Attack on Saudi oil field; 5 mil. barrels per day lost

[North German Realm]

I can't blame the Saudis for making my personal life a literal living hell.

Sure, but there's quite a few yemeni's now that *can* blame the saudi's for that. Hell, not just now, apart from the kumbayah moment of the egyptian intervention there's been bad blood there a long time.
Don't think my hearts bleeding for them houthi's, egypt may not have had the best intentions but it was them or the mullah's/emir's, and both those folks came out against em. Still, factor in the human cost of conflict: is it all that right to inflict ones resentments on others?
As for Yemen being largely uninhabited, men can only go where men can go. I'll schlep up to the rockies, plenty of life there regardless of humans, I ain't going up the yemeni ones.

And if the Yemenis want someone to invade Saudi Arabia and execute every single member of the government and the Royal Family and put a democratic, secular, and anti-Islamic government -regardless of whether it's another dynasty or flat out a republic- in charge, I won't blame them (I'll support them, actually).

[Kubra]

They have the ability to compromise it *if* the conflict carries on. Existential conflicts aren't brought about by the fear of conflict, but by the fear of peace.
Like cmon man by your logic most wars in the last couple centuries ought to have been existential slogs, instead of just, y'know, regular ol' wars.

Literally none of that is logically coherent. If the attacks are dangerous enough to force the Saudis to give up in your view, then by definition they pose an existential threat; if they don't then Saudi Arabia has no reason to give up because they do not present a realistic ability to challenge their assertion of power into Yemen. As I said, you have to pick one line here because you're attempting to make a self-contradicting argument.

I don't want you at the helm of defense policy, man: you'll invade people simply because they *can* attack, without making judgement on whether or not they will.
An existential threat ain't one that simply can attack, it is one that is attacking or gonna attack. Imagine you're a german, late 1944, the allies don't want to hear about negotiated settlements, they're just gonna keep going until you stop. That's existential. Imagine you're an egyptian circa 1967, Israeli has just driven you tidily out of the Sinai with your tail between your legs, and the ambassador comes up and says "weeeeeell we're gonna take the west bank but if you're cool with that you can have the sinai back". That is, well, that's not really existential, is it?

Like for real man this is basic clausewitz.

[Kubra]

Sure, but there's quite a few yemeni's now that *can* blame the saudi's for that. Hell, not just now, apart from the kumbayah moment of the egyptian intervention there's been bad blood there a long time.
Don't think my hearts bleeding for them houthi's, egypt may not have had the best intentions but it was them or the mullah's/emir's, and both those folks came out against em. Still, factor in the human cost of conflict: is it all that right to inflict ones resentments on others?
As for Yemen being largely uninhabited, men can only go where men can go. I'll schlep up to the rockies, plenty of life there regardless of humans, I ain't going up the yemeni ones.

And if the Yemenis want someone to invade Saudi Arabia and execute every single member of the government and the Royal Family and put a democratic, secular, and anti-Islamic government -regardless of whether it's another dynasty or flat out a republic- in charge, I won't blame them (I'll support them, actually).

But in the meantime, they are dying, and you're cheerleading. What makes you better than the Iranians, man?

[Totally Not OEP]

Literally none of that is logically coherent. If the attacks are dangerous enough to force the Saudis to give up in your view, then by definition they pose an existential threat; if they don't then Saudi Arabia has no reason to give up because they do not present a realistic ability to challenge their assertion of power into Yemen. As I said, you have to pick one line here because you're attempting to make a self-contradicting argument.

I don't want you at the helm of defense policy, man: you'll invade people simply because they *can* attack, without making judgement on whether or not they will.
An existential threat ain't one that simply can attack, it is one that is attacking or gonna attack. Imagine you're a german, late 1944, the allies don't want to hear about negotiated settlements, they're just gonna keep going until you stop. That's existential. Imagine you're an egyptian circa 1967, Israeli has just driven you tidily out of the Sinai with your tail between your legs, and the ambassador comes up and says "weeeeeell we're gonna take the west bank but if you're cool with that you can have the sinai back". That is, well, that's not really existential, is it?

Except that's moving the goalposts on your end; as I said, pick one in your argument.

[Salandriagado]

The oil's still being burned, just a touch earlier than expected. Even once they get the fire stopped, the same amount of oil will still be burned globally, they'll just up the output elsewhere (once they've milked this for as big an increase in oil prices as possible). Environmentally, this is pretty much a wash.

That's not what happened. The attack did cause a major fire at a refinery facility, but it's not 5 million barrels of oil per day being burned. The supply disruption is because the facilities targeted are the bottleneck in Saudi oil production. All of the facilities further upstream, from the wells to the pipelines, have to be idled now because of this.

Please, OPEC has been keeping oil prices up by limiting output for decades. They'll milk this for the price rise, while still fulfilling everything from their reserves. Zero oil will not be used when it otherwise would have been.

[North German Realm]

Literally none of that is logically coherent. If the attacks are dangerous enough to force the Saudis to give up in your view, then by definition they pose an existential threat; if they don't then Saudi Arabia has no reason to give up because they do not present a realistic ability to challenge their assertion of power into Yemen. As I said, you have to pick one line here because you're attempting to make a self-contradicting argument.

I don't want you at the helm of defense policy, man: you'll invade people simply because they *can* attack, without making judgement on whether or not they will.
An existential threat ain't one that simply can attack, it is one that is attacking or gonna attack. Imagine you're a german, late 1944, the allies don't want to hear about negotiated settlements, they're just gonna keep going until you stop. That's existential. Imagine you're an egyptian circa 1967, Israeli has just driven you tidily out of the Sinai with your tail between your legs, and the ambassador comes up and says "weeeeeell we're gonna take the west bank but if you're cool with that you can have the sinai back". That is, well, that's not really existential, is it?

The Houthis are ideologically the same as the Islamic Republic and they don't have a state to lose if they lose their war. Their nature as unlawful combatants helps them garner sympathy when the Saudis do actually strike against their agitations -the poor reputation the Saudis have garnered doesn't help. This means you have an Islamic Republic-lite that doesn't actually have to worry about invasion and the logistics of a war (because anyone who's part of the Houthis is going to fight. Anyone who's part of Iran isn't going to fight for the Islamic Republic, even in case of an invasion). This attack -if it was done by the Houthis and not outright done by the Islamic Occupation in Iran- proves that they are willing to enter a new level of warfare against the Saudis -hit their most important economic assets. The Houthis are an existential threat. They just hide behind the disguise of a small unlawful militia.

[North German Realm]

And if the Yemenis want someone to invade Saudi Arabia and execute every single member of the government and the Royal Family and put a democratic, secular, and anti-Islamic government -regardless of whether it's another dynasty or flat out a republic- in charge, I won't blame them (I'll support them, actually).

But in the meantime, they are dying, and you're cheerleading. What makes you better than the Iranians, man?

Nothing. I hate the Islamic Republic and want it -and any political body or polity that supports it- to die in the most violent way. If that means Yemenis have to suffer, I guess the Yemenis better up their act and kill the Houthis themselves.

[Trotskylvania]

They have the ability to compromise it *if* the conflict carries on. Existential conflicts aren't brought about by the fear of conflict, but by the fear of peace.
Like cmon man by your logic most wars in the last couple centuries ought to have been existential slogs, instead of just, y'know, regular ol' wars.

Literally none of that is logically coherent. If the attacks are dangerous enough to force the Saudis to give up in your view, then by definition they pose an existential threat; if they don't then Saudi Arabia has no reason to give up because they do not present a realistic ability to challenge their assertion of power into Yemen. As I said, you have to pick one line here because you're attempting to make a self-contradicting argument.

This is basic game theory: limited vs. unlimited contests.

Saudi is engaged in an imperialist venture in Yemen, and they're indiscriminately murdering and ruining the country in the service of whose ally controls the state in Yemen. The game ends when they chose to disengage, whether victorious or defeated.

The Houthis are engaged in an unlimited contest by the very nature of the conflict. The only 'victory' condition they have is to continue playing. But as long as they continue playing, Saudi cannot win.

Saudi can always walk away from this conflict. The Houthis cannot.

The Saudis, like any petrostate, is chiefly concerned in keeping that oil flowing the rest of the world. Hindering that process does nothing really to affect the ability of the Saudi government to wage the war in material terms. It just increases the political economic cost. They can always fix the refineries every time they get attacked, and it looks like each of these attacks will only shut them down for a few days totally, and perhaps within several weeks they'll be back up to full production.

But that's also a lot of lost money. And eventually it will outweigh whatever they gain from war in Yemen.

[Kubra]

I don't want you at the helm of defense policy, man: you'll invade people simply because they *can* attack, without making judgement on whether or not they will.
An existential threat ain't one that simply can attack, it is one that is attacking or gonna attack. Imagine you're a german, late 1944, the allies don't want to hear about negotiated settlements, they're just gonna keep going until you stop. That's existential. Imagine you're an egyptian circa 1967, Israeli has just driven you tidily out of the Sinai with your tail between your legs, and the ambassador comes up and says "weeeeeell we're gonna take the west bank but if you're cool with that you can have the sinai back". That is, well, that's not really existential, is it?

Except that's moving the goalposts on your end; as I said, pick one in your argument.

Moving the goalposts, eh? Let's revisit those goalposts

Nah. Existential conflicts are ones with existential foes, ones that have every intention of moving in and making a run of the place. Iran declares war, that's existential, because that's going to involve both sides looking at invasion and unconditional surrender and total dismantling of the other and all that.
Yemen? I meeeaaaan Yemen ain't much harm to anyone, if the Saudi's leave off they lose a regional client to Iran which sucks but it isn't going to keep folks up at night.

Oh look, all I've done is restate something I had already said with examples that I *thought* would be more comprehensible to you.

Bit earlier

This isn't exactly an existential conflict for the Saudi's, it's a skirmish on the border for mere geopolitical interest. That don't give folks much appetite for war once it starts hitting pocketbooks.

I mean I can understand your confusion, I've deciphered your language: for you, existential is anything that might threaten, no? Shall as Canadians abandon diplomacy and fortify our southern border? Ya'll got nukes, we ain't.

[Kubra]

But in the meantime, they are dying, and you're cheerleading. What makes you better than the Iranians, man?

Nothing. I hate the Islamic Republic and want it -and any political body or polity that supports it- to die in the most violent way. If that means Yemenis have to suffer, I guess the Yemenis better up their act and kill the Houthis themselves.

i was going to ask "well then what's wrong with the mullah's thinking the same on you and your ilk" but I can guess the answer: nothing, no?

[Nakena]

But in the meantime, they are dying, and you're cheerleading. What makes you better than the Iranians, man?

Nothing. I hate the Islamic Republic and want it -and any political body or polity that supports it- to die in the most violent way. If that means Yemenis have to suffer, I guess the Yemenis better up their act and kill the Houthis themselves.

Like I said before, it wouldn horribly bad if they got a few punches here and there.

[Trotskylvania]

That's not what happened. The attack did cause a major fire at a refinery facility, but it's not 5 million barrels of oil per day being burned. The supply disruption is because the facilities targeted are the bottleneck in Saudi oil production. All of the facilities further upstream, from the wells to the pipelines, have to be idled now because of this.

Please, OPEC has been keeping oil prices up by limiting output for decades. They'll milk this for the price rise, while still fulfilling everything from their reserves. Zero oil will not be used when it otherwise would have been.

Oil has been at sub 70 dollars a barrel for several years now because OPEC has not been engaging in supply manipulation in an ultimately vain effort to choke off oil sands production from non-OPEC nations. The price of oil has jumped precisely because of this bottleneck reducing global supply. It's costing them hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue everyday that ARAMCO is non-operational.

[North German Realm]

Nothing. I hate the Islamic Republic and want it -and any political body or polity that supports it- to die in the most violent way. If that means Yemenis have to suffer, I guess the Yemenis better up their act and kill the Houthis themselves.

i was going to ask "well then what's wrong with the mullah's thinking the same on you and your ilk" but I can guess the answer: nothing, no?

A lot, actually. You see, The Yemenis have the ability to eradicate a rebellion -by not joining it, by helping the legitimate military of the country, by a lot of other ways. I (and other Iranian people) don't have a way to remove the Islamic Republic ourselves. And honestly? I don't give a fuck what you think about my thinking process -not enough to actually respond to you if you get back to your retarded whataboutism again.

[Kubra]

i was going to ask "well then what's wrong with the mullah's thinking the same on you and your ilk" but I can guess the answer: nothing, no?

A lot, actually. You see, The Yemenis have the ability to eradicate a rebellion -by not joining it, by helping the legitimate military of the country, by a lot of other ways. I (and other Iranian people) don't have a way to remove the Islamic Republic ourselves. And honestly? I don't give a fuck what you think about my thinking process -not enough to actually respond to you if you get back to your retarded whataboutism again.

Oh yes, and go over to the saudi's, the bombers. You too could avoid a lot of hassle with Iran if you just, y'know get down with their whole thing, say Ali was the right Calpih and all, how hard can that be? No harder than an entire population suddenly deciding it's had it with this whole islam business, no?

Cmon man, humour me, what makes you better than the mullah's?

[Nakena]

Nothing. I hate the Islamic Republic and want it -and any political body or polity that supports it- to die in the most violent way. If that means Yemenis have to suffer, I guess the Yemenis better up their act and kill the Houthis themselves.

i was going to ask "well then what's wrong with the mullah's thinking the same on you and your ilk" but I can guess the answer: nothing, no?

You're terribly wrong. Want me to analyize your thinking process? IRI good because its against le ebil imperialist murica and absolutly everything, maybe short of Nazi-Germany and DPRK, that is against le ebil imperialist-capitalist murica ought to be defended. Right?

Yuri was right once again.

A lot, actually. You see, The Yemenis have the ability to eradicate a rebellion -by not joining it, by helping the legitimate military of the country, by a lot of other ways. I (and other Iranian people) don't have a way to remove the Islamic Republic ourselves. And honestly? I don't give a fuck what you think about my thinking process -not enough to actually respond to you if you get back to your retarded whataboutism again.

Oh yes, and go over to the saudi's, the bombers. You too could avoid a lot of hassle with Iran if you just, y'know get down with their whole thing, say Ali was the right Calpih and all, how hard can that be? No harder than an entire population suddenly deciding it's had it with this whole islam business, no?

Cmon man, humour me, what makes you better than the mullah's?

Dude your whatever ya smoking sucks. lol.

[Trotskylvania]

i was going to ask "well then what's wrong with the mullah's thinking the same on you and your ilk" but I can guess the answer: nothing, no?

A lot, actually. You see, The Yemenis have the ability to eradicate a rebellion -by not joining it, by helping the legitimate military of the country, by a lot of other ways. I (and other Iranian people) don't have a way to remove the Islamic Republic ourselves. And honestly? I don't give a fuck what you think about my thinking process -not enough to actually respond to you if you get back to your retarded whataboutism again.

Yemen is a failed state in the midst of a civil war for four and a half years now. Who is the legitimate government is not a settled question. The previous president and cabinet did in fact resign against the growing mass revolt over unpopular policies, and then once the Saudi government decided to intervene, they decided to mulligan that.

Hundreds of thousands of people have died from this war. The country is in ruins, for no appreciable gains. Siding with the people who caused this charnel house is more than a little ghoulish.

[Kubra]

i was going to ask "well then what's wrong with the mullah's thinking the same on you and your ilk" but I can guess the answer: nothing, no?

You're terribly wrong. Want me to analyize your thinking process? IRI good because its against le ebil imperialist murica and absolutly everything, maybe short of Nazi-Germany and DPRK, that is against le ebil imperialist-capitalist murica ought to be defended. Thats the logic of your and your ilk. Always has been, always will be.

Oh yes, and go over to the saudi's, the bombers. You too could avoid a lot of hassle with Iran if you just, y'know get down with their whole thing, say Ali was the right Calpih and all, how hard can that be? No harder than an entire population suddenly deciding it's had it with this whole islam business, no?

Cmon man, humour me, what makes you better than the mullah's?

Dude your whatever ya smoking sucks. lol.

Oh, so let me clarify: you're in full agreement with NGR, yeah?

[Nakena]

You're terribly wrong. Want me to analyize your thinking process? IRI good because its against le ebil imperialist murica and absolutly everything, maybe short of Nazi-Germany and DPRK, that is against le ebil imperialist-capitalist murica ought to be defended. Thats the logic of your and your ilk. Always has been, always will be.



Dude your whatever ya smoking sucks. lol.

Oh, so let me clarify: you're in full agreement with NGR, yeah?

I haven't read all his postings so I cannot be in full agreement obviously.

I am opposed to the Mullah regime and believe it's a disgrace for Iran and this world and that it should be destroyed if such opportunity arises.

As for Yemen thats a different story and everyone agrees that it is a total clusterfuck.

[Kubra]

Oh, so let me clarify: you're in full agreement with NGR, yeah?

I haven't read all his postings so I cannot be in full agreement obviously.

I am opposed to the Mullah regime and believe it's a disgrace for Iran and this world and that it should be destroyed if such opportunity arises.

As for Yemen thats a different story and everyone agrees that it is a total clusterfuck.

I was ragging on em for shrugging off yemeni civilian casualties with cheers and applause, man. That's why I asked what makes em better than mullah's. you see why a guy might ponder such, right?

[North German Realm]

I haven't read all his postings so I cannot be in full agreement obviously.

I am opposed to the Mullah regime and believe it's a disgrace for Iran and this world and that it should be destroyed if such opportunity arises.

As for Yemen thats a different story and everyone agrees that it is a total clusterfuck.

I was ragging on em for shrugging off yemeni civilian casualties with cheers and applause, man. That's why I asked what makes em better than mullah's. you see why a guy might ponder such, right?

It's not about being better than the Mullahs. This isn't a morality contest. It's a survival contest and as far as I'm concerned, anyone who sides with the Mullahs deserves everything that happens to them and worse.

[Kubra]

I was ragging on em for shrugging off yemeni civilian casualties with cheers and applause, man. That's why I asked what makes em better than mullah's. you see why a guy might ponder such, right?

It's not about being better than the Mullahs. This isn't a morality contest. It's a survival contest and as far as I'm concerned, anyone who sides with the Mullahs deserves everything that happens to them and worse.

And I mean I guess you're welcome to that view, but it ain't gonna make you any friends unless you decide to start berating naysayers for liking mausoleums.

[Nakena]

I was ragging on em for shrugging off yemeni civilian casualties with cheers and applause, man. That's why I asked what makes em better than mullah's. you see why a guy might ponder such, right?

It's not about being better than the Mullahs. This isn't a morality contest. It's a survival contest and as far as I'm concerned, anyone who sides with the Mullahs deserves everything that happens to them and worse.

Thats what a lot of people fail to understand because liberalist indoctrination and misguided moralism.

[Kubra]

It's not about being better than the Mullahs. This isn't a morality contest. It's a survival contest and as far as I'm concerned, anyone who sides with the Mullahs deserves everything that happens to them and worse.

Thats what a lot of people fail to understand because liberalist indoctrination and misguided moralism.

Oh yeah liberalist indoctrination like not being too fond of civilians getting offed. I mean here's NGR, in effect saying that them civvies have it coming by pretty much for being zaidi and next to the wahhabist big dog, and here you are, totally down with that, no?
Come out and say it man, NGR has: are you down with the dying?

[North German Realm]

Thats what a lot of people fail to understand because liberalist indoctrination and misguided moralism.

Oh yeah liberalist indoctrination like not being too fond of civilians getting offed. I mean here's NGR, in effect saying that them civvies have it coming by pretty much for being zaidi and next to the wahhabist big dog, and here you are, totally down with that, no?
Come out and say it man, NGR has: are you down with the dying?

I live about 500 meters north of the Ministry of the Interior in Tehran and I call for war against the Islamic Republic. Do your math.

[Nakena]

Thats what a lot of people fail to understand because liberalist indoctrination and misguided moralism.

Oh yeah liberalist indoctrination like not being too fond of civilians getting offed. I mean here's NGR, in effect saying that them civvies have it coming by pretty much for being zaidi and next to the wahhabist big dog, and here you are, totally down with that, no?
Come out and say it man, NGR has: are you down with the dying?

That is actually the ultimative consequence of popular sovereignity and democracy that the people become one with the body politic and thus civilian become acceptable targets if they belong to the "wrong" religion or ethnicity.

Of course I am somewhat critical of that concept, being an aristocratic spirited lady. And of course I am opposed to the wanton slaughter of random civilians as been conducted by the coward and disgusting al-Saud for they lack the courage and bravity to stage an ground assault. That does not mean however, that I am cheering their opponents for I can well differentiate between civilians and those who aren't.

Oh yes and you may address me now with Milady.