5 ms·

So what? Attacking Iran was a stupid move, but the US and Israeli regimes don't particularly care about the other victims whining. If other countries are going

by nradov 6mo ago

So what? Attacking Iran was a stupid move, but the US and Israeli regimes don't particularly care about the other victims whining. If other countries are going to make themselves dependent on fossil fuels from the Persian Gulf region then they'll either have to secure their own sea lines of communication or accept that supplies are unreliable. Asking for apologies or payments won't accomplish anything. That is the geopolitical reality.

ImPostingOnHN 6mo ago
> the US and Israeli regimes don't particularly care about the other victims whining This does seem to be true of israel, but as for the USA, it does not, hence the USA limiting their attacks. > If other countries are going to make themselves dependent on fossil fuels from the Persian Gulf region then they'll either have to secure their own sea lines of communication or accept that supplies are unreliable. This sort of rhetoric is why other countries do not support the USA and israel: the other countries already did that, then the USA and israel came and attacked those supply lines, thus attacking those countries. It strikes me as gaslighting abuser language to attack someone else, then blame it on them for not protecting themselves better. It's better for the attackers to acknowledge their mistakes, apologize for them, and pay restitution.
- nradov 6mo ago
  It's not rhetoric. I'm not trying to convince anyone, I'm just explaining how things work. Since the other countries largely lack the ability to act, their support or lack thereof is irrelevant. The US and Israel have no incentive to apologize or pay restitution; more likely outcomes are that they either escalate, or unilaterally disengage and leave others to clean up the mess.
  - fmeahe 6mo ago
    The world does have another much better option: they can pay the Iranian ransom and call it a day. No need to participate in another war.
    - nradov 6mo ago
      You're not thinking through the long-term consequences of that option. The Iranian extortion fees will likely escalate over time. Other countries will use that precedent to impose fees for passage through their territorial waters. Most of the countries that rely on maritime trade would prefer to avoid that outcome, even if it causes deaths and economic pain in the short term.
      - ImPostingOnHN 6mo ago
        > The Iranian extortion fees will likely escalate over time. Nowhere near as much as the American extortion costs.
      - fmeahe 6mo ago
        The world must go multipolar. US has proved us repeatedly that it cannot lead. It may mean that we'll have to pay tolls everywhere, but that's still better and cheaper than getting f*ked by the US now and then.
  - ImPostingOnHN 6mo ago
    > Since the other countries largely lack the ability to act, their support or lack thereof is irrelevant. How is their support, or lack thereof, irrelevant to our discussion that is literally about whether they support the war? Here is a reminder of the topic, from the post you replied to: > Assisting the US with regard to Iran is phenomenally unpopular. The increase in energy prices isn't outweighing people's desire not to have their country assist. That poster and I are just explaining how things work. Seems like you might agree with us here? Indeed, since most other countries do not support the war, their ability to act is irrelevant.
    - nradov 6mo ago
      You're really missing the point. Whether they support the war or not is largely irrelevant because support doesn't count for anything.
      - ImPostingOnHN 6mo ago
        > You're really missing the point. Whether they support the war or not is largely irrelevant Am I? No, I don't think so: Whether they support the war or not is literally the topic of discussion, so by definition it can't be irrelevant to the discussion. > support doesn't count for anything Whether or not you feel "support doesn't count for anything" is irrelevant to the discussion of whether the support is there in the first place. It's also sour grapes: the USA tried to gain the support of other countries, and because it failed, the support it failed to get is suddenly "irrelevant". Lol. It sure wasn't irrelevant when the USA was begging and threatening countries to help them.
greycol 6mo ago
There are refeniries dependent on the Persian Gulf region(PGR) but the majority of countries are dependent on the the general commodities market of downstream products. The US famously produces more oil than it uses and is not generally receiving fuel that's downstream of the PGR and yet if you look at the gas prices in the US you'll realise that it's not as simple as being reliant on fossil fuels from the PGR. That's without taking into account other things like high grade helium or specific niche products.
- AnotherGoodName 6mo ago
  The us imports more crude oil than it exports. An easily looked up fact. The us does export more refined products than it imports but it’s highly dependent on crude imports for it’s significant refining capacity.
  - greycol 6mo ago
    Yes but crude is not really fungible. About 14% of US crude imports are effected which is about 8% of overall crude refining. By the US not being reliant on imports I was saying that even with just local crude oil production the US can satisfy internal demand for petroleum products. My wider point is that of course everyone knows that that's not how the economy really works and I was replying to nradov oversimplifying by pointing out that if it was that simple US petrol prices wouldn't have gone up as much as they did. Because even though it's only a few countries with specific refineries that are actually reliant on the straight being open to get their specific required flavour of crude it's everyone in the refined markets that are actually effected by the supply of that crude because it effects the supply those refined products.

by nradov 6mo ago

ImPostingOnHN 6mo ago

> the US and Israeli regimes don't particularly care about the other victims whining This does seem to be true of israel, but as for the USA, it does not, hence the USA limiting their attacks. > If other countries are going to make themselves dependent on fossil fuels from the Persian Gulf region then they'll either have to secure their own sea lines of communication or accept that supplies are unreliable. This sort of rhetoric is why other countries do not support the USA and israel: the other countries already did that, then the USA and israel came and attacked those supply lines, thus attacking those countries. It strikes me as gaslighting abuser language to attack someone else, then blame it on them for not protecting themselves better. It's better for the attackers to acknowledge their mistakes, apologize for them, and pay restitution.

nradov 6mo ago
It's not rhetoric. I'm not trying to convince anyone, I'm just explaining how things work. Since the other countries largely lack the ability to act, their support or lack thereof is irrelevant. The US and Israel have no incentive to apologize or pay restitution; more likely outcomes are that they either escalate, or unilaterally disengage and leave others to clean up the mess.
- fmeahe 6mo ago
  The world does have another much better option: they can pay the Iranian ransom and call it a day. No need to participate in another war.
  - nradov 6mo ago
    You're not thinking through the long-term consequences of that option. The Iranian extortion fees will likely escalate over time. Other countries will use that precedent to impose fees for passage through their territorial waters. Most of the countries that rely on maritime trade would prefer to avoid that outcome, even if it causes deaths and economic pain in the short term.
    - ImPostingOnHN 6mo ago
      > The Iranian extortion fees will likely escalate over time. Nowhere near as much as the American extortion costs.
    - fmeahe 6mo ago
      The world must go multipolar. US has proved us repeatedly that it cannot lead. It may mean that we'll have to pay tolls everywhere, but that's still better and cheaper than getting f*ked by the US now and then.
- ImPostingOnHN 6mo ago
  > Since the other countries largely lack the ability to act, their support or lack thereof is irrelevant. How is their support, or lack thereof, irrelevant to our discussion that is literally about whether they support the war? Here is a reminder of the topic, from the post you replied to: > Assisting the US with regard to Iran is phenomenally unpopular. The increase in energy prices isn't outweighing people's desire not to have their country assist. That poster and I are just explaining how things work. Seems like you might agree with us here? Indeed, since most other countries do not support the war, their ability to act is irrelevant.
  - nradov 6mo ago
    You're really missing the point. Whether they support the war or not is largely irrelevant because support doesn't count for anything.
    - ImPostingOnHN 6mo ago
      > You're really missing the point. Whether they support the war or not is largely irrelevant Am I? No, I don't think so: Whether they support the war or not is literally the topic of discussion, so by definition it can't be irrelevant to the discussion. > support doesn't count for anything Whether or not you feel "support doesn't count for anything" is irrelevant to the discussion of whether the support is there in the first place. It's also sour grapes: the USA tried to gain the support of other countries, and because it failed, the support it failed to get is suddenly "irrelevant". Lol. It sure wasn't irrelevant when the USA was begging and threatening countries to help them.

greycol 6mo ago

There are refeniries dependent on the Persian Gulf region(PGR) but the majority of countries are dependent on the the general commodities market of downstream products. The US famously produces more oil than it uses and is not generally receiving fuel that's downstream of the PGR and yet if you look at the gas prices in the US you'll realise that it's not as simple as being reliant on fossil fuels from the PGR. That's without taking into account other things like high grade helium or specific niche products.

AnotherGoodName 6mo ago
The us imports more crude oil than it exports. An easily looked up fact. The us does export more refined products than it imports but it’s highly dependent on crude imports for it’s significant refining capacity.
- greycol 6mo ago
  Yes but crude is not really fungible. About 14% of US crude imports are effected which is about 8% of overall crude refining. By the US not being reliant on imports I was saying that even with just local crude oil production the US can satisfy internal demand for petroleum products. My wider point is that of course everyone knows that that's not how the economy really works and I was replying to nradov oversimplifying by pointing out that if it was that simple US petrol prices wouldn't have gone up as much as they did. Because even though it's only a few countries with specific refineries that are actually reliant on the straight being open to get their specific required flavour of crude it's everyone in the refined markets that are actually effected by the supply of that crude because it effects the supply those refined products.