Read what you highlighted; I wrote that Obama ALLOWED things to happen. His inaction allowed things to go too far. He did nothing to make it happen but he did nothing to stop it. Originally Posted by JD BarleycornBULL. SHIT.
the effects of the Iraq war has almost certainly been a net negative on oil prices. as horrible as Saddam was to his people, he kept the oil flowing for the most part. in the chaos of the war oil was looted and wells were set on fire. Markets don't like instability and the war brought instability." for whatever reason !!! What a dumbass ! And YOU live close to one of the reasons why the Saudis increased production ,ya lyin friggrn liberal. God Damn, grow up ! And Wikipedia WON'T have the answer, SUCKCLOWN ! Sabes Que EAGLE FORD SHALE, CHAPETE !!!!! Pobre pendejo !! Keep up your DOTY campaign, Mr Truman ! Show those other's in the poll to be "Tom Dewey " !!
Oil prices have dropped a lot recently because the Saudis have increased oil production for whatever reason. Probably in an effort to fuck with Iran. Originally Posted by southtown4488
First of all, they're not close to going broke. They have assets and reserves estimated at over $700 billion to tide them over a period of low oil prices. Your article mentions a budget deficit of around $100 billion a year and they're already taking steps to trim it.I guess you are in the oil business, huh>
What is most perverse is how you root for an ally to go broke - instead of wishing this upon our adversaries Russia and Iran. Russia had sizable financial reserves a year ago, but they're depleting them much faster than the Saudis. It's a game of chicken. The Saudis are keeping the global oil market flooded because they know they can withstand low prices much longer than the Russians can. If you had any strategic sense you would be saying "I can't wait for those fuckers to go broke" about the Russians, not the Saudis. (You could have looked forward to the Iranians going broke too, but Odumbo is now bailing them out as part of his "legacy".)
Fracking is a cushion that won't save us if the Middle East goes up in flames. Your nonchalance at the prospect of jihadists taking over in Saudi Arabia is astonishingly stupid. We have spent decades helping the Saudis develop, operate and protect their oilfields - which are still essential to the stability of Western economies. Only a reckless and unthinking idiot would relish the thought of us someday going in and blowing up the terminals at Ras Tanura. Originally Posted by lustylad
I guess you are in the oil business, huh>Well, I hope there is no war, but otherwise I totally agree.
The Saudis are NOT our allies. And the Russians are not really our adversaries - although they aren't allies either.
The Saudis USE us. Try to remember the oil embargo in 1973 when they tried to cripple OUR economy, idiot. Every since that time, the US has avoided getting dependent on oil from any Muslim country. We get/have gotten most of our oil from Venezuela, Mexico, and Canada. And we did that because we know deep down inside that the Saudis are NOT our allies and cannot be trusted.
They play a cynical game of manipulating Islamic fervor for their own power and benefit. And they don't much care if the jihadist crazies they stoke cause massive harm in the rest of the world so long as they don't cause trouble within the kingdom.
Fuck them. Fuck the land of 10,000 princes. Fuck their misogynistic culture, their homophobic culture, their intolerant culture. We abet their repressive policies every time we help "stabilize" the region.
Maybe what is needed is a disastrous war in the Middle East that kills millions to finally wake up the secular movement in those nations.
The Turks had their moment of awakening after the disaster of WWI. War sometimes does that. Originally Posted by ExNYer
I gave Reagan credit... I've always given him credit for cutting and running.
Yeah, right... If you honestly wanted to give him "credit" you wouldn't refer to it as "cutting and running". Do you give the Democrats who controlled Congress at the time the same credit for passing resolutions that pushed Reagan into cutting and running?
http://www.nytimes.com/1984/02/01/wo...t-pullout.html
http://www.nytimes.com/1983/10/29/wo...s-invoked.html
If cutting and running was an Olympic event, the Dems would sweep the medal count every time.
We did not have to go to war with Iraq to increase their global output! Fuck man....we could have just lifted the sanctions....like Obama did with Iran.
Wow... So now you flip-flop from saying the Iraq War was directly responsible for driving up world oil prices, to admitting Iraq's oil exports rose after we ousted Saddam? Or maybe I am being too quick to call this a flip-flop. After all, you claimed to “understand supply and demand” much better than I do back in post #91. Why don't you explain to all of us poor, uneducated economic illiterates just how increased Iraqi supplies managed to drive up global oil prices during the Iraq War? Alternatively, you can admit your original statement was totally ignorant and incorrect (and you now hope nobody notices your flip-flop).
As far as just lifting the sanctions against Saddam - you mean we should have thrown 16 UN resolutions (10 passed under Bill Clinton) to the wind and said fuck all those violations of the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire agreement? Yeah, that's the ticket. Undermine the UN as an institution and tell tyrants everywhere they will be REWARDED for defying the US and the rest of the world. Capitulation and appeasement are always the best way to go, right fagboy?
Now are you starting to see the point?
Yes, I see that you are a flip-flopping phony. And a simple-minded partisan hack. Oh wait, I already told you that. I keep repeating it because you never grow or change.
Probably not.
I don't have time to explain a very complex region but your neoconic liberal view of trying to nation build has backfired.... Originally Posted by WTF
" corruption, kickbacks and scandal. " So the Clintons were over there advising them? Originally Posted by Rey LenguaIndeed, it all happened on Slick Willy's watch. The Iraq Oil-for-Food Program was another smashing success story, on a par with the Clinton Foundation's more recent earthquake relief efforts in Haiti.
I guess you are in the oil business, huh>.
Nope. I follow the oil markets as an economist.
The Saudis are NOT our allies. And the Russians are not really our adversaries - although they aren't allies either.
We have disagreements with our allies and we seek common ground with our adversaries. So what? Not all of our allies are as close to us as the UK or the Germans. We disagree with the Israelis all the time – are they not an ally? The country you should be beating up for being a dubious piss-poor “ally” is Pakistan. Saudi Arabia is a much better and more strategically important ally.
The Saudis USE us.
And we don't USE them? We have mutual interests on many issues. We use each other. That's the nature of the beast in relations between nations. At least you're not making that stupid libtard argument that we're greedy "corporatists” who are stealing their oil or forcing them to sell it on disadvantageous terms. Your complaint is just the opposite - they're using us and outsmarting us, right? You need to elaborate. I don't know what your point is.
Try to remember the oil embargo in 1973 when they tried to cripple OUR economy, idiot.
I recall it well. The Arab oil embargo was imposed during the Yom Kippur War in an attempt to weaken Western support for Israel. At a time when global oil demand was on an upswing and oil markets were tight, the embargo resulted in a quadrupling of the price of crude from roughly $3 to $12 a barrel. OPEC discovered its leverage as a cartel. The embargo was a shock, but the price of oil was poised to go up eventually due to fundamental supply and demand trends. Why do you blame it all on the Saudis? The Shah of Iran played a major role too, along with the rest of OPEC. In the four decades since then, the Saudis have behaved quite responsibly in their oil decisions. You overlook the fact that they have investments in the West totaling hundreds of billions of dollars. They know those holdings would tank if they tried to cripple our economy.
Now why don't YOU try to remember what happened to oil prices in the mid-1980s? There was a glut (similar to today's oil surplus) that drove the price down as low as $9 a barrel at one point. Back then, the Texas economy was much more dependent on the energy industry than it is today. Then-VP George H.W. Bush was dispatched to Riyadh to ask the Saudis to cut their production to halt the slide in prices since it had gone too far and was hurting the US energy industry. The Saudis complied and prices soon rebounded. That's just one example of why we view them as an ally. But given the way Odumbo has now fucked up the relationship, I doubt if they would be as accommodating today.
Ever since that time, the US has avoided getting dependent on oil from any Muslim country. We get/have gotten most of our oil from Venezuela, Mexico, and Canada. And we did that because we know deep down inside that the Saudis are NOT our allies and cannot be trusted.
Weak argument. It made economic sense for us to switch to neighboring suppliers and let other countries load up at Ras Tanura. Venezuela is much less of an “ally” than Saudi Arabia. And as I mentioned already, the Saudis want to protect the value of their Western investments. We can at least trust them not to shoot themselves in the foot. I am much more concerned about the Russians using energy as a political weapon to undermine our interests than the Saudis.
They play a cynical game of manipulating Islamic fervor for their own power and benefit.
You mean the House of Saud strives to stay in power and avoid getting overthrown? I'm shocked. As the custodians of Mecca and Medina, they do need to keep their Islamic legitimacy. Was it “manipulation” for them to behead dozens of al Queda members in public last week? Is it manipulation to try to co-opt radicals? I won't whitewash their actions, but they clearly understand the roots of Islamic fundamentalism better than you or I do. I would rather have a relationship with a regime we can lean on privately to rein in the madrassas. You would stupidly prefer to turn the country over to crazed jihadists, with whom we will have no relationship other than trying to kill each other.
And they don't much care if the jihadist crazies they stoke cause massive harm in the rest of the world so long as they don't cause trouble within the kingdom.
Try to remember we worked together (along with the Pakistanis) to “stoke” Islamist resistance to the Russians in Afghanistan back in the 1980s. Most of the groups we “stoked” were not bent on causing “massive harm in the rest of the world”. In recent years we've both been attacked by miscreant groups like al Queda and ISIS. I defy you to name one group inflicting “massive harm” on us that isn't also causing “trouble within the kingdom”.
Fuck them. Fuck the land of 10,000 princes. Fuck their misogynistic culture, their homophobic culture, their intolerant culture. We abet their repressive policies every time we help "stabilize" the region.
Fuck, fuck, fuck. Now you're losing it. What are you trying to say? You're upset because they don't let women drive in Saudi Arabia? So your solution is to turn over those horribly oppressed women to the Jihadi Johns? Then they'll feel much more liberated, I'm sure.
Maybe what is needed is a disastrous war in the Middle East that kills millions to finally wake up the secular movement in those nations.
Yeah, that's the ticket! Bring on a war that kills millions! And I thought you were one of the more rational posters in this forum. Evidently not. Good luck with that war to “wake up a secular movement”. History (including the recent history of the Arab Spring) teaches it is much more likely to wake up violent jihadists who will hijack the revolution and snuff out any secular stirrings.
The Turks had their moment of awakening after the disaster of WWI. War sometimes does that.
Turks and Saudis are very different. And Turkey under Erdogan is becoming less secular, not more. Originally Posted by ExNYer
Wow... and what exactly qualifies you as an expert on this very complex region, Professor Fagboy?Barnes and Nobles. When he's not cleaning golf balls, he's drinking designer coffee and reading books...that support his "beliefs"!
By the way, “neoconic liberal” is an oxymoron, you dumbfuck.
. Originally Posted by lustylad
Wow... and what exactly qualifies you as an expert on this very complex region Originally Posted by lustylad
Barnes and Nobles. When he's not cleaning golf balls, he's drinking designer coffee and reading books...that support his "beliefs"! Originally Posted by LexusLoverWhat qualifies LL The Cowardly Idiot to be "an expert" ... relating to ... "this very complex region."
Nation building is a liberal endeavor. .. neocons believe in nation building. Please quit embarrassing yourself.
By the way, “neoconic liberal” is an oxymoron, you dumbfuck.
. Originally Posted by lustylad
Barnes and Nobles. When he's not cleaning golf balls, he's drinking designer coffee and reading books...that support his "beliefs"! Originally Posted by LexusLoverOnce again...you are lying. I do read books and journals such as National Review. I try and read at least one paper a day. I find that more informative than say soundbites from some 24 hour news channel. You should try that approach and expand your horizon.
" for whatever reason !!! What a dumbass ! And YOU live close to one of the reasons why the Saudis increased production ,ya lyin friggrn liberal. God Damn, grow up ! And Wikipedia WON'T have the answer, SUCKCLOWN ! Sabes Que EAGLE FORD SHALE, CHAPETE !!!!! Pobre pendejo !! Keep up your DOTY campaign, Mr Truman ! Show those other's in the poll to be "Tom Dewey " !! Originally Posted by Rey Lenguamore dim witted, mentally challenged rants. what a surprise.
Once again...you are lying. I do read books and journals such as National Review. I try and read at least one paper a day. I find that more informative than say soundbites from some 24 hour news channel. You should try that approach and expand your horizon.You may read them, plagiarize them, but you rarely understand them.
When i play golf , i do clean my balls, are you jealous? I never drink coffee. Not sure what designer coffee is but you are a liar if you say i drink it. Originally Posted by WTF
Once again...you are lying. I do read books and journals such as National Review. I try and read at least one paper a day. I find that more informative than say soundbites from some 24 hour news channel. You should try that approach and expand your horizon.Why keep denying it all?
When i play golf , i do clean my balls, are you jealous? I never drink coffee. Not sure what designer coffee is but you are a liar if you say i drink it. Originally Posted by WTF