If the option to vote with paper is gone try lead.

The normie libs downvoting this comment because they are offended by the claim that Harris and Biden are 100% aligned with trump on Israel policy, are the same people who would be self-righteously scolding me for undermining a democratic administration if it was Kamala bombing Iran.

Well, they need to start by registering for the green party.

You can’t show up on November 6th and say “everybody should have voted for Jill Stein!” After she barely gets more votes than the worm riddled antivax conspiracy theorist that dropped out of the race and backed trump.

go back to being irrelevant

Yeah, that was never true, just delusional and wishful thinking. The region has always been relevant that’s why the Greeks in 324 BC and the Romans in 26 BC coveted it long before oil.

The Middle East was probably more culturally relevant before oil. You can’t disregard an entire region of the planet because your narrative doesn’t want to include them.

I actually asked Le Chat yesterday, what would happen if oil became irrelevant:

If oil were not a valuable resource, the geopolitical interests in the Middle East would likely shift, but the region would still hold significance for several other reasons. Here are some potential international geopolitical interests that could remain:

1. Strategic Location: The Middle East’s strategic location at the crossroads of Europe, Asia, and Africa makes it a crucial area for global trade and military strategy. Control over key waterways, such as the Suez Canal, the Strait of Hormuz, and the Bab el-Mandeb, would continue to be of great importance for international shipping and naval power projection.

2. Trade Routes: The region serves as a vital land bridge and maritime corridor for global trade. Ensuring the security and stability of these trade routes would remain a priority for international powers.

3. Religious and Cultural Significance: The Middle East is home to some of the world’s most important religious sites for Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and other faiths. The custodianship of these sites and the influence over religious narratives would continue to be of interest to various state and non-state actors.

4. Security Concerns: The Middle East has been a hotspot for terrorism, insurgencies, and regional conflicts. International powers would likely remain engaged in the region to address security concerns, prevent the spread of extremism, and maintain regional stability.

5. Alliances and Partnerships: Many countries have established alliances and partnerships with Middle Eastern states based on shared interests, security agreements, and historical ties. These relationships would likely continue, albeit with a different focus.

6. Economic Interests: Beyond oil, the Middle East has other economic resources and opportunities, such as minerals, agriculture, and emerging markets. International investment and economic cooperation in these areas could continue to drive geopolitical interests.

7. Humanitarian and Development Issues: The Middle East faces numerous humanitarian challenges, including refugees, internal displacement, and development needs. International actors may remain engaged in the region to address these issues and promote human rights and development.

8. Regional Power Dynamics: The Middle East has several regional powers with their own geopolitical ambitions and rivalries. International actors may seek to influence these dynamics to maintain a balance of power and protect their interests.

9. Technological and Scientific Collaboration: The region has potential for technological and scientific advancements, particularly in areas like renewable energy, desalination, and agriculture. Collaboration in these fields could be of mutual interest.

In summary, while the value of oil has significantly shaped international geopolitical interests in the Middle East, the region’s strategic location, cultural significance, security concerns, and economic opportunities would likely ensure continued engagement from global powers. The nature and extent of this engagement would depend on a complex interplay of factors and evolving global priorities.

The children yearn for the 'fines.

Here is a video about it. In a nutshell, the oil we are able to pump out of the ground is a much lower quality oil and our infrastructure is not setup to handle the low quality crude oil. In order be able to process it, we would need to spend billions for the infrastructure and it wouldn’t make financial sense since the East processes it for so much cheaper.

https://youtu.be/veTbuLu7znc

Yeah but it’s not the same quality or type of oil that the Middle East has. However Alaska does have that type of oil…

There is a portion of MAGA that won’t, sure.

But the majority will. This is a war of choice, not necessity, and you saw how quick people were to flip on Harris when it became clear she was comfortable with people being impoverished for no good reason.

Increasing the price of oil will increase the profits to Republican donors.

It also increases Russian profits. 🤔

We are talking 20% of global supply here.

The US can’t just buffer that for its own people. Also this affects all manufacturing and shipping outside the US going to the US.

And if the US doesnt share the consequences and deliver oil to its “allies” in Europe that will damage the relationships substantially.

It’s nearly impossible to block any given countries oil. Too lazy to write it all up, but ChatGPT gave me sane output on the question:

You’re absolutely right — blocking a specific country’s oil exports or imports is extremely difficult in practice. There are several reasons for this:

1. Global Oil Market is Highly Fungible

Oil is a fungible commodity, meaning that once it’s extracted and enters the global supply chain, it’s often mixed, rebranded, or rerouted. That makes it very hard to trace its exact origin once it enters international trade.

2. Third-Party Countries & Middlemen

Countries can sell oil to intermediaries who then resell it under a different label or blend it with other sources. For example, sanctioned oil from Iran, Venezuela, or Russia has been known to enter markets through such indirect routes.

3. Shipping and Flagging Loopholes

Oil can be transferred ship-to-ship in international waters (a tactic known as “dark fleet” operations), often with falsified paperwork, GPS manipulation, or using flags of convenience to hide the oil’s origin. 4. Global Demand

Many countries, especially in the Global South, will continue buying oil wherever they can get it, especially at discounted rates. This demand gives sanctioned countries alternative markets.

5. Limited Enforcement Capacity

International bodies like the UN or even the U.S. and EU can impose sanctions, but enforcement — especially on the high seas — is expensive, politically sensitive, and technically challenging.

6. Economic Blowback

Broad oil bans can also harm the economies of sanctioning countries by raising global prices, fueling inflation, or creating supply disruptions — making governments hesitant to implement strict bans.

Bottom line: Even with sanctions or embargoes, oil tends to find a way into the global market. Cutting off a specific country’s oil completely would require not only international political unity but also technological and logistical enforcement capabilities that currently don’t exist at the necessary scale.

EDIT: Y’all childish. “He used AI! FAKE!” There’s not a single falsehood in all that and it’s a complete explanation. “NO!”