4 ms·

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.

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.