The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
No bio...
User ID: 174
If this goes on longer, the environment lobby should be really happy. There should be quite a significant drop in fossil fuel use globally
Unless China uses a few percent more coal.
Many have already pointed out that the biggest beneficiary of the war so far is Russia where both oil prices are seeing higher prices AND that their sanctions are dropped. At first glance, this should be bad news for Ukraine.
Definitely good for Russia, but I don't think cash is that big a bottleneck for Russia, so only mildly bad news for Ukraine.
Iranian oil also got its sanctions lifted.
Yes. Iranian oil is a double-edged sword; exporting it helps Iran, but also keeps oil prices and supply worries within reason. Also if Iran's oil is cut off, they can retailiae by throwing whatever is remaining at Gulf oil.
But maybe this is exactly what the American people want. Elections will certainly be spicy this midterm year.
For Trump to have this improve GOP chances, he needs to win outright -- new regime in Iran, doesn't matter how much they such as long as they'll play ball with the US and "Death to America" is off the playlist. I give this maybe a 5% chance; there just doesn't seem to be anyone in Iran capable of creating such a regime.
Five weeks ago, a ground war with Iran is unthinkable by the American people. Since then, that opinion has clearly changed.
Has it? Many of the earlier polls excluded special operations troops.
I think America will try to take one or a few islands.
Or possibly all of them.
The Venezuela op was a masterclass. What conditions would allow Trump to declare victory? Would a victory Trump can declare be a good thing for America long term?
The big win would be regime change. No mullahs, no IRGC, no "Death to America". Doesn't matter to the US if it's a military dictatorship, a democracy (LOL) or a restoration of the monarchy (double LOL), as long as they play ball.
Lacking that, the existing regime playing ball. Stop attacking Hormuz, stop supplying the Houthis (Hezbollah and Hamas matter to Israel but not the US), hand over the enriched uranium and allow US inspections.
Yes, all of that seems difficult but something the US can do.
They don't need to shoot down all of them to carry out an operation. Losses greater than zero are acceptable.
The US can shoot down drones and ballistic missiles too, at least at the rate Iran can currently fire them.
It wouldn't be like Vietnam tunnel warfare because you're not chasing enemies through tunnels. The enemies are on the surface; they'd be killed and the US military would set up a defensive perimeter and then send in the engineers to start digging.
But I agree this is unlikely at this point.
In the UK, mainstream-approved protestors allied with the US "No Kings" "movement" are carrying Iranian flags. In the US they're carrying the hammer and sickle. These people are already in charge of the UK (despite the irony of them having a King), and seem set to win the 2026 midterm elections and are likely to gain House, Senate, and Presidency in 2028. I see no return from that.
To be fair I hate all insurance companies, most especially those who have managed to make their product mandatory. If car insurance weren't a racket, you wouldn't have people paying cash to other people in a fender-bender to avoid the accident being reported to their insurance company. And you wouldn't have the insurance companies having the state prosecute this as insurance fraud.
The Israelis could do to the West Bank what they did with Gaza -- withdraw all the Jewish settlements by force and let the PA run the whole thing. Why in a million years they would consider doing so given their experience with Gaza, I don't know.
Err, no it doesn't, because before the Russians came in the Ukrainians were in no way the Russian's problem.
They produced a lot of unrest in Jordan and Egypt.
Unfortunately, as long as they can conceivably get one drone through and hit a ship, they can close the Strait via the insurance cartel. I'm not sure if the United States is actually capable of setting up an insurer outside the cartel which would meet all the requirements of various international regulations and treaties.
I think they're reading Western press and think they can win this outright.
(are Palestinians and Arabs different population now?)
Non-Israeli Palestinians seem to be a generally hated (by other Arabs as well as by Israeli Jews) subpopulation of Arabs.
More likely the refugees left on the grounds that whether the Ukranians ever recovered Mariupol or not, they'd be better off in Ukranian-controlled territory than Russian.
So says the cartel.
The reason that is in their "peace plan" is so they can drop that clause during negotiations so they seem "reasonable" and "comprising".
The USA has similar maximalist demands currently that will obviously be dropped in the final deal.
Or, in both cases, because they don't really want a negotiated peace.
Okay so if I change my comment above to: "I would consider the West Bank to an occupied part of Israel. I don't really care about de jure "ownership" because Israel clearly control access to the West Bank and maintains a monopoly of force over it. "
No, it is not an occupied part of Israel; that would imply almost the opposite (e.g. South Lebanon is now an occupied part of Lebanon, not Israel). It is an occupied land for which no permanent sovereign exists, which is a strange state, certainly, but distinct from being part of Israel.
Did this even happen? No one wants to spend the capex to rebuild Venezuelas bpd capacity.
One problem Venezuela was having is they couldn't even ship their own oil without imported naphtha, which they were getting shipped via the shadow fleet -- which the US was blocking and seizing. So while they can't rebuild their domestic capacity quickly, now that they can get naphtha without restriction, at least one bottleneck is gone.
Are the heavy crude Texan refineries now taking in Venezuelan oil?
Yes. Note that a bunch of heavy crude refining capacity came on line in Mexico earlier this year, which was hurting the US refineries.
What would you call the WB then? It's obviously not a sovereign state, as it lacks... sovereignty.
It is occupied territory.
I genuinely don't know what you're referring to here, but I'd love to know more?
Israeli Jews are forbidden from entering Area A of the West Bank.
If the situation were somehow reversed and it was Jews who needed to set up a viable state consisting of Gaza and J & S / West Bank, it would be a million times easier.
Sure, "Gazrael" would be the wealthy and thriving area, and when the Palestinians fell to infighting or attacking their neighbors, the Jews would likely take advantage to seize a contiguous territory.
I would consider the West Bank to be part of Israel.
You can call a tail a leg, but that don't make it so.
both people in Gaza and the West Bank are wildly unable to travel to various parts of Israel, or even within those territories (segregation).
If you consider the West Bank part of Israel (see above), then there are Israeli Jews who are ALSO unable to travel to various parts of Israel.
The Palestinians left on the promise the Arabs would kill all the Jews and then they'd go back. Didn't work out so well. I don't see Israeli Jews falling for that.
As far as I know they haven't done anything at all, their only real success at sea is using drones to hit tanker ships.
Which is, it turns out, sufficient.
New York, along with basically every other place in America, has a surplus of single males under 40. It appears to have a surplus of single women overall mostly because women die later.
- Prev
- Next

The US has air superiority. But yes, it would be a big operation. I believe the US certainly has the capability to do it, though.
And if the recent public speculation that the material was moved to Ishafan is true, the stuff is just in intact tunnels covered with soil and not really deeply buried.
More options
Context Copy link