GG Posted November 25, 2013 Posted November 25, 2013 ME turmoil = high price gas & oil- maybe you wait until your brain is fully awake to post. Funny, but if US becomes a net exporter, doesn't that cushion the price hikes because you have steady supply from a stable region, especially since US isn't a member of OPEC? Maybe you can find the answer on Youtube?
....lybob Posted November 25, 2013 Posted November 25, 2013 Funny, but if US becomes a net exporter, doesn't that cushion the price hikes because you have steady supply from a stable region, especially since US isn't a member of OPEC? Maybe you can find the answer on Youtube? The U.S. addition to world oil and gas and would be much less than the subtraction caused by a Iran vs Saudi and friends dust up- you're still asleep
GG Posted November 25, 2013 Posted November 25, 2013 The U.S. addition to world oil and gas and would be much less than the subtraction caused by a Iran vs Saudi and friends dust up- you're still asleep The US used to import up to 30% of its oil, now it's a net exporter and that number would rise if the price rose, meaning US could cushion the OPEC shock theoretically. Then taking the other side of your ridiculous claim. If the underlying theory is that Obama is playing chess, is his gambit then to cause global oil prices to rise and cause destabilization of Mid East oil supply?
....lybob Posted November 25, 2013 Posted November 25, 2013 The US used to import up to 30% of its oil, now it's a net exporter and that number would rise if the price rose, meaning US could cushion the OPEC shock theoretically. Then taking the other side of your ridiculous claim. If the underlying theory is that Obama is playing chess, is his gambit then to cause global oil prices to rise and cause destabilization of Mid East oil supply? Jesus you have that ass backwards, try cause destabilization of ME oil supply and global oil prices to rise
GG Posted November 25, 2013 Posted November 25, 2013 Jesus you have that ass backwards, try cause destabilization of ME oil supply and global oil prices to rise And a higher oil price benefits the US, because ...
Jauronimo Posted November 25, 2013 Posted November 25, 2013 And a higher oil price benefits the US, because ... Because a short term shock to oil will lead to increased consumption of the natural gas which is still under miles of shale because gas and oil are perfect substitutes.
B-Man Posted November 25, 2013 Author Posted November 25, 2013 Iran Will Not Have an Atomic Bomb. Period The Hill: Top Dems, Republicans blast Obama’s nuke deal with Iran. POLITICO: Early Skepticism, Caution on Iran Deal. .
....lybob Posted November 25, 2013 Posted November 25, 2013 And a higher oil price benefits the US, because ... It benefits two powerful US political interest groups- Energy and The Military Industrial complex , plus the US dollar could use the boost it always gets in times of uncertainty- I don't think you understand, Brazilian oil is coming Oline and China may slump and we need to knock down some supply, if you understood the production costs of shale oil you'd understand this.
GG Posted November 25, 2013 Posted November 25, 2013 It benefits two powerful US political interest groups- Energy and The Military Industrial complex , plus the US dollar could use the boost it always gets in times of uncertainty- I don't think you understand, Brazilian oil is coming Oline and China may slump and we need to knock down some supply, if you understood the production costs of shale oil you'd understand this. Is that why he's blocking Keystone? Is that also part of the chess match? And Saudi push to get its own nukes? And Israel getting defensive? Is this like sacrificing a rook for the long term end game?
B-Man Posted November 25, 2013 Author Posted November 25, 2013 Peace For Our Time. by Victor Davis Hanson FTA: The Iranian agreement comes not in isolation, unfortunately. The Syrian debacle instructed the Iranians that the Obama administration was more interested in announcing a peaceful breakthrough than actually achieving it. The timing is convenient for both sides: The Obama administration needed an offset abroad to the Obamacare disaster, and the Iranians want a breathing space to rebuild their finances and ensure that Assad can salvage the Iranian-Hezbollah-Assad axis. The agreement is a de facto acknowledgement that containing, not ending, Iran’s nuclear program is now U.S. policy. . . . Aside from the details of this new Sword of Damocles pact, one wonders about the following: In the case of violations, will it be easier for Iran to return to weaponization or for the U.S. to reassemble allies to reestablish the sanctions? Will Israel now be more or less likely to consider preemption? Will the Sunni states feel some relief or more likely pursue avenues to achieve nuclear deterrence? Will allies like Japan or South Korea feel that the U.S. has reasserted its old global clout, or further worry that their patron might engage in secret talks with, say, China rather than reemphasize their security under the traditional U.S. umbrella? The president’s dismal polls are only a multiplier of that general perception abroad that foreign policy is an auxiliary to fundamental transformation at home, useful not so much to create international stability per se, as to enhance Obama influence in pursuing his domestic agenda. Collate reset, lead from behind, “redlines,” “game-changers,” ”deadlines,” the Arab Spring confusion, the skedaddle from Iraq, Benghazi, the Eastern European missile pullback, and the atmosphere is comparable to the 1979–80 Carter landscape, in which after three years of observation, the opportunists at last decided to act while the acting was good, from Afghanistan to Central America to Tehran. There is not a good record, from Philip of Macedon to Hitler to Stalin in the 1940s to Carter and the Soviets in the 1970s to radical Islamists in the 1990s, of expecting authoritarians and thugs to listen to reason, cool their aggression, and appreciate democracies’ sober and judicious appeal to logic — once they sense in the West greater eagerness to announce new, rather than to enforce old, agreements. .
....lybob Posted November 25, 2013 Posted November 25, 2013 Is that why he's blocking Keystone? Is that also part of the chess match? And Saudi push to get its own nukes? And Israel getting defensive? Is this like sacrificing a rook for the long term end game? Keystone is personal politics as the Koch brothers have been pricks and must be punished, the Saudis will never get nukes, Israel? Bennie has also been a prick- the end game will be Obama cashing in after his presidency. If you are to understand the things you'll have to understand the war between Neo-cons and Breskinski-ites also the right-wing and left-wing of corporate political influence.
4merper4mer Posted November 25, 2013 Posted November 25, 2013 Keystone is personal politics as the Koch brothers have been pricks and must be punished, the Saudis will never get nukes, Israel? Bennie has also been a prick- the end game will be Obama cashing in after his presidency. If you are to understand the things you'll have to understand the war between Neo-cons and Breskinski-ites also the right-wing and left-wing of corporate political influence. I think everyone makes this too complex. John Kerry negotiated the deal. Air go it is a bad deal because John Kerry is a loser.
5 Wide Posted November 25, 2013 Posted November 25, 2013 I wonder if there was any mention of a red line in negotiations.....
....lybob Posted November 25, 2013 Posted November 25, 2013 I think everyone makes this too complex. John Kerry negotiated the deal. Air go it is a bad deal because John Kerry is a loser. I get it -Air go from self of steam
4merper4mer Posted November 25, 2013 Posted November 25, 2013 I get it -Air go from self of steam Air go means that because of this...then that. In other words because John Kerry is a loser, we got the bad end of this deal. What it really says is that because JK is a loser, there is no other way. In other words, air go means "the end of the story". That is the origin of the phrase. It is as if the air is out of the room and it is all over. If there was nor air...."air go" we would all die and there is no doubt about that because we need air. Without it there are no other possibilities. When John Kerry negotiates a deal, there are no other possibilities except we get shafted. Get it? There is another phrase called "a fate a comm plea" which is Greek and translates to "even if you get a bunch of people to ask nicely you are still stuck with the outcome".
GG Posted November 25, 2013 Posted November 25, 2013 Keystone is personal politics as the Koch brothers have been pricks and must be punished, the Saudis will never get nukes, Israel? Bennie has also been a prick- the end game will be Obama cashing in after his presidency. If you are to understand the things you'll have to understand the war between Neo-cons and Breskinski-ites also the right-wing and left-wing of corporate political influence. Now I get it. Obama must be the greatest chess player since Bobby. He's doing all this for the benefit of the industries with whom he's fought since taking office, while knowing fully that any Mid East military activities surrounding Iran will be tied to this agreement. Brilliant.
....lybob Posted November 25, 2013 Posted November 25, 2013 Now I get it. Obama must be the greatest chess player since Bobby. He's doing all this for the benefit of the industries with whom he's fought since taking office, while knowing fully that any Mid East military activities surrounding Iran will be tied to this agreement. Brilliant. Garry Kasparov, fake fight, our military activities (Israel's and Saudi Arabia's military activities will be unhindered and we will gather and disseminate intelligence under the guise of inspections, by the way Israel will try to trick the Saudi's into confrontation with Iran, Bahrain will be the trigger point) - I am glad you are finally getting this.
GG Posted November 25, 2013 Posted November 25, 2013 Garry Kasparov, fake fight, our military activities (Israel's and Saudi Arabia's military activities will be unhindered and we will gather and disseminate intelligence under the guise of inspections, by the way Israel will try to trick the Saudi's into confrontation with Iran, Bahrain will be the trigger point) - I am glad you are finally getting this. That's some high level long term strategic thinking from a group who couldn't get a website going in two years.
Doc Posted November 25, 2013 Posted November 25, 2013 That's some high level long term strategic thinking from a group who couldn't get a website going in two years. Looks like it's working as well as everything else they've planned. Oil Prices Tumble.
Dante Posted November 25, 2013 Posted November 25, 2013 (edited) It's actually a good deal and a good first step to a de-nuclearized Iran and normalized US-Iran relations... ...except that we have an administration with an extremely demonstrable track record of craven and cowardly avoidance of making any sort of stand. And the Iranians know full well they can break this agreement at any time and face no repercussions, since Russia has their back and the US will back down rather than take action against a violation. So the comparison to Chamberlain is somewhat accurate (hyperbolic, since no one's partitioned a third-party country in this case, but ultimately this is much ado about a piece of paper signed by parties that won't enforce it.) I wonder what the Saudis are thinking about this? Americans think Iran's certain to use a nuke on Israel...in truth, it's a crap shoot between Tel Aviv and Riyadh. The Arabian Peninsula's got to be going apeshit right now. And this probably doesn't bode too well for Iraqi stability, either. And wasn't Chamberlin trying to buy time because , due to liberal pressure, the Brits were gutting their own military? They needed time to rebuild. More historical evidence of liberal agenda making a nation week and putting that country in a compromising position btw. At leat Chamberlins motives were honorable. His end goal was to put England in a better position however ill advised. I'm not sure what Barrys motives ever are when in comes to international affairs. It always seems to put us in a weakened position or just simply placate our enemies. If I didn't know better I would think he was trying to f the whole country over. Edited November 25, 2013 by Dante
Recommended Posts