No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
view the rest of the comments
… I just realized you think my comments about Israel being a bully mean you think I mean the U.S. is destabilizing the Middle East.
And while that is true in limited contexts, I’m talking about Israel being a projection of U.S. power in the area, to prevent unity against the west. Obviously, the U.S. destabilizes countries that are opposed to the west, and fosters ones that aren’t.
The crux of the point you’re trying to attack me about is due to your lack of reading comprehension?
Okay.
Edit: Amidst my earlier realization, I edited out a line I should have included:
If you refute my claims, the onus is on you to disprove them. I will not make your argument for you. You must prove the statements you make, and you cannot merely assert that I am wrong while spinning a yarn that is not based in facts. I’m not arguing against your claims because I deem them to be of no value.
Anyway - start here, and stop wasting my time:
United States foreign policy in the Middle East – Wikipedia.
And pay attention to what it says about the 1967/1970 wars in Israel, and U.S. support. It directly contradicts an earlier statement you made.
This sequence of words is utterly meaningless. "You think I meant the US is destabilizing the Middle East, but actually I meant that the US uses Israel in limited contexts in order to destabilize the Middle East".
Huh? You're saying the US destabilizes countries opposed to the west in the Middle East, using Israel as a projection of power. So, you're saying that the US is destabilizing the Middle East. My reading comprehension is just fine, but you just have absolutely no clue what point you're even trying to make. Your position is completely incoherent and paradoxical.
No, it hasn't. The Middle East has never been even remotely unified, why would the US be concerned about that?
If anything, the existence of Israel is the most unifying force for many Middle Eastern countries who can barely agree on anything except hating Israel.
FOH with this bullshit, quote the relevant passage that you claim contradicts me. You constantly dodge and run away from any points made against you and try to move the goalposts to distract from your glaring ignorance and wrongness.
Alright. I’ll back up a bit. I was a bit distracted earlier and didn’t even realize I was dealing with a new account. They had commented on more than one of my posts - I just figured I was dealing with a persistent disinfo account.
So - in my post, I specifically said that was my take. Let’s start from that. I’m not going to deliver evidence for my opinions. That’s a fools errand to try to offer outside sources for those.
So - regarding access to oil. There’s a logical backing to that. Oil drives the world economy. But also the Wikipedia article I linked literally says that, and it provides sources.
Regarding current production of oil - my statement still stands.
The U.S. has a vested interest in keeping Middle East oil flowing and cheap until it’s no longer needed. Price shocks and further raises in oil prices are not conducive to the global economy. If global oil prices go up, it harms countries with free markets as their government can’t merely refuse to sell domestic supplies to stabilize domestic prices. Does it make sense how the U.S. free market system could cause a major domestic economic slowdown if global prices suddenly increased?
They also have a vested interest in having their western allies not grow closer/dependent on to Russia or China. Is that also not self-evident?
Taken together - a stable oil market means a healthy economy and unchanged projection of geopolitical power for the U.S., yes?
Regarding technological change and de-carbonization, I figured that was common knowledge. But I’m realizing my familiarity with that technology/market space for energy production/consumption is something I’ve taken for granted.
Right now renewables provide over 20% of electricity to the U.S. energy grid. I’ve heard (with my own ear) from an industry professional that the U.S. currently produces all of its electricity needs via renewables, but that electricity cannot reach the grid due to lack of investment in interconnection/distribution and regulatory roadblocks. With apologies - I cannot provide a source for their claims, but this was during a technical presentation while they were representing themselves and their organization.
My point, though, is the world is changing quite rapidly. Obviously there won’t be 100% reduction in demand, but enough to make the economics viable the manner I’ve outlined.
The rest of my statement about the U.S. then providing oil to its allies after a technological tipping point on price has been reached, as well as the one regarding no longer offering support to Israel after that is my own opinion, informed by the belief that the U.S. will take measures to stabilize the price of oil in its own domestic market, as too much of a drop in prices could lead to the closure of wells, harm to the domestic economy (due to loss of jobs, and uncontrollable price shocks), and a dependence on foreign oil. By becoming the go-to oil supplier for allies, it also makes those allies more dependent on the U.S. and brings them closer to it.
But Israel is a liability and always has been. They aren’t liked by their neighbors - some of them quite powerful. The relationship with the U.S. is not very mutually beneficial. The U.S. isn’t going to just ice out Israel, but I do believe they are going to withdraw the military support they have traditionally provided, as geopolitical goals change. This is an opinion I hold. Why would the U.S. expend resources without a return on investment?
I believe that all logically checks out as valid geopoliticals goal with solid reasoning - it does to me.
Regarding Israel and pushing non-Jews out: Fact Sheet: Palestinian Citizens of Israel.
You don’t have to read the whole thing, but I specifically wanted to highlight that Palestinians are not given political representation, and that laws exist to prevent the growth and spread of their minority within Israel.
But the actions of Israel against the non-citizens, even non-combatants are fairly clear.
Regarding the history - I feel that is self-evident. I don’t know what they’re on about, but what they said does not align with any factual recounting I’ve ever heard.
And the rest - My opinions, which I’d like to remind you, are fairly well informed.
Skipping over the first part of your comment above, hopefully me stepping back helps to explain it.
It’s not about internal unification, so long as it’s unified with Russia or before that, the USSR.
Oh! The Wikipedia article says that the U.S. provided significant help to Israel. They said Israel won those on their own. Nah. They did alright in ‘67, fully stocked with U.S. weapons, because they knew it was coming. And in 73, the U.S. had to execute operation Nickel Grass to bail Israel out.
And that’s it for today! Tip your servers!
You are completely and utterly confused and mistaken about everything that you just said. I wish I could help you, but the best I can offer is to stop offering opinions on topics that you know nothing about.
How is it so impossible for you to respond to the words I have already written down?
You have repeatedly stated that the US has been intentionally destabilizing the Middle East.
Now you state that:
I know, I literally just explained that fact to you. How is Middle East oil going to keep flowing cheaply if the US destabilizes the region and causes wars and conflict? Please explain how that makes sense to you. You think that oil becomes cheaper when the country is at war? Wtf are you smoking?
Please, for the love of God, respond to my argument instead of going on some tangent about how the Hebrews were enslaved in the Old Testament or some shit. Confront your own ignorance.
Lmfao this would be funny if it weren't so worrying for the future of humanity. The Yom Kippur war began when Egypt and Syria, supported by auxiliary forces from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq, Algeria, Libya, Kuwait, Tunisia, Morocco, Cuba, and North Korea, launched a surprise attack on Israel on the Holy day of Yom Kippur, October 6th, 1973. The Arabic forces were supplied with weapons by their Soviet allies, and Israel was supplied by their American allies. Just in case you can't count, that's 12 Arabic and communist states versus Israel alone, with the advantage of surprise. Israel proceeded to absolutely rout the opposing forces in a matter of weeks.
Your argument is that the US provided significant help to Israel and they wouldn't have been able to win without the US. It was a fucking surprise attack and they were able to turn the tide within three days. That not even enough time for supplies to get shipped into Israel from the States. Guess what else? The Soviet Union provided more help to Syria and Egypt than the US did to Israel, as it stated in the Wikipedia article which you linked, but apparently didn't take the time to read.
66,00 tons of material from the Soviets versus 55,000 tons from the USA. Please stop spreading propaganda; you're just a happy idiot, but bad actors move people like you around like pawns on a chessboard. Hamas is playing you like a fiddle and you don't even realize.
I don't know how to explain this to you, but the fact that they didn't know it was coming in 73, or many times since then, is exactly why they have some moral ground to stand on. Invading another nation without declaring war in advance is barbaric and cowardly. Regardless of any other opinions that you hold, surely we can agree that any military action should be announced in advance and directed towards military targets? I don't believe that any civilized person can fail to understand that principle. If armed conflict is inevitable, at least give forewarning and let the defenseless women, children, and elderly get to safety.
Israel does that. Hamas does the exact opposite. They go out of their way to attack defenseless Israeli civilians and they actively put their own civilians in harms way so that they can use their preventable deaths for political maneuvering. Absolutely disgusting, indefensible behavior.
I said the U.S. supported Israel so it could be their bully in the region, and you said that I claimed the U.S. was destabilizing the Middle East. Aside from being pretty telling that you made that assumption, I don’t know how your misunderstanding of what I thought was a self-evident statement matters. In my later comment I acknowledged that the U.S. also does destabilize countries in the Middle East(and supports countries that support its aims), as a way of acknowledging (and correcting/clarifying) what you said, even though I thought it was a stupid fucking statement and I knew someone was going to try to get into the weeds with it.
Now you’re asking me to defend my comments on clarifying your misunderstanding? lol.
I note, however, you’ve never challenged the assertion that the U.S. uses Israel as a bully. Merely you’re arguing semantics of a fictional point of disagreement you imagined.
The person I replied to said Israel has always held their own. I showed how they had not, and needed U.S. support to hold their own.
An absolute statement is met with an absolute dismissal when any part of that statement is proven wrong. That’s how debate works, champ.
As for the rest of your thoughts on the matter: I do not care. You do not rank.
Seriously dude wtf are you smoking and where can I get some?
Has the US been following a geopolitical strategy of destabilizing the Middle East for the past 70 years? Yes or no?
Define "held their own". You claim that you proved they haven't always held their own. You need to define the term first in order to prove the claim.
You are an absolute clown 🤡