else you want to call it: that is suicidal. The petrodollar is heading down a very dangerous path for the United States with an increasingly threatened oil supply/shipping lanes and rising inflation.
The Bond market seems like it’s finally calling bullshit.
yeah, Reddit has lots of chickenhawks who are fierce in their desire to fight to the last conscripted Ukrainian.
It's also having a very bad effect of Europe, where Germany is trying to use this to cover their own failures and follow the American model of defense spending as their industrial base loses the ability to compete.
Yeah, I'm going to continue supporting a democracy and the right to self-determination in Ukraine over Russia.
If they are going to use the nuke card to make democracies give up on each other, we might as well go ahead and just hand the keys to Putin and his ilk to run the world, because then every nation that was former USSR/Soviet satellite or former Russian Empire becomes a new redline for Russia.
It is not my place to tell others to be slaves so that I may enjoy my peace and comfort.
I mean if the petrodollar was on its way out anyway then wouldn't the next best option be completely change the global economic & political order to better suit your needs in the future?
In this case, destroy OPECs stranglehold on oil prices and destabilize a huge source of oil that foreign nations draw from. While simultaneously take and exert control over oil sources in the Western Hemisphere (Venezuela). You then have defacto control of the most stable sources of oil and this energy dependent nations.
China has at least been somewhat intelligent in working to get enough nuclear to offset the oil considering they've got 29-30+ nuclear reactors getting built.
It's not just the petro dollar but the entire global financial system that runs on US$. If the US loses that, they get real poor, real quick. You think 30 year treasuries at 5% is bad? They could be getting payday loan interest rates.
Was this what these financial & governmental planners thought was going to bypass the Strait of Hormuz? There is no alternative to bypass the strait any time soon, and these people need to figure out how to diplomatically & peacefully re-open it
Great job America! You are winning so much! Your dear leader is the envy of the world. His skills of playing 5D chess and his godlike foreign policy will turn America into a utopia.
77 million Americans wanted Trump in office and another 90 million were comfortable enough with it to not vote.
Trump is not the illness, he’s a symptom of your collective madness, apathy and lack of foresight. You will always be four years away from electing another Trump.
I'm an American and don't necessarily like being lumped into all this shit either, but brother the man said we've been holding back too much on our torture program in 2016.
If one couldn't find a reason to vote against him (other than systematic disenfranchisement), it's certainly still a condemnation of their character
> you assume yhose who did not vote supported Trump
if you're walking along a secluded river and see a child drowning, and you go back to playing flappy birds on your iphone, you don't necessarily support the drowning but you're cool with it.
Fewer people voted for him than against him. The majority you are trying to blame is against him. Popular opinion is against him. Use your brain cells.
That's not how it works. If they are against him, then they would've voted against him in a guaranteed two party system. If you don't, then that means he doesn't bother you enough to care to exercise that right. It's that simple.
Look, if you don't vote or vote third party in a system that guarantees one of only two major parties winning the Executive or Legislative control, and you not voting for one of those two candidates does not guarantee the worst outcome from not winning, then you are effectively voting for that outcome.
The only people who did not vote for this are those who voted Dem. Period. If you did not vote, voted third party, voted directly for this party and this President, then you are really all one and the same.
Disaffected/apathetic voters become part of whoever wins coalition, as their votes can help prevent either outcome, directly. That is how voting works - it'a a numbers game. Not voting is a statement of tacit support no matter the candidate who wins.
Well you sure as shit aren’t protesting outside the Whitehouse daily in numbers like 50 million people to fix this mess soooo much sooner…. So yea do better
I can never tell what replies go where, but if you’re replying to the guy that said “more people voted against trump in ‘24 they are correct he got like 49.5% of total votes.
But sure, 77 mil + 90 mil non voters shows the insanity and/or stupidity of the USA.
It’s not just America. Far right extremism is spreading all over the world (AfD for example). Humans are tribalist by nature. Greedy people can exploit that and profit.
> Humans are tribalist by nature. Greedy people can exploit that and profit.
capitalism is failing globally (that is, as a means of allowing working people to survive, not as a means of wealth concentration). when people get scared, they want easy answers. fascists provide easy answers.
When I criticize the American project I'm not talking about some one off far right extremism. America in itself is an imperialist project hell bent on subjugating the world to America's interests. It's entire history is riddled with genocide, slavery, colonialism and regime change in order to maintain the global economic system it champions and benefits immensely from. The entire American political superstructure is designed to ensure the interests of a capitalist class is constantly considered above all else.
To say tribalism is human nature shows a lack of understanding of history since much of human history has relied on cooperation rather than tribalism. It's actually one of the mythologies sold by liberalism as it's the ideological basis for naturalizing and normalizing the economic base which is capitalism.
Ever heard of the Boxer Rebellion and the eight nation alliance? Or the treaty of Wanghia or treaty of Tianjin.
Let's not forget the US really only joined WW2 to defeat imperialist enemies (mostly Europe which was subjugated to the Marshal plan post WW2 and technically became junior partners of American imperialism), secure additional markets and raw materials, deal with its own domestic economic crisis (war = good for economy), and eventually establish its post war hegemony.
China was already fighting for 4 years prior to America's involvement and they had already tied down about 80% of the Japanese army prior to US involvement. It was the USSR that was the primary source of support in these years. This doesn't even discuss the victories and advances of the Red Army in the USSR.
Americans love to believe their myths. It's not some benevolent savior nation and much of the successes of WW2 rest on the Soviets and the Chinese who also sacrificed the most. America tried immensely, as they did with the USSR, to subjugate China to its whims, but unlike the USSR China understood liberalization of the economy and being friendly with the Americans (ie, thru the reform and opening up period) they could continue on sovereign development without relying on massively pouring resources into heavy industries by engaging in cold war politics.
Who had "THIS is how we transition to renewable energy" on their Bingo card?
All of this is a red herring from how fucked the Central Banks are. They know there's going to be a changing of the guard soon. So why would they be destroying valuable "assets" (as far as "maintaining their seat at the table" is concerned) if for no other reason than to prevent Tomorrow's Leaders from taking control of the means of redistribution?
In other words, they're using the "If we can't have it, no one can" strategy of scorching the earth because they don't want to make room for, let alone trade places with, the likes of us. They certainly have no intention of paying Reparations for all the shit they've done for the past however long.
So they can perish along with their obsolete ideologies. We need new solutions and fresh leadership. If this is how they choose to go out, they haven't learned a goddamn thing.
Gas was up another 20c here this morning after I bought a thimble full yesterday. I soon will literally not be able to afford to go to fucking work...
This is actually how this all ends: oil. These stupid fuckers have doomed us to a stagflationary nuclear explosion while the economy grinds to a literal halt as shipping companies cannot afford this anymore either and start shutting down or going into stasis as long as they can. The cost of everything is about to absolutely skyrocket.
The fake wars incited by the US. Best friends and selling weapons to Saddam Hussein then they turned on him. Instituted the slogan of democracy in Iran until they installed elected puppet turned on them. Everyone knows except dummies.
Nobody believes your junk. Stealing land has been your way of life. American Indians wiped off face of earth, stole land from Mexico, stole land from Hawaii, stole oil from the middle east, stealing for Ukraine, stealing from Venezuela, trying to steal Greenland. Nothing new other than theft and crooks.
EdenG2 | 9 hours ago
Between this, the LPG gasification barge near Suez hit a month or two ago, houthi control of South Red Sea, Iran control of Hormuz and Trump denial of military assistance other than intelligence, SA is cooked. Can a wider regional War be avoided?
[OP] aurelorba | 9 hours ago
If it wasn't for the effects on the rest of the world, I'd be laughing at what SA and Emirates got for their bribes.
Own-Pressure-2326 | 8 hours ago
They completely deserve this. There's a long history of the outcomes for people who buys into Trump's corruption
CrimsonR4ge | 6 hours ago
All these Arabian Oil Magnates, sitting in their high-backed chairs, thinking that they could play 4D chess with regional politics at the expense of everyone else, just because they could splash around some cash.
If the fallout didn't effect the rest of us, I'd be downright gleeful at the rude awakening that they have gotten.
Salty_Introduction31 | 3 hours ago
Only trump managed exact revenge for 9/11
Defiant-Classroom-20 | 7 hours ago
Saudia was dumb for attacking the hothuis
CrimsonR4ge | 6 hours ago
I'd say their idiocy goes even further. If they had just picked a lane—either leave the Houthis alone or go all in on destroying them—then the outcome would have been a lot better.
The current SA strategy of picking fights with the Houthis, only to cower and sue for peace when they bite back, is the worst possible course of action they could take. It shows profound weakness and will only encourage the Houthis.
IAmNotMoki | 4 hours ago
> go all in on destroying them
I mean this sincerely, how exactly? I feel like the past few decades have made it exceedingly clear that a decentralized guerilla force is practically impossible to concretely wipe out.
CrimsonR4ge | 4 hours ago
Full invasion and occupation, biting the bullet on financial and PR costs. I doubt that they could truly tame Yemen. Still, if they did weaken the Houthis, force them into the mountains and prevent them from building up military infrastructure that would allow them to threaten Red Sea shipping or Saudi oil fields, that would be a better situation than they are currently in.
Saudi Arabia can never wipe out the Houthis completely, but they are capable of severely weakening them if they commit to eating the cost of a prolonged occupation.
[OP] aurelorba | 4 hours ago
> Full invasion and occupation
Because it worked so well for Napoleon in Spain? The UK in Afghanistan? The US in Iraq? Besides, while they may have the money, they don't have the population to field a military large enough to occupy. I suppose they could hire guest worker mercenaries - a new Janissary - but that usually doesn't end well.
JackieDaytona77 | 4 hours ago
They’ve been doing it for years. Last resort might be an invasion
CliftonForce | 16 minutes ago
I think they fell for a promise that the US would back them up.
HappilyDisengaged | 6 hours ago
This is good for climate change
FearlessPark4588 | 5 hours ago
Wider war can be avoided if one is not hyperbolic
[OP] aurelorba | 10 hours ago
That was the one "safe" route to bypass the Hormuz chokepoint. The US has basically drained it's SPR. No one knows for sure how much of China's SPR has been drawn down. It's hard to imagine oil and inflation gong anywhere but up.
5% 10 year Treasuries isnt far away.
6% 30 year Treasuries incoming? Bessent can't buy his way out that with short term debt.
kinkycarbon | 9 hours ago
China playing the long game by avoiding. Wars are expensive in everything.
crustyrobots | 7 hours ago
Never interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake.
And they are making several huge mistakes.
GoldTrade11 | 7 hours ago
Would it really by surprising if we find out 10 years from now China was arming Iran secretly? Kind of like USA in Afghanistan vs the Soviet Union.
WeAreElectricity | 6 hours ago
Secretly?
RendertheFatCap | 2 hours ago
bro China is probably feeding them any information and support they can, outside of blatantly shipping weapons with a "Made in China" label.
Typical-Meringue-890 | 4 hours ago
Aren’t China and Russia both arming them?
McCool303 | 10 hours ago
Shits about to make the 70’s oil embargo look like a picnic. Republicans and their voters are fools.
Efficient_Resist_287 | 9 hours ago
But guess who will have to fix all this and will be blamed for it? Never underestimate the electorate political amnesia
[OP] aurelorba | 9 hours ago
The curse of the electoral system. In 2007 the Dems swept into majority in the House but by 2010 they were kicked out because they didn't solve the GFC fast enough.
If Dems win Congress much of the damage already done will become more apparent and be put at their door even when it's the fault of the executive.
British_Rover | 9 hours ago
And within moments of the Democrats taking power the GOP will start screaming about the deficit again.
dust4ngel | 7 hours ago
"why did kamala start this needless war in 2026?"
drtbg | 6 hours ago
Thanks Obama!
judgejuddhirsch | 7 hours ago
The reserves are set to drain by Dec. By the time Dems win, gas will hit 7 or 8$ and trump will declare it was all their fault and republicans will sweep the next election.
It worked in Afghanistan. It worked in Iraq. It worked in Covid. The vast vast majority of Americans are simply not smart enough to direct their own future.
Foreign_Telephone349 | 6 hours ago
Honestly, I hope the GOP just keeps Congress but with the thinnest of thin majorities. This country needs to crash definitively while the GOP is in control.
-mudflaps- | 7 hours ago
*also, Nixon's pardon.
CosmicLovepats | 8 hours ago
If the roof caves in and you put up the same shoddy roof that collapsed, did you really fix it? Considering it's going to cave in tomorrow, too.
absat41 | 9 hours ago
In this one, the GOP is walking into it and can't stop something that was/is avoidable.
-JackBack- | 9 hours ago
Thanks Obama!
DoubleEarthDE | 9 hours ago
Lately I’ve realized America is the Republican Party. We had all evidence Trump was a demented criminal and his racism was enough to secure the presidency.
MisterMittens64 | 8 hours ago
Good, we need to get the world off of oil and switch to sustainable energy and transportation.
We need the world to transition like how the Netherlands did in the 70s and massively expand mass transit, micro mobility, and renewable energy.
Severe_Rise8694 | 6 hours ago
That still leaves things like transporting goods, fertilizers, asphalt, and plastic, which are a big portion of what oil and gas are used for.
MisterMittens64 | 4 hours ago
We can use EVs and use electrically powered Magnus effect based sails or go back to sails for ships. We could use planes with electric propulsion (actively being worked on now and could scale up to short-medium flights), drones, and airships for air travel/transportation.
Hydrogen could also be a potential replacement for fossil fuels but it has a ton of downsides and would probably be for luxury or emergency services.
Severe_Rise8694 | 2 hours ago
Yeah, I don't think any of that is going to happen.
MisterMittens64 | an hour ago
Yeah probably not before the climate gets so bad that our civilization is brought to its knees because people are stupid
McCool303 | 8 hours ago
Agreed, just tired of having to be dragged kicking and screaming during a crisis. Would be chill if we planned ahead for once.
MisterMittens64 | 8 hours ago
It hasn't happened yet because it would hurt short term profits which would lead to a debt crisis which would lead to a depression which would require government intervention and a green new deal. This is very dangerous to the current paradigm of economics and politics.
The people in power (and just people in general tbh) don't want the party to stop and want someone else to face the repercussions of their actions or hope that some magical technology will save us.
DockKnocks | 7 hours ago
The US always has the nuclear option of blocking exports to Western partners then going all in on fracking / Venezuelan oil (plus Canada if relations can be restored). It's enough for domestic consumption without causing too much catastrophic economic damage.
The rest of the word including key Western partners are stuffed though.
livestrong2109 | 7 hours ago
I've got about 70 gallons stored up incase your right but you have to realize at that time there was no reserve and we produced way less oil. It will be bad but never as the 70s. Not without a major world war.
CliftonForce | 12 minutes ago
I have encountered MAGA who are so utterly convinced of the "America is energy independent" myth that they know, as an unshakable fact, that NOTHING in the Mid-East can ever have the slightest effect on any prices in America. Therefore, all this inflation and gas price stuff must be the Democrat's fault. Somehow.
Pockydo | 8 hours ago
I don't want oil rationing even if it's "political advantageous" If it comes to that however I will ask every fucking Republican I know why they're fine with it
wyocrz | 9 hours ago
>Republicans and their voters are fools
Trump was the only one even pretending to be anti-war
It was rational to pull for him as a hail mary in '24. Harris didn't even try.
The schadenfreude at him backing away from those promises is hideous and exposes the other side as warmongers.
Mindless-Tomorrow-93 | 9 hours ago
Harris didn't even try to do what?
wyocrz | 9 hours ago
Harris didn't even try to tamp down the flames of war.
By Election Day of 2024, the war against Russia in Ukraine was already deeply unpopular, although Redditors can be forgiven for missing that since this place is a pro-war echo chamber.
Mindless-Tomorrow-93 | 9 hours ago
I don't believe Harris was up for election in either Ukraine or Russia?
wyocrz | 9 hours ago
The US is in up to our tits in Ukraine.
Per the New York Times.
>But a New York Times investigation reveals that America was woven into the war far more intimately and broadly than previously understood. At critical moments, the partnership was the backbone of Ukrainian military operations that, by U.S. counts, have killed or wounded more than 700,000 Russian soldiers. (Ukraine has put its casualty toll at 435,000.) Side by side in Wiesbaden’s mission command center, American and Ukrainian officers planned Kyiv’s counteroffensives. A vast American intelligence-collection effort both guided big-picture battle strategy and funneled precise targeting information down to Ukrainian soldiers in the field.
>One European intelligence chief recalled being taken aback to learn how deeply enmeshed his N.A.T.O. counterparts had become in Ukrainian operations. “They are part of the kill chain now,” he said.
Mindless-Tomorrow-93 | 9 hours ago
OK. And?
OkStop8313 | 9 hours ago
LMAO you're mad that Harris didn't make some wildly delusional promise to end the war in one day with a simple phone call?
Sure, bro. Living in reality is "pro-war".
wyocrz | 9 hours ago
Yes, Harris should have read the tea leaves and backed the fuck off on war.
Yes.
It literally got the orange idiot reelected.
Get a grip. The anti-war sentiment literally put the orange idiot over the top, while Harris was promising nothing but an extension fo Old Man Biden's policies.
But sure, "muh sexism and racism" is all this fucking Reddit hivemind understands.
a_library_socialist | 9 hours ago
I think the anti-war sentiment against Harris was more tied to Gaza. And it didn't get Trump votes, it just made Dem voters stay home.
But for the main part you're right.
wyocrz | 9 hours ago
Yes, the Gaza thing also loomed large regarding Harris.
I deny that it didn't get Trump votes.
Emphatically.
I remember the fucking mockery, "Oh, how's that anti-war thing now?" after the failure of Anchorage.
a_library_socialist | 9 hours ago
I think the US is too divided to where there was any significant Biden 2020 -> Trump 2024 movement, and the data seems to support that.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/06/26/voter-turnout-2020-2024/
Even the main numbers show that - basically, those who showed up for Trump in 2020 continued to support him, while the Dems lost 7 million voters, who didn't show up. And disgust with the war(s) was a not insignificant part of that.
In other words, Trump didn't really win, the Democrats lost.
OkStop8313 | 9 hours ago
See, this is a take grounded in reality.
dust4ngel | 7 hours ago
> The anti-war sentiment literally put the orange idiot over the top
harris also never even trafficked any children. was she trying to lose? give the voters what they want.
wyocrz | 7 hours ago
She fucking lost. What's so hard to understand about this?
Reddit is full of fools.
dust4ngel | 7 hours ago
i'm trying to think if she should have "moderated" her position by trafficking kids and threatening to nuke north korea like the winning candidate. if you wanna win, you have to act like a winner, am i right?
TomUpNort | 8 hours ago
>By Election Day of 2024, the war against Russia in Ukraine was already deeply unpopular
In an October 2024 poll of registered voters, 33% said we should decrease military aid to Ukraine.
55% said we should maintain (27%) or increase (28%) military aid to Ukraine.
https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/50784-closely-contested-2024-presidential-election-harris-trump-big-issues-voting-world-series-october-19-22-2024-economist-yougov-poll
wyocrz | 8 hours ago
So, more said we should decrease rather than increase.
Look, Harris lost for a reason beyond muh sexism and racism.
She got us Trump, just as assuredly as HRC got us Trump the first time.
Had she tried to tamp down on war....while, you know, upholding law and order in the US.....we might not be in this mess.
TomUpNort | 8 hours ago
No, more people said we should keep aiding them. And a majority of the people who wanted to keep aiding them wanted to INCREASE that aid.
55 (keep or increase aid) is a larger number than 33 (reduce aid).
You literally claimed that the war was "deeply unpopular," while polling shows that a majority of American voters wanted to keep supporting Ukraine. Which is the exact opposite of "deeply unpopular."
wyocrz | 8 hours ago
You said 33% said decrease, while 28% said increase.
33% > 28%.
It was deeply unpopular, polls don't capture everything.
TomUpNort | 7 hours ago
So, you're just going to ignore the 27% who wanted to keep aid at the same level?
dust4ngel | 7 hours ago
both are worth a try, but not both at the same time.
hippydipster | 4 hours ago
That people that voted for Trump got us Trump. This isn't complicated.
McCool303 | 9 hours ago
The other side are warmongers states the party that’s started the last 7 ~~wars~~ operations. Look, I’m not going to carry water for democrats and their penchant for following along with the military industrial complex once these things kick off. But don’t piss on my leg and tell
me it raining when the last 30 years of wars have been initiated by Republicans and continued through with Democrat folly.
Republicans love war, and love spending for war and the DOD, it’s simply a fact. There hasn’t been a budget they’ve passed that doesn’t shower the war industry with funding. The last candidate was being cheered while he sang bomb Iran. If you’re voting for republicans for the anti-war vote you’re going to have a hard time, it’s what they do.
wyocrz | 9 hours ago
The war in Ukraine got out of control under Old Man Biden.
Yes, R's are fucking warmongers, too. We expect that.
But the orange idiot was kneecapped when he tried to ramp things down, for what little that's worth.
McCool303 | 9 hours ago
Ukraine was invaded, we did not start that war. If you ask me Ukraine was a failure of Obama and NATO for not holding Putin accountable for Crimea and their limp response to Putin consolidating a standing army at the border for over a year with blankets and clothing for Ukraine. We should have provided deterrence to our allies prior to invasion. Despite all that Ukraine still stands, regardless of how many times Trump has attempted to shift things in Putin’s favor.
wyocrz | 9 hours ago
>Ukraine was invaded, we did not start that war.
Nor did we bring it to a conclusion in Ankara in March of '22.
>Despite all that Ukraine still stands, regardless of how many times Trump has attempted to shift things in Putin’s favor.
This lie has civilizational consequences.
Go back to the Mueller Report. We did intervene in February 2014, and the Mueller Report picks up the thread in summer 2014, when Russia responded by interfering in our elections, as we were doing in their neck of the woods.
Your idealism is understandable, because it's the only allowable view.....
Realistically, this was all insane, and Ukraine has as much freedom as Mexico does.
a_library_socialist | 9 hours ago
> regardless of how many times Trump has attempted to shift things in Putin’s favor.
Sorry, what are the concrete examples of this again?
McCool303 | 7 hours ago
Well we could start at the most obvious which is what he was impeached for. Cutting aid and then threatening to cut more unless Ukraine produced documentation proving that Biden was responsible for inside dealings with Gasprom. Regardless of whether or not said evidence was even existed or was true.
I mean he literally tried to strong arm our ally into lying about a political opponent for an election. A lie that had catastrophic implications for both the people of Ukraine and the US. And bolstered Putin’s argument that NATO meddling in Ukraine was responsible for their invading Ukraine.
a_library_socialist | 7 hours ago
> Well we could start at the most obvious which is what he was impeached for. Cutting aid and then threatening to cut more
Trump withheld aid, which was later released, to try and get Ukraine to make up dirt on Biden.
Which is soliciting foreign interference in elections. But there's nothing there that "shifts things in Putin's favor" at all. In fact, it was likely to put the then President in the debt of the Ukrainians . . . so how does that help Russia?
> A lie that had catastrophic implications for both the people of Ukraine
It did not though. The aid was released. And this was prior to the war.
> And bolstered Putin’s argument that NATO meddling in Ukraine was responsible for their invading Ukraine
That's in no way related to Trump digging up dirt on Biden though.
BroughtBagLunchSmart | 8 hours ago
The war in Ukraine got out of control Because Trump was no longer the US president giving Russia everything it demanded from him. Why invade when you are getting sanctions relief and outing all the CIA spies in the Kremlin?
wyocrz | 8 hours ago
Russia interefered in our election.
I generally accept the Mueller Report.
The idea that Trump gives Russia everything they want is INSANE.
If that were true, we'd have pulled out drastically a year and a half ago.
TomUpNort | 8 hours ago
We did pull out drastically. The Europeans have had to step up and take the lead in keeping Ukraine funded and supplied.
wyocrz | 8 hours ago
Bullshit.
Pulling out drastically means no more intelligence, no more help targeting, and no more weapons even through third parties.
TomUpNort | 7 hours ago
Words have meanings. Drastically and completely aren't synonyms.
If you cut the vast majority of aid, that's a drastic reduction. Even if it's not complete.
Perhaps you should start using words more carefully.
devliegende | 6 hours ago
You probably believe the $5K checks are for real too.
hippydipster | 4 hours ago
Only idiots didn't know Trump was a liar and untrustworthy.
And I say that with zero compromise. If anything that came fro Trump's mouth counted anything for you, you are an idiot.
Prince_Ire | 9 hours ago
Trump explicitly said he want going to start new wars, and he didn't during his first term. There's plenty of other reasons to call voting for Trump foolish, but it was reasonable to think he wouldn't start a war with Iran
McCool303 | 9 hours ago
Read my lips, ‘No New Taxes’, politicians will say anything to win. Yes, it’s foolish to take them at their word and not their record.
Prince_Ire | 9 hours ago
......and Trump's record from his first term didn't indicate he'd start a war with Iran in his second
Hater_Hatesaton | 8 hours ago
His last term ended with him assassinating an Iranian commander and led to them launching missiles at American bases. His handling of Iran even before this is why Iran ramped up the use of terrorist proxies to harass the world, which would give them leverage to work their way out of a hole trump had needlessly kicked them into when he tore apart a nuclear deal that had given Iran some relief from sanctions. Fast forward to now and he attacks Iran while pointing to the onsequences of his actions (nuclear weapon development), just as he now attacks to open a strait..... that is only closed because he made a stupid move.
It would have been surprising to me that he chose to go to war in such direct ways BEFORE Jan 6 and reading insider comments that more or less amounted to "yea, this guy's solution to x problem was basically to just kill them though I put the breaks on that," but it's not surprising that more wars manifested under his second term at all. He creates conditions for others to escalate and capitalize on. Whether that be because of his stupid punitive approach to everything, his weird obsession with dictators and weakening allies, or his transactional greed that enables him to weaken whole countries (including the U.S.) if he personally gets paid.
Bluestreaked | 9 hours ago
Why on earth would you think this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Qasem_Soleimani
Did you think this happened under Biden?
Prince_Ire | 9 hours ago
Which is in line with how Obama, Biden, etc. behaved in the Middle East. He didn't escalate into war like Bush likely would have
Bluestreaked | 9 hours ago
Which Iranian government official did Obama assassinate? Let me be clear here, I view Obama and Biden as genocide supporting war mongerers. But they didn’t assassinate Iranian government officials
McCool303 | 9 hours ago
I disagree. If you paid attention to politics or world history the writing was on the wall. He was already in working to weaken NATO. I’d say dismantling the defensive framework that allowed the largest period of relative world peace since WW2 is the act of a warmonger.
Prince_Ire | 9 hours ago
Ah yes, because most people weaken their appliances before starting wars. If you paying attention to politics or world history every indication was that he want going to start a war with Iran that would do nothing to advance US interests.
I'd say dismantling the framework that has always been a tool of US power projection and has enabled previous wars in West Asia does not indicate you are interested in staying wars in West Asia
McCool303 | 8 hours ago
Well, then there is nothing I can say to convince you that NATO are not the bad guys. You’re already there, why not move to Moscow and join the fight?
Prince_Ire | 8 hours ago
LMAO "NATO is a tool of US power projection" does not somehow imply "It's fine for Russia to invade its neighbors". What, did you think the US founded NATO out of the goodness of it's heart or something?
Try actually responding to what people say instead of making up things about them because you can only think in categories
McCool303 | 8 hours ago
I did respond, you just seem to think NATO power and projection is a bad thing. And anyone else that says otherwise gets catagorized by mr. “I don’t categorize”. I don’t think NATO power and projection is inherently bad. Just bad when it’s used for illiberal reasons. Given the alternatives here it’s either Putin and his Mafia state or Xi and the CCP. Or we go with Trumps desire to return pre-WW1 era imperialist America that goes it alone.
ILikeCommunism97 | 8 hours ago
It really didn't. Not only did he increase drone strikes across the world but he bombed Iranian leadership too.
Donald the Dove was always a fucking lie.
justinwfreed | 8 hours ago
'cept his record from his 1st term, as evidenced by how he handled the pandemic, showed VERY CLEARLY that he was a complete fu€king IDIOT...and then, fitting the pieces together about how he said Obama would probably start a war with Iran and how he said that "if you vote for Kamala, the US would be at war with Iran within 2 years"...gotta hand it to him on that last one...he was absolutely correct about that haha...he's such a POS, the only thing dumber than him are his supporters.
Prince_Ire | 8 hours ago
Him saying other people will start a war with Iran inducating he was going to is a complete non-sequitor.
Yes, Trump handled the pandemic incompetently. That doesn't somehow indicate he was going to start a war with Iran
justinwfreed | 8 hours ago
Spare me, bubba...if you think telling people to stick a UV light up their a$$ and to drink bleach is "incompetence" I got no need for you...
Prince_Ire | 7 hours ago
Well if you ever manage to not throw a fit over my criticism not being biting enough for you, I'll be waiting
hippydipster | 4 hours ago
His record indicates he's a liar, and he's never deviated from that.
dust4ngel | 7 hours ago
> Trump explicitly said he want going to start new wars, and he didn't during his first term. There's plenty of other reasons to call voting for Trump foolish, but it was reasonable to think he wouldn't start a war with Iran
remember trump's deeply anti-war sentiment, "north korea will be met with fire and fury the likes of which this world has never seen before" that one time?
i like jesus, i like ghandi, i like MLK, but when i think "anti-war" i go right to this clip.
Prince_Ire | 7 hours ago
Remember how we didn't go to war with North Korea and actually negotiated with them more than we had in quite awhile?
dust4ngel | 7 hours ago
i think what you're saying is that electing a man who threatens to nuke everything whenever he is upset is a rational anti-war strategy. is that your view?
Prince_Ire | 6 hours ago
If everything up to that point had indicated he was blustering buffoon who was all talk and no action? Yes, quite possibly.
dust4ngel | 5 hours ago
truly amazing.
AR475891 | 9 hours ago
Way more reasonable to believe he will do the exact opposite of what he promises
Spinoza42 | 9 hours ago
Bessent has one job: get the US to a debt spiral. He's doing it right now.
Cookies78 | 8 hours ago
Looks like the George Soros guy is looking to tank the economy. By God, the GOP was right!
crustyrobots | 7 hours ago
Even Bessents mentors are calling him a dumbshit for doing what hes doing.
What do we expect though, the smirking fuckface is just like Trump as a failing upward fraud hedge manager that turned $5 Billion into $400 million. He was rewarded with the biggest financial job in the country.
There is however a thread that it is fully intentional. The Trump Crime Syndicate is attempting to usurp the Federal Reserve with their own twisted crypto version of it with Dummie Jr and IM ERIK at the center of it. All of these Epstein bastards have heavy ties to Tether stablecoin.
DopeShitBlaster | 7 hours ago
It was wild how people were acting like these pipelines are immune to attacks. It’s a metal tube of pressurized gas, the whole thing is just a bunch of segmented bombs waiting for a spark.
Drak_is_Right | 8 hours ago
The US in a worse case scenario can start to limit any exported crude.
[OP] aurelorba | 7 hours ago
So could Canada...
MC_chrome | 7 hours ago
I hate to say it, but what are the chances Trump turns to nuclear weapons to try and get himself out of this hole?
[OP] aurelorba | 3 hours ago
I believe the reports that General Caine literally blocked him from doing so.
https://www.france24.com/en/was-donald-trump-blocked-from-using-the-nuclear-codes-against-iran-1
If they ever replace the top military leadership with Trump acolytes then we will see a new sun.... briefly.
UnspeakableHorror | 6 hours ago
If he wants to strike that bunker under the mountain, as he said he would, then he will have to use one. There's no conventional weapon that can penetrate so far below ground.
You won't see a mushroom cloud or much radioactivity above ground, but the weapon will be nuclear.
If you mean strategic nukes then pretty much 0 chance, even he is not that insane, Iran might not be able to retaliate in kind to the US, but Israel would likely be erased alongside Iran.
ISB-Dev | 3 hours ago
The US hasn't drained its SPR. There are still around four months of supply left, assuming it continues to drain at the same rate it has been.
inforcrypto | 9 hours ago
Oil market is now irreversibly broken. World is racing to adopt green energy faster than ever. Most of the leftover global oil will stay buried underground forever.
a_library_socialist | 9 hours ago
that's good!
Sea-Ambition-451 | 8 hours ago
but prices will skyrocket for the next many years
that's bad!
Z3r0sama2017 | 7 hours ago
Humanity might avoid the most dire outcomes of climate change.
That's exceptionally good!
Sea-Ambition-451 | 7 hours ago
but not us specifically
that's bad
SinCityDisturbia | 6 hours ago
For those that come after!
crustyrobots | 7 hours ago
But the oil comes with your choice of toppings!
Sea-Ambition-451 | 7 hours ago
that's good!
EnamelKant | 7 hours ago
The topings contain potassium benzoate.
a_library_socialist | 7 hours ago
. . . . . .
DockKnocks | 7 hours ago
Not as good as you think, the vast majority of uses for oil aren't to generate energy.
a_library_socialist | 7 hours ago
Maybe not in number of uses, but in volume, I believe it is (counting transportation as that).
yeahsureYnot | 4 hours ago
“Vast majority of the number of uses” is def the dumbest argument I’ve seen today
wintrmt3 | 4 hours ago
That's simply not true, around 90% of oil is used for energy.
kent_eh | 27 minutes ago
So, the faster we move away from burning that oil, the more will be available (and more affordably) for those other uses.
GoldTrade11 | 7 hours ago
Trump ended up saving the environment. What are the odds. Well I'll be damned.
2_bars_of_wifi | 7 hours ago
everything he does goes wrong one way or another. So did his anti green energy campaign apparently
So_HauserAspen | 6 hours ago
Except pedophilia
Somehow that got better for him
eightdx | an hour ago
"Do not call a man like that a hero -- he did the right thing, yes, but it was in service of our total destruction."
jokel7557 | 9 hours ago
That shit is put into plastics and medicines and a bunch of other stuff will never stop using it
snowtax | 9 hours ago
No, but road vehicles are about half of the total petroleum consumed, while plastics are maybe 15% or so. Cutting our petroleum consumption by half or more, replacing that with far more efficient and cleaner technology, would be a great achievement.
[OP] aurelorba | 7 hours ago
Actually refineries crack [hence the term cracking tower] raw petroleum into different fractions for different uses - av gas for one fraction, diesel for another, etc. So decreasing usage of one wouldn't decrease the demand for other fractions.
BTW most plastics, surfactants, and fertilizers use natural gas as feed stock.
snowtax | 2 hours ago
Depends. Cutting demand in the short term makes the price go down. Cutting demand by half makes some companies go bankrupt, mergers and buyouts happen. However, the cost of production would not decrease at the same rate. With less volume, cost of production becomes more significant, meaning less profit which could drive cost back up for products still in demand but others may essentially become nearly free as there would be much more supply than demand. I’m sure it will all be interesting from a business perspective.
austinbicycletour | 7 minutes ago
About 10% of oil production goes toward things like asphalt and roofing. Have fun with your roads made of solar panels.
Material_Skin_3166 | 6 hours ago
…and that natural gas can be green hydrogen in the future.
bastionflyer32 | 6 hours ago
Natural gas will never be green hydrogen 🤣 That's grey hydrogen
Common-Method2202 | 6 hours ago
Wait till bro finds out oil runs many other things other than being used for energy
shifu_shifu | 4 hours ago
> Oil market is now irreversibly broken.
Care to elaborate? Why, how and what is broken exactly?
7oey_20xx_ | an hour ago
The cost for oil doesn’t justify the investment.
New oil isn’t going to be drilled while the world moves to green energy. Most countries are embracing green sources of energy, they will buy less overtime if not already.
The instability will further push more to the cheaper alternatives that aren’t reliant on the stability of another region, solar and wind.
With less countries buying, less drilling, less production, costs probably won’t go that low, they have to make a profit, but also OPEC is basically over now too, so just having oil isn’t enough, you’ll need to be able to sell it cheap enough, only a few can do that. Oil will still be around, but will probably be mainly plastics or fertilizers, and even then some of that might change. But transportation and general electricity production will go green (solar, wind and even nuclear). Oil will not be the future. The Gulf countries know this, they were trying to diversify, not sure why America thinks oil will still be as big in 25 years.
someonehasmygamertag | 9 hours ago
Looks like $200 a barrel might become a reality if this keeps going
words words words words words words words words words words words words words
-JackBack- | 9 hours ago
On the positive side, adoption of EVs will probably increase.
someonehasmygamertag | 9 hours ago
My PhD stipend doesn’t pay for an EV
Krafla_c | 8 hours ago
There are 10-20-year-old hybrids and electrics that are very affordable and in good shape if you search around long enough. The Gen2 Prius, for example. Also, electric bikes should be more popular than they are and the US ought to have better bike infrastructure.
skaestantereggae | 6 hours ago
I’m planning to get a used electric for my next car now that we own a home. I hate going to get gas and it’s only getting more expensive.
seventysevensevens | 5 hours ago
Good thing bike lane funding is on the chopping block in support of more lanes. Because bike lanes are some how DEI???
Affectionate_One_700 | 2 hours ago
Don't those old hybrids need an expensive battery replacement?
someonehasmygamertag | 8 hours ago
Yeah that’s great. But in feb petrol was starting to dip below £1.30. So I’d much rather the yanks stopped chucking shit at Iran and Iran stopped chucking shit at everyone within range.
Stoyfan | 8 hours ago
But it will pay for a bike
someonehasmygamertag | 8 hours ago
Let them eat cake vibes
hdizzle7 | 5 hours ago
We got a 2018 Nissan leaf for my daughter for 11k a couple years ago. My 2021 model 3 is worth about 23k now.
wintrmt3 | 4 hours ago
But neither fuel for a combustion engine car if this keeps up.
geft | 49 minutes ago
Only for those countries which don't ban Chinese EVs.
Methodical_Science | 10 hours ago
I want off of this ride. Can someone sane please finally step in and stop the suicide mission we all seem to be on with Trump and his MAGA loyalists?
Bikerbass | 9 hours ago
Easy…. Grab 50 million mates and go protest outside the Whitehouse daily for a month…. Something should happen in that time frame
FromOutoftheShadows | 6 hours ago
Probably the declaration of martial law.
Defiant-Classroom-20 | 7 hours ago
no, keep it going until Native Amercians reclaim their homeland
Typical-Meringue-890 | 4 hours ago
Yeah, but how will the internet tough guy that’s in charge of the pentagon be able to stand up and prattle about strength and lethality if we pull out of the conflict now? 🤔
dolphone | 8 hours ago
There is no off.
The global north made this bed.
wyocrz | 9 hours ago
>stop the suicide mission we all seem to be on with Trump and his MAGA loyalists
So....the US being participants in the war on Russia and hitting literal strategic radars wasn't suicidal?
OkStop8313 | 9 hours ago
"The war on Russia"?!
🤡🤡🤡
wyocrz | 9 hours ago
Yes.
Independent third parties could easily, trivially, be convinced we're cobelligerents.
When a sniper team is shooting at you, you target both the spotter and the triggerman.
My link up there to the NYT makes it totally clear, we're cobelligerents.
We weren't just "providing intelligence" we were/are pointing at Russians and saying, "Shoot that guy" and sometimes....."shoot that strategic infrastructure."
OkStop8313 | 9 hours ago
We are co-belligerents. We are geopolitical rivals.
That's why it's so odd that you worded it as though the party that escalated to war was the one attacked. That's a giant, flashing "BIAS" sign.
wyocrz | 9 hours ago
Of course, it's "bias" sign, even when I quote the New York Times.
But being cobelligerents in a war on Russia is a bad fucking idea.
American missiles, aimed by American operatives, guided by American technology, are landing on Russian dirt.
That's nuts. I don't care if it was a Ukrainian....or a military contractor.....who pressed GO
This will be seen, in time, as utterly insane.
AlmanorDiscard | 8 hours ago
> American missiles, aimed by American operatives, guided by American technology, are landing on Russian dirt.
Man, what series of events could've possibly led to that happening?
wyocrz | 8 hours ago
Ask William Burns.
>Summary. Following a muted first reaction to
Ukraine's intent to seek a NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP)
at the Bucharest summit (ref A), Foreign Minister Lavrov and
other senior officials have reiterated strong opposition,
stressing that Russia would view further eastward expansion
as a potential military threat. NATO enlargement,
particularly to Ukraine, remains "an emotional and neuralgic"
issue for Russia, but strategic policy considerations also
underlie strong opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine and
Georgia. In Ukraine, these include fears that the issue
could potentially split the country in two, leading to
violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force
Russia to decide whether to intervene. Additionally, the GOR
and experts continue to claim that Ukrainian NATO membership
would have a major impact on Russia's defense industry,
Russian-Ukrainian family connections, and bilateral relations
generally. In Georgia, the GOR fears continued instability
and "provocative acts" in the separatist regions. End
summary.
AlmanorDiscard | 8 hours ago
No, the correct answer is "Putin decided to invade Ukraine because he doesn't believe it has a right to exist, and wants to relive his Soviet glory days."
Russia invaded Ukraine in an imperialist land-grab. Period. NATO expansion (which, unlike Russian expansion, is voluntary and sought after) was the laughable cover story.
wyocrz | 8 hours ago
Oh, so I just ignore the Ambassador to Moscow in the private cable where he was honest?
Yeah, fuck that.
You're spouting propaganda, hard stop.
Methodical_Science | 9 hours ago
I’m not here to debate equivalency between different events. Go to r/politics if you feel like doing that.
I’m pointing out that continuing to engage in this war/military operation, or whatever else you want to call it: that is suicidal. The petrodollar is heading down a very dangerous path for the United States with an increasingly threatened oil supply/shipping lanes and rising inflation.
The Bond market seems like it’s finally calling bullshit.
wyocrz | 9 hours ago
Russia literally helped Iran with targeting, blasting our big radars on day one, but sure....
Let's pretend they are separate.
The orange idiot literally ended American unipolar hegemony, but this entire sequence of events from 2014 on are insane.
Ever read the Mueller Report? Ever contemplate why Russia attacked our elections in summer of 2014? Right after the events on the Maidan?
a_library_socialist | 9 hours ago
Golly, where would Russia have ever got the idea that helping a nation at war with the US was acceptable?
wyocrz | 9 hours ago
It's an escalating tit for tat.
Where does it end?
a_library_socialist | 9 hours ago
That's part of why the whole idea of a proxy war in Ukraine was pretty scary . . . because it ends in nuclear war.
wyocrz | 9 hours ago
For the last four years, worrying about this gets one branded as a Russian stooge on Reddit.
FWIW, I think we're beyond proxy war. I think history will show us to have been in far deeper than is appreciated.
It's being spun as Ukrainian success, rather than......holy shit, the Americans were entrenched DEEP.
a_library_socialist | 9 hours ago
yeah, Reddit has lots of chickenhawks who are fierce in their desire to fight to the last conscripted Ukrainian.
It's also having a very bad effect of Europe, where Germany is trying to use this to cover their own failures and follow the American model of defense spending as their industrial base loses the ability to compete.
insertwittynamethere | 8 hours ago
Yeah, I'm going to continue supporting a democracy and the right to self-determination in Ukraine over Russia.
If they are going to use the nuke card to make democracies give up on each other, we might as well go ahead and just hand the keys to Putin and his ilk to run the world, because then every nation that was former USSR/Soviet satellite or former Russian Empire becomes a new redline for Russia.
It is not my place to tell others to be slaves so that I may enjoy my peace and comfort.
Butane9000 | 9 hours ago
I mean if the petrodollar was on its way out anyway then wouldn't the next best option be completely change the global economic & political order to better suit your needs in the future?
In this case, destroy OPECs stranglehold on oil prices and destabilize a huge source of oil that foreign nations draw from. While simultaneously take and exert control over oil sources in the Western Hemisphere (Venezuela). You then have defacto control of the most stable sources of oil and this energy dependent nations.
China has at least been somewhat intelligent in working to get enough nuclear to offset the oil considering they've got 29-30+ nuclear reactors getting built.
[OP] aurelorba | 9 hours ago
It's not just the petro dollar but the entire global financial system that runs on US$. If the US loses that, they get real poor, real quick. You think 30 year treasuries at 5% is bad? They could be getting payday loan interest rates.
a_library_socialist | 9 hours ago
China also has massive amounts of solar and battery, being the global center of production and the reason it's currently cheaper than gas.
Definitelyhereforshi | 8 hours ago
Was this what these financial & governmental planners thought was going to bypass the Strait of Hormuz? There is no alternative to bypass the strait any time soon, and these people need to figure out how to diplomatically & peacefully re-open it
sereneandeternal | 10 hours ago
Great job America! You are winning so much! Your dear leader is the envy of the world. His skills of playing 5D chess and his godlike foreign policy will turn America into a utopia.
unia_7 | 9 hours ago
Dude only 33% of Americans approve of Trump's actions. More US voters voted against Trump than for Trump all three times that he was on the ballot.
You are knee-jerk blaming Americans the majority of whom agree with you.
Unless you think Trump's administration is "America", in which case you are plain wrong.
sereneandeternal | 9 hours ago
77 million Americans wanted Trump in office and another 90 million were comfortable enough with it to not vote.
Trump is not the illness, he’s a symptom of your collective madness, apathy and lack of foresight. You will always be four years away from electing another Trump.
unia_7 | 8 hours ago
Again, you are speaking about less than 50% of voters, and blaming the result on 100%.
With that kind of victim blaming, you would fit in the MAGA camp perfectly.
Vhu | 8 hours ago
71% of eligible voters either voted for Trump, or did not vote at all.
That’s an incredibly solid majority to be blamed.
unia_7 | 8 hours ago
So you assume yhose who did not vote supported Trump - and that's clearly wrong.
Lemp_Triscuit11 | 8 hours ago
I'm an American and don't necessarily like being lumped into all this shit either, but brother the man said we've been holding back too much on our torture program in 2016.
If one couldn't find a reason to vote against him (other than systematic disenfranchisement), it's certainly still a condemnation of their character
Vhu | 7 hours ago
Nope, those that didn’t vote failed to perform their civic duty; and as a result we got Trump.
They get blame for that failure just as much as the people who checked his name in the box.
dust4ngel | 7 hours ago
> you assume yhose who did not vote supported Trump
if you're walking along a secluded river and see a child drowning, and you go back to playing flappy birds on your iphone, you don't necessarily support the drowning but you're cool with it.
Sea-Ambition-451 | 8 hours ago
no, they didn't necessarily support him (probably only half of them did based on statistics), but it was their fault for not voting.
sereneandeternal | 8 hours ago
No please don’t stamp me with your country’s garbage.
You sound like one of those regressive progressives who constantly accuse the Democrats of being MAGA Lite.
unia_7 | 8 hours ago
Dude you do sound like this country's garbage - quick to blame without having the context or attempting to understand it
That stamp looks good on you.
sereneandeternal | 8 hours ago
What context??
I don’t need context. The fact is that a twice impeached, con man , insurrectionist, felon won the popular vote.
unia_7 | 8 hours ago
Fewer people voted for him than against him. The majority you are trying to blame is against him. Popular opinion is against him. Use your brain cells.
insertwittynamethere | 8 hours ago
That's not how it works. If they are against him, then they would've voted against him in a guaranteed two party system. If you don't, then that means he doesn't bother you enough to care to exercise that right. It's that simple.
sereneandeternal | 8 hours ago
We count non voters too.
They are responsible as well.
The writing was all over the wall. Project 2025 was screamed in their face.
Yet they were unbothered and sat home.
One third voted for him, one third didn't vote. More than half are enemies.
unia_7 | 8 hours ago
Dude you are fantasizing enemies and acting out on your primitive need to blame someone.
It may feel good, but it does not lead anywhere good. Grow up.
insertwittynamethere | 8 hours ago
Look, if you don't vote or vote third party in a system that guarantees one of only two major parties winning the Executive or Legislative control, and you not voting for one of those two candidates does not guarantee the worst outcome from not winning, then you are effectively voting for that outcome.
The only people who did not vote for this are those who voted Dem. Period. If you did not vote, voted third party, voted directly for this party and this President, then you are really all one and the same.
Disaffected/apathetic voters become part of whoever wins coalition, as their votes can help prevent either outcome, directly. That is how voting works - it'a a numbers game. Not voting is a statement of tacit support no matter the candidate who wins.
Bikerbass | 9 hours ago
Well you sure as shit aren’t protesting outside the Whitehouse daily in numbers like 50 million people to fix this mess soooo much sooner…. So yea do better
SkivvySkidmarks | 8 hours ago
"We've tried one thing and we're all out of ideas!"
unia_7 | 9 hours ago
You can go protest whenever you are, it'll have the same effect - none.
Bikerbass | 9 hours ago
Yea I’m sure that 50 million people in one spot daily for a month wouldn’t do anything…….. yes totally sure that it would cause a massive problem…..
unia_7 | 8 hours ago
Yeah go ahead and try it.
MelaniaTrompo | 9 hours ago
2024 popular vote result:
Trump: 77,302,580 votes
Harris: 75,017,613 votes
Source: CNN
Sea_Dawgz | 8 hours ago
I can never tell what replies go where, but if you’re replying to the guy that said “more people voted against trump in ‘24 they are correct he got like 49.5% of total votes.
But sure, 77 mil + 90 mil non voters shows the insanity and/or stupidity of the USA.
unia_7 | 8 hours ago
You need to work on your reading comprehension.
Total votes for Trump were lower than the total votes for all other candidates. I never said they were lower than Harris's.
KobaMao | 8 hours ago
It's the American project itself that's the problem. Trump is merely a symptom. He is the mask off version of what America really is and always was.
Particular_Music_270 | 8 hours ago
It’s not just America. Far right extremism is spreading all over the world (AfD for example). Humans are tribalist by nature. Greedy people can exploit that and profit.
dust4ngel | 7 hours ago
> Humans are tribalist by nature. Greedy people can exploit that and profit.
capitalism is failing globally (that is, as a means of allowing working people to survive, not as a means of wealth concentration). when people get scared, they want easy answers. fascists provide easy answers.
KobaMao | 8 hours ago
When I criticize the American project I'm not talking about some one off far right extremism. America in itself is an imperialist project hell bent on subjugating the world to America's interests. It's entire history is riddled with genocide, slavery, colonialism and regime change in order to maintain the global economic system it champions and benefits immensely from. The entire American political superstructure is designed to ensure the interests of a capitalist class is constantly considered above all else.
To say tribalism is human nature shows a lack of understanding of history since much of human history has relied on cooperation rather than tribalism. It's actually one of the mythologies sold by liberalism as it's the ideological basis for naturalizing and normalizing the economic base which is capitalism.
Particular_Music_270 | 8 hours ago
America wasn’t subjugating china to their own interests when they were helping fight off imperial Japan in the 40s.
KobaMao | 8 hours ago
Ever heard of the Boxer Rebellion and the eight nation alliance? Or the treaty of Wanghia or treaty of Tianjin.
Let's not forget the US really only joined WW2 to defeat imperialist enemies (mostly Europe which was subjugated to the Marshal plan post WW2 and technically became junior partners of American imperialism), secure additional markets and raw materials, deal with its own domestic economic crisis (war = good for economy), and eventually establish its post war hegemony.
China was already fighting for 4 years prior to America's involvement and they had already tied down about 80% of the Japanese army prior to US involvement. It was the USSR that was the primary source of support in these years. This doesn't even discuss the victories and advances of the Red Army in the USSR.
Americans love to believe their myths. It's not some benevolent savior nation and much of the successes of WW2 rest on the Soviets and the Chinese who also sacrificed the most. America tried immensely, as they did with the USSR, to subjugate China to its whims, but unlike the USSR China understood liberalization of the economy and being friendly with the Americans (ie, thru the reform and opening up period) they could continue on sovereign development without relying on massively pouring resources into heavy industries by engaging in cold war politics.
unia_7 | 8 hours ago
That's pretty delusional.
KobaMao | 8 hours ago
Only to brainwashed Americans.
NextGen-Panic | 7 hours ago
Who had "THIS is how we transition to renewable energy" on their Bingo card?
All of this is a red herring from how fucked the Central Banks are. They know there's going to be a changing of the guard soon. So why would they be destroying valuable "assets" (as far as "maintaining their seat at the table" is concerned) if for no other reason than to prevent Tomorrow's Leaders from taking control of the means of redistribution?
In other words, they're using the "If we can't have it, no one can" strategy of scorching the earth because they don't want to make room for, let alone trade places with, the likes of us. They certainly have no intention of paying Reparations for all the shit they've done for the past however long.
So they can perish along with their obsolete ideologies. We need new solutions and fresh leadership. If this is how they choose to go out, they haven't learned a goddamn thing.
crustyrobots | 7 hours ago
Gas was up another 20c here this morning after I bought a thimble full yesterday. I soon will literally not be able to afford to go to fucking work...
This is actually how this all ends: oil. These stupid fuckers have doomed us to a stagflationary nuclear explosion while the economy grinds to a literal halt as shipping companies cannot afford this anymore either and start shutting down or going into stasis as long as they can. The cost of everything is about to absolutely skyrocket.
Atomic-Avocado | 33 minutes ago
Assuming you need 10 gallons to fill up, at $3 it would be $30 and at $5 it would be $50. You can’t afford a $20 increase every 2 weeks to go to work?
Optimal_Willow_4389 | 9 hours ago
Probably those Americans doing another hit and blaming someone else. Middle East was peaceful for since 1944 of years until they f*cked it up.
cejmp | 9 hours ago
Peaceful except for the 15 wars.
Optimal_Willow_4389 | 8 hours ago
The fake wars incited by the US. Best friends and selling weapons to Saddam Hussein then they turned on him. Instituted the slogan of democracy in Iran until they installed elected puppet turned on them. Everyone knows except dummies.
cejmp | 8 hours ago
Ok dummy.
Optimal_Willow_4389 | 8 hours ago
Nobody believes your junk. Stealing land has been your way of life. American Indians wiped off face of earth, stole land from Mexico, stole land from Hawaii, stole oil from the middle east, stealing for Ukraine, stealing from Venezuela, trying to steal Greenland. Nothing new other than theft and crooks.
cejmp | 8 hours ago
Ok dummy.
Optimal_Willow_4389 | 8 hours ago
THEIF
cejmp | 6 hours ago
ok dummy.
Optimal_Willow_4389 | 8 hours ago
oh a MAGOT and a Karen. lol 😂
cejmp | 6 hours ago
Ok dummy.