|
Originally Posted by Extenda
(Post 4015093)
I don’t understand it. So we are at war with them, but we LIFT the sanctions on their oil, which is now worth double the price on the open market, BECAUSE we’re at war with them, and they can now use this windfall, to help wage war against us…
Bruh: “Iran is harmless. They’ll never go nuke” Boomer: “You know that how?” Bruh: “The Dow, down 22 points today” |
Originally Posted by Turbosina
(Post 4015037)
So let's summarize for the moment, the current economic effects of the war and ask: who is benefiting?
American oil companies will also see their profits increase significantly. None of that, however, will be returned to consumers. Chevron execs will do very well from this whole quagmire. Weapons manufacturers will all do quite well. The American taxpayer, meanwhile, is now being asked to pony up an additional $200 BN, which will of course be rolled into the already catastrophic national debt. Overall inflation will absolutely increase (there is no way it can't, considering that the cost of oil directly affects so many of the goods that we buy.) Yet at the same time you'll see economic growth slow or reverse, because when gas goes to $10/gallon (as it might well do), consumer spending will absolutely take a hit. So just to review: Essentially what we're accomplishing is a wealth transfer from American consumers (and consumers in allied countries) to a couple of pretty terrible regimes, plus the execs and shareholders of a few very large companies (oil and defense, mostly). That flow of wealth will directly strengthen our adversaries. |
Originally Posted by John Carr
(Post 4015099)
Wait, we talking about Iran or Ukraine here in regards to the U.S. population having to fund a war and pay more at the pump, as well as how well defense contractors and weapons manufactures?
|
Originally Posted by Turbosina
(Post 4015037)
So let's summarize for the moment, the current economic effects of the war and ask: who is benefiting?
Crude oil has nearly doubled in cost, thereby pumping significantly more revenue into the coffers of .. Russia and Iran. Some of the added dollars you pay at the pump, are directly funding those regimes. And now that we're lifting sanctions on Russian oil (with SecTreas contemplating doing the same to Iranian oil), we're helping our enemies earn even more money, with which to buy more weapons and strengthen their own military capabilities. American oil companies will also see their profits increase significantly. None of that, however, will be returned to consumers. Chevron execs will do very well from this whole quagmire. Weapons manufacturers will all do quite well. The American taxpayer, meanwhile, is now being asked to pony up an additional $200 BN , which will of course be rolled into the already catastrophic national debt. Overall inflation will absolutely increase (there is no way it can't, considering that the cost of oil directly affects so many of the goods that we buy.) Yet at the same time you'll see economic growth slow or reverse, because when gas goes to $10/gallon (as it might well do), consumer spending will absolutely take a hit. For those of you who remember the late 70s, that's what stagflation was. Rising prices coupled with a shrinking economy and rising unemployment. The last time stagflation happened, it was triggered by an oil shock created by OPEC. This time -- it'll be entirely our own doing. A rather stunning "own goal." Bravo!! So just to review: Essentially what we're accomplishing is a wealth transfer from American consumers (and consumers in allied countries) to a couple of pretty terrible regimes, plus the execs and shareholders of a few very large companies (oil and defense, mostly). That flow of wealth will directly strengthen our adversaries. So much winning! |
Originally Posted by Turbosina
(Post 4015101)
Both. And your point is...?
Dont think I’ve seen you pitch a bytch in ANY of the Ukraine discussions….. |
Originally Posted by Extenda
(Post 4015093)
I don’t understand it. So we are at war with them, but we LIFT the sanctions on their oil, which is now worth double the price on the open market, BECAUSE we’re at war with them, and they can now use this windfall, to help wage war against us…
Cuba refuses to let US Embassy in Havana import diesel for its generators WASHINGTON (AP) — The Cuban government has refused a request by the U.S. Embassy in Havana to allow it to import diesel for its generators while the Trump administration continues to impose a fuel blockade on the island, two U.S. officials familiar with the matter said Friday. The government turned down the request as the U.S. State Department has been weighing a reduction in staffing at the embassy in the Cuban capital of Havana because of the lack of diesel. Such a move would likely lead to a U.S. demand for a similar reduction in staffing at the Cuban Embassy in Washington, say the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter. The Cuban government rejection was first reported by The Washington Post. The White House, State Department and Cuban Embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Cuba has struggled with dwindling oil since the U.S. removed Venezuela’s leader, halting critical petroleum shipments from the nation that had been a steadfast ally to Havana. President Donald Trump then threatened tariffs on any country selling or supplying Cuba with oil. Cuba readies for first Russian oil shipment of the year as energy crisis deepens Any one of these events would be newsworthy in a normal year, in 2026 they happen and get sidelined lol. |
Originally Posted by John Carr
(Post 4015109)
That our nation has a track record engaging in such activity. Which one causes you outrage and the complaint du jour?
Dont think I’ve seen you pitch a bytch in ANY of the Ukraine discussions….. |
Originally Posted by Turbosina
(Post 4015115)
If you can't see the difference between Russia attacking Ukraine and what we're doing in Iran, there's no point in engaging with you.
Doesn’t matter if it’s DA, or proxy. If you weren’t irritated by the billions we approved for the Ukraine conflict as well as the higher gas prices, “then there’s no point in engaging with you” :rolleyes: |
JetA continues to spiral, at that cost take what your airline spent in 2025 on fuel and double it. I suspect we will see some service curtailments soon.
https://i.ibb.co/HpfkbGhf/image.png Edit: Kirby cuts 5% of flights in first salvo United Airlines Planning to Cut Flights Amid Soaring Oil Prices |
Originally Posted by Name User
(Post 4015123)
JetA continues to spiral, at that cost take what your airline spent in 2025 on fuel and double it. I suspect we will see some service curtailments soon.
https://i.ibb.co/HpfkbGhf/image.png |
Originally Posted by Judge Smails
(Post 4015124)
Don’t forget the Russians. Our Dear Leader has lifted oil sanctions against them too. It helps them provide further intel on our positions to the Iranians and wage war against Ukraine. No need to worry though, our Dear Leader is a Master at 4D chess.
|
Originally Posted by John Carr
(Post 4015119)
That wasn’t the point. Nice try to parry it away…….
Doesn’t matter if it’s DA, or proxy. If you weren’t irritated by the billions we approved for the Ukraine conflict as well as the higher gas prices, “then there’s no point in engaging with you” :rolleyes: Ukraine was invaded by a neo-imperialist Russia, and oil and trade sanctions drove up global oil prices (worse in EU). Iran has been launching ranged attacks at GCC refineries and sinching oil supply routes with threat of destruction to oil barges. These countries are retaliating with similar targeted strikes to Iran's refineries. This drives up global prices (worse in Asia) because of physical, nearly irreprable damage to gas producing infrastructure. Oil sanction on Iran have been in place since 2006. If we can't agree on these factualy unbiased differences regardless of support for our attack or not there is no room for discussion. |
Originally Posted by DirkDiggler9999
(Post 4015137)
If I remember right, weren’t we energy independent not too long ago?
in truth the USA hasn't since the 1960s produced enough crude oil to meet the demand of refineries. example: 2025 crude oil extracted was about 13.4 million barrels per day. Refinery demand was about 16.5 mbd. A shortfall of crude oil that was just overv3 mbd. Most of that shortfall is covered by imported oil from Canada. |
If only the president knew.
|
Originally Posted by Round Luggage
(Post 4015157)
If only the president knew.
|
Remember 8 months ago when the Iranian nuclear program was “obliterated”, tariffs would raise so much revenue everyone was going to get a $2,000 stimmy check PLUS income tax was going to be eliminated because of DOGE cuts and tariff revenue?
I’m beginning to think my government and its media organs aren’t entirely trustworthy. |
Originally Posted by John Carr
(Post 4015119)
That wasn’t the point. Nice try to parry it away…….
Doesn’t matter if it’s DA, or proxy. If you weren’t irritated by the billions we approved for the Ukraine conflict as well as the higher gas prices, “then there’s no point in engaging with you” :rolleyes: |
Originally Posted by goshawk
(Post 4015152)
Iran has been launching ranged attacks at GCC refineries and sinching oil supply routes with threat of destruction to oil barges. These countries are retaliating with similar targeted strikes to Iran's refineries. This drives up global prices (worse in Asia) because of physical, nearly irreprable damage to gas producing infrastructure. Oil sanction on Iran have been in place since 2006. If we can't agree on these factualy unbiased differences regardless of support for our attack or not there is no room for discussion. |
So, how close to Armageddon is it before it’s “imminent.” Clearly, they were further along toward worldwide ICBM then was generally believed.
alt=""https://i.ibb.co/zW7zLx8q/F11-DE7-EC...-B27-AB2-C.jpg What if their progression toward nuclear weapons - which after all, IS 80 YEAR OLD TECHNOLOGY - was similarly more advanced than generally believed? Does an ICBM attack become “imminent” when it is still boosting - or must we wait until it’s in its ballistic phase of flight? |
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 4015195)
So, how close to Armageddon is it before it’s “imminent.” Clearly, they were further along toward worldwide ICBM then was generally believed.
alt=""https://i.ibb.co/zW7zLx8q/F11-DE7-EC...-B27-AB2-C.jpg What if their progression toward nuclear weapons - which after all, IS 80 YEAR OLD TECHNOLOGY - was similarly more advanced than generally believed? Does an ICBM attack become “imminent” when it is still boosting - or must we wait until it’s in its ballistic phase of flight? |
(Bloomberg) -- European natural gas prices will be a whopping 40% higher than previously projected for 2026 and will stay elevated through 2027 as the Iran war and closure of the Strait of Hormuz set off a supply shortfall, according to a report from HSBC Holdings PLC.
Dutch futures prices, Europe’s gas benchmark, are now expected to average $14 per million British thermal units next year and $10 per million Btu in 2027, the London-based investment bank said in its most recent forecast. HSBC’s outlook for 2028 and beyond remains $8.50 per million Btu. About 20% of global liquefied natural gas flows through Hormuz, a key waterway that’s been effectively closed since attacks began last month. That disruption to LNG supply will force European countries to pay a significant premium for fuel, the report said. Asian countries, which source around 26% of their LNG from Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, will have to scramble to find alternative cargoes, according to the report. Europe is particularly sensitive to an LNG supply shock as its storage levels are about 15 percentage points lower than the five-year average after a cold winter drove up demand for the heating and power-plant fuel.The sharp forecast price increase stands in stark contrast to US natural gas futures, which have barely budged as stockpiles are ample and US LNG export terminals are already operating near maximum capacity, insulating the world’s largest gas exporter from global supply shock. |
Originally Posted by JurgenKlopp
(Post 4015192)
For the purposes of facts can you please indicate which GCC country has launched retaliatory strikes against Iranian refineries?
|
Originally Posted by goshawk
(Post 4015152)
It is absolutely imperative we clarify that these are two completely different types of conflicts.
Originally Posted by goshawk
(Post 4015152)
Ukraine was invaded by a neo-imperialist Russia, and oil and trade sanctions drove up global oil prices (worse in EU).
Iran has been launching ranged attacks at GCC refineries and sinching oil supply routes with threat of destruction to oil barges. These countries are retaliating with similar targeted strikes to Iran's refineries. This drives up global prices (worse in Asia) because of physical, nearly irreprable damage to gas producing infrastructure. Oil sanction on Iran have been in place since 2006. If we can't agree on these factualy unbiased differences regardless of support for our attack or not there is no room for discussion. BOTH of these are/will be costing the U.S. tax payers 100 of billions of dollars. BOTH of these conflicts will affect oil prices. As mentioned, in one we're using direct military action to play whack a mole in an attempt to topple a regime. In another, we're funding a proxy in an attempt to bleed a foreign adversary dry/into extinction economically, and has been mentioned in the Ukraine threads ad nauseam, drive a regime change. All in attempts to exert/flex our power in various part of the world and eliminate threats. But, at the end of the day......... BOTH of these are/will be costing the U.S. tax payers 100 of billions of dollars. BOTH of these conflicts will affect oil prices. Let me guess, you have a Ukraine flag in your yard? And about Russia being "neo-imperial", does that make the U.S. paleo-imperial?
Originally Posted by AAdvocate
(Post 4015178)
Yep, none of them complained about the so called "Putin Price Hike" (although most of the price increases, including at the pump, was really caused by the misnamed Inflation Reduction Act).
"There will be costs as well here in the United States," he said on March 8, 2022.At a NATO summit that June, he told reporters that Americans should be prepared to pay higher prices "as long as it takes, so Russia cannot defeat Ukraine." drivers can expect to pay higher gas prices for “as long as it takes” for Ukraine to win the war against Russia |
Originally Posted by AAdvocate
(Post 4015178)
Yep, none of them complained about the so called "Putin Price Hike" (although most of the price increases, including at the pump, was really caused by the misnamed Inflation Reduction Act).
People, such as myself, who supported efforts to aid Ukraine and thwart Russia did not complain because it was viewed as a price well worth paying. The corollary to that is that those who either supported Russia, opposed aid to Ukraine, (or both), used the spike in gas prices as a criticism of the actions taken. I won't reopen some of the reasoning involved in materially supporting Ukraine, but to imply that "none of them complained" was due to some sort of domestic partisanship rah-rah is wrong. Many understood clearly what was at stake. They knew that it would take some degree of distress/pain in order to preserve one of the signal achievements of post WW2 governance. With that understanding in mind, it would have been rather stupid to complain about gas prices, would it not? |
Originally Posted by Turbosina
(Post 4015159)
He was right about one thing. I am indeed "tired of all the winning."
|
Originally Posted by DirkDiggler9999
(Post 4015137)
If I remember right, weren’t we energy independent not too long ago?
But, that doesn't matter. We import a lot of fertilizer and the price of Jet fuel is up 88%. Our economy is not insulated from the voluntary destruction we are causing. |
So let's see, in June 2025, the individual occupying the Oval Office stated that "Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated." That is a direct quote.
The individual calling himself the "Secretary of War" stated, and I quote, "Our bombing campaign obliterated Iran’s ability to create nuclear weapons. Our massive bombs hit exactly the right spot at each target and worked perfectly. The impact of those bombs is buried under a mountain of rubble in Iran; so anyone who says the bombs were not devastating is just trying to undermine the President and the successful mission.” The White House's own page, as you all can see for yourself, stated "Iran's Nuclear Faclities Have Been Obliterated -- And Suggestions Otherwise are Fake News." Yet the primary justification given for this current "Excursion" is that Iran was moments away from attacking us and Israel with nuclear weapons. To quote the same individual occupying the White House: " So, MAGA fans. One of these sets of statements is a baldfaced lie. Both statements cannot be true at the same time. Which one do you believe? |
So now we attack civilian infrastructure (power plants) if Iran doesn’t open up the SOH.
Hilariously pathetic. |
Originally Posted by Turbosina
(Post 4015394)
So let's see, in June 2025, the individual occupying the Oval Office stated that "Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated." That is a direct quote.
The individual calling himself the "Secretary of War" stated, and I quote, "Our bombing campaign obliterated Iran’s ability to create nuclear weapons. Our massive bombs hit exactly the right spot at each target and worked perfectly. The impact of those bombs is buried under a mountain of rubble in Iran; so anyone who says the bombs were not devastating is just trying to undermine the President and the successful mission.” The White House's own page, as you all can see for yourself, stated "Iran's Nuclear Faclities Have Been Obliterated -- And Suggestions Otherwise are Fake News." Yet the primary justification given for this current "Excursion" is that Iran was moments away from attacking us and Israel with nuclear weapons. To quote the same individual occupying the White House: " So, MAGA fans. One of these sets of statements is a baldfaced lie. Both statements cannot be true at the same time. Which one do you believe? 100% perfectly said. You won’t get an answer. It’s easier to say you have TDS. |
Originally Posted by Turbosina
(Post 4015394)
So let's see, in June 2025, the individual occupying the Oval Office stated that "Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated." That is a direct quote.
The individual calling himself the "Secretary of War" stated, and I quote, "Our bombing campaign obliterated Iran’s ability to create nuclear weapons. Our massive bombs hit exactly the right spot at each target and worked perfectly. The impact of those bombs is buried under a mountain of rubble in Iran; so anyone who says the bombs were not devastating is just trying to undermine the President and the successful mission.” The White House's own page, as you all can see for yourself, stated "Iran's Nuclear Faclities Have Been Obliterated -- And Suggestions Otherwise are Fake News." Yet the primary justification given for this current "Excursion" is that Iran was moments away from attacking us and Israel with nuclear weapons. To quote the same individual occupying the White House: " So, MAGA fans. One of these sets of statements is a baldfaced lie. Both statements cannot be true at the same time. Which one do you believe? |
Originally Posted by Turbosina
(Post 4015394)
So let's see, in June 2025, the individual occupying the Oval Office stated that "Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated." That is a direct quote.
The individual calling himself the "Secretary of War" stated, and I quote, "Our bombing campaign obliterated Iran’s ability to create nuclear weapons. Our massive bombs hit exactly the right spot at each target and worked perfectly. The impact of those bombs is buried under a mountain of rubble in Iran; so anyone who says the bombs were not devastating is just trying to undermine the President and the successful mission.” The White House's own page, as you all can see for yourself, stated "Iran's Nuclear Faclities Have Been Obliterated -- And Suggestions Otherwise are Fake News. What we’re witnessing is no charade, docudrama or global protest. Bonafide shooting war in near real time. The kind where souls vanish, bodies burn, untold millions of dreams end both near and far. A generation of blame & bitter reprisal to follow. New normals come quicker all the time. Get used to it. |
Originally Posted by METO Guido
(Post 4015440)
Even if Iran’s spiritual house of horror could be ‘obliterated’ with a single headshot, which of course it can’t, foolish to pretend a replacement won’t swiftly take up the cause. Or maybe it’s just me? 84yo swami zealots muttering death sermons behind cheesy silver whisker floor sweepers would never order a suicide vest like nuke attack. No wayyy.
What we’re witnessing is no charade, docudrama or global protest. Bonafide shooting war in near real time. The kind where souls vanish, bodies burn, untold millions of dreams end both near and far. A generation of blame & bitter reprisal to follow. New normals come quicker all the time. Get used to it. |
Originally Posted by FangsF15
(Post 4015439)
I can’t believe I’m weighing in here, but is it not possible that the best assessment/belief at the time was that the Fordow facilities were destroyed/obliterated, and that sometime later - after Iran doubled or tripled their efforts and went all in - got to a point where intel proved that earlier assessment obsolete, or even wrong in hindsight? It doesn’t make one or the other a lie, necessarily. Hyperbole is this president’s love language, btw. Just answering the question in good faith that you actually are seeking a plausible answer.
|
Originally Posted by ShyGuy
(Post 4015422)
So now we attack civilian infrastructure (power plants) if Iran doesn’t open up the SOH.
Hilariously pathetic. |
Originally Posted by word302
(Post 4015445)
Even if that's actually the case, do you think we can change any of it? We've been trying to change hearts and minds by force in the ME for at least half a century. It ain't working. It's never going to work. We are literally creating new generations of terrorists with every single bomb we drop.
|
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 4015456)
Do you seriously believe Hiroshima and Nagasaki WERE NOT “civilian infrastructure”? Or Tokyo? Or Dresden? Or Frankfurt?
Hard to keep up with you people. |
Originally Posted by Turbosina
(Post 4015394)
So let's see, in June 2025, the individual occupying the Oval Office stated that "Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated." That is a direct quote.
The individual calling himself the "Secretary of War" stated, and I quote, "Our bombing campaign obliterated Iran’s ability to create nuclear weapons. Our massive bombs hit exactly the right spot at each target and worked perfectly. The impact of those bombs is buried under a mountain of rubble in Iran; so anyone who says the bombs were not devastating is just trying to undermine the President and the successful mission.” The White House's own page, as you all can see for yourself, stated "Iran's Nuclear Faclities Have Been Obliterated -- And Suggestions Otherwise are Fake News." Yet the primary justification given for this current "Excursion" is that Iran was moments away from attacking us and Israel with nuclear weapons. To quote the same individual occupying the White House: " So, MAGA fans. One of these sets of statements is a baldfaced lie. Both statements cannot be true at the same time. Which one do you believe? |
Originally Posted by Hubcapped
(Post 4015447)
what are your thoughts on the tulsi gabbard depo where she said they had not reconstituted their nuclear capes and also refused to answer if iran was an imminent threat? Imo this does not allow for your assessment to be valid
Again, I’m not arguing one way or the other. My point is that assessments can be wrong, and they can also change over the course of 8 months. That doesn’t (necessarily) prove anyone is lying. Regardless, folks, please take a breath here. Lots of borderline posts, and some that have gone way over the line, on both sides. It is very clear on the posted Forum Rules, APC is not the place for partisan politics, among other things. If you can’t discuss the impacts of current events without breaking the posted Rules, those posts will be adjudicated appropriately. And when people can’t follow the long-posted rules, don’t be shocked when that happens, or when threads like this get closed. |
Originally Posted by FangsF15
(Post 4015480)
Honestly, I don’t know. It’s hard to separate the various biases, which includes media reporting, and know what the real truth is. We saw that in the run up to Iraq in 2003 with WMD. I think many legitimately thought there was WMD. Heck, even Iraqi generals were reportedly shocked to find out they didn’t have it. But in fairness, there was apparently also a lot of pressure to assess they had it, which turned out to be wrong. IDK.
Again, I’m not arguing one way or the other. My point is that assessments can be wrong, and they can also change over the course of 8 months. That doesn’t (necessarily) prove anyone is lying. Regardless, folks, please take a breath here. Lots of borderline posts, and some that have gone way over the line, on both sides. It is very clear on the posted Forum Rules, APC is not the place for partisan politics, among other things. If you can’t discuss the impacts of current events without breaking the posted Rules, those posts will be adjudicated appropriately. And when people can’t follow the long-posted rules, don’t be shocked when that happens, or when threads like this get closed. |
Originally Posted by FangsF15
(Post 4015480)
Honestly, I don’t know. It’s hard to separate the various biases, which includes media reporting, and know what the real truth is.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:00 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands