Quote of the Day
The swift expansion of US military forces in the Middle East has reached a stage where President Trump could authorize military strikes against Iran as early as this weekend, according to administration and Pentagon officials, The New York Times reported. The development presents the White House with critical decisions about whether to move forward with diplomatic efforts or shift toward armed conflict. There is no “confirmation” from Trump about how to proceed, but efforts to build a military force able to target Iran’s nuclear facilities, ballistic missile arsenal, and related launch sites have continued this week, even as second round of negotiations took place on Tuesday. During those talks, Iran requested two weeks to return with more detailed proposals aimed at reaching a diplomatic solution.
Express Global Desk
February 19, 2026
US-Iran Tensions Live Updates: Geneva Nuclear Talks, USA-Iran Tensions Trump & Khamenei Statements February 18 Latest News
Translation: Iran requested two weeks to prepare for the attack and a counter strike against the U.S. I could also see them using the time attempting to get commitments from Russia for assistance. After all, Iran has been supplying Russia with war materials for several years now. Isn’t it time for Russia to help them?
I’m glad my underground bunker in Idaho is habitable. It is not finished and it needs to be stocked, but it is a far better place to be than in the Puget Sound area in the case of things getting really spicy.
Look, I don;’t know what will happen after 2/19. I’m no more skilled at predicting the future than the next person.
It does strike me, though, that we keep hearing predictions about Trump’s next actions… from people who, by all appearances, have still not read his book.
The Art of the Deal. He published it forty years ago. And he spells it out, his multiple negotiating techniques, and why they work for him.
I think he is trying, if not to strike a deal with Iran, to LOOK like he is trying. I think he wants to be able to say afterward — “Hey, I tried to work things out with them peacefully. I showed them that things would not go well for them if they didn’t talk to me. I showed them the iron fist, so that they’re not under any illusions that we are equals here; the United States is a superpower, and Iran is not. But I’m trying to talk to them. If they refuse to talk, well, that’s on them, and I tried, didn’t I?”
For Trump it’s a win-win, and he likes those. If Iran settles, then armed conflict is avoided. If Iran refuses to work it out, then there will be conflict, but it will clearly be Iran’s fault.
As for the conflict itself, well, I don’t expect it will be long. Israel showed, in 2025, that Iranian air defenses are a joke. And if they’re a joke to Israel, they are certainly a joke to the United States.
The United States recently showed that it can move in to a country, take its illegitimate leader captive, and leave, with minimal bloodshed. Will the US do it again? Frankly, I hope so; the mullahs have been in power for decades too long.
“The United States recently showed that it can move in to a country, take its illegitimate leader captive, and leave, with minimal bloodshed. Will the US do it again? Frankly, I hope so; the mullahs have been in power for decades too long.”
That last bit is the problem with the first bit – they have support in depth. Oh, not from the majority of the people, but from far too many for a simple decapitation strike like what worked against Madurro.
He was a standard dictator: all power goes through ME! Take him out, everything falls apart.
The power in Iran, while it sits mostly in Khomeini, is religious in nature*, and he has an entire religious support structure backing him up. You’d have to remove an entire council of leaders to have a chance to have it work out like what happened with Madurro, and even then, there’s going to be the second tier that is far too large for that – if they can manage to keep it together, the first strike won’t do much at all.
And the existing power structure there has made ***ENEMIES*** of the majority of the people. Remove their power, and it’s likely to go badly for them, so even if you could break their religious zeal (and a noticeable chunk of them are going to have been chosen for religious zealotry), their own self-interest doesn’t really given them a good “out”.
In short, I think the “minimal bloodshed” scenario is unlikely.
TLDR: it’s the Middle East. “Minimal bloodshed” isn’t a thing there.
* Well, Islam. Islam has religious aspects, yes, and it uses religious garb, but it’s primarily a political power structure in religious trappings.
Re getting spicy: it doesn’t seem likely that Putin will want to help; what would be in it for him? That’s all he cares about. And even if he did help somewhat, clearly that help would not go so far as to attack the USA. There’s an old saying about the US not wanting to risk nukes landing on New York for the sake of defending Rome; the same, only much more so, applies to Putin. Risk his life and Moscow to help some towelhead maniacs in Tehran? Not a chance.
Beat me to it. Putin has not unleashed his nukes on Europe which is threatening him directly, much closer to home. For Iran, no way.
They could have a couple of years and not be any more ready than they are now – they’ve been preparing for this for decades. For all the good it is likely to do them.
And Russia is the one *getting* aid in their mad quest to conquer some land that isn’t remotely worth what they’ve already put into it. Giving aid seems… unlikely.
It’s all smoke and mirrors.
Trump isn’t acting on behave of anyone but Isreal and the other morons that control him.
And my guess is if he thinks about leaving we will get another USS Liberty style false flag/caucus belle to destroy Iran.
Power always needs an enemy. To divert your attention away from the real grift they have going.
Our navy should be protecting our shores. Just as our military should be on our borders.
Truly. Why is Isreal and Iran any of our business????
And if we are worried about terrorism. Why aren’t we using our full might to rid ourselves of the traitors within our borders? And the invasion that has already occurred?
This is about starting a war to cover the great financial reset.
All wars are banker wars.
Everything that has come out of the government mouth for the last 100 years has been a lie.
Why should we start believing them now?
The only difference between Trump and Biden is that one can finish a sentence.
Did you miss the part where Iran has been the primary funder of international terrorism for decades? Where they have targeted American citizens for the “crime” of being American?
If we are to have allies at all, Israel is a good one. And in the M.E., they are a good “canary in the coal mine”, where they get targeted first when things are starting to heat up (for the bajillionth time) before it gets to us.
I think there are some good non-self-interested reasons to care… but the track record on which places “we” (meaning our political class) apply those kinds of arguments (and what using those arguments is really cover for) is ***really really really really*** bad, so I get why you don’t want to entertain them.
But there are *entirely self-interested* reasons to care about this stuff, too, and they are pretty good arguments.
Heck, just the factually-accurate “oil is the still the single most strategically important commodity on the planet” argument is enough to keep us involved in the Middle East, even if we produce all of our own oil. And Israel is still our best ally there, easily and by far.
Israel is not our best ally. And never have been.
USS Liberty????
Have you looked up HIAS? “Hebrew Immigrate Aid Society? They’re the ones that brought in most of Joe Biden’s invasion force.
What has Isreal ever done for us, or given us? That we truly needed? We certainly don’t need all the foreign aid money they give us. Oh, my bad.
Same with the whole world. We would do just fine right here minding our own business.
Oil is only strategically important because that’s what globalist’s want it to be.
We can already make more than we need. Probably make enough for our neighbors to. (Thermal depolymerization)
And Iran is only important because they do spread global terrorists. But who allows people that have a hard time building mud huts to spread all across the world?
When were in the middle of the so called GWOT?
For being enemies we sure import a lot of them.
We aren’t global terrorists ourselves at this point?
Or maybe you just didn’t get that million dollar missile into your local aspirin factory? (Just to cover up the immorality of some globalist elitist.)
Were, you, me, all of us, are being played. Just like the poor people of Iran.
And right now the political class isn’t applying anything.
It’s our countrymen and woman that are in harm’s way.
And right now our fleets are nothing more than floating ducks. Waiting to get sunk.
What amazes me the most is that with all the info at our fingertips today. We still buy into the most outrageous of lies.
Isreal is not an ally any more than China is.
“Israel is not our best ally. And never have been.”
I didn’t say they were “the best”, only “good”. Not remotely perfect… and we haven’t been remotely perfect to them, either (see “Obama meddling in their elections” for only the most egregious). We aren’t best friends or anything, just “allies”.
But here’s a very easy way to discuss the issue: who would YOU say has been a better ally than Israel? And why?
And not “better ally in WWII” or something silly like that. Better ally in the last… let’s say since the end of the Cold War, so last 35ish years. As best I can tell, getting to the top of that fairly short list would NOT be hard.
“Same with the whole world. We would do just fine right here minding our own business.”
I **ABSOLUTELY** have that sentiment. The problem is that, every time the US gives in to that sentiment, the world goes to crap, comes over and takes a dump on us, too, and we end up cleaning it up, which ends up taking a LOT of blood and treasure. **FAR** more than just… preventing it from going to crap in the first place. It sucks, and I hate it, but that doesn’t make it not so. Reality doesn’t care about my opinion or yours.
“Oil is only strategically important because that’s what globalist’s want it to be.”
Herp-a-derp-a-derp, I’m ignoring basic reality, YAY!
We can indeed make more oil-based products without oil. I have said as much around here, explicitly.
But oil from the ground takes MUCH MUCH MUCH less energy, because it’s already made. As such, it’s the world’s most strategic resource. You don’t have to like it, but please don’t be stupid about it.
“Or maybe you just didn’t get that million dollar missile into your local aspirin factory? (Just to cover up the immorality of some globalist elitist.)”
Oh, that definitely happens. The best argument against a LOT of what we do internationally is the absurdity of Democratic politicians in the Presidency. The fecklessness of Republican politicians in the Presidency is a significant secondary argument. (Negative) 3 cheers for our political class.
“We’re, you, me, all of us, are being played. Just like the poor people of Iran.”
If the people of Iran end up no longer under the power of an insane, evil Islamic theocracy, will you admit you were wrong on that point? Because they aren’t being “played”, they are being “horribly oppressed”.
That does NOT make it our responsibility to set right, but we have our own entirely self-interested reasons why it would be good to get rid of that theocracy.
“Isreal is not an ally any more than China is.”
That might actually be the most absurd statement of that entire conspiracy-theory spew.
China is actively racially supremacist with active and ongoing plans to dominate and preferably openly and completely rule the entire world, with genocide of other races absolutely in the plan if they can get that far (see how they treat other races in the territory they already rule). They are not bound by anything but realpolitick – “international law” is a joke, their own word is a joke, etc.
Israel, at the absolute worst description by the craziest antisemites, is not remotely that bad. (If they are after genocide of the Palestinians, they are dumber-than-AOC incompetent at actually doing so, which would be sufficient to say they are not remotely as bad as China in that regard.)
“And right now our fleets are nothing more than floating ducks. Waiting to get sunk.”
Our previous engagements with Iran suggest… otherwise. By a lot. By a whole lot. By SOOOOooooo much. But never let reality get in the way when a crazy theocrat is threatening to sink our ships, eh? (How crazy? “This video game footage is actually real footage of our real military, honest!” crazy.)
“Same with the whole world. We would do just fine right here minding our own business.”
“I **ABSOLUTELY** have that sentiment. The problem is that, every time the US gives in to that sentiment, the world goes to crap, comes over and takes a dump on us, too, and we end up cleaning it up, which ends up taking a LOT of blood and treasure. **FAR** more than just… preventing it from going to crap in the first place. It sucks, and I hate it, but that doesn’t make it not so. Reality doesn’t care about my opinion or yours.”
Who was it and when have we ever tried the concept since George Washington?
And who cares if the world goes to crap?
It’s always been going to crap in one way or another. Even more reason to mind our own.
“Israel is not our best ally. And never have been.”
“I didn’t say they were “the best”, only “good”. Not remotely perfect… and we haven’t been remotely perfect to them, either (see “Obama meddling in their elections” for only the most egregious). We aren’t best friends or anything, just “allies”.”
Once again. What have they ever done for us?
They take our money and use our bombs to start shit in places that have nothing to do with our wellbeing.
China is stealing everything they can get their hands on over here.
And Israel isn’t?
China shipped in maybe a 100,000-250,000 people during the Biden admin.
HIAS was directly involved in almost every person that crossed our border illegally in that timeframe. 20 million fighting age males or better. (Including those jihadi terrorists Iran is sponsoring.)
You think China and Iran is a bigger treat than that to us, today?
Does that sound like any kind of ally to you?
Ask Michael Yon if you don’t believe me.
“Isreal is not an ally any more than China is.”
That might actually be the most absurd statement of that entire conspiracy-theory spew.
China is actively racially supremacist with active and ongoing plans to dominate and preferably openly and completely rule the entire world, with genocide of other races absolutely in the plan if they can get that far (see how they treat other races in the territory they already rule). They are not bound by anything but realpolitick – “international law” is a joke, their own word is a joke, etc.
Are you positing that Zionist Jews aren’t all that, and more? Really?
Look up Goyim. (that’s us.)
They’re just not as numerous as Chinese.
“Oil is only strategically important because that’s what globalist’s want it to be.”
“Herp-a-derp-a-derp, I’m ignoring basic reality, YAY!”
Thermal depolymerization is a proven fact.
85% efficient. Made straight from ag waste. Any kind. And if nothing else would stretch our known oil/coal reserves out to damn near infinity.
And the only reason it’s not being widely spread, and universally used is because of the global oil trade. Controlled by global elite.
For themselves, not us.
“Our previous engagements with Iran suggest… otherwise. By a lot. By a whole lot. By SOOOOooooo much. But never let reality get in the way when a crazy theocrat is threatening to sink our ships, eh? (How crazy? “This video game footage is actually real footage of our real military, honest!” crazy.)”
What engagement would that have been?
One bombing strike on nuke sites?
We shoot million dollar missiles that take years to replace at 1,000 dollar drones they replace in hours.
We got our asses hanging way out in the breeze on this one.
Drone swarms have changed the face of modern warfare. And the only real treat we are to the world is in our nuke arsenal.
And right now, hours after we hit Iran. We could be without power across most of America.
With most of our fiber-optic lines cut.
Then who is going to be fighting who, to save what?
I get what your thinking, but you need to dig deeper buddy.
It ain’t like it’s all hyperbole that they named us the “Great satan”.
“Who was it and when have we ever tried the concept since George Washington?”
Decades at a time, more than once. That’s one of the things that led to WWII, actually.
“And who cares if the world goes to crap?”
That would be the “and then they come over and take a dump on us, too” part. I wish we could just check out, leave them alone, they leave us alone, but we’ve tried that, and it turns out badly every time.
“Once again. What have they ever done for us?”
Once again, who would you list as a better ally? You’re ignoring my point. They aren’t perfect, they aren’t even great…. but who is *actually better*? In the middle east, who else even comes close to sharing our values, to implementing any form of representative government?
“Look up Goyim. (that’s us.)”
I am aware. They have a word for “not us”. So do lots of other groups. (Christian groups largely use the word “pagan” that way, for just one example.) And…….. what? That magically makes them magically worse somehow?
“Thermal depolymerization is a proven fact.”
Yep, I fully agreed with that. No disagreement, at all.
“And the only reason it’s not being widely spread, and universally used is because of the global oil trade.”
Yes, that’s also true.
“Controlled by global elite.
For themselves, not us.”
No… well, as in all things, they do what is good for themselves, so in some ways, sure, but no, not the way you mean it.
The energy has to come from somewhere. Oil from the ground is an energy SOURCE. Oil products created using thermal depolymerization TAKE energy to produce. Drilling and trading oil is CHEAPER than coming up with all that energy… a LOT cheaper.
THAT is why there is a huge international trade for oil. “You can spend $2X for this or deal with the hassle of international trade and pay $X for the exact same thing.” It’s not hard to understand.
“What engagement would that have been?”
Operation Praying Mantis would be the largest, where we absolutely humiliated their military forces. It would also be the only one that involved any significant level of actual military engagement as opposed to little dinks back and force, at least since Carter absolutely flubbed things (though the primary loss there, militarily, was to the dessert, not enemy forces).
“Drone swarms have changed the face of modern warfare.”
Maybe. It has certainly been a big thing on the small-scale land-based battlefields of Ukraine.
It didn’t seem to make any difference at all when Iran attacked Israel with a bunch of them, then Israel absolutely blasted the crap out of them, annihilated their air defenses with zero losses, and proceeded to do whatever they dang-well pleased in Iranian airspace. Then the US went in and did whatever we dang-well pleased, too. After we did the same in Venezuela, there’s no reason to think “drone swarms” will be of any strategic significance (YET) in large-scale air war. 5 more years? 10? Hard to say, but we don’t seem to be there… YET.
“And right now, hours after we hit Iran. We could be without power across most of America.”
Oh, that’s absolutely a problem, yes… but that could happen “after we hit Iran”, “after Iran gets annoyed at us for any reason”, “when China feels like it needs a distraction”, or “when some billionaire is bored and wants a show”. It’s a MUCH bigger and much *different* problem, completely stand-alone from anything else going on. It should be one of our highest national priorities, *regardless* of any specific threat, but it just… isn’t. The only people who pay attention to it can’t seem to get any traction with the public or any politicians. It isn’t “sexy” or something. Very frustrating.
“I get what your thinking, but you need to dig deeper buddy.”
And I get where you are coming from, but you need to deal with reality, not paranoia.
It’s ain’t paranoia if they are truly out to kill you.
And going over there has worked out how? For us ever?
Sure, our soldiers are best in the world. And kicked-ass in almost every battle. Then what happened?
WWII? What is Europe today?
Japan?
Vietnam?
Iraq/Afghanistan?
Ukraine?
We bring death and destruction. Then let the enemy win.
Trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is called what?
Insanity.
So, here we go again. Ready to fight evil, for a bunch of evil bankers.
With the enemy inside our parameter this time.
Not smart.
“The energy has to come from somewhere. Oil from the ground is an energy SOURCE. Oil products created using thermal depolymerization TAKE energy to produce. Drilling and trading oil is CHEAPER than coming up with all that energy… a LOT cheaper.”
OK. So an acre of canola costs less than 10 gallons of fuel to make a 110 gallons of canola oil.
Using Thermal depolymerizing on top of that would yield over 200-250 gallons of gasoline. Probably more.
(the reason it’s only 85% efficient is because it uses the natural gas that comes off to heat and pressurize the bio-mass for conversion.)
That’s just canola/rape seed.
We haven’t even started on ag by-products in general. With forest and intentional farming for just that bio-mass.
Not enough to run our country?
How would we know, we’ve never tried it have we?
Cause just like J.P.Morgan when he asked N. Tesla where they were going to plug in the meter on this new grid?
No meter? Forget it.
Tesla died poor.
The global oil trade is exactly what it is because it can be controlled by the “Epstein class”. And if it couldn’t be?
We would still be moving crap with horses and carts. It’s for them, not us.
Just like the man-made climate changed crowd wanted.
And if you don’t think so. Ever wonder why the standard empirical settled science told us for 50 years or better that oil was made from dinosaurs. And that what was in the ground was all there was.
And you would have me believe that drilling oil from 600′ to 5,000′ ft. in the ocean + transportation and refining is cheaper than hauling 80,000 lbs. in 2,000 lb. bales at 4 miles to the gallon is less costly?
Plus, no Exxon Valdez to worry about?
The problem is in control.
And little else.
You might want to validate your sources on the thermal depolymerization. You don’t get gasoline without more refining, and you never get more mass without additional feedstock.
See below.
“OK. So an acre of canola costs less than 10 gallons of fuel to make a 110 gallons of canola oil.
Using Thermal depolymerizing on top of that would yield over 200-250 gallons of gasoline. Probably more.”
Cool story, bro. So, why aren’t you a canola oil gasoline producing multi-jillionaire?
That’s the thing about claims like yours… if it’s so obvious, and the requirements are so very, very low, why isn’t anyone doing it?
Because you are leaving out, rather explicitly, the thing I was pointing out: energy. To convert the canola oil to gasoline (even assuming no other additives are needed) *takes energy*. That is, **it costs money**.
So, you take canola oil, which sells in VERY large bulk (24+ ton order) for about at $3/kg, and weighs very roughly 7.5 pounds per gallon… that’s very roughly $10 a gallon. Then you convert that to gasoline, which according to you approximately doubles the amount (don’t care how or why) – that’s about $5 / gallon, *LEAVING OUT* the price of the energy to do the conversion.
THAT is why there’s an international oil trade – because it’s CHEAPER, exactly as I said.
Stop pulling BS out of your butt, and actually stop and think. That we CAN do it doesn’t magically make it cheaper than the way we are already doing it.
The business people have HUGE pressure on them to make/save money plus HUGE pressure by the enviro-idiots to not use oil. If this was cheaper, or even close to break even, they would be doing it.
“And you would have me believe that drilling oil from 600′ to 5,000′ ft. in the ocean + transportation and refining is cheaper than hauling 80,000 lbs. in 2,000 lb. bales at 4 miles to the gallon is less costly?”
Yes, because you are leaving the energy costs out entirely. A gallon of gasoline is **AMAZINGLY** energy dense. Making from anything less dense takes LOTS of energy. Energy costs money.
“And that what was in the ground was all there was.”
In terms of energy SOURCE, that’s true. We can make more gasoline (directly from air, actually, no canola oil required), but it would be as (essentially) a form of chemical battery, storing the energy in a useful form. We would still have to *produce* that energy some other way.
And you are just hand-waving that part away. You know, the **PRIMARY** thing.
Biodiesel is much more efficient to make from canola oil (among other things) using other methods, and it still struggles to compete, even with the built-in “environmentally friendly” PR.
“And you would have me believe that drilling oil from 600′ to 5,000′ ft. in the ocean + transportation and refining is cheaper than hauling 80,000 lbs. in 2,000 lb. bales at 4 miles to the gallon is less costly?”
Yes. MUCH. Because it comes with a huge amount of energy ALREADY IN IT, which canola oil does not.
The matter used as the base for the fuel is not where the cost comes from – we have *plenty* of that today.
You are leaving out most of the costs, then claiming it’s cheaper. Please stop. It’s tiresome.
“WWII? What is Europe today?
Japan?
Vietnam?
Iraq/Afghanistan?
Ukraine?”
So, we shouldn’t do anything because it might turn out badly 4-5 generations later? REALLY? All those entire generations of people, making their own choices, all the stuff done during the Cold War trying to influence each other’s societies… none of that matters? At all?
If anything, the lesson from what you put there is “show absolutely no mercy until complete and utter surrender, then rebuild their society – nothing else is worth it”. That’s what worked so well with Japan, worked quite well with Germany for 40+ years (and stopped the Nazis while we were at it). Vietnam is a great example of NOT doing that, and it turned out crap (well, we won, then the Democrats sold them out, but still). And the ROE of Iraq, after the initial invasion, was horrible, too.
I do not think you’re showing what you are trying to show. My position on this stuff is, “If it’s worth fighting, then *FIGHT*, win at any cost to the the enemy, then you have the opportunity to be merciful with whoever is left – if it’s not worth that, then don’t fight at all.”
What happened in Afghanistan for 20 years is what you get with half-measures – MORE bodies, not less, on both sides, with nothing to show for it for the rotten cherry on top.
And you still haven’t given a single ally better than Israel. Should be easy, if they’re so horrible. Heck, I didn’t even say they were “the best”, so it should be REALLY easy. Japan isn’t bad, for instance. Taiwan, maybe? Though that comes with a lot of baggage… England? They’ve become of very mixed bag…
I would just like to know why anyone is cutting Iran any slack when their leadership is guided by doctrine that instructs the slaughter or enslavement of infidels (that is anyone other than Muslims) and that pronounces that lying, cheating and stealing is just fine so long as it meets the end goal (World Domination in the name of Allah) that they support. If somebody kills my brother’s family and burns his house down, do you really think it would be sane to invite them into my house? What would be sane is making sure that they could never get close to my house. Time has shown that there is only one thing that gets the attention of Islam and that is the application of unmitigated raw power. Unfortunately history has also shown that such force will never be permanently accepted by Islam. Barbary Pirates anyone?
For probably a year after 9/11 a friend and I frequently discussed how to solve the problem. It did not take long before we realized we were stuck in a rut with this “Islam problem” only having one “Final Solution.”
Technically it probably is feasible. Politically, it is too distasteful to even propose.
I suspect there a great many people have come to the same conclusion and keep “kicking the can down the road” in hopes someone else will have a less psychologically painful solution. I’m certain many Israeli politicians have struggled in this same problem space and finding themselves in the same rut. I’m inclined to let them take the lead, give them support, and “avert my eyes” when they do what they need to do.
I don’t think a “final solution” would be required for Islam.
Oh, the minimum would still be quite unpleasant, but nowhere near genocide.
Islam is a religion of conquest. That is its whole point: kill other people and take their stuff. It is a structure of strength.
It is thus more brittle than any other religion I know. They are still listing the loss of Andalusia as casus belli 7 centuries later.
Destroy Mecca or Medina. Pick one and flatten it, the whole thing – absolutely annihilate it. Then, demand the jizya every year, FOREVER, or your will do the same to the other one. **HUMILIATION** would destroy Islam – it would be an absolute proof that it’s claim of strength was empty.
Oh, it would take a while. It would be very unpleasant. Might have to follow through on destroying the other “holy city”.
But it would weaken. When there weren’t enough adherents, tear down a mosque and replace it with a pork packing plant – even if you have to import the pigs. THAT kind of treatment would end it.
Christianity does not require strength. In fact, if anything that weakens it. Judaism does not require strength. Buddhism does not require strength. Hinduism does not require strength (at least not outside India… it’s complicated).
Islam requires strength. Deny it that strength, and it would wither.
That’s the least-destructive means I see out of the current predicament, *VERY VERY* much including just surrendering to Islam (that would be the MOST destructive possible outcome, though it would probably take a few decades as everything crumbled).
As with most other things at the civilizational level, there is literally no zero body count option – people die and get killed in every possible choice. This one would appear to be the lowest that I can come up with… but I don’t expect anyone to actually do it.
If you think we have a terrorist problem now, flattening Mecca and/or Medina would make it much, much worse.
You could still be right. That route could be the lowest body count route.
See also: https://blog.joehuffman.org/2005/03/03/first-we-nuke-medina/
People who have not lived in the ME in the various countries are rather clueless in regards to the politics of the region. One simple point is that carter – may he burn – is the reason that islam is in control of Iran. The Iranian people ARE NOT ARABS and have never been. The fact that an arabic oligarchy calling itself a religion is currently ruling there through force of arms does not make it an arabic country. .
Yes. Persian people with Islamic rulers.
Islam is the problem to be eliminated or at least severely constrained.
The only thing necessary for the refining of all grudge oil is fractional distillation.
Cracking and polymerizing to get CH2 units into place to meet demand. If necessary. (Gasoline or motor oil, diesel, such like.)
Thermal depolymerization creates “lite sweet crude”. So, refining is the same.
Fractional distillation is quite simple as an industrial process. The cracking and polymerizing are somewhat more difficult.
But all these are known in the 1930’s and can be scaled to almost county size (Area serviced).
AI could run one of these refineries by itself, almost.
As far as chemistry goes. Oil is nothing more than bio-mass, polymerized into a liquid anyway.
Weights are weights. A 55 gallon drum of crude from the ground at 400 lbs.is little to no different than 400 lbs. of biomass. Mostly carbon and hydrogen.
Biomass has more oxygen in it. But that is also a saleable product if isolated, at 50 to 500 dollars a ton. Which the thermal process does before fractional distillation.
Are transportation costs of moving crude greater than making and moving bales around? That is all about where your refinery is.
Farming is easy (if your growing and baling weeds) or as a second crop. Compared to the drilling and shipping system we use today. (I know which one is easier to clean up if spilled.)
The TD system can be done at cost, and our monetary systems adjusted. As we have suffered gas and oil at much higher numbers than it would cost already. But getting someone to actually do true numbers, then work on the change is the problem.
No will to change, no way to get it done.
“But getting someone to actually do true numbers, then work on the change is the problem.”
If it was cheaper (as you keep claiming while entirely ignoring the errors I point out), people would be doing it.
What’s to stop Joe Bob Ag-Bro from doing this on his own farm? NOTHING. Certainly not the know-how – who do you think is involved with the current “rendering” processes at turkey packing plants and such?
Grow it yourself, process it yourself. Done.
And NO ONE is doing it. Because it costs much, much more than petroleum… because petroleum from the earth is a SOURCE of energy, while producing it from other sources COSTS energy.
I have pointed this out repeatedly, and you ignore and keep going. You don’t even *address* it, just ignore it.
Which makes sense, I guess, since it completely destroys your suggestion, but still, it’s tiresome.
No, that what I’ve been telling you. If you would listen.
You keep starting with a barrel of oil.
OK. What did it cost to get out of the ground? What does it cost to move to the refinery? Energy and money.
Making that barrel of crude is just as easy.
The fact that no one is doing it is exactly what i’ve said all along. Not that might be easier, harder, cheaper, or even better. It’s that it can’t be controlled by big business.
You don’t think that is a factor?
Cause the chemistry is there. The numbers work.
And I would be doing it. But I lack the funds and it would take a billion dollars and 20 years to get the refinery permit.
I wonder why?
Big business, control, that’s why.
I am not “starting with a barrel of oil”.
The oil that available now is in the ground, most of it pretty deep. It takes effort and energy to get it out of the ground and transport it.
It has so much energy in it that it’s still a NET win over trying to make more from other sources with the technology we have. Barring some incredible breakthrough that no one knows about right now, that is unlikely to change any time soon.
The numbers do not remotely work. Energy density is thing. Converting lower energy density materials to higher ones takes energy.
All biomass is not the same. All hydrocarbons are not the same. The amount of energy held in a given volume, the amount of energy released when burned, the byproducts produced, how much effort is required to start the chemical process, what catalysts are available to help ALL VARY A LOT. That CO2 is one of the end products of all of them does not make them the same in other ways.
Those kinds of variances are the reasons both fat and simple sugars are utilized by the human body, for one everyday example. Even what process is used to convert sugars to energy vary by the needs of the body, as different processes have different costs and benefits.
The energy required to find, drill out, and transport petroleum DOES matter, which is why certain deposits weren’t worth getting until we found better ways to get them, but the energy contained in petroleum is so high that it’s still worth getting in many cases (though not all – still some deposits that aren’t).
Until we run out of those “worthwhile” deposits, it is cheaper in total energy output to drill out the oil and transport it than to make it from any other source we have yet found.
Most people have no idea how much energy is in raw crude. It’s really quite amazing.
But when those deposits run out (and they will, eventually – there is a finite amount), THEN your suggestion is likely to be put into practice. And the world will be poorer for it, because energy costs will unavoidably go up.
Well, unless we go nuclear, start putting large solar farms in space, or some other *actual* game-changer, where energy costs get low enough we stop drilling for oil, where the cost of energy is so low that the extra costs of finding, drilling, and transporting add up to more than just using the cheap and plentiful energy to produce the convenient fuel we like so much in a method like you are suggesting. Nuclear could do it – no other terrestrial source that we currently know how to use could do it without radical levels of reshaping the environment – continent-sized solar farms of some kind (what you are suggesting is biological-based solar farming, using plants instead of solar panels), enormous damming projects with massive reservoirs, tidal generators on literally every beach and shallow spot on the planet, crazy stuff like that.
“And NO ONE is doing it. Because it costs much, much more than petroleum… because petroleum from the earth is a SOURCE of energy, while producing it from other sources COSTS energy.”
How do you know that?
It didn’t cost you energy to find and get it out of the ground?
As for the chemistry. Most of the chemists of today believe in man-made CO2 climate change.
I proved that was wrong in 5 mins. with a 70 year old chemistry book. 10 minutes after I heard that line of BS.
Still can with modern data.
Hole in the ozone? Same crap-think.
A thousand other lies that come from the bought and paid for science community.
And I’m supposed to believe something I know the numbers and chemistry are correct on because no one in chemistry will even talk about it?
Sorry.
Been lied to enough to know the difference.
Maybe you haven’t.
“Most of the chemists of today believe in man-made CO2 climate change.”
That’s because they’ve been shoveled propaganda and been lied to on top of that. While some form of “man-made” is possible, it’s definitely not from CO2. There are many obvious disproofs to it.
“Hole in the ozone? Same crap-think.”
Yep, you’re right about that, too.
“And I’m supposed to believe something I know the numbers and chemistry are correct on because no one in chemistry will even talk about it?”
Literally, people are doing it. The military is making jet fuel from AIR. It’s not that people don’t know it’s possible.
It’s that it is expensive because it takes energy to do all of that, while petroleum has a huge amount of energy already IN it (yes, even after drilling it out of the ground and transporting it around the world is taken into account).
Literally, people are doing it. The military is making jet fuel from AIR. It’s not that people don’t know it’s possible.
That’s because they are starting with the burned out by products to begin with.
CO2 and H2O. Then putting the energy back into them.
Cordwood and crude oil already have that energy put in them by nature. The same levels.
Cordwood just needs liquefying.
Which as an industrial process ain’t hard to do.
It is not the same energy levels. That is the failure point.
What you are suggesting will replace oil when either the easily-reached oil is gone or some other energy source becomes common/cheap enough (nuclear is cheap enough, just too rare due to the NIMBYs and enviro-crazies). Until then, it won’t.
There are some horrible people that do indeed have much too much power in the world and want more… but they don’t magically not want more over *each other*. They aren’t some unified power bloc, and they don’t rule with an iron fist.
If the technology existed like you think it does, the first of them to jump on it would gain an ENORMOUS advantage over the others who didn’t. Or even someone outside their group could bypass them, DISPLACE them. Such a group would need to be both highly unified AND already rule undisputed for what you are saying to work.
Oh, and the rules of chemistry would need to be different. But that’s small potatoes, eh?
Deoxy.
Sorry buddy, carbon and hydrogen heated to combine with oxygen creating CO2 and water produce the same amount of energy from whatever source derived.
Energy density the way you are using it is a canard.
Once again, weight is weight. 400 lbs. of carbon and hydrogen in a barrel of liquid is no different than 400 lbs. of carbon and hydrogen is in branches or weeds.
Their all hydrocarbons. With the same energy levels. The only difference is what it takes to get them to the refinery.
Your starting with some in the ground already made. OK. Then you have to drill, pump, and maintain all that system. Generally, from 5,000 ft down.
ever worked on a drill rig? I have. Ever done any of that maintenance? I have. None of it is easier, cheaper, or cleaner than farming.
Guran-f’ing-teed.
I used canola as an easy to understand example. Not because of anything other than to show one gets not only direct fuel from it. 150 gallons. (that only cost you 10 gallons to grow and harvest). But because the plant that oil was extracted from was also an extra 1500 lbs. of biomass (mostly carbon and hydrogen) that can be converted at 85% efficiency. Using that same plant mass to do it.
Which gives you about another 150 gallons.
300 gallons per acre. Lite sweet grude, is lite sweet grude. Refining is the same cost. Transportation is easier. post refinery is the same.
Energy density is the same.
You might think war is worth it. Maybe you have already been to one. I don’t know.
But even buck private knows you don’t go into battle somewhere else when you have a large enemy battle group in your f-ing camp already. And easy to cut supply lines 8,000 mile long.
As for Isreal. (the government, not the people) is not and never has been our ally. We are theirs. But they aren’t ours.
USS liberty?
“AIPAC stands for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.”
Elections anyone?
Add the name China in there instead of Isreal.
You OK with that? Xi spending as much time in the America white house as he does in China, like Bebe does? Think that would seem fishy if China was the size of Isreal?
We spend billions over there. What do we get out of the deal? Beside accomplice to genocide.
No, not even an ally. We Goyim. I’m sick of it. And shocked (kind of) that more aren’t. You want to die for them. Go for it.
But don’t act shocked if they ain’t to grateful for the sacrifice.
You owe your masters that and more.
“Sorry buddy, carbon and hydrogen heated to combine with oxygen creating CO2 and water produce the same amount of energy from whatever source derived.
Energy density the way you are using it is a canard.”
We have nothing further to discuss on this topic until you understand the basic rules of chemistry.
Go prove me wrong by doing what you are talking about that LITERALLY NO ONE is doing, because *it doesn’t actually work like that*.
“Beside accomplice to genocide.”
And we’re done on this topic, too. If Israel is attempting genocide against the Arabs (which is all “Palestinians” are), then they are more incompetent than AOC.
30,000 dead in an urban war (which the Palestinians very, very much started with deliberate atrocities against civilians) over 2 years is NOTHING. That’s “active avoidance of civilians”. We killed more European civilians than that in any given MONTH in WWII, and we weren’t trying to kill them, that’s just the nature of urban combat.
Any other country on Earth would have wiped out a group of death cult crazies like that Palestinians in their territory years ago by now (and yes, by every standard of every group of people that has ever existed, that land belongs quite reasonably to Israel). The Israelis have gone to *ridiculous* lengths to avoid killing them while trying to defend themselves.
That conflict will be over the instant the Palestinians want to live more than they want to kill Jews for the crime of existing. That is not just the root of the conflict, *it is the whole conflict*. Israel has offered them everything they CLAIM to want TWICE, and they walked away both times.
The people who want genocide is the Palestinians. If they got a nuke in the morning, it’d be going off in Israel (or even just on the border) that afternoon.
Israel has had the power to literally wipe out every man, woman, and child in Gaza for literally decades, and the Palestinian population goes up every year. If any of the countries nearby would take Gaza for nothing more than official recognition of Israel’s right to exist, Israel would give it to them in a heartbeat – they’ve literally made the offer many times. In fact, none of the neighboring countries will take Gaza *even without that agreement*, because the countries that have taken them in have had HORRIBLE problems with them – attempted coup in Jordan, decades of civil war and general destruction in Lebanon.
Learn some actual history to go with those basic chemistry lessons.
I will go head to head with you any day on basic chemistry, Buddy.
Cause to date all you have “nobody is doing it”.
Except it is already being done. you even pointed it out yourself.
And the jews can kill anybody they want in their territory. Just quit grifting the rest of us to pay for it/do it for them.
Oh ya, the vaunted world spy masters of mossad just happen to miss oct.7 in their own back yard?
Especially since they created Hamas to counter the PLO in Gaza in the first place.
Ya, I guess I’m lacking in my history. (I am getting old, forget stuff)
“Except it is already being done. you even pointed it out yourself.”
Yes, that’s the point. People KNOW HOW to do it.
But it’s only going on conditions where the cost doesn’t really matter. Like, say, the military wanting jet fuel without worrying about the supply train being cut off. Nuclear power + air = jet fuel. More expensive, but no supply problems.
If it’s being publicly done in cases like that, it’s not that people don’t know about it. It’s that it’s too expensive. *Because you have to add a lot of energy.*
“And the jews can kill anybody they want in their territory.”
Yes, they can. That was my point. If they wanted to commit genocide, it would already be done, **decades** ago. Instead, the Palestinian population rises literally every year, and Palestinian children are treated, their lives saved, in Jewish hospitals.
One side has the power to commit genocide and chooses not to, has chosen not to for longer than most human beings currently living have been alive. The other side publicly proclaims their desire to commit genocide and tries to do so on the regular. Somehow, we’re supposed to condemn the former for genocide, not the latter? Help me out, here.
“Oh ya, the vaunted world spy masters of mossad just happen to miss oct.7 in their own back yard?”
The very worst thing that can be said about that, the most creatively condemning to Israel assuming they did know (it’s possible!), is that they deliberately let it happen for political benefit, for political cover (that didn’t really work, as the world always condemns them, anyway, for the having the temerity to … not die) for something they could just… do anyway.
And they could only “let it happen”… if the Palestinians were doing it. *EVEN IN THE WORST CASE*, one side is planning and executing mass murder of any Jew they can get their hands on, and the other side is so evil they… let them do it. The side actively doing the evil is still MUCH worse. How is this hard?!??????!? For anybody?!?
“But it’s only going on conditions where the cost doesn’t really matter. Like, say, the military wanting jet fuel without worrying about the supply train being cut off. Nuclear power + air = jet fuel. More expensive, but no supply problems.”
No, it’s not like that at all.
Crush/grind biomass to powder. Mix in 12 parts of water for 1 part biomass.
Heat to 500F at 600 PSI for 30 mins. makes lite sweet crude oil of it.
Reduce pressure and the water comes off as steam.
Refine through fractionally distilling the same as crude.
Your not adding energy to it. Your liquefying it.
Heating it is adding energy. Adding enough heat to boil all that water away is a LOT of heat.
“And they could only “let it happen”… if the Palestinians were doing it. *EVEN IN THE WORST CASE*, one side is planning and executing mass murder of any Jew they can get their hands on, and the other side is so evil they… let them do it. The side actively doing the evil is still MUCH worse. How is this hard?!??????!? For anybody?!?”
Did you really just say that?
Let your own people get raped and slaughtered as casus belle to go kill the islameist morons?
How ’bout setting up an ambush and putting them bastards down as they crossed the fence?
Why let innocents get killed? What kind of government and spy agency does that?
Sorry, got enough of those kind of assholes running our country already.
Why were the Israeli’s disarmed down there, a stone’s through from those animals?
With that kind of ally. Who needs enemies?
Yup Joe.
Heating does add energy.
That’s the 15% loss by using the natural gas that comes off, cycled back around to heat the biomass. And pressurize the vessel.
For every 100 pounds of mass you get 85 lbs. of crude.
So……to get a 50 gallon drum, through the biomass process you suggest, you mix 12 parts water to every one part of biomass then heat to 500F at 600PSI? And this would produce, according to you, 50 gallons of biomass treated in this way will produce 50 gallons of light sweet crude?
Courtesy of ChatGPT-
“**Energy Reality Check on “12:1 Water + Canola/Rapeseed → Light Sweet Crude”**
Assume the claim: producing **50 gallons of oil equivalent** using a slurry of **12 parts water : 1 part canola (rapeseed)**, heated to **500°F at 600 psi**.
—
### 1) Amount of Water Being Heated
12:1 ratio → 50 gal product implies roughly:
Water volume ≈ 600 gallons
Mass of water:
m = 600 gal × 3.785 kg/gal
m ≈ 2,271 kg
—
### 2) Energy Required Just to Heat the Water
Water heated from ~20°C to ~260°C (500°F).
Q₁ = m c ΔT
Q₁ = (2,271 kg)(4,200 J/kg·°C)(240°C)
Q₁ ≈ 2.3 × 10⁹ J
At 600 psi, boiling occurs near 250°C, so phase change must be included.
Latent heat (approx.):
Q₂ = m L
Q₂ = (2,271 kg)(1.8 × 10⁶ J/kg)
Q₂ ≈ 4.1 × 10⁹ J
Total heating energy:
Q_total = Q₁ + Q₂
Q_total ≈ 6.4 × 10⁹ J
—
### 3) Convert to Familiar Energy Units
6.4 × 10⁹ J ÷ 3.6 × 10⁶ J/kWh ≈ 1,780 kWh
≈ energy contained in **~50 gallons of diesel fuel**.
This energy is required **before any oil is produced**.
—
### 4) Maximum Energy Available in Canola/Rapeseed
Canola seed heating value ≈ 23 MJ/kg (dry basis).
Biomass fraction = 1/13 of mixture:
m_seed ≈ 2,271 / 12 ≈ 190 kg
Maximum chemical energy:
E_seed = (190 kg)(23 × 10⁶ J/kg)
E_seed ≈ 4.4 × 10⁹ J
—
### 5) Direct Comparison
Energy required to heat system:
≈ 6.4 × 10⁹ J
Maximum energy contained in canola seed:
≈ 4.4 × 10⁹ J
Energy input > total chemical energy available (even at 100% conversion efficiency).
Real processes are far less efficient.
—
### Conclusion
Heating the water alone requires **more energy than exists in the canola feedstock itself**.
This makes the proposed process **energy-negative**, meaning it cannot economically compete with conventional petroleum extraction (typical energy return 10:1–30:1).
This result follows directly from thermodynamics, not process optimization.”
“LowKey on February 21, 2026 at 8:57 am said:
So……to get a 50 gallon drum, through the biomass process you suggest, you mix 12 parts water to every one part of biomass then heat to 500F at 600PSI? And this would produce, according to you, 50 gallons of biomass treated in this way will produce 50 gallons of light sweet crude?”
I think your confusing volume with weight.
What it started as was 1 acre of rape seed would produce 100 to 250 gallons of canola oil. And cost rough 10 gallons to plant and harvest.
And the weight of that would be subtracted from the 3,000 lbs. of biomass it grew out of.
Roughly 1500 lbs. of left over plant material.
Oil weighs less than water, so 8 lbs. per gallon should cover it.
55 gallon drum of crude is about 400 lbs.
1,500 lbs. of plant biomass minus some of the oxygen still trapped in it is roughly 3 barrels of crude.
One can’t actually use gallons produced till one gets to the final product like gasoline.
As canola oil itself, being C18H32O2. And gasoline at about C9H20. Canola would produce twice as many gallons per volume.
Hydrogen and carbon, are hydrogen and carbon. The only difference is what form they are in for our desired need.
Cordwood and crude oil both burn to form CO2 + H2O in a perfect furnace.
Now, if 500F and 600 PSI use more energy than they make to than they produce?
How is it that oil companies take oil at roughly 70F to up over 900F at varying high PSI with water added for the refining process before fractional distillation?
Then go into the different cracking and polymerizing to get the desired hydrocarbons chains. Temps raised, then reduced, re-fractionalized, pressurized, released, reliquidated.
They use part of their oil to do all that.
Same with Thermal depolymerization. And it can go straight from the vessel into fractional distillation without heat added.
As pointed out. The system of thermal depolymerization is in place and has been in use for close to 30 years now.
I’m not proposing something wild unproven hair brained scam.
Yes, crude oil is a marvelous gift from God in my estimation. Very energy dense, (high carbon count). per volume.
And all I’m suggesting is the exploration of how nature made it in the first place. Were humans, can we not figure a way to do it ourselves? If nature is doing it, it isn’t that complicated.
Should we not endeavor to be free of corporate greed that runs our life’s at whim? And create a modern industry to fuel ourselves at a more local level?
This crap ain’t that difficult.
So is your proposed 12 parts water to 1 part rapeseed oil based on weight, or volume?
OK. I deserve that. I’m as guilty as anyone of not reading other people’s long assed posts.
Your right, I’m an idiot. It was all a grift. And I apologize for even bring it up.
Thanks!
Puget Sound area gets MIRVed for sure. Targets include TSF, Bremerton, Whidbey Island, Everett, Seattle, McCord and Fort Lewis. I think you can count on overlapping sequential nukes on all targets. It’s a place that has to totally destroyed in the event.