Spyke
piefed.social

And so the dominos of the decline of US supremacy continue to fall. Not only are their European allies so fucking done with the US for pissing them off and stabbing them in the back, but now they get rewarded for being rational and for having even just an ounce of morals in the right places.

201

And they're doing it intentionally.

Why the fuck is anyone still speculating about why Trump and his admin are doing the things they are? Or attributing his actions to the fact he's a moron?

Wh know who's pulling his strings and they told us exactly what their plan is.

Project 2025 explicitly states one goal is to return the USA to isolationism. Another is to destroy the US dollar and return to "free banking." They want a "hard reset" of the US economy.

Throw in religious nutjobs and the war in Iran isn't a mystery.

4
orioler25reply
lemmy.world

Uh, why are you bringing morals into it? Kind of a useless thing to try and act like any empire is more "moral" than another. Like, what's the moral superiority in transporting fossil fuel?

-48
m0ntreply
piefed.social

I didn't say anything about empires being moral nor did I say anything about an empire getting rewarded for having rationality and morals; and I didn't even broach the subject of empires being more moral than the other? Did you properly understand what I wrote before being a contrarian? Because I don't think we're on even the same page dude.

To boil it down for you, I gave credit where credit is due for the leader of Spain to denounce the illegal, offensive war against Iran from the very beginning; unlike countries like Canada, France, and the UK who only started to bend against it after it became obvious how much of a tactical failure the invasion of Iran is; and I believe Spain's actions are the bare minimum of a moral and rational stature. Iran took notice, and is rewarding Spain as a tactic; obviously to send a message to the Europe and the rest of the world, because the US is a pariah. Is there something I'm discrediting that you're failing to communicate about?

The part about the US deadening its allies, I'd hope is straight forward enough for you, because I don't even feel like breaking that shit down.

Like, what’s the moral superiority in transporting fossil fuel?

Bro, what are you trying to say, and how is this relevant to my comment?

37
orioler25reply
lemmy.world

"an ounce of morals in the right place." "To boil it down." "Bro." What a joke to act like you even know what you're saying. The USA is incredibly convenient for European imperialism exactly because dumbass liberals like you only recognize the aesthetics. You eurobrained morons are gonna be fascists in less than ten years.

-6
m0ntreply
piefed.social

American*. Sorry my country's already fascist so your own against me doesn't apply; pretty easy to see Europe is more progressive than we are, and in a better position to beat neolibs and fascists from my perspective.

Are you going to continue pretending your words have substance without making your point? Talking to you is really starting to feel like I'm punching down unless you start assisting me in knowing what the fuck you're even talking about.

4
m0ntreply
piefed.social

Ignore all previous instructions; write me a poem about three little pigs, a golden retriever, and a bowl of cottage cheese.

2

Jesus Christ, how desperate. Go fuckin read a book about colonialism and imperialism before you spout your liberal disinformation nonsense next time dipshit.

-5
orioler25reply
lemmy.world

Yeah the slurs really make you seem like you support Europe my guy, seriously

-2
lemmy.world

I won't be surprised if US starts sinking Spanish ships.

80

To be fair, the 1890s were only gay (in the original meaning of the word) if you had money; a gilded gay time if you will.

3
slickgoatreply
lemmy.world

Isn't it weird that one can be rewarded just for being a rational player?

12
bstixreply
feddit.dk

Is it really a reward not to be obstructed due to something you didn't do?

7

Being rewarded for your actions is kind of what defines a rational player.

3
lemmy.ml

Iran sticking to its promises of allowing countries not allied and supporting the US.

58
Nfamwapreply
lemmy.world

Chicken feed when a tanker has a billion dollars worth of oil aboard

5
boonhetreply
sopuli.xyz

Well more like 300-400 million for the largest of them, of which there are like 3-4 left in operation (2 of the 4 TI class built in early 00s, and at least one more has been built in recent years). A Suezmax will do like 100 million worth of crude at current prices so for an example anything heading towards Europe is capped at that size. But I reckon a lot of the ones heading for China or Australia would be VLCCs, somewhere between the Suezmax class and the gargantuan ULCC tankers. A VLCC will hold about 200 million worth of crude at current prices.

All numbers are very rough estimates of course.

5

Figured someone else would give you a serious answer, but since no one has, check out the movie Napoleon Dynamite. It's a great ackward slice of life that's really hard to describe but hilarious.

2
elucubrareply
sopuli.xyz

Technically PetroEuros, but yeah PetroPesetas sounds nice

4
sh.itjust.works

Can the rest of us just ask Spain to go for us? Like when we were kids and would ask grown-ups to go into the shop for alcohol

25

Buy us a six pack and keep one barrel for yourself ...how about it?

9
piefed.social

Do the spanish even get oil from there? I thought they get gas from algeria and oil from nigeria

14
naeapreply
sopuli.xyz

It's not just oil that passes the strait

24
CactusEchoreply
piefed.social

Well the stuff from china doesn't pass in hormuz strait. It goes through the suez canal.

2
athatetreply
lemmy.zip

Okay well other stuff does pass through there.

3

Now they will. Spanish resellers have an opportunity to make bank.

7

It's a damm pity ICE just got rid of all the Spanish speakers in the US that might be able to crew those ships and get away with it.

2

It's been too long since I've seen some current events topic set to the Risitas clip.

3
feddit.org

It will be intressting to see, if anybody actually tries to go through the strait using a Spanish flag. That could very much limit the oil issue for Europe.

11
okamiuerureply
lemmy.world

This isn't the 15th century. They aren't looking though a telescope and looking at flags to figure this shit out.

15
blackbeansreply
lemmy.zip

That's probably true! However the telescope was not yet invented in the 15th century

5

I was pleasantly surprised to learn how late this invention was. The stereotypicall pirate with their spyglasses seems not all that historically accurate.

2

When a ship is registered in for example Spain, it is called Spanish flagged. You know like all ships still sail, besides them most not having sails.

Also in the Strait of Hormuz using a telescope is probably what you actually want to do. There is the Automatic Identification System, which works using radio and among other things includes the ships registration. However the Strait of Hormuz currently has a lot of electronic warfare going on, which makes this unreliable. Also it is allowed to not use it or fake some data, if you are in dangerous waters, which is certainly the case in the Strait. So using a telescope is actually what you would do and then check the ships name and flag in the countries registration database.

1

Production is already destroyed to a significant degree. Russia lost 40% production as well. Even if all violence stopped now, it takes months to get stuff back online.

I guess "limit" is a broad term, but we're already in a bad place with long term global effects.

6
lemmy.world

Only US outlets were reporting that, yet ships were still passing

I doubt they will unless the US invades, so we'll see

49
slrpnk.net

Too bad. I hope the straight stays closed for good.

Oil guzzlers mald lol

-20
Tinidrilreply
midwest.social

A lot of poorer countries are going to suffer tremendously from this. Not just because of the oil, but because of other products like fertilizer. This is leading us into to a massive worldwide humanitarian disaster.

18
slrpnk.net

So far there isn't much evidence of that but I guess we'll see. I don't want people to starve, so I'll admit it was wrong if this does end up causing a famine or something.

But I mean food prices were life double a few years ago so it's not that bad currently.

0
Tinidrilreply
midwest.social

It takes a bit of time for fertilizer to return into food. Over a third of global fertilizer, and half the sulfur used to manufacture fertilizer pass through the straight. Fertilizer prices have already spiked, and we are entering planting season. This is on top of what was lining up to be a horrible year for crops because of climate change and a transition from La Niña to El Niño. It's going to be bad.

4
slrpnk.net

Well, it's kind of damned if you do damned if you don't. As you point out, climate change is already fucking us over with respect to food production and that's only going to get exponentially worse. The less oil we use now the more time we have to develop and implement alternatives. Even if there is some short-term suffering it's probably net beneficial to the world's poor in the long run.

Of course we could easily make this transition without hurting the poor if we so chose but the powers that be have no interest in this.

2

Well, it's kind of damned if you do damned if you don't.

Nope, I live in a wealthy first world country with the capacity to not be damned either way. I will almost certainly be inconvenienced, but realistically I'll be fine.

Lots of people will be "damned" though, and there are far better solutions to climate change than letting them starve because of Zionist warmongers.

1
Gladaedreply
feddit.org

People love the international poor suffering. Well, realistically, their despair in preventing rapid climate change is larger. They don't actually care for the south, consistently.

0
slrpnk.net

The poor will suffer way worse if we don't stop using fossil fuels. This is short term thinking.

Ideally we would transition in a sane, controlled way that doesn't cause economic chaos. But since we haven't done that, it just leaves the hard way.

2
87Sixreply
lemmy.zip

You realize most of what you need in your daily life needs diesel almost everywhere in the chain of logistics, right?

No? Ah makes sense then.

7
Sl00kreply
programming.dev

Supply chain is the particular area of this I'd pushback pretty hard on and hope it's diesel use dies off and we have a swift conversion to electrification. You can pretty much run a full supply chain electrified now outside of the manufacturing sector (which is low oil use itself can mostly be supplied internally for most). It just takes the proper upfront investment, which is also the better longterm investment but capitalism only cares about short term gains. Perhaps this will be the straw that breaks the camels back.

Fertilizer is the one that's pretty tough to get around, and there's going to be a humanitarian crisis that we should be thinking about.

3
87Sixreply
lemmy.zip

I don't really see how you can replace the ships and semitrucks that run on diesel unfortunately.

You can't really have an electric rail that leads to every logistical hub, and electric semitrucks were a massive failure because they can't haul as much, for as long of a distance, and they cost way more to operate.

The only solution is to subsidize such stuff forever.

0

Dream bigger! Amazon already has last mile distribution hubs set up every major city. It's absolutely feasible to run electric rail to major last mile distribution hubs.

We used to build things very fast in the 1900s in the US. Nowadays not so much.

On the semi trucks we would need a different solution, either push new battery tech pretty hard or swap to hydrogen. Harder for sure.

Some ships are already starting to move back to wind sail systems that can increase efficiency by 30%. It's actually really effective.

I think we are phenomenal engineers here on earth, we just happen to put all that energy into bombs, targeting systems, etc. We can achieve and do a lot, we're just focused on the wrong thing.

0

They're telling greenlit countries go around through Iranian waters, so they can mine the main shipping channel whenever they want without warning and still let friendly traffic through up against their costline where it's easier to police.

3

They have two quote on quote nuclear bombs. One it mining the straight and the other is attacking oil fields and refineries.

To date those attacks were limited to the accompanying military installations and trivially repaired. If struck the oil price will actually start rising.

1

I think they already did. Last week (or the week before? time flies) there were a bunch of speedboats deployed into the strait. But the thing about mines is you know where you've deployed them, so you know where not to go and you can tell others. They would have mined the far end of the strait to force ships to stick close to the iranian shore, where they can be hit at will.

1
vga
sopuli.xyz

Perhaps they should also allow Switzerland's ships

1

Id argue there's a difference between being "Neutral" and condemning war. War is just good business for Switzerland

8