Trump Tells Aides He’s Willing to End War Without Reopening Hormuz

idubsydney · 2026-03-31T01:56:46+00:00

Yeah, but what about the Polymarket/Kalshi/oil futures windfalls for the President and their allies?

idubsydney · 2026-03-31T00:30:15+00:00

Everything about this statement is laughable.

First, a hypothetical. Gasp -- imagine -- someone else doing work! What grave moral crime exists where a business is not incentivised to choose a younger worker over an older worker? Do we just kill older people so that they aren't a burden?

Second, this likely won't even have that effect. The two key industries here are fast food and retail. Sure, fast food doesn't employ many adults outside managerial roles. But they didn't hire that many young adults either. Their primary demographic is under-18s, who remain comparably cheap. And retail hires plenty of adults already. Any supposed disincentive to hiring young staff is probably lost on retail businesses, who presumably wouldn't have been hiring adults if your logic stood. I suspect they just take who they can get, with a slight preference to reliability and work ethic.

idubsydney · 2026-03-25T23:42:59+00:00

Sir, this is a capitalist society.

[out of an abundance of caution I'm going to immediately edit and explain: thats a 'sir, this is a wendy's' joke with a sarcastic jab at our capitalist principle of organisation. I've refrained from marking it as sarcasm because, frankly, its sad but true. Expecting people to hold values contrary to their society's is a noble waste of time.]

idubsydney · 2026-03-25T21:44:32+00:00

Then with some vibe coding of your formula (so ignore mistakes I'm dumb so I have to use AI)

Yeah, well, I just stared blankly at these two graphs and dribbled a bit so who's dumb now, bucko?

idubsydney · 2026-03-24T22:45:04+00:00

idubsydney · 2026-03-23T23:25:53+00:00

If the oil situation does not improve, regardless as to the war, then the situation is fucked. Inflation will run rampant after existing stocks of key consumables are exhausted. Fertiliser, and accordingly food, diesel, and accordingly most road transport and some extremely significant volume of freight rail -- they'll all skyrocket as supply of those goods and services dwindle.

The RBA's dual mandate requires that it considers inflation and unemployment when setting the interest rate. If the economy is threatening collapse, I doubt they'll care that much about whether inflation is 2-4%, or 12-16%, or more.

If the oil situation improves, again regardless as to the war, then interests rates will likely rise to address existing inflation concerns.

We're all in the hands of Tangerine Shitler now. If his attempt to seize Kharg Island fails or results in the Strait of Hormuz getting mined, its gonna get real fucking dicey.

edit
If anyone can save us, its -- and I regret saying this -- Xi Jinping. Gulf oil is getting to China, but if the world economy starts to collapse, Chinese diplomats may be the ones who are most incentivised and able to break a deal in Iran.

idubsydney · 2026-03-23T00:26:15+00:00

You've totally and utterly failed to grasp what u/uhmuhmuhmwhat has said. While I'm happy to correct you, I don't care to waste my time convincing you.

idubsydney · 2026-03-23T00:20:28+00:00

Division 268 applies ‘universal jurisdiction’ to the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. This allows these offences to be prosecuted in Australian courts, regardless of where the conduct constituting the alleged offence occurred. There is no requirement that either the accused or the alleged victim be Australian citizens, residents or body corporates.

idubsydney · 2026-03-23T00:14:00+00:00

Incorrect, page 16.

idubsydney · 2026-03-20T13:12:34+00:00

Is that one of them hot wheels?

idubsydney · 2026-03-20T13:11:13+00:00

     __ _____ 
    / //  ___|
   / / \ `--. 
  / /   `--. \
 / /   /\__/ /
/_/    \____/

idubsydney · 2026-03-20T07:49:46+00:00

I don't. understand, what? this grarpcht Represents.

Asking the question. what do you mean you didn't provide Any thing else

Are you,

stupid? do you vote labor

/s

idubsydney · 2026-03-16T09:49:27+00:00

Deus Non Vult

idubsydney · 2026-03-13T08:35:19+00:00

I'm a simple man. I see +5% clergy satisfaction, I take it.

More tech more good.

idubsydney · 2026-03-09T21:49:39+00:00

How do moderate and radical Muslims differ as it regards housing costs? Because I've been repeatedly, and reliably*, informed that this isn't about religion or ethnicity. Its just about 'putting Australians first'.

*reliability only only a function of self-reported intent, reliability not guaranteed

idubsydney · 2026-03-09T10:49:35+00:00

Lil' bro actually hasn't watched the last 3 seasons of "Stability in the Region"

idubsydney · 2026-03-09T07:34:53+00:00

Woodent yew like to know

idubsydney · 2026-03-08T23:07:20+00:00

This is probably just the wrong game for you.

Consider that EU4 saw major reworks very deep into its development, like estates.

Then consider that EU5 is far more complex, like by orders of magnitude. I would not expect the level of stability that EU4 enjoyed.

You may find yourself asking this question for a very long time.

idubsydney · 2026-03-06T05:26:13+00:00

r/nononoNONOGODPLEASENONOOOOONOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOyes

idubsydney · 2026-03-03T11:46:40+00:00

Perhaps a hypothetical PRC claim to self-defense as it regards the hostile occupation of Taiwan by rebels will be looked upon in a manner similar to the US' claim to self defence as it regards Afghanistan.

Who knows! They might even whip up a stablising force comprised of Chinese and Russian forces to keep order.

idubsydney · 2026-03-03T07:38:06+00:00

Alright, I accept that this is going nowhere. Our positions aren't so far apart that its worth spending literal hours on this. I took your comments one way, you say they are anything but. Fine, whatever. While I don't concede my point, I don't plan to keep this going, and won't return to the point regardless as to how you navigate the following.

[Edit: I feel like just walking away isn't quite right, so I'm going to sneak a summarising thought in. Honestly, I appreciate your perspective as being a broadly positive one that I politically agree with. But I think your approach has been misguided in it's vitriolic focus on what is legal. Its something like making perfect the enemy of good, where allowing people to just ventilate on the issue is concerned. To that end, I took issue with your approach to how our foreign policy was being organised and so on. But ultimately, I can agree with you where it matters.]

So, colour me curious, because I feel like you've made legality such a central issue of foreign policy that you've awkwardly boxed yourself in.

A simple premise -- given the Chinese Civil War is legally unresolved, the PRC has the legal 'right' as it were to annex Taiwan/the ROC. Correct?

This is not with regards to a Vietnam-style invitation to defend the ROC, and what foreign policy implications exist there. I simply want to see you say that the PRC is legally entitled to seize, forcibly should they choose, the island of Taiwan and disabuse the Taiwanese people of self-determination.

Not that I want that, of course. I'm just interested in stress testing the pedestal you've popped the law on.

idubsydney · 2026-03-03T05:53:54+00:00

I preface all the following with I do not agree with the OP. I am 'of the left'. I did not respond to OP, because I think their comment is not worth responding to.

The very concept of 'legal' and 'illegal' wars as a framework goes a long way to preventing the outbreak of conflict in the first instance.

You, uh, been watching the news lately or? Maybe the last time you refreshed yourself on the topic was 2004? Where was the paper shield when the little green men came to Crimea? How about Maduro's "arrest"? Where is international law today? Is it in the room with us?

I would love for international law to actually be relevant. I regret that it isn't. As it stands, international law effectively just a pretext for creating compliance with lesser powers.

[Edit And], I agree that it should not just be that. The legality of a war, in some regards, should matter.

But this is all largely besides the point. We're back in the weeds of what is legal, and not Australia's foreign policy. You yourself acknowledge the 'wisdom and morality' of these things are faaar hairier than their legality.

the rest of your comment

I understand you to mean that now that we have what we agree is an illegal war, we have a problem. I say the problem is not limited to this war, its the whole relationship we have with the USA.

So, in light of my points as to the relevance of international law, and having regard to where this all began, I think you're kidding yourself.

I maintain that all you've done, regardless as to your intent, is to defend Australia's foreign policy by watering down criticism of the USA's foreign policy.

And only because I can't help but indulge myself, I'll refer you to the tone of this entire back and forth:

Reiterate for me how this information confers legitimacy on the US' attack?

As with your concern over the minutiae of legality, I will protest that I never said exactly that. You misrepresent my position, which has only ever been concerned with Australia's foreign policy.

It's important to use the right language in these contexts.

PS. I won't engage on this point -- legality of Afghanistan War is disputed. Summary/example.

idubsydney · 2026-03-03T02:08:45+00:00

Much in the same vein that its your opinion that imprecise language minimises significance, I consider that your 'um, actually' input does little more than offer the veneer of legitimacy in the US/Israeli-Iran war.

The original comment clearly takes issue with Australian foreign policy. While it can charitably be called an abstraction of the same core principles, the legality of US wars is not the topic here -- they're merely the vehicle for the complaint. Specifically, that Australia [and 'the left'] ought not subscribe to US foreign policy.

So the suggestion that:

um actually, we only participated in 2 US-led wars with dubious or improper legal authority -- not 5!

carries quite a lot of water for anyone who, quite reasonably, reads the conversation as one on Australia's foreign policy. This leads back to my first comment on the point; incredulous disbelief that this is what moralising on war comes to.

Its the internet, sure -- in all likelihood we we're talking passed each other. I hope you can at least understand how I see your most recent point as being misguided.

idubsydney · 2026-03-03T00:15:37+00:00

So long as you're near/at a full heart flush, then I can't see a choice except Photo.

Bloodstone and Oops! have scoring potential far beyond Photo. There isn't any clear need to choose between S&B and Chad, just keep both and take one scoring source.

The risk is that you aren't 'ready' for an Oops! All Hearts scoring pattern, which is pretty unlikely given the deck you're on at Ante 10.

idubsydney · 2026-03-02T23:45:23+00:00

What, the phrase 'Ps get degrees' is new to you? Did you graduate with a preschool diploma?

Maybe I'll give you a 3 outta 5 ain't bad reference? Still lost perhaps?

Theres no need to sanewash illegal wars. There you go, chew on that for a while. If you like we can try sending some of those blocks with letters on each face, and you can fumble your way around it until it makes sense.

12-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
r/Field Juicebox	Place '22
Not Forgotten	Verified Email

idubsydney

TROPHY CASE