Donald Trump

Post by **Papsmear** » Sun Apr 28, 2019 2:01 pm

Trump makes a tweet and West Texas Intermediate drops $2.41 a barrel.
Tell me he doesn't carry a pretty big stick.

cashto · Post by **cashto** » Sun Apr 28, 2019 6:04 pm

Y'all are reading way too much into a one-day drop.

WTI price Nov 8, 2016: $44.96
WTI price today: $63.30

Besides, and this should come as no surprise to anyone who's paid any attention to this presidency, but Trump is bull@#(!ting again.

minigun · Post by **minigun** » Tue Apr 30, 2019 12:48 pm

cashto wrote:QUOTE (cashto @ Apr 29 2019, 04:04 AM) Y'all are reading way too much into a one-day drop.

WTI price Nov 8, 2016: $44.96
WTI price today: $63.30

Besides, and this should come as no surprise to anyone who's paid any attention to this presidency, but Trump is bull@#(!ting again.

Of course Saudi Arabia is gonna deny it. Russia is looking at the Saudi's saying don't you dare turn up the volume while we keep ours the same. I don't think trump would have shut iran down If he thought Saudi Arabia wouldn't compensate the missing iran oil.

I see a president cutting off money to a nation (iran) that uses most of its money to fund wars all over the middle east. Wars that had american troops running all over putting out the fires. Obama lifting sanctions on Iran and handing them a billion dollars still makes my blood pressure go up...

Post by **pkk** » Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:06 pm

That's not fair, just look how much money everyone from the Middle East through into the Syrian civil war. Iran at least did it offical and even sent troops (like Russia).

I don't think money is a the problem for Iran to 'support terrorism', it just keeps the regime in place (like everywhere else in Arabia).

Post by **zombywoof** » Tue Apr 30, 2019 6:11 pm

For example, the house of Saud which is currently engaging in a war of genocide in Yemen while being supported by the US military.

Minigun: Iran isn't the problem. Saudi Arabia is the problem. Try to pay $#@!ing attention you numptie. Who do you think flew planes into US buildings? Not Iranians, SAUDI ARABIANS. Funded for by SAUDI OIL MONEY.

minigun · Post by **minigun** » Tue Apr 30, 2019 7:25 pm

phoenix1 wrote:QUOTE (phoenix1 @ May 1 2019, 04:11 AM) For example, the house of Saud which is currently engaging in a war of genocide in Yemen while being supported by the US military.

Minigun: Iran isn't the problem. Saudi Arabia is the problem. Try to pay $#@!ing attention you numptie. Who do you think flew planes into US buildings? Not Iranians, SAUDI ARABIANS. Funded for by SAUDI OIL MONEY.

Saudi arabia has sided with wahhabism, which is extremism toward all other muslims that don't follow wahhabism. The shia Muslims in Iran overthrew the u.s backed government in 1979 in order to fight wahhabism and overthrow Saudi arabia while also declaring america is the enemy of Islam. So the problem is choosing sides or ignoring the entire middle east. Which brings me to energy independence and why it's so critical. So if you were prez p1 what would you do? Side with Iran who wants america removed from the map? Side with Saudi Arabia who's so extreme they have weekly beheadings for the public's enjoyment? Or do nothing? Right now Saudi Arabia buys alot of stuff from America and still controls the price of oil. So when I see trump making it easier for america to become energy independent I see that as good in the long run. As technology gets better I'm hoping the environment will be safer also.

Post by **zombywoof** » Tue Apr 30, 2019 8:44 pm

If I was Empress of the Arbitrary Time Period, here's my solution:

1) Cease all imports of oil from the middle east entirely, and all exports of weapons.

2) Craft a neutrality policy that clearly establishes the intentions of the United States: we don't really care what you get up to over there, but we are willing to help under a certain set of circumstances:

a) we are willing to defend national sovreignity from outside actors
b) we are willing to defend people who peacefully advocate for change in their government, especially as those changes tend to make the government more egalitarian and democratic.

3) Phase out all fossil fuel electrical generation stations above a certain capacity (basically, no fossil fuel major power stations). Replace them in the short term with fission power plants with an eye to longer-lasting sources of energy.

4) Rebuild the entire US public infrastructure with an eye to equality of access and an emphasis on public transit options. Cars might end up banned in cities, not sure yet.

Here's the dirty secret: the only reason we use middle eastern oil is because it's slightly easier to refine it for certain uses. We can be and are energy independent, we just don't want to because it would be "slightly more expensive," but it really wouldn't be... because it turns out most of the money we spend on energy production is ending up in the hands of people who spend it on @#(! like "training a dozen guys to fly planes into large buildings" and "buying election campaigns so they can invade Iraq, tear it up, award themselves a no-bid contract to rebuild it, pocket the money, and become an "Important Political Commentator"."

Seriously, the middle east's power players right now are:

1) An apartheid state currently shoving an ethnic minority into smaller and smaller ghettos

2) An Islamic "republic" which formed as a reaction to a US-backed tyrannical dictatorship

and

3) The house of $#@!ing Saud.

I'm not a fan of any of the three but if I had to rank them in terms of "you know I think we could find a way to get along with these guys and should" it would go Iran > Israel >>>>>>>> Saudi Arabia. Just our weird luck, I guess, that the US has traditionally done that in the exact opposite order.

Terran · Post by **Terran** » Tue Apr 30, 2019 8:50 pm

2.b is self-contradictory. you can't be neutral and support regime change all at the same time.

not to mention that neutrality has been proven in the past to be a horrible idea. geopolitical competition will always be a thing, and to ignore your obvious advantage in the world would be foolish.

cashto · Post by **cashto** » Tue Apr 30, 2019 8:52 pm

Neither Iran nor Saudi Arabia are savory regimes but it would be far better to be aligned with Iran than Saudi Arabia. At least Iran has an elected president and some democratic institutions whereas Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy. At the very least we should treat the two countries with equal suspicion.

Saudi Arabia is purely an ally of convenience. They are the best friend money can apparently buy in that region -- or at least, the regime we have invested the most in buying off. But objectively we have no business supporting that regime or selling it weapons and nuclear technology.

Post by **zombywoof** » Tue Apr 30, 2019 9:36 pm

Terran wrote:QUOTE (Terran @ Apr 30 2019, 01:50 PM) 2.b is self-contradictory. you can't be neutral and support regime change all at the same time.

Conditional neutrality is not self-contradictory.

QUOTE not to mention that neutrality has been proven in the past to be a horrible idea.[/quote]
Switzerland seems to be doing fine. 2nd highest nominal GDP per capita, 9th highest in PPP, 19th lowest gini coefficient, 2nd highest HDI, has consistently existed as a federal state since 1848...

QUOTE geopolitical competition will always be a thing, and to ignore your obvious advantage in the world would be foolish.[/quote]
The US' advantage is that 1) it is large with a wide array of resources, 2) it has a large number of people, 3) many of the world's premier tech and financial institutions have come from here, and 4) it has a robust and powerful higher education backbone including world-renowned public universities.

I fail to see which of those advantages go away if we stop bombing Syrians and invading countries on average once a decade.