Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Petro Poroshenko

5 (29.4%)

Yulia Tymoshenko

2 (11.8%)

Oleg Lyashko

2 (11.8%)

Anatoly Hrytsenko

2 (11.8%)

Serhiy Tihipko

0 (0%)

Mykhailo Dobkin

0 (0%)

Other

6 (35.3%)

Total Members Voted: 17

[Mictlantecuhtli]

I'll help, OPEC is the only group capable of single handedly driving oil to 40$ or to 120$ with their 45% market share and ability to turn up and down production with little loss in time and efficiency. [That isn't the case for Russia with its inflexible production means i.e. old Siberian wells that would become inoperable if shut down temporarily. That isn't the case for the USA with decentralized production means.] They are allowing the production overflow to continue to make high cost producers shutter and [re]gain market share from the US and Russia and allow the price to rise later. This may or may not line up with certain US interests to put a squeeze on the Russian economy, but there's no way to actually know that.

Unless someone here has some recordings of phone calls John Kerry has made to OPEC leaders in regards to the subject.. but I don't think that's the case.

Hell, OPEC simply not cutting production from current levels is what drove Brent to 70$/barrel. That is rather indicative that OPEC is  still the head honcho of price discovery in the markets.

[mainiac]

Unless someone here has some recordings of phone calls John Kerry has made to OPEC leaders in regards to the subject.. but I don't think that's the case.

You must be new here.  You don't need evidence when it comes to the US.

[Sheb]

Well, I do remember some credible-looking article talking about a trade off: the US gave something the Saudi wanted in Syria, in exchange for increased oil production. Which the Saudi were happier to do to cripple the US shale oil producers.

But I can't for the live of me find them again.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

That.. literally makes no sense. The US colluded with Saudi Arabia to *not cut production* in order to bring down oil prices, and to help OPEC take back market share from the US and Russia? I'm sorry, but no, that isn't the case.

[Sergarr]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980s_oil_glut#Impact

[smjjames]

But is this difference in methods due to one side being more moral than the other, or due to different circumstances in which each side tried to further its goals?

No, seriously, this is my main issue with the western media. It claims that the USA didn't annex Ukrainian territories and support pro-western separatists with arms and troops because it obeys international law, while Russia doesn't and is therefore bad, while I think that the USA really would've done the same if it were in Russia's position.

Consider the following: Canada loses its nukes somehow and has a nonviolent revolution where communists prominently feature. Existing government is overthrown and the new one is openly anti-western and wishes to establish close ties with Russia, China and Iran. A large, important American military base sits right across the USA-Canada border in a superbly defensible region that openly supports the USA and wishes to be a part of it. In another place right across the border, the people of two Canadian provinces say that they want nothing to do with the new "communist" government, capture governmental buildings and declare the independence of "the Republics of Vancouver and Calgary". New Canadian government reacts badly to that and sends forces to suppress the rebels.

Question: what would the USA do?


@ Helgoland ans Sheb: I'd like to ask you both: what would you think of me were I to write

But sooner or later, Russia will stand up, and there will be a war. I know I shall be on the barricades the day Obama and Merkel threaten my beloved Motherland. And I hope I won't have to shoot any of you.

Huh? Since when did the US invade Ukraine and annex some of their provinces?

And yes I know I'm several pages behind.

[Sergarr]

But is this difference in methods due to one side being more moral than the other, or due to different circumstances in which each side tried to further its goals?

No, seriously, this is my main issue with the western media. It claims that the USA didn't annex Ukrainian territories and support pro-western separatists with arms and troops because it obeys international law, while Russia doesn't and is therefore bad, while I think that the USA really would've done the same if it were in Russia's position.

Consider the following: Canada loses its nukes somehow and has a nonviolent revolution where communists prominently feature. Existing government is overthrown and the new one is openly anti-western and wishes to establish close ties with Russia, China and Iran. A large, important American military base sits right across the USA-Canada border in a superbly defensible region that openly supports the USA and wishes to be a part of it. In another place right across the border, the people of two Canadian provinces say that they want nothing to do with the new "communist" government, capture governmental buildings and declare the independence of "the Republics of Vancouver and Calgary". New Canadian government reacts badly to that and sends forces to suppress the rebels.

Question: what would the USA do?


@ Helgoland ans Sheb: I'd like to ask you both: what would you think of me were I to write

But sooner or later, Russia will stand up, and there will be a war. I know I shall be on the barricades the day Obama and Merkel threaten my beloved Motherland. And I hope I won't have to shoot any of you.

Huh? Since when did the US invade Ukraine and annex some of their provinces?

And yes I know I'm several pages behind.

It didn't, but what Knit Tie argues is that annexation does not automatically make you more evil than the opposing side and from myself I'll add that American occupation is definitely worse than Russian annexation.

[Sheb]

Sergarr, the Chechens, or any of the country "liberated" in 1945, might disagree with that.

[smjjames]

But is this difference in methods due to one side being more moral than the other, or due to different circumstances in which each side tried to further its goals?

No, seriously, this is my main issue with the western media. It claims that the USA didn't annex Ukrainian territories and support pro-western separatists with arms and troops because it obeys international law, while Russia doesn't and is therefore bad, while I think that the USA really would've done the same if it were in Russia's position.

Consider the following: Canada loses its nukes somehow and has a nonviolent revolution where communists prominently feature. Existing government is overthrown and the new one is openly anti-western and wishes to establish close ties with Russia, China and Iran. A large, important American military base sits right across the USA-Canada border in a superbly defensible region that openly supports the USA and wishes to be a part of it. In another place right across the border, the people of two Canadian provinces say that they want nothing to do with the new "communist" government, capture governmental buildings and declare the independence of "the Republics of Vancouver and Calgary". New Canadian government reacts badly to that and sends forces to suppress the rebels.

Question: what would the USA do?


@ Helgoland ans Sheb: I'd like to ask you both: what would you think of me were I to write

But sooner or later, Russia will stand up, and there will be a war. I know I shall be on the barricades the day Obama and Merkel threaten my beloved Motherland. And I hope I won't have to shoot any of you.

Huh? Since when did the US invade Ukraine and annex some of their provinces?

And yes I know I'm several pages behind.

It didn't, but what Knit Tie argues is that annexation does not automatically make you more evil than the opposing side and from myself I'll add that American occupation is definitely worse than Russian annexation.

Even taking into account the cultural differences between the MidEast vs Eastern Europe?

Anyways, I kinda-sorta skimmed the last several pages because tired brain and Russia mostly just sounds butthurt, I dunno, at least thats the conclusion some people may have made or maybe that's just my brain being tired. goodnight.

[Sergarr]

Sergarr, the Chechens, or any of the country "liberated" in 1945, might disagree with that.

You say Iraq is now better off with American occupation than Poland with Soviet occupation?

Have you seen the difference in life quality?

[LordSlowpoke]

sergie, if you mean 45 then you have no leg to stand on

now if you're saying soviets were occupying the place the whole time the red army was there yeah okay i'll take that

[Sergarr]

I'm fairly sure that even in 45 quality of life on Poland was higher than in Iraq.

[LordSlowpoke]

now that's just

the poster child of poland's fuckedness was warsaw, check out some pictures of it at your leisure - prewar, midwar, directly postwar, 60s - and tell me it was better than iraq after americans came around

no seriously u wot m8

[Sergarr]

Poland has future, Iraq doesn't. Thus quality of life in Poland will always be higher than in Iraq, since Iraq is doomed no matter what.

[smjjames]

he has a point, there is a Polish nationality holding Poland together, there is no Iraqi nationality holding Iraq together.