4 ms·

This whole war has already been a weird suicide ritual when it comes to American soft power. I guess hard power is next. The American Empire, burnt down by it

by vrganj 7mo ago

This whole war has already been a weird suicide ritual when it comes to American soft power. I guess hard power is next. The American Empire, burnt down by its own Nero/Caligula hybrid, while the population just watches it happen...

Johanx64 7mo ago
What do you think American Empire is all about if not controlling the oil rich countries in middle east, as well as extremely oil rich countries like Venezuela? The only failing here is that America has decaying, hallowed out industrial base where it can't just cheaply mass produce and replenish hi-end rockets and tech to take care of business-as-usual quickly, because everything down to raw materials is just so expensive.
- vrganj 7mo ago
  Oil itself is becoming irrelevant quickly. It's a play for becoming king of the ashes.
  - nathanaldensr 7mo ago
    This is simply not true by most objective metrics... unless you don't like plastic and fertilizer?
    - OutOfHere 7mo ago
      We produce a lot of biofuel from corn which can in principle be converted and used to make some but not all types of plastics.
  - Johanx64 7mo ago
    Familiarize yourself with this: https://www.worldometers.info/oil/ https://www.worldometers.info/oil/ Top reserves by country, historical data on consumption (including by country). These basic data points explain US foreign policy better than anything. There is no data or trends that supports the notion that oil is becoming irrelevant, much less quickly. US with it's current reserves and oil consumption rate would last roughly 12 years, btw.
    - bakies 7mo ago
      That doesn't mean it won't happen.
      - Johanx64 7mo ago
        I mean something undeniably WILL happen as the world has roughly 47 years left at current consumption rate of oil. Whether what's going to happen will be whatever it is you're imagining is completely different story entirely. Needless to say, If you have a largely deindustrialized country you can't really make any sort of transition happen yourself anyway, not at the grand scale and speed necessary for this endeavour. Expect fireworks.
        bakies 7mo ago
        > There is no data or trends that supports the notion that oil is becoming irrelevant > the world has roughly 47 years left at current consumption rate of oil. This is contradictory?
        Johanx64 7mo ago
        Lets say, you have 47 years left to live. Does that make those 47 years irrelevant - just because they will end? There's no contradiction there. It just makes these last-remaining fossil fuels even more valuable. Moreover oil use hasn't ramped down, nor is it getting replaced in any substantial way. I suspect people have no slightest clue just how reliant the modern world is on fossil fuels outside of it's use in cars.
    - Teever 7mo ago
      I always find this chart really insightful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale_oil#/media/File:US_Whale_Oil_and_Sperm_Oil_Imports_(1805-1905).jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale_oil#/media/File:US_Whale...
    - vrganj 7mo ago
      Let me show you this figure in response: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/United-States-Farm-based-Horse-Population-1850-2007_fig1_254456029 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/United-States-Farm-based... US farm horse population over time. Looked like it was gonna grow endlessly in the 1920s. It didn't because the whole thing became obsolete.
heresie-dabord 7mo ago
"Come now, don't exaggerate," said numerous apologists. "How bad can a bad person possibly be?" It would seem that a bad person, elected to the highest office, surrounded by equally corrupt appointees, can do harm on a global scale. And all of it is home-grown. The entire population of deportees posed less of a threat then what the US has bestowed upon itself in one presidential term.
prmph 7mo ago
I guess now would be a good time for China to make its move on you-know-who.
- adventured 7mo ago
  Not just yet, they should wait for a little bit. The US isn't done depleting its inventory yet, the US might get itself in a lot deeper yet, and the US population will only detest the war even more given time. All of those things will help China take Taiwan. If Iran gets ugly enough the US population will just have that much less willingness to get involved in another major conflict. 3-18 months for Taiwan (9-18 more likely; China still needs some prep). There's no scenario where China isn't going to successfully take the island after this. They now know the US isn't at all prepared to stand off with them in coastal Asia. It would take years of surge production to get ready, the US doesn't have years re Taiwan. If China is going in, we'll start to see large signs of that. They'll begin a number of prominent campaigns, including sabotage, propaganda, extremely large supply movements, and so on.
  - jemmyw 7mo ago
    If China were to learn anything important from Russia and the USAs "swift" wars it's: don't do it. They'll have the upper hand but a determined government and population will bog down their efforts for years and potentially destabilize politics at home.
  - JKCalhoun 7mo ago
    > The US isn't done depleting its inventory yet Yes, reading articles like this one, I suspect it's going to be the lack of firepower that causes this administration to finally back out of the conflict. And with these number it sounds like it might be sooner than later.
- unsnap_biceps 7mo ago
  I'm starting to believe that China isn't going to make the move. It's winning the hearts and minds of the rest of the world and will be able to leverage its growing soft power well beyond what Taiwan would provide. I just don't see them giving up the position the US has abandoned.
sheikhnbake 7mo ago
> while the population just watches it happen... About 1/5 of America voted for this guy after seeing the trainwreck of his first admin. At the same time, protests response is continually growing and breaking records as economic disparities and totalitarian responses intensify.
- _aavaa_ 7mo ago
  Looking at all Americans in deceiving. For starters, 1/5 are below the voting age. 49.8% of voters voted for this.
  - Gud 7mo ago
    Yeah, most people who voted, voted for Trump.
    - nkurz 7mo ago
      Almost, but not quite. Only 49.8% of votes for President were for Trump: https://www.cnn.com/election/2024/results/president https://www.cnn.com/election/2024/results/president A more accurate claim might be "More people voted for Trump in 2024 than any other candidate".
  - sheikhnbake 7mo ago
    1/5th are below the voting age, but minors have also been demonstrating pretty heavily, particularly against ICE
constantius 7mo ago
Genuine question for Americans: donyou not think that a Democrat today would be leading the same war? We're talking about a party that facilitated, and took part in, 1 year of genocide. In what world could you imagine Israel's planned war against Iran not being automatically supported by whatever US party was in power?
- fabian2k 7mo ago
  The default US policy tends towards starting wars in the middle east. But even very hawkish previous administrations never started this particular one, for the reasons we're seeing right now. So I strongly doubt a Harris administration would have. You're also ignoring just how far outside the norms Trumps administration is. They're entirely dysfunctional, breaking all kinds of laws and full of unqualified extremist with their own agendas.
- thisislife2 7mo ago
  You are being downvoted for stating the truth - you are absolutely right that the Democrats too would have fully supported Israel's attack on Iran. Let us not forget that Biden played a major role in Israel's ongoing genocide in Gaza (and now in West bank) by helping the IDF spread its propaganda hoax that "Hamas beheaded babies", in the western media (Biden lied that he had personally seen the "horrific pictures " - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas_baby_beheading_hoax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas_baby_beheading_hoax ). Of course, unlike Trump, a Democratic party administration would have resorted to hypocrisy and propaganda that the war was for "democracy", "human rights", "save jews", "fight terrorism" etc. etc. But it would have been much shorter - they would have killed the Iranians leaders too, and struck military targets and then stopped.
  - Gud 7mo ago
    Doubtful.
    - ted_bunny 7mo ago
      Incorrect. Is this how we debate now?
duxup 7mo ago
I believe Trump when asked about climate change said something to the effect of "I'll be dead by then." I think that applies most everything he does in a way.
- ted_bunny 7mo ago
  It's then-thirty and the bees are dying, let's get this show on the road

by vrganj 7mo ago

Johanx64 7mo ago

What do you think American Empire is all about if not controlling the oil rich countries in middle east, as well as extremely oil rich countries like Venezuela? The only failing here is that America has decaying, hallowed out industrial base where it can't just cheaply mass produce and replenish hi-end rockets and tech to take care of business-as-usual quickly, because everything down to raw materials is just so expensive.

vrganj 7mo ago
Oil itself is becoming irrelevant quickly. It's a play for becoming king of the ashes.
- nathanaldensr 7mo ago
  This is simply not true by most objective metrics... unless you don't like plastic and fertilizer?
  - OutOfHere 7mo ago
    We produce a lot of biofuel from corn which can in principle be converted and used to make some but not all types of plastics.
- Johanx64 7mo ago
  Familiarize yourself with this: https://www.worldometers.info/oil/ https://www.worldometers.info/oil/ Top reserves by country, historical data on consumption (including by country). These basic data points explain US foreign policy better than anything. There is no data or trends that supports the notion that oil is becoming irrelevant, much less quickly. US with it's current reserves and oil consumption rate would last roughly 12 years, btw.
  - bakies 7mo ago
    That doesn't mean it won't happen.
    - Johanx64 7mo ago
      I mean something undeniably WILL happen as the world has roughly 47 years left at current consumption rate of oil. Whether what's going to happen will be whatever it is you're imagining is completely different story entirely. Needless to say, If you have a largely deindustrialized country you can't really make any sort of transition happen yourself anyway, not at the grand scale and speed necessary for this endeavour. Expect fireworks.
      - bakies 7mo ago
        > There is no data or trends that supports the notion that oil is becoming irrelevant > the world has roughly 47 years left at current consumption rate of oil. This is contradictory?
        Johanx64 7mo ago
        Lets say, you have 47 years left to live. Does that make those 47 years irrelevant - just because they will end? There's no contradiction there. It just makes these last-remaining fossil fuels even more valuable. Moreover oil use hasn't ramped down, nor is it getting replaced in any substantial way. I suspect people have no slightest clue just how reliant the modern world is on fossil fuels outside of it's use in cars.
  - Teever 7mo ago
    I always find this chart really insightful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale_oil#/media/File:US_Whale_Oil_and_Sperm_Oil_Imports_(1805-1905).jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale_oil#/media/File:US_Whale...
  - vrganj 7mo ago
    Let me show you this figure in response: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/United-States-Farm-based-Horse-Population-1850-2007_fig1_254456029 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/United-States-Farm-based... US farm horse population over time. Looked like it was gonna grow endlessly in the 1920s. It didn't because the whole thing became obsolete.

heresie-dabord 7mo ago

"Come now, don't exaggerate," said numerous apologists. "How bad can a bad person possibly be?" It would seem that a bad person, elected to the highest office, surrounded by equally corrupt appointees, can do harm on a global scale. And all of it is home-grown. The entire population of deportees posed less of a threat then what the US has bestowed upon itself in one presidential term.

prmph 7mo ago

I guess now would be a good time for China to make its move on you-know-who.

adventured 7mo ago
Not just yet, they should wait for a little bit. The US isn't done depleting its inventory yet, the US might get itself in a lot deeper yet, and the US population will only detest the war even more given time. All of those things will help China take Taiwan. If Iran gets ugly enough the US population will just have that much less willingness to get involved in another major conflict. 3-18 months for Taiwan (9-18 more likely; China still needs some prep). There's no scenario where China isn't going to successfully take the island after this. They now know the US isn't at all prepared to stand off with them in coastal Asia. It would take years of surge production to get ready, the US doesn't have years re Taiwan. If China is going in, we'll start to see large signs of that. They'll begin a number of prominent campaigns, including sabotage, propaganda, extremely large supply movements, and so on.
- jemmyw 7mo ago
  If China were to learn anything important from Russia and the USAs "swift" wars it's: don't do it. They'll have the upper hand but a determined government and population will bog down their efforts for years and potentially destabilize politics at home.
- JKCalhoun 7mo ago
  > The US isn't done depleting its inventory yet Yes, reading articles like this one, I suspect it's going to be the lack of firepower that causes this administration to finally back out of the conflict. And with these number it sounds like it might be sooner than later.
unsnap_biceps 7mo ago
I'm starting to believe that China isn't going to make the move. It's winning the hearts and minds of the rest of the world and will be able to leverage its growing soft power well beyond what Taiwan would provide. I just don't see them giving up the position the US has abandoned.

sheikhnbake 7mo ago

> while the population just watches it happen... About 1/5 of America voted for this guy after seeing the trainwreck of his first admin. At the same time, protests response is continually growing and breaking records as economic disparities and totalitarian responses intensify.

_aavaa_ 7mo ago
Looking at all Americans in deceiving. For starters, 1/5 are below the voting age. 49.8% of voters voted for this.
- Gud 7mo ago
  Yeah, most people who voted, voted for Trump.
  - nkurz 7mo ago
    Almost, but not quite. Only 49.8% of votes for President were for Trump: https://www.cnn.com/election/2024/results/president https://www.cnn.com/election/2024/results/president A more accurate claim might be "More people voted for Trump in 2024 than any other candidate".
- sheikhnbake 7mo ago
  1/5th are below the voting age, but minors have also been demonstrating pretty heavily, particularly against ICE

constantius 7mo ago

Genuine question for Americans: donyou not think that a Democrat today would be leading the same war? We're talking about a party that facilitated, and took part in, 1 year of genocide. In what world could you imagine Israel's planned war against Iran not being automatically supported by whatever US party was in power?

fabian2k 7mo ago
The default US policy tends towards starting wars in the middle east. But even very hawkish previous administrations never started this particular one, for the reasons we're seeing right now. So I strongly doubt a Harris administration would have. You're also ignoring just how far outside the norms Trumps administration is. They're entirely dysfunctional, breaking all kinds of laws and full of unqualified extremist with their own agendas.
thisislife2 7mo ago
You are being downvoted for stating the truth - you are absolutely right that the Democrats too would have fully supported Israel's attack on Iran. Let us not forget that Biden played a major role in Israel's ongoing genocide in Gaza (and now in West bank) by helping the IDF spread its propaganda hoax that "Hamas beheaded babies", in the western media (Biden lied that he had personally seen the "horrific pictures " - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas_baby_beheading_hoax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas_baby_beheading_hoax ). Of course, unlike Trump, a Democratic party administration would have resorted to hypocrisy and propaganda that the war was for "democracy", "human rights", "save jews", "fight terrorism" etc. etc. But it would have been much shorter - they would have killed the Iranians leaders too, and struck military targets and then stopped.
- Gud 7mo ago
  Doubtful.
  - ted_bunny 7mo ago
    Incorrect. Is this how we debate now?

duxup 7mo ago

I believe Trump when asked about climate change said something to the effect of "I'll be dead by then." I think that applies most everything he does in a way.

ted_bunny 7mo ago
It's then-thirty and the bees are dying, let's get this show on the road