Diesel prices surging

[hawkeyetraveler]

I dont see anything in the definition of Genocide that would lead me to believe terrorist would qualify.

Unless of course tou think terrorism is their religion.... but that is going to be a slippery slope for dems.

I meant that to achieve an Iranian surrender via an air campaign alone I think he’s going to have to take out civilian infrastructure and likely many civilians as collateral damage (thus genocide under the actual definition in US law). Bombing the IRGC and the proxy terrorists is just status quo. They won’t change and they seem willing to accept the economic consequences on Iran.

So we have to do something different and the only military options I see are to literally wreck the country (genocide) or put troops on the ground. Which is why I keep saying we should just walk away. Let the rest of the world sort out the mess we made. We don’t need the oil and gas anyway.

 

[nytigerfan]

Lmao. What an ignorant fool you are. You allowed Biden to have massive inflation for years and never once held him accountable.

Here's reality regarding Diesel, which you don't own, have never worked on, or know anything about. Diesel is expensive because of the lack of refineries. Cali alone has shut down well over a dozen refineries in the last 20 years

If you want to go off on your nonsense, at least pretend you have a fking clue what you speak of. You haven't a clue

Dear **** for brains

When Biden left office the cost of diesel was $3.63. He had the same refinery issues to contend with.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

 

[Rifler]

I think he’s going to have to take out civilian infrastructure and likely many civilians as collateral damage (thus genocide under the actual definition in US law).

I agree about the approach,.. I disagree about it being genocide.

 

[hawkeyetraveler]

I agree about the approach,.. I disagree about it being genocide.

Take it up with Congress. US law makes it a felony to destroy infrastructure that leads to conditions of life intended to destroy the people. So water treatment, desalination plants, the electrical grid, etc. would all qualify if they are primarily used by civilians.

 

[Hydro2.0]

Take it up with Congress. US law makes it a felony to destroy infrastructure that leads to conditions of life intended to destroy the people. So water treatment, desalination plants, the electrical grid, etc. would all qualify if they are primarily used by civilians.

Killing innocent people is just collateral damage to him. Completely removed from reality.

 

[Rifler]

Take it up with Congress. US law makes it a felony to destroy infrastructure that leads to conditions of life intended to destroy the people. So water treatment, desalination plants, the electrical grid, etc. would all qualify if they are primarily used by civilians.

No need to as the situation you describe wouldn't meet the letter of the law...

" I think he’s going to have to take out civilian infrastructure and likely many civilians as collateral damage."

Genocide:
Acts intended to target, eliminate, or destroy an ethnic group or people.

Collateral Damage:
Accidental damage, injury or death

 

[fskillet]

It would have been more appropriate to use "war crimes" instead of "genocide", but nitpicking over terminology is what you do when you know you're in the wrong.

 

[Rifler]

It would have been more appropriate to use "war crimes" instead of "genocide", but nitpicking over terminology is what you do when you know you're in the wrong.

There is no nitpicking,.. The proper selection, targeting, and elimination of Iranian "civilian infrastructure" doesn't have to break any known laws...

 

[hawkeyetraveler]

There is no nitpicking,.. The proper selection, targeting, and elimination of Iranian "civilian infrastructure" doesn't have to break any known laws...

It does if it is being done to bring a country to their knees…which is why we would be doing it. So my point stands.

Anyway, it’s all theoretical for now.

 

[Rifler]

It does if it is being done to bring a country to their knees…which is why we would be doing it. So my point stands.

Not really but that's fine,... Wear your point.

 

[hawkeyetraveler]

No need to as the situation you describe wouldn't meet the letter of the law...

" I think he’s going to have to take out civilian infrastructure and likely many civilians as collateral damage."

Genocide:
Acts intended to target, eliminate, or destroy an ethnic group or people.

Collateral Damage:
Accidental damage, injury or death

As I just said the whole argument is theoretical until Trump does something to try to destroy the country - which again is what he would have to do to get their surrender without troops on the ground. But for your reference below is the full text of the law. See (4). This specifically refers to the deliberate destruction of infrastructure necessary to sustain life. Deliberately taking out a water supply to destroy a people is no different under the law than killing the people directly.

18 U.S.C. § 1091(a) Basic Offense. — Whoever, whether in time of peace or in time of war and with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such—
(1) kills members of that group;
(2) causes serious bodily injury to members of that group;
(3) causes the permanent impairment of the mental faculties of members of the group through drugs, torture, or similar techniques;
(4) subjects the group to conditions of life that are intended to cause the physical destruction of the group in whole or inpart;
(5) imposes measures intended to prevent births within the group; or
(6) transfers by force children of the group to another group;
shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

And to the point another poster made: yes this can also be war crimes if done in isolation and without the intention of destroying an entire people. The reason I brought up genocide is because I think it would take that level of air campaign to cause Iran’s unconditional surrender. But certainly doing one off attacks can still be a felony under US law.

 

[BelemNole]

California's issues were all planned by the Big 3

You are entirely correct to look back 20+ years. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, major oil companies faced heavy scrutiny and government investigations for buying out or attempting to shutter independent operations, which critics argued was a strategy to artificially restrict supply and drive up California's notoriously high gas prices. [1, 2]
While the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) ultimately did not find definitive evidence of illegal antitrust collusion, several specific historical events validate this perspective: [1]

The Shell Bakersfield Closure Controversy (2003–2005)
The most prominent example of this dynamic occurred when Shell Oil announced it would close and dismantle its Bakersfield refinery by October 2004. [1, 2]

• The Independent Threat: The Bakersfield plant was a highly efficient refinery that specialized in processing cheap, heavy local crude into gasoline. [1, 2]
• The "Scrap It" Plan: Shell initially claimed the refinery had to be closed because local oil reserves were drying up—a claim heavily contested by independent energy experts. Shell initially refused to sell the plant to an independent competitor, stating it was "not a marketable commodity" and intending to tear it down. [1, 2, 3]
• The Backlash: Consumer groups, the California Attorney General, and the FTC launched massive investigations. Critics openly accused Shell of trying to destroy the refinery to eliminate competition and keep gas supplies tight. [1, 2, 3]
• The Forced Sale: Under intense government and public pressure, Shell agreed to delay the closure and eventually sold the facility to an independent operator, Flying J (Big West Oil), keeping the supply on the market. [1, 2, 3]

Corporate Consolidation of the Mid-1990s
Prior to the 2000s, California had a much more diverse ecosystem of independent refiners (such as Tosco, Unocal, and Golden West). [1, 2]

• The Wave of Mergers: Between 1995 and 2002, a wave of mega-mergers reshaped the industry. Major oil companies bought out these independent brands. For instance, Texaco and Shell merged their refining assets to form Equilon, and Chevron later acquired Texaco.
• Capacity Reductions: Following these buyouts, several smaller, older independent refining units were permanently mothballed or converted into strictly storage terminals.
• The "Island" Effect: This corporate consolidation drastically shrank the number of independent players, leaving the state's unique, isolated fuel market controlled by a tight oligopoly of just a few major corporations. [1, 2, 3, 4]

 

[WDDT]

I meant that to achieve an Iranian surrender via an air campaign alone I think he’s going to have to take out civilian infrastructure and likely many civilians as collateral damage (thus genocide under the actual definition in US law). Bombing the IRGC and the proxy terrorists is just status quo. They won’t change and they seem willing to accept the economic consequences on Iran.

So we have to do something different and the only military options I see are to literally wreck the country (genocide) or put troops on the ground. Which is why I keep saying we should just walk away. Let the rest of the world sort out the mess we made. We don’t need the oil and gas anyway.

Wrecking infrastructure ia not genocide.

 

[hawkeyetraveler]

Not really but that's fine,... Wear your point.

 

[hawkeyetraveler]

Wrecking infrastructure ia not genocide.

It certainly can be under US law. It can also be a war crime. Depends on scale and intent.

 

[fsu1jreed]

Biden is no longer president and both he and his Vice President were held accountable for inflation as neither are elected officials today.

We’re on day 552 of Trump 2.0. You can blather about refinery capacity and soaring inflation - and yet your guy is sitting in the Oval Office right now.

And he’s sitting there not doing a damn thing about soaring inflation and higher energy costs - that he has specifically exacerbated.

Nevermind that much of that inflation was directly due to Trump

 

[LafayetteBear]

Well technically there is a river in Texas called the Colorado River that flows into the gulf right near Houston. But I think he is thinking of the Rio Grande perhaps?

I believe there is a second, much smaller, Colorado River that runs through Texas. Whether it empties in the Gulf of Mexico (What Captain Houseboat would call the "Gulf of America") is unknown to me. The larger and more well known Colorado River empties into the Gulf of California, which is the body of water between Baja California peninsula and the rest of Mexico.

 

[kidmike41]

I believe there is a second, much smaller, Colorado River that runs through Texas. Whether it empties in the Gulf of Mexico (What Captain Houseboat would call the "Gulf of America") is unknown to me. The larger and more well known Colorado River empties into the Gulf of California, which is the body of water between Baja California peninsula and the rest of Mexico.

Agree 100%.

 

[tarheelbybirth1]

I believe there is a second, much smaller, Colorado River that runs through Texas. Whether it empties in the Gulf of Mexico (What Captain Houseboat would call the "Gulf of America") is unknown to me. The larger and more well known Colorado River empties into the Gulf of Trump, which is the body of water between Donald's California peninsula and the rest of Mexico.

They've been renamed!!

 

[Lindemann]

I believe there is a second, much smaller, Colorado River that runs through Texas. Whether it empties in the Gulf of Mexico (What Captain Houseboat would call the "Gulf of America") is unknown to me. The larger and more well known Colorado River empties into the Gulf of California, which is the body of water between Baja California peninsula and the rest of Mexico.

Yep, the Google machine says it's the longest river fully within the borders of Texas. It runs through Austin and empties into the Gulf of Mexico. California being able to suck that river dry through several states and over the great divide is quite remarkable.

 

[GesterHawk]

It would have been more appropriate to use "war crimes" instead of "genocide", but nitpicking over terminology is what you do when you know you're in the wrong.

Is it a war crime if Congress hasn't officially declared it a war?

I am pretty sure we are past the 60 day excursion limit.

 

[SB_SB]

Wrecking infrastructure ia not genocide.

If it's not then what is trump waiting for? Just another day in the life of TACO.

 

[WDDT]

It certainly can be under US law. It can also be a war crime. Depends on scale and intent.

The intent is removing the people who fund terriost ability to do so and scale will be whatever is necessary if they cannot commit to no nukes.


That is nothing near genocide. We are activily helping some Iranians, we are not going to help the terrorists. So unless you want to try to say terrorists are protected as a religion genocide is just a big word being incorrectly used.

Which isnt overly surprising coming from the faction of people who called everyone that disagreed with them Hitler when the inmates were running the asylum.

 

[Thefunksouljon]

 

[fskillet]

Is it a war crime if Congress hasn't officially declared it a war?

I am pretty sure we are past the 60 day excursion limit.

I think we just call it Sparkling Crimes in that case

 

[hawkeyetraveler]

The intent is removing the people who fund terriost ability to do so and scale will be whatever is necessary if they cannot commit to no nukes.


That is nothing near genocide. We are activily helping some Iranians, we are not going to help the terrorists. So unless you want to try to say terrorists are protected as a religion genocide is just a big word being incorrectly used.

Which isnt overly surprising coming from the faction of people who called everyone that disagreed with them Hitler when the inmates were running the asylum.

I agree if they just go after the IRGC, terrorist proxies, and those who fund/enable them then yes of course that is not genocide or war crimes.

That was not my point.

My point was if we want to “win” by means of an unconditional Iranian surrender, and we don’t put troops on the ground, then we will almost certainly have to commit such atrocities. They aren’t going to back down otherwise.

The status quo ain’t going to get the job done and you are certainly astute enough to know that.

 

[AlexanderUrinis]

Dear **** for brains

When Biden left office the cost of diesel was $3.63. He had the same refinery issues to contend with.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

 

[Billanole.]

I dont see anything in the definition of Genocide that would lead me to believe terrorist would qualify.

Unless of course tou think terrorism is their religion.... but that is going to be a slippery slope for dems.

Wut?

 

[Rifler]

Is it a war crime if Congress hasn't officially declared it a war? I am pretty sure we are past the 60 day excursion limit.

Formal declaration of war is not part of the equation for war crimes,.. Cease fire resets the clock, so the 60 day limit specified by the likely unconstitutional War Powers Act has never been met...

 

[SB_SB]

I agree if they just go after the IRGC, terrorist proxies, and those who fund/enable them then yes of course that is not genocide or war crimes.

That was not my point.

My point was if we want to “win” by means of an unconditional Iranian surrender, and we don’t put troops on the ground, then we will almost certainly have to commit such atrocities. They aren’t going to back down otherwise.

The status quo ain’t going to get the job done and you are certainly astute enough to know that.

You're communicating with an idiot. Even troops on the ground won't guarantee a victory. Just look at Israel and Gaza. Israel can't eliminate hamas and that should be so much easier than taking over Iran.

 

[hawkeyetraveler]

You're communicating with an idiot. Even troops on the ground won't guarantee a victory. Just look at Israel and Gaza. Israel can't eliminate hamas and that should be so much easier than taking over Iran.

With troops on the ground we would achieve regime change pretty quickly, but it would cost many, many lives. And then the minute we leave it would just revert back because you are 100% correct we would not be able to eliminate all the terrorist threats. it would be WAY worse than Afghanistan. With that approach we would doom America to decades of threats from pissed off Iranian backed terrorists.

Which is why my mantra is “just walk away”.

 

[tarheelbybirth1]

The status quo ain’t going to get the job done and you are certainly astute enough to know that.

 

[SB_SB]

With troops on the ground we would achieve regime change pretty quickly regime, but it would cost many, many lives. And then the minute we leave it would just revert back because you are 100% correct we would not be able to eliminate all the terrorist threats. it would be WAY worse than Afghanistan. With that approach we would doom America to decades of threats from pissed off Iranian backed terrorists.

Which is why my mantra is “just walk away”.

There's winning battles and then there's winning the war. A temporary regime change is just winning a battle. Permanent regime change is winning the war. I agree, we need to tell Iran that trump is an idiot and walk away.

 

[hawkeyetraveler]

There's winning battles and then there's winning the war.

Agree 100%. Fair positioning.

 

[GesterHawk]

The intent is removing the people who fund terriost ability to do so and scale will be whatever is necessary if they cannot commit to no nukes.


That is nothing near genocide. We are activily helping some Iranians, we are not going to help the terrorists. So unless you want to try to say terrorists are protected as a religion genocide is just a big word being incorrectly used.

Which isnt overly surprising coming from the faction of people who called everyone that disagreed with them Hitler when the inmates were running the asylum.

Thank the gods our bombs only kill terrorists...

 

[GesterHawk]

Formal declaration of war is not part of the equation for war crimes,.. Cease fire resets the clock, so the 60 day limit specified by the likely unconstitutional War Powers Act has never been met...

Is the ceasefire reset called out in the law or is that just an interpretation of the current administration?

 

[tarheelbybirth1]

Is the ceasefire reset called out in the law or is that just an interpretation of the current administration?

As usual, rifleboy doesn't know what he's talking about.

Does a Ceasefire Reset the War Powers Act’s 60‑Day Clock?​

Under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, the 60‑day clock starts when the President notifies Congress within 48 hours of sending U.S. forces into hostilities. The law requires the President to terminate such forces within 60 days (or 90 days with a 30‑day extension) unless Congress authorizes continued action allaboutlawyer.com+1.

Legal experts and legislative history show no statutory provision for a ceasefire to “toll” or reset the clock. The statute does not mention ceasefires, and Congress deliberately designed the timeline to be strict and resistant to manipulation JURIST. Five decades of practice show no administration has claimed a ceasefire suspends the WPR timeline JURIST. Accepting such a “pause” theory could allow presidents to extend military operations indefinitely without congressional approval, undermining the resolution’s purpose JURIST.

Bottom line

• Legally: No — a ceasefire does not reset the War Powers Resolution’s 60‑day clock under current statutory interpretation or historical practice JURIST.
• Politically: The administration is asserting it does, but this is contested and could be challenged in Congress or courts Military Times+1.
• Practically: The dispute reflects a broader debate over how “hostilities” are defined and whether temporary pauses can alter legal obligations Aljazeera.

If Congress or the courts rule against the administration’s position, the 60‑day deadline would still apply, and the President would be obligated to withdraw forces or seek authorization.

 

[Hydro2.0]

As usual, rifleboy doesn't know what he's talking about.

Does a Ceasefire Reset the War Powers Act’s 60‑Day Clock?​

Under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, the 60‑day clock starts when the President notifies Congress within 48 hours of sending U.S. forces into hostilities. The law requires the President to terminate such forces within 60 days (or 90 days with a 30‑day extension) unless Congress authorizes continued action allaboutlawyer.com+1.

Legal experts and legislative history show no statutory provision for a ceasefire to “toll” or reset the clock. The statute does not mention ceasefires, and Congress deliberately designed the timeline to be strict and resistant to manipulation JURIST. Five decades of practice show no administration has claimed a ceasefire suspends the WPR timeline JURIST. Accepting such a “pause” theory could allow presidents to extend military operations indefinitely without congressional approval, undermining the resolution’s purpose JURIST.

Bottom line

• Legally: No — a ceasefire does not reset the War Powers Resolution’s 60‑day clock under current statutory interpretation or historical practice JURIST.
• Politically: The administration is asserting it does, but this is contested and could be challenged in Congress or courts Military Times+1.
• Practically: The dispute reflects a broader debate over how “hostilities” are defined and whether temporary pauses can alter legal obligations Aljazeera.

If Congress or the courts rule against the administration’s position, the 60‑day deadline would still apply, and the President would be obligated to withdraw forces or seek authorization.

That’s because @Rifler is a an actual retard and a bad person.

 

[tarheelbybirth1]

Diesel up another three and a half cents last week. That's less than expected sooo.... winning?