EPTUkraine Crisis - Page 335
| Forum Index > Closed |
There is a new policy in effect in this thread. Anyone not complying will be moderated. New policy, please read before posting: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=21393711 | ||
|
a-game
Canada5096 Posts
| ||
|
Shield
Bulgaria4824 Posts
On a more serious note, it's very unfortunate that Obama is not even close to Reagan's level. | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On March 18 2014 07:28 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: HAHAHA! Now you're so desperate, that you're making completely irrelevant analogies. This is how the conversation goes: You: Russian oligarchs must be geniuses to be so wealthy! Me: No, just have good connections to the state, once those connections dry up they end up becoming a lot poorer. Then I gave an example of several Yeltsin era oligarchs who used to be undisputably the first team of Oligarchs and now are either completely broken or shadows of former self You: Everyone knows that Russian state is the only game in town, only the truly ingenious business men can stand up to the international business using the state! Me: So like Sadam? You: irrelevant rant about my imagined Russophobia -- I am half Russian so I view all the positive parts as mine, I just hate that its once again embracing Brezhnev style conservativsm while corruption continues marrily on. Last I checked, Sechin didn't take over a country. This is easily one of the worst analogies I've seen to businessmen of any kind. No. The ex director the KGB -- oh I am sorry, the FSB -- just took over one of the largest foreign investments in the country using extra legal pressure, in the process becoming an incredibly rich person. The same guy who could literally get away with ordering troops under his personal command -- in the middle of moscow -- to threaten troops loyal to the prosecutor general. And yet, your analogy fails further. Even as a political entity and big oil player, I don't think the Iraqi govt. was still powerful enough to tell BP what to do XD. Except they did because they nationalized all foreign oil assets. Just like the Saudis. It doesnt take much, just enough political cover in the West. Sechin took over BP in Russia right around the time BP was blamed in America for the Gulf Oil spill so no one was breaking their necks defending them | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On March 18 2014 08:35 nunez wrote: oneofthem's referring to competence in 'free market' of state power. ahh, finally war nerd piece on crimea: src Yes indeed, “it gives Russia more leverage over Europe,” because though the EU needs Russian oil worse than any junkie ever needed a baggie, Russia no longer needs Europe as a customer. To be honest, no oil exporter or drug dealer ever really needs any particular customer; “Eto myf,” as the Russians say. But with the pipeline to China and East Asia running wide open, Russia wouldn’t even feel a sentimental twinge if the EU somehow went insane and destroyed its own economy to “punish” Russia. What does the war nerd think is going to happen to the oil that already is powering China, its going to go puff? Its been almost 50 years since the first oil crisis and people dont understand how fungible oil is? If China is buying Russian oil, Europe is buying the Saudi oil China was buying before the shift. | ||
|
Deleted User 183001
2939 Posts
On March 18 2014 11:27 Sub40APM wrote: This is how the conversation goes: You: Russian oligarchs must be geniuses to be so wealthy! Me: No, just have good connections to the state, once those connections dry up they end up becoming a lot poorer. Then I gave an example of several Yeltsin era oligarchs who used to be undisputably the first team of Oligarchs and now are either completely broken or shadows of former self You: Everyone knows that Russian state is the only game in town, only the truly ingenious business men can stand up to the international business using the state! Me: So like Sadam? You: irrelevant rant about my imagined Russophobia -- I am half Russian so I view all the positive parts as mine, I just hate that its once again embracing Brezhnev style conservativsm while corruption continues marrily on. No. The ex director the KGB -- oh I am sorry, the FSB -- just took over one of the largest foreign investments in the country using extra legal pressure, in the process becoming an incredibly rich person. The same guy who Except they did because they nationalized all foreign oil assets. Just like the Saudis. It doesnt take much, just enough political cover in the West. Sechin took over BP in Russia right around the time BP was blamed in America for the Gulf Oil spill so no one was breaking their necks defending them Ah, now you clarify how Russia took over BP assets within Russia. You didn't specify this before. This changes everything. so no one was breaking their necks defending them What a shame. | ||
|
Kupon3ss
時の回廊10066 Posts
On March 18 2014 10:27 darkness wrote: I think the situation with the Nabucco pipeline is like having your unfinished nexus get attacked despite having a mothership core with full energy. Russia just did a timing attack. On a more serious note, it's very unfortunate that Obama is not even close to Reagan's level. yes, if only Obama would be willing to incite, sanction, and support terrorism to reach nebulous goals | ||
|
ProBot
Canada170 Posts
And as much as i dislike fossil fuels ( and what the oil sands are doing to the environment here ), you would assume that this would be a excellent opportunity to expand our ( Canadian ) markets. We just signed a massive free trade agreement with Europe I don't see why we can't take advantage of the situation, cuz we sure as fuck got's lots of oils!!!! Canada and the United states are 2 of the top 5 oil producing countries on the planet, we should really be laughing our assess all the way to the bank in that respect no? And too that point I can obviously understand why the EU's sanctions are a joke but as for Canada and the States, we have no fucking excuse for our pathetic sanctions as well. Was kinda disappointed there.  | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On March 18 2014 10:27 darkness wrote: I think the situation with the Nabucco pipeline is like having your unfinished nexus get attacked despite having a mothership core with full energy. Russia just did a timing attack. They've been building that pipeline since forever, I dont think this crisis has anything to do with that white elephant. Does anyone remember that terrible-yet-therefore-awesome James Bond film where the pipeline was the central issue of the plot? The World Is Not Enough? That was in 99. Quite frankly if the Americans could make a deal with Iran -- not just to get access to their oil but to channel Azeri and Central Asian gas that way -- then the Russians energy system would be in some trouble. But that probably wont be happening anytime soon. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On March 18 2014 11:52 Kupon3ss wrote: yes, if only Obama would be willing to incite, sanction, and support terrorism to reach nebulous goals It's hard getting away with treason though selling arms and giving those profits to a militia group to get around congress that specifically banned funding to that militia group. | ||
|
Deleted User 183001
2939 Posts
On March 18 2014 12:07 oneofthem wrote: why did germany get away from nucular power. dumb as fk Very stupid, especially considering that nuclear power is the future of sustainable power generation. There's lots of people afraid of nuclear power for the least rational reasons, and I don't know what the story was in Germany, but there are such circles in the US. It may not be for another 30-40 years, but nuclear fusion power will (hopefully) eliminate all the naysayers, as its a lot safer and cleaner than fission power (which currently exists). Last I checked, France was doing pretty well with nuclear power. But as far as the European Union goes overall, Russia's meeting demand more than anything. Personally, I think less demand would be a good thing for Russia, as it would push them to give more priority to other industries that I personally would consider more important, especially tech. On March 18 2014 11:52 Kupon3ss wrote: yes, if only Obama would be willing to incite, sanction, and support terrorism to reach nebulous goals I know you're specifically referring to the jihadis in Afghanistan during the 80s, but well, Obama technically does foster friendly and supportive relations with the Gulf Arab states, who are the primary hubs of Islamic extremism besides Iran, and we had good relations with these countries even back in Reagan's administration. The only difference with Iran is that they don't play ball, therefore we're not going to do business with them. If tomorrow, the Ayatollahs came forth, went down on one knee, and swore fealty to Lady Liberty, I promise you we would be doing a lot more business with Iran. | ||
|
ProBot
Canada170 Posts
On March 18 2014 11:34 Sub40APM wrote: What does the war nerd think is going to happen to the oil that already is powering China, its going to go puff? Its been almost 50 years since the first oil crisis and people dont understand how fungible oil is? If China is buying Russian oil, Europe is buying the Saudi oil China was buying before the shift. China is buying Canadian Oil btw, they bought the rights to a FUCK TON of the oil sands here so don't think for a second that China is reliant solely on Russia for oil. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On March 18 2014 12:12 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: Very stupid, especially considering that nuclear power is the future of sustainable power generation. There's lots of people afraid of nuclear power for the least rational reasons, and I don't know what the story was in Germany It's expensive, it will only get more expensive over the next few decades,it produces dangerous waste, and we wanna be independent from fossil energy by 2060. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 18 2014 12:24 Nyxisto wrote: It's expensive, it will only get more expensive over the next few decades,it produces dangerous waste, and we wanna be independent from fossil energy by 2060. expenses reduced by lessening irrationally strict radiation standards. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On March 18 2014 12:27 oneofthem wrote: expenses reduced by lessening irrationally strict radiation standards. Excluding even more costs doesn't actually make something cheaper, I hope you are aware of that. But let's not derail the thread :o | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On March 18 2014 12:23 ProBot wrote: China is buying Canadian Oil btw, they bought the rights to a FUCK TON of the oil sands here so don't think for a second that China is reliant solely on Russia for oil. Its not, my point is that if Russia starts selling oil to China/East Asia exclusively the idea that somehow the amount of oil in the world would then automatically decrease is wrong. | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On March 18 2014 12:26 oneofthem wrote: canada relies on pipeline running through the us to get its shit to terminals, no? Some but not all. The real issue is that for some reason there arent enough refineers up there so they wanted to build that Keystone pipeline towards your refineries in the Gulf. I dont actually understand why there isnt a bunch of the refineries in Alberta, refined products usually sell for more and thats more jobs for Canadians... | ||
|
ProBot
Canada170 Posts
On March 18 2014 12:41 Sub40APM wrote: Its not, my point is that if Russia starts selling oil to China/East Asia exclusively the idea that somehow the amount of oil in the world would then automatically decrease is wrong. Ahh my bad sir, and I agree with your wise words. | ||
| ||
