Donald Trump

FishFish

Maybe I just don't take any of this or any of you seriously?

ayjaycee

FishFish wrote:

Maybe I just don't take any of this or any of you seriously?

Please let me be detecting the beginnings of a flounce.

rick_chasey

Robert88 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

FishFish wrote:

If the US can control supply then it can restrict who it goes to.

I suggest you’re not familiar with how commodity trading works.

I would suggest that you are that person.

If you want credibility you need to explain how gaining control of a major source of oil production does NOT give Trump influence over supply. Just telling people they are wrong is a Trump tactic.

Because, believe it or not, Trump doesn’t run an oil company.

Nor does the US gov’t.

It’s the downside of being a free market.

Also there are a lot of (non US) firms, mainly commodity traders who do not have reputations qualms who have invested a lot into keeping good relations with the Iranians (some even clandestinely exporting their oil to firms in nations less concerned about international relations), who will inevitably get first dibs.

tangled_metal

China is probably the biggest customer for Iranian oil. What would American sanctions do to Chinese economy if they continued buying against American sanctions?

The nations these sanctions may affect most are the allies of America such as Britain, France, Germany and Italy. I understand France and Italy are exposed to the sanctions due to their activities and investments in Iran following the deal. Britain has a significant part of its oilfields owned by Iran according to a news report I saw on BBC news. What's going to happen there? Are we to stop oil production or face sanctions if that's true?

Interesting times.

Rocket attacks on Israel. Israeli attacks on Iranian assets. Safer place? Tell me when Trump is led is into that safer world I suspect I'll miss it if it ever happens.

ballysmate

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

FishFish wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

FishFish wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

TheGardenGnome wrote:

right now it's important that the rest of the world (apart from SA, Israel, etc) doesn't back him.

I am very suspicious of Trump's real motives for his action. Iran has oil which Trump would dearly love to get his hands on, boosting the US economy and depriving China of a resource - here is a sample of his mindset from 2011:

r.

The US is currently an oil exporter and most of its refineries have put in a big investment so that they can handle the type of oil that comes from fr@cking; Iranian oil by comparison would have to be adjusted before most US refiners could use it.

If anything, a ban on iranian oil would support the prices of US fr@ckers.

It's not important that the oil doesn't suit US refineries; what is important is that the US controls the supply.

When the US exports more than it imports, it's wholly less relevant.

If they control supply from Iran, they can get a better price for their own production.

As Rick says, far fetched.

You may equally argue that the reason the Europeans want to keep the deal in place is because Iran has the world's second largest reserves of gas.

rjsterry

Ballysmate wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

FishFish wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

FishFish wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

TheGardenGnome wrote:

right now it's important that the rest of the world (apart from SA, Israel, etc) doesn't back him.

I am very suspicious of Trump's real motives for his action. Iran has oil which Trump would dearly love to get his hands on, boosting the US economy and depriving China of a resource - here is a sample of his mindset from 2011:

r.

The US is currently an oil exporter and most of its refineries have put in a big investment so that they can handle the type of oil that comes from fr@cking; Iranian oil by comparison would have to be adjusted before most US refiners could use it.

If anything, a ban on iranian oil would support the prices of US fr@ckers.

It's not important that the oil doesn't suit US refineries; what is important is that the US controls the supply.

When the US exports more than it imports, it's wholly less relevant.

If they control supply from Iran, they can get a better price for their own production.

As Rick says, far fetched.

You may equally argue that the reason the Europeans want to keep the deal in place is because Iran has the world's second largest reserves of gas.

Agreed; it's not as simple as that, but we are talking about someone who appears to have a simplistic view of the world. Europe wants to keep the deal in place because it's better for business in the broadest sense.

briantrumpet

rjsterry wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

FishFish wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

FishFish wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

TheGardenGnome wrote:

right now it's important that the rest of the world (apart from SA, Israel, etc) doesn't back him.

I am very suspicious of Trump's real motives for his action. Iran has oil which Trump would dearly love to get his hands on, boosting the US economy and depriving China of a resource - here is a sample of his mindset from 2011:

r.

The US is currently an oil exporter and most of its refineries have put in a big investment so that they can handle the type of oil that comes from fr@cking; Iranian oil by comparison would have to be adjusted before most US refiners could use it.

If anything, a ban on iranian oil would support the prices of US fr@ckers.

It's not important that the oil doesn't suit US refineries; what is important is that the US controls the supply.

When the US exports more than it imports, it's wholly less relevant.

If they control supply from Iran, they can get a better price for their own production.

As Rick says, far fetched.

You may equally argue that the reason the Europeans want to keep the deal in place is because Iran has the world's second largest reserves of gas.

Agreed; it's not as simple as that, but we are talking about someone who appears to have a simplistic view of the world. Europe wants to keep the deal in place because it's better for business in the broadest sense.

And there's the parallel with Brexit: just because one option is a bit sh1t doesn't mean that an alternative isn't a whole lot sh1tter.

rjsterry

briantrumpet wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

FishFish wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

FishFish wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

TheGardenGnome wrote:

right now it's important that the rest of the world (apart from SA, Israel, etc) doesn't back him.

I am very suspicious of Trump's real motives for his action. Iran has oil which Trump would dearly love to get his hands on, boosting the US economy and depriving China of a resource - here is a sample of his mindset from 2011:

r.

The US is currently an oil exporter and most of its refineries have put in a big investment so that they can handle the type of oil that comes from fr@cking; Iranian oil by comparison would have to be adjusted before most US refiners could use it.

If anything, a ban on iranian oil would support the prices of US fr@ckers.

It's not important that the oil doesn't suit US refineries; what is important is that the US controls the supply.

When the US exports more than it imports, it's wholly less relevant.

If they control supply from Iran, they can get a better price for their own production.

As Rick says, far fetched.

You may equally argue that the reason the Europeans want to keep the deal in place is because Iran has the world's second largest reserves of gas.

Agreed; it's not as simple as that, but we are talking about someone who appears to have a simplistic view of the world. Europe wants to keep the deal in place because it's better for business in the broadest sense.

And there's the parallel with Brexit: just because one option is a bit sh1t doesn't mean that an alternative isn't a whole lot sh1tter.

Indeed. History is full of examples of misguided attempts to control trade, that end up having the opposite of the intended effect.

kingstongraham

PhilipPirrip wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2002/11_november/20/ws_johnbolton.shtml

16 years out of date????? :?

I took it that KG was highlighting John Bolton's role in promoting false narratives about WMDs for his own political interests and the world be damned.

He is now National Security Advisor to a president who promotes false narratives for his own interests and the world be damned.

He insisted there were WMDs when the inspectors hadn't found any, and then used that as a pretext for starting a war in the middle east. Now we hear claims that Iran has a nuclear weapons program when the inspectors say they don't, and Bolton is back, saying that he still thinks that invading Iraq was the right decision. Have we learnt as little from history as he seems to have?

FishFish

Rick Chasey wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

FishFish wrote:

If the US can control supply then it can restrict who it goes to.

Because, believe it or not, Trump doesn’t run an oil company.

Nor does the US gov’t.

It’s the downside of being a free market.

Also there are a lot of (non US) firms, mainly commodity traders who do not have reputations qualms who have invested a lot into keeping good relations with the Iranians (some even clandestinely exporting their oil to firms in nations less concerned about international relations), who will inevitably get first dibs.

No but the Saudi recycling of the petrodollars in the 70's caused a supply side issue in spite of the heroic commodity traders and whilst the US Govt does not own an oil company it does have OFAC within the Treasury and look up OFAC prosecutions and you will see they are not trivial. And try to get to the bottom of the 1.2Bn fine (can't remember if it was $ or£) levied on Std Chartered for not implementing their bribery policy (FFS). Don't forget that in spite of the efforts of these dare devil commodity traders the arctic convoys had to run because the supply had turned of and yet even now in Europe, the Russian Govt turned off the gas supply and frequently uses it as a threat.

Oh yes and commodity traders, in spite of that fairly good film - was it trading places? - are actually a bunch of wnkrs - even in spite of your hero worship of them.

FishFish

KingstonGraham wrote:

PhilipPirrip wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2002/11_november/20/ws_johnbolton.shtml

16 years out of date????? :?

/quote]

He insisted there were WMDs when the inspectors hadn't found any, and then used that as a pretext for starting a war in the middle east. Now we hear claims that Iran has a nuclear weapons program when the inspectors say they don't, and Bolton is back, saying that he still thinks that invading Iraq was the right decision. Have we learnt as little from history as he seems to have?

Look - that does not matter - it is ok for a government to lie when it suits it. And let us balance the fact that OUR government too lied about WMD but added a 45 minute state of readiness just to make our lie better than theirs.

kingstongraham

FishFish wrote:

it is ok for a government to lie when it suits it.

That's not a majority view, I would hope.

TheGardenGnome

The evidence for WMDs were depleted and destroyed while using against the Kurds. We no longer have to worry about AMDs from Iraq anymore. Right now its Syria and its ally Iran which use chemical weapons. Chemical weapons are nasty things, if you're going to kill so many people using them, you're going to get a LOT of attention internationally. The smarter dictators use other means.

FishFish

TheGardenGnome wrote:

The evidence for WMDs were depleted and destroyed while using against the Kurds. We no longer have to worry about AMDs from Iraq anymore. Right now its Syria and its ally Iran which use chemical weapons. Chemical weapons are nasty things, if you're going to kill so many people using them, you're going to get a LOT of attention internationally. The smarter dictators use other means.

Good point!

Mugabwe used the 5th ~Brigade and got away with it. Hitler used gas and did not get away with it. Jury seems to be a bit our on al Assad getting away with it but hopefully a lifetime in a bad jail for him and Mrs Assad will be reflective for them.

tailwindhome

FishFish wrote:

TheGardenGnome wrote:

Good point!

TheGardenGnome

My worry is that a bomb would be sent over Iran. I prefer the cloaks and daggers approach. Send in the CIA to overthrow the government and this whole nuke palaver will vanish. There's another way around this and that is to get Iranians to distrust their own government enough so that they are overthrown by Iranians. The end result would be a less hostile government, with more stability in the middle east as there is less meddling by external countries.

imposter2.0

TheGardenGnome wrote:

There's another way around this and that is to get Iranians to distrust their own government enough so that they are overthrown by Iranians.

You mean the kind of thing that already happened 40 years ago?

pblakeney

Imposter wrote:

TheGardenGnome wrote:

There's another way around this and that is to get Iranians to distrust their own government enough so that they are overthrown by Iranians.

You mean the kind of thing that already happened 40 years ago?

Or that is currently playing out in Syria.
The point. I think...

orraloon

TheGardenGnome wrote:

There's another way around this and that is to get USAnians to distrust their own government enough so that they are overthrown by USAnians. The end result would be a less hostile government, with more stability in the middle east as there is less meddling by external countries.

FTFY

FishFish

orraloon wrote:

TheGardenGnome wrote:

There's another way around this and that is to get USAnians to distrust their own government enough so that they are overthrown by USAnians. The end result would be a less hostile government, with more stability in the middle east as there is less meddling by external countries.

FTFY

Well the israeli diaspora manages to influence or even run US Middle East policies so why not.

FishFish

KingstonGraham wrote:

FishFish wrote:

it is ok for a government to lie when it suits it.

That's not a majority view, I would hope.

NOTHING on this thread is a majority view or even, within reason, a minority view.

bompington

FishFish wrote:

Well the israeli diaspora manages to influence or even run US Middle East policies so why not.

Given that there are very few people emigrating from Israel, it makes your true meaning very clear.
Why can't you just say what you really mean, perhaps something like "it's those pesky Jews running the world again"?

FishFish

Well - exactly what I wanted to avoid saying!

ayjaycee

orraloon wrote:

TheGardenGnome wrote:

There's another way around this and that is to get USAnians to distrust their own government enough so that they are overthrown by USAnians. The end result would be a less hostile government, with more stability in the middle east as there is less meddling by external countries.

FTFY

Please no. The last thing that the world needs now is another bunch of lawless whack jobs with guns and pickups on the loose.

briantrumpet

Top work here. Antisemitism and trolling are both a price worth paying to wind up the libtards.

Matthewfalle

FishFish wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

FishFish wrote:

it is ok for a government to lie when it suits it.

That's not a majority view, I would hope.

NOTHING on this thread is a majority view or even, within reason, a minority view.

Incorrect - the majority view is that trump is a dotard, the king of the idiots.

TheGardenGnome

There's no trolling here, I mean what I say and say what I mean. Ain't my fault libtards are triggered by different opinions and smear it as trolling. It's a self defence mechanism they build to shield themselves from the fact that not everyone sees things the same way we do.

As for Iran v America, its all about politics, power play.
America got ahead in the world be learning how to play the game and it's done well. Coincidently, the winners in this case (USA) are also more civilised than its competition in Iran or Russia. We protect our minorities, value our women and allow free speech. Good luck speaking your mind in Iran or Russia. Our civilisation is so precious, we've come so far as a society that it would be a tragedy to introduce even more instability in the world. Iran gaining nukes will tip the balance and introduce more instability.

Hoping for a democratic solution is not feasible. The middle East is not yet ready for democracy which is why dictatorships and theocracies thrive there. It's Klingons vs the Federation. The Klingons do things the macho way using violence- that's where the the middle East is at this moment. We used to be in a similar position a few hundred years ago with constant infighting, burning heretics, going on conquests. Stability over time changed that. Stability in Iran turned the younger generation into a more moderate one, the result of a stable theocracy. Iran gaining nukes may not change the extremism of its populace much but it would introduce regional instability. Challenging this may introduce national instability-the lesser of two evils.

For democracy to begin taking a foothold in the middle East, there needs to be a long period of stability- it's just unfortunate that we need to introduce it in non-democratic way at first. Either Iran stops trying to make the components that can make weapons or it'll have to be stopped.

I don't like a Trump much but he's been fair here.

rjsterry

Extra bonus points for the Star Trek reference

robert88

the winners in this case (USA) are also more civilised than its competition in Iran or Russia.

And Trump is doing his best to make the USA LESS civilised.

FishFish

Matthewfalle wrote:

FishFish wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

FishFish wrote:

it is ok for a government to lie when it suits it.

.

Incorrect - the majority view is that trump is a dotard, the king of the idiots.

Maybe so but in this case as in all others you are the minority in each and every one of your objectionable dimensions.