Oh, is that what this is about? We're attacking the Houthis in defense of Israel?
Don't be fucking daft, or disingenuous, which is worse because it displays complete moral cowardice.
We're attacking the Houthis because they're indiscriminately attacking civilian ships in one of the most valuable shipping lanes in the fucking world.
We're attacking the Houthis because they're indiscriminately attacking civilian ships in one of the most valuable shipping lanes in the fucking world.
Countries are allowed to decide what goes through their territorial waters.
You conveniently dismiss that the ships are in international waters. Besides, sinking them is an unwarranted escalation when it comes to civilian ships.
They didn't actually sink any ships.
Yeah, not for a lack of trying.
Luckily, the Houthis are not the internationally recognized government of Yemen, so this isn't relevant.
Nope. Not as a blanket statement. There are things they can regulate but we regularly conduct "freedom of navigation" patrols through the waters of certain countries just to remind them they aren't allowed to ban cargo ships sailing at a certain distance from the coastline.
So it's about money, as it always is. Going to war is always about money... I'm so tired of the U.S. being at war. We've been at war all but maybe 12 years of the U.S.'s existence. Don't believe me? It's surprising but true.
Unless your ideal is an autarkic Festung Amerika, shipping lanes kind of have to be able to operate without the civilian sailors who go through worrying about getting fucking killed.
Globalization isn't a requirement. In fact, it's completely destroying our planet and its habitability. But yeah, let's worry about the shipping lanes.
Yeah, alright, you have fun with the idea that people exchanging goods without murdering each other is what's destroying the planet. Terribly evil, globalization. Or that the collapse of shipping lanes wouldn't result in incredible human suffering.
It's called CO2 emissions, I'm sure you're aware of it. The suffering climate change is going to cause in the coming decades will dwarf anything we've ever seen, unless we see a sharp decrease in emissions to zero very very soon, ideally 20 years ago. But, the next best time to do it is right now.
Nothing you said is remotely relevant.
If you are concerned about CO2, why is allowing a bunch of shitheels to close down THE SHORTEST route for shipping in the area a step forward?
The core issue of CO2 emissions isn't "People now communicate, travel to, and trade with each other across the globe" but "Massive use of fossil fuels where they are not necessary due to corporate lobbying"
Cargo ships and planes combined emit ~5% of our CO2 output. The major offenders are elsewhere.
I'm not going to argue about this. We need to reduce our emissions to zero, that is not zero.
We’ll never reduce to zero, stop engaging in fantasy delusions. What can do is make realistic effort to curb the largest offenders, which ocean shipping isn’t a part of. If you think we’re going to go back to the age of sail and multi-year journeys for items to reach destinations then you’re high
It's not a fantasy, it's literally the only thing that will save us. Scientists have been very very clear zero emissions is the only thing that will stop climate change. I live with one for God sakes. Don't call me delusional. It's the only rational thing to do, anything else is fucking crazy bcz it's the difference between livable conditions here, and not. But don't trust me, we'll all see the consequences of our dumbest arguments in about a decade.
That is not a rational goal by any stretch of the imagination.
It's actually the only thing that's going to save us. It's not only rational, it's the only logical conclusion one can come to from the overwhelming data on climate change. If you think burning fossil fuels is more important than having a habitable planet, then you're not thinking clearly.
A planet without energy use cannot possibly be habitable.
Actually we survived without energy use for hundreds of thousands of years before electricity was invented. So, that's kind of a ridiculous statement to even make.
No, we didn't. Humans discovered fire a hell of a long time ago.
And unless you're willing to exterminate thousands for every one that lives, "go back to fire" isn't theoretically possible either.
Do explain how to get goods to and from that area without going through it. Or should that whole part of the world be cut off from global trade?
Obviously they should just triple their carbon emissions by going around Africa instead. This saves the environment!
They can go through it if they just stop supporting genocide seems pretty easy 🤷♂️
How are the merchant ships going through the Red Sea supporting genocide? Please explain.
Could you explain that one for me? Because it really seems like you’re just saying shit here. 🤷♂️
Ansar Allah, the group constituting Yemen’s de facto government, has stated it’s their legal obligation under international law to do everything in their power to prevent the genocide of Palestinians. As such, they are attempting to enforce a naval blockade of the Red Sea to any ships associated with Israel until the genocide ends.
Sure, they said they're only going to attack ships that are owned by, going to, or doing trade with Israel. There's ships going through right now.
Oh, is that what this is about? We're attacking the Houthis in defense of Israel?
Don't be fucking daft, or disingenuous, which is worse because it displays complete moral cowardice.
We're attacking the Houthis because they're indiscriminately attacking civilian ships in one of the most valuable shipping lanes in the fucking world.
Countries are allowed to decide what goes through their territorial waters.
You conveniently dismiss that the ships are in international waters. Besides, sinking them is an unwarranted escalation when it comes to civilian ships.
They didn't actually sink any ships.
Yeah, not for a lack of trying.
Luckily, the Houthis are not the internationally recognized government of Yemen, so this isn't relevant.
Nope. Not as a blanket statement. There are things they can regulate but we regularly conduct "freedom of navigation" patrols through the waters of certain countries just to remind them they aren't allowed to ban cargo ships sailing at a certain distance from the coastline.
So it's about money, as it always is. Going to war is always about money... I'm so tired of the U.S. being at war. We've been at war all but maybe 12 years of the U.S.'s existence. Don't believe me? It's surprising but true.
Unless your ideal is an autarkic Festung Amerika, shipping lanes kind of have to be able to operate without the civilian sailors who go through worrying about getting fucking killed.
Globalization isn't a requirement. In fact, it's completely destroying our planet and its habitability. But yeah, let's worry about the shipping lanes.
Yeah, alright, you have fun with the idea that people exchanging goods without murdering each other is what's destroying the planet. Terribly evil, globalization. Or that the collapse of shipping lanes wouldn't result in incredible human suffering.
It's called CO2 emissions, I'm sure you're aware of it. The suffering climate change is going to cause in the coming decades will dwarf anything we've ever seen, unless we see a sharp decrease in emissions to zero very very soon, ideally 20 years ago. But, the next best time to do it is right now.
Nothing you said is remotely relevant.
If you are concerned about CO2, why is allowing a bunch of shitheels to close down THE SHORTEST route for shipping in the area a step forward?
The core issue of CO2 emissions isn't "People now communicate, travel to, and trade with each other across the globe" but "Massive use of fossil fuels where they are not necessary due to corporate lobbying"
Cargo ships and planes combined emit ~5% of our CO2 output. The major offenders are elsewhere.
I'm not going to argue about this. We need to reduce our emissions to zero, that is not zero.
We’ll never reduce to zero, stop engaging in fantasy delusions. What can do is make realistic effort to curb the largest offenders, which ocean shipping isn’t a part of. If you think we’re going to go back to the age of sail and multi-year journeys for items to reach destinations then you’re high
It's not a fantasy, it's literally the only thing that will save us. Scientists have been very very clear zero emissions is the only thing that will stop climate change. I live with one for God sakes. Don't call me delusional. It's the only rational thing to do, anything else is fucking crazy bcz it's the difference between livable conditions here, and not. But don't trust me, we'll all see the consequences of our dumbest arguments in about a decade.
That is not a rational goal by any stretch of the imagination.
It's actually the only thing that's going to save us. It's not only rational, it's the only logical conclusion one can come to from the overwhelming data on climate change. If you think burning fossil fuels is more important than having a habitable planet, then you're not thinking clearly.
A planet without energy use cannot possibly be habitable.
Actually we survived without energy use for hundreds of thousands of years before electricity was invented. So, that's kind of a ridiculous statement to even make.
No, we didn't. Humans discovered fire a hell of a long time ago.
And unless you're willing to exterminate thousands for every one that lives, "go back to fire" isn't theoretically possible either.
So, you exhale CO2 when you breath.
Draw whatever conclusions from that that you like.
Yeah, and trees also exhale oxygen. What's your point?
What, literally zero and not net zero? That's anprim bullshit.
You’re not going to argue because you literally can’t, your back is against the wall and the only thing you have left to cling to is “buh not zero!”
Go change the world somewhere else.
Get off the internet then.
They don't have to go through that area.
Do explain how to get goods to and from that area without going through it. Or should that whole part of the world be cut off from global trade?
Obviously they should just triple their carbon emissions by going around Africa instead. This saves the environment!
They can go through it if they just stop supporting genocide seems pretty easy 🤷♂️
How are the merchant ships going through the Red Sea supporting genocide? Please explain.
Could you explain that one for me? Because it really seems like you’re just saying shit here. 🤷♂️
Ansar Allah, the group constituting Yemen’s de facto government, has stated it’s their legal obligation under international law to do everything in their power to prevent the genocide of Palestinians. As such, they are attempting to enforce a naval blockade of the Red Sea to any ships associated with Israel until the genocide ends.
Sure, they said they're only going to attack ships that are owned by, going to, or doing trade with Israel. There's ships going through right now.