rabidonrails

I just don't understand why this trailer starts with Musk accusing Gibney of this being a hit piece, then a snarky response from Gibney...and then a full trailer that sounds like a hit piece.

Maybe it's warranted maybe it isn't but it sure seems like Musk was right to be concerned.

You're right, I should have been more clear. There isn't a crude shock that would come from the middle east to Europe. That would be more an economic shock because of the demand from China/India on that crude which would then drive up the global price of the commodity. This in turn would create an economic shock - one that would be hard for Europe to withstand (as opposed to the US).

And, while that's true of crude itself, more refined oil products are heavily imported from the ME to Europe - I'm sure you've seen the news on jet fuel.

I do think that saying "oh, Trump did this so we stopped looking at the Epstein files" is a conspiracy theory. Doesn't mean it can't be right - just means that it's just conjecture.

All I did above was provide a different perspective - don't like it? Feel free to move along.

I don't think the rest of the world would "outright shun us." I think that the rest of the world that you're describing are mainly European countries that are highly dependent on Gulf oil access. They need to be careful not to publicly anger anyone in the Gulf who might cut off their supply.

Your argument is that Israel started a war that Trump is finishing to divert from Epstein ties but that's tying together a bunch of conspiracy theories.

I'm not sure I understand your argument - you seem to have proven my point.

They always could close the Strait and they eventually did. In this case the US is already energy independent and could absorb the shock.

Let me give you a new perspective.

First, I agree with you on the drones. They're a new entrant to the battlefield and the US has had to learn to adapt.

You're viewing Iran as a simple country vs. country war. This war is not about just Iran, this war is about energy, technology, and dominance against Russia and China.

Iran is a destabilizing power in the middle east. Not only does it control a bunch of oil itself, but it controls the Strait of Hormuz. This chokepoint means that Iran has had the oppprtunity to disrupt the world's energy supply. If you think you think this isn't a global risk then you don't understand the global economy. Instability in the global economy is a risk to US dominance.

The US has a very strong partner in Israel not only as an outpost, but as a technological partner and a strong intelligence partner. You might read articles about Israel making trouble in the region, but most of this has no true basis. In fact the Arab countries around Israel have enjoyed peace with Israel for quite some time. Further, the other Arab nations (especially the ones that aren't Russia/China aligned) want stability like the UAE, Bahrain, and even SA and they are sick of proxies in the region being used to create instability. They want to sell their oil and they want US and Israeli technology.

There's no question that Iran is/was a threat to Israel - that's well documented. There's no question that Iran is/was a threat to US forces in the middle east, that's documented too.

So, who's the biggest winner if Iran ceases to be a destabilizing force in the middle east and no longer has a chokehold on global energy supply - the US. This truly reenforces US dominance.

Somehow you see this as making China stronger - it doesn't do that. At best it drives Russia closer to China but that has already happened.

Right now the US is energy dominant in almost all categories. Having a strong foothold in the Gulf especially loosely controlling the SoH would solidify this.

Quick side note - air superiority means that you can fly planes around the country without major risks of being shot down. The US maintains complete air superiority since essentially this started. Until the ceasefire they were able to bomb targets at will.

thanks for proving my point. There's no evidence other than you falling prey to the tropes of yesterday.

In what world does it make sense that Israel controls our government? Only in the world where you think that Israel controls our banks etc.

Let's keep this conversation tied to evidence before launching attacks that are based on prejudice.

Israel owns out government? You have proof of this outlandish claim?

Truck drivers and the hours they're on the road need to be logged per law. Most of this is done (or perhaps MUST be done) electronically.

>>It's effectively x-ray vision into some huge workloads running on their competitors.

I wonder if there are antitrust lawyers watching this closely. Would be really interesting to get their perspective on this.

Well yes but Boeing also said it "would not result in a safety of flight condition."

There's a lot of gray going on here.

Don't be duped by China's clean energy talk. Their energy infra is mainly coal and they continue to build (dirty) coal plants.

They sell you solar infra so that you can feel good about protecting the world while they continue to build coal plants. For reference, in 2023 they built 95% of the world's new coal plants...

Don't be fooled.

Agreed and this is a good comment.

It's strange that people in SV pretend like if they refuse to build software then nobody else will. Palantir exists (and has been so successful) because the government was trying to build this software (either themselves or through defense contractors) and ended up spending WAY too much money and only delivering a product that put US soldiers at risk.

We should be clear about these cases that are brought against him (I'm not saying he isn't guilty, but context is important here):

Case 1 - as Minister of Communications he, allegedly, tried to get a tax extension for a company whose owners had given him expensive cigars and jewelry to his wife (worth $3100). The extension was not granted. He also tried to get a US visa for one of the owners.

Case 2 - One of the newspapers in Israel said that if he gave them advantages over a competing newpaper they would paint Bibi and his family in a positive light in their coverage

*Case 3 - seemingly similar to Case 2, a large news website offered to portray Bibi in a better light if he would push through regulatory changes as Minisiter of Communications.