Doesn’t matter much in this case as US consumerd are still affected by the price rise same way consumers in a non-exporter country would be.

I guess what matters is that the increase in revenue largely stays within the country, but that doesn’t help consumers directly.

net exporter of petroleum products, US is still a net importer of crude.

Being a net exporter is completely irrelevant when prices are set globally. Such a statement is like shining a laser pointer to distract a cat, fun, but meaningless.

Good thing the US economy is Chevron stock value and nothing else.

The consequences to everyone that isn't as well fed as yourself are also good for you morally?

I think people are more concerned about the massive deindustrialization and famines which could result from the Strait of Hormuz being chaotically strangled, not the hit to their pocket books at the gas pump

What's it like living without worry?

Me too. I'm surprised those in the Green Movements generally, haven't been celebrating. Not a whisper. Makes one wonder.

It is interesting.

Is the job of a leader (or the administration) to foresee threats before anyone else can see it coming? Is their job to make sure that it does not manifest?

It is interesting that when they does it, the majority is against it, precisely because no one else could see it and can agree with the action of the administration?

So it seems that if someone is a very good leader, they will be ridiculed by the very people they are trying to protect. I think this happens if the unit in question is a family, or a country.

I am not picking sides in the on going crisis. But just making an observation.

I think the bigger question that you should be asking is what is America going to do for the next 5 years without the stockpile of munitions that the just burned through.[0]

China has every incentive to goad Israel or Iran into starting another round in this conflict so that America will deplete even more missiles. Iran destroying one of these[1] and an AWACS should startle everyone and with the right supplies from China Iran has the capacity to take out even more of them.

So if in two months this conflict heats up again and we're looking at half of these radar systems destroyed and minimal amount of missiles available, would you consider it well worth it?

Because that's a very plausible scenario and I'm very concerned about what the world will look like by the end of the summer if that comes to pass.

[0] https://www.csis.org/analysis/last-rounds-status-key-munitio...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/TPY-2_transportable_radar#

Remember when North Korea and Pakistan had to be prevented from developing nuclear weapons at all costs because they would obviously use them ASAP to kill as many people as they could because they were crazy?

Remember when multiple US administrations have internally pushed for nuking Korea and Vietnam, and yet we are apparently still allowed to have nukes?

Remember when Iran used to have a fully operational biological weapons program that they have dismantled as confirmed internationally.

Iran has enough Uranium to make bombs. The physics package that actually detonates things is not as hard as enriching Uranium in bulk.

Why hasn't Iran used a weapon of mass destruction yet in this almost existential war? I thought they were nuts? I thought they wanted to nuke all the infidels?

the right question to ask is how much worse is the situation now that tensions have been radically escalated without any meaningful path towards Iranian disarmament.

Compare the costs associated with keeping US troops in NKorea to contain that threat.

Peace in that region of the world, since you can't just bomb Iran consequence free anymore?

MAD has had its virtues extolled, yet assume it won't work with another country because somehow they are even more irrational (if true). Even though that is exactly for whom the MAD strategy is designed and operates under.

It is only the build up of Iran getting a nuclear weapon that is used to go to war.

The game theory here seems rather simple, honestly.

And if Iran is seen as hostile, we need to look at the countries for whom the USA allies with and what wars they launched in the region. And they are plausible nuclear capable where their neighbors are not.

I think Israel is currently a larger aggressor, literally flattening more towns through demolition.

Probably comparable to North Korea getting a nuclear device and the missiles to deliver it.

Who shredded the 2015 agreement with Iran that had stopped them from enriching more uranium?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/04/29/science/iran-...

Oh wait, that the Trump and his war criminal friends. They make the problem, blame it on someone else, and then claim they fixed it while making life worse for everyone else. Meanwhile Trump and his corrupt oligarch cronies are profiting massively.

US Defense spending is bigger than that $1000 B per year, and on its way up to $1500B per year. I wouldn't consider a $25B operation a drop in the bucket of that larger number, it's a significant outlay that has been a huge cost to military readiness, massively depleting our precision munitions. We don't pay the manufacturers nearly enough to keep production lines up, and we are a decade away from being back to readiness again. It's going to take years to pay massive amounts to bring those up to scale.

$25B in a few months is also more than the average annual amount of military aid sent to Ukraine from the US, and the Trump administration considers this to not be a "drop in a bucket" either, and in fact a huge imposition that should not happen at all.

The data center money was private capital put up by individuals and corporations willingly. They are seeking to provide a product (compute) to paying consumers.

You can have an opinion on whether or not AI/data centers are worthwhile, but ultimately it wasn't made by your money.

If that is the case why do I see this comment every 5 minutes?