Ed Israel/US Attacks Iran /Yet Another Country/Iran

[Ziggurat]

Preventing the other guy from getting oil is what got the US into WW2.

I already pointed this out, but we aren't preventing China from getting oil. They can buy as much as they want. We're just restricting their access to oil at below-market rates.

 

[Steve]

I already pointed this out, but we aren't preventing China from getting oil. They can buy as much as they want. We're just restricting their access to oil at below-market rates.

Emily's Cat is the poster that needs to understand this. No one else here seems to have a problem with it.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

I already pointed this out, but we aren't preventing China from getting oil. They can buy as much as they want. We're just restricting their access to oil at below-market rates.

Why do you hate capitalism?

 

[Ziggurat]

Why do you hate capitalism?

I think you're confused about what that word means.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I already pointed this out, but we aren't preventing China from getting oil. They can buy as much as they want. We're just restricting their access to oil at below-market rates.

Both events mean making it harder for the other guy to get the resource he wants and needs. The question is, are you risking making it sufficiently hard that he'll decide to do something regrettable about it.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I already pointed this out, but we aren't preventing China from getting oil. They can buy as much as they want. We're just restricting their access to oil at below-market rates.

So oil price had to be a US controlled cartel?

 

[Ziggurat]

Both events mean making it harder for the other guy to get the resource he wants and needs. The question is, are you risking making it sufficiently hard that he'll decide to do something regrettable about it.

That is... unlikely.

First off, having to pay more isn't the same as not being able to get it at all. This is a problem for China, but it's not an existential threat. It's costly, but not nearly as costly as war.

For another, though, the situation with Japan vs. China really isn't remotely equivalent. Japan didn't attack Pearl Harbor for revenge against our oil embargo. They attacked Pearl Harbor because they wanted to seize oil resources in Southeast Asia and wanted to prevent the US from interfering with those efforts. The attack was intended to solve their oil problem. It didn't end up working, but the idea was at least rational.

Could China do likewise? No, it couldn't. They do not have the military capability to project significant power into the middle east. They could not open up Hormuz by force even if they wanted to. They could not stop our attacks on Iran even if they wanted to. So what can their military do? Well, they've been building it with the express purpose of invading Taiwan. It's not a given that they could succeed, but that's what their capabilities are built for. Would invading Taiwan secure any oil? No, it wouldn't. Taiwan has no oil. Would it give them easier access to oil? No, it wouldn't. Oil trade doesn't run through Taiwan either. Open war would much more likely restrict the oil imports they're already getting.

So why would this drive China to go to war?

 

[Ziggurat]

So oil price had to be a US controlled cartel?

Who said that? I didn't say that. I didn't imply that. That isn't a remotely logical conclusion from anything I said.

And the US isn't part of OPEC.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

That is... unlikely.

First off, having to pay more isn't the same as not being able to get it at all. This is a problem for China, but it's not an existential threat. It's costly, but not nearly as costly as war.

For another, though, the situation with Japan vs. China really isn't remotely equivalent. Japan didn't attack Pearl Harbor for revenge against our oil embargo. They attacked Pearl Harbor because they wanted to seize oil resources in Southeast Asia and wanted to prevent the US from interfering with those efforts. The attack was intended to solve their oil problem. It didn't end up working, but the idea was at least rational.

Could China do likewise? No, it couldn't. They do not have the military capability to project significant power into the middle east. They could not open up Hormuz by force even if they wanted to. They could not stop our attacks on Iran even if they wanted to. So what can their military do? Well, they've been building it with the express purpose of invading Taiwan. It's not a given that they could succeed, but that's what their capabilities are built for. Would invading Taiwan secure any oil? No, it wouldn't. Taiwan has no oil. Would it give them easier access to oil? No, it wouldn't. Oil trade doesn't run through Taiwan either. Open war would much more likely restrict the oil imports they're already getting.

So why would this drive China to go to war?

I don't think this will drive China to war.

I just wanted to make the point that the precise method by which you put the squeeze on another country isn't especially important. Not to them anyway. What matters is the effect it has, and whether that gets bad enough to tip them over into trying another option.

China's main option is the one you describe. It wouldn't fix their oil problem directly but the threat of holding Taiwan's chip industry to ransom might get them what they want indirectly instead. Or they might think so, which amounts to the same thing.

 

[Steve]

Who said that? I didn't say that. I didn't imply that. That isn't a remotely logical conclusion from anything I said.

And the US isn't part of OPEC.

"Who said that? (He) didn't say that. (He) didn't imply that. That isn't a remotely logical conclusion from anything (he) said."

Why do you think a "US controlled cartel" has to necessarily be a part of OPEC?

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

I think you're confused about what that word means.

I'd say that abusing a country brought in a dire situation by a rival to get a key resource at below cost to make a profit is pure capitalism? But I guess I'm wrong.

 

[Ziggurat]

Why do you think a "US controlled cartel" has to necessarily be a part of OPEC?

OPEC is the only cartel that tries to control oil price.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'd say that abusing a country brought in a dire situation by a rival to get a key resource at below cost to make a profit is pure capitalism? But I guess I'm wrong.

I didn't say below cost, I said below market rate. Those are very different things. And government controlled supplies are very much NOT capitalism. So yeah, you're wrong.

 

[Steve]

OPEC is the only cartel that tries to control oil price.

"We're just restricting their access to oil at below-market rates."

 

[Andy_Ross]

TRUMP: We're gonna be attacking Iran, and attacking them very hard.

REPORTER: Resuming bombing?

TRUMP: Yeah. We are.

Video in link

 

[Ziggurat]

"We're just restricting their access to oil at below-market rates."

Yes. That doesn't mean we're controlling that rate. Why does this confuse you?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

TRUMP: We're gonna be attacking Iran, and attacking them very hard.

REPORTER: Resuming bombing?

TRUMP: Yeah. We are.

Video in link

Reporter I Wish Was There: Will that work this time?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

How long until Trump says a deal is imminent for the 38th time?

 

[Steve]

Yes. That doesn't mean we're controlling that rate. Why does this confuse you?

That is exactly what it means. Why does this confuse you?

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

I didn't say below cost, I said below market rate. Those are very different things. And government controlled supplies are very much NOT capitalism. So yeah, you're wrong.

Ah, so buying things below market rate to profit from that is not capitalism. And governments can never be capitalistic. Got it.