4 ms·

I think that it's not the job of US to escalate here. US is hurt by these attacks, but other countries are hurt much more - they should take the lead on "solvin

I think that it's not the job of US to escalate here. US is hurt by these attacks, but other countries are hurt much more - they should take the lead on "solving" this problem. For US, there's too much risk and too little benefit to engage more. (I'm not American BTW)

foofie 3y ago
I agree, it looks like hostile nations such as Iran are replaying their Hamas/Palestine strategy to goad another nation into a local conflict. As a non-american I'd prefer if the US sat this one out.
- matthewfelgate 3y ago
  So you are happy for all international goods to get more expensive? Because that will be the outcome of letting pirates run riot.
  - bayindirh 3y ago
    OP and GP says that the nations affected most should lead the coalition, not US. I don't think US is the only country with an army. However, from my perspective, US loves to lead these charges for win-win outcomes. "We keep our image as peacekeepers, so a win for us. We get to test what we have, again a win for us. Also weapon manufacturers make some more monies, again another win for us". Nobody says that they shall let these attacks continue.
    - robofanatic 3y ago
      > the nations affected most should lead the coalition, not US. Which affected nations are we talking about? That route affects the supply chain of almost all countries btw.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
  - foofie 3y ago
    > So you are happy for all international goods to get more expensive? False dichotomy. The spectrum of possibilities is wider than a) international goods gets more expensive, b) US is goaded by Iran to a proxy war.
  - Qem 3y ago
    > So you are happy for all international goods to get more expensive? I'm OK with spending a bit more if that helps to end an apartheid regime somewhere, just like I spend a bit more buying organic produce to diminish my consumption of pesticides. For the US taxpayer it may even be a net positive, given how much it's being spent per capita to kill random Palestinians, in absence of a ceasefire. A journalist calculated his share already at 150$: https://theintercept.com/2023/12/28/israel-us-taxes-gaza-war/ https://theintercept.com/2023/12/28/israel-us-taxes-gaza-war...
  - jauntywundrkind 3y ago
    Not trying to weigh in on what to do or what not to do, but, > So you are happy for all international goods to get more expensive? I've heard a maybe 3-4% increase in cost of shipping for going around the long way around (around Africa). There's just not many people & in spite of their scale these cargo ships are remarkably efficient (by weight) means of transport. The cost of shipping seems a vanishingly marginal issue here.
hackerlight 3y ago
This is the price the US has to pay if it wants to remain the global hegemon. Keeping shipping routes open is table stakes in maintain their post-WW2 role. In an ideal world the US would want the harmed countries, such as Egypt, to do more but the reality is they can't due to domestic politics. Egypt needs to preserve face for regime survival. So the US will do the heavy lifting here but the price will be diplomatic leverage later on. The US doesn't actually lose out, that leverage counts for something. This is the status quo, really.
- corimaith 3y ago
  Depends if that diplomatic leverage is real. After all, China is more than willing to fill in the void for any future demands.
  - hackerlight 3y ago
    I believe it is real, the US has created a Western-aligned bloc in the Middle East, consisting of Egypt and some Gulf States, that would have been unthinkable a few decades ago. This ensures oil supply to itself and its allies in the event of a war, and acts as a hedge against full Russia/China control of the region. One reason these states are playing ball with the US is because they expect things in return, for example the Saudis want access to nuclear energy technology. You can see the same leverage at play in East Asia, where the US is forcing good relations between South Korea and Japan. The military bases there cost a lot of money, but serve a deterrence purpose against China which is necessary for the US' policy of containment, and confer a level of soft influence that wouldn't otherwise be possible. The pacification of Japan and forced alignment with the US, resulting in 80 years of Japan-US trade, was certainly in the US' own net interests, even though it originally cost a lot of money to do it. Most things aren't zero sum (they are either very negative sum or very positive sum), and indirect benefits can be equally valuable to direct contributions.

foofie 3y ago

I agree, it looks like hostile nations such as Iran are replaying their Hamas/Palestine strategy to goad another nation into a local conflict. As a non-american I'd prefer if the US sat this one out.

matthewfelgate 3y ago
So you are happy for all international goods to get more expensive? Because that will be the outcome of letting pirates run riot.
- bayindirh 3y ago
  OP and GP says that the nations affected most should lead the coalition, not US. I don't think US is the only country with an army. However, from my perspective, US loves to lead these charges for win-win outcomes. "We keep our image as peacekeepers, so a win for us. We get to test what we have, again a win for us. Also weapon manufacturers make some more monies, again another win for us". Nobody says that they shall let these attacks continue.
  - robofanatic 3y ago
    > the nations affected most should lead the coalition, not US. Which affected nations are we talking about? That route affects the supply chain of almost all countries btw.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- foofie 3y ago
  > So you are happy for all international goods to get more expensive? False dichotomy. The spectrum of possibilities is wider than a) international goods gets more expensive, b) US is goaded by Iran to a proxy war.
- Qem 3y ago
  > So you are happy for all international goods to get more expensive? I'm OK with spending a bit more if that helps to end an apartheid regime somewhere, just like I spend a bit more buying organic produce to diminish my consumption of pesticides. For the US taxpayer it may even be a net positive, given how much it's being spent per capita to kill random Palestinians, in absence of a ceasefire. A journalist calculated his share already at 150$: https://theintercept.com/2023/12/28/israel-us-taxes-gaza-war/ https://theintercept.com/2023/12/28/israel-us-taxes-gaza-war...
- jauntywundrkind 3y ago
  Not trying to weigh in on what to do or what not to do, but, > So you are happy for all international goods to get more expensive? I've heard a maybe 3-4% increase in cost of shipping for going around the long way around (around Africa). There's just not many people & in spite of their scale these cargo ships are remarkably efficient (by weight) means of transport. The cost of shipping seems a vanishingly marginal issue here.

hackerlight 3y ago

This is the price the US has to pay if it wants to remain the global hegemon. Keeping shipping routes open is table stakes in maintain their post-WW2 role. In an ideal world the US would want the harmed countries, such as Egypt, to do more but the reality is they can't due to domestic politics. Egypt needs to preserve face for regime survival. So the US will do the heavy lifting here but the price will be diplomatic leverage later on. The US doesn't actually lose out, that leverage counts for something. This is the status quo, really.

corimaith 3y ago
Depends if that diplomatic leverage is real. After all, China is more than willing to fill in the void for any future demands.
- hackerlight 3y ago
  I believe it is real, the US has created a Western-aligned bloc in the Middle East, consisting of Egypt and some Gulf States, that would have been unthinkable a few decades ago. This ensures oil supply to itself and its allies in the event of a war, and acts as a hedge against full Russia/China control of the region. One reason these states are playing ball with the US is because they expect things in return, for example the Saudis want access to nuclear energy technology. You can see the same leverage at play in East Asia, where the US is forcing good relations between South Korea and Japan. The military bases there cost a lot of money, but serve a deterrence purpose against China which is necessary for the US' policy of containment, and confer a level of soft influence that wouldn't otherwise be possible. The pacification of Japan and forced alignment with the US, resulting in 80 years of Japan-US trade, was certainly in the US' own net interests, even though it originally cost a lot of money to do it. Most things aren't zero sum (they are either very negative sum or very positive sum), and indirect benefits can be equally valuable to direct contributions.