The Chicken Sh!t World

[Roamy]

Most of the world sits crouched in fear as innocent people are slaughtered all over the place. If you aren't shooting you deserve to have your heads lopped off.

[Tazio]

Most of the world sits crouched in fear as innocent people are slaughtered all over the place. If you aren't shooting you deserve to have your heads lopped off.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYBwwOv2eeI

[janneppi]

Most of the world sits crouched in fear as innocent people are slaughtered all over the place. If you aren't shooting you deserve to have your heads lopped off.
There's Top Gun on tv in two minutes. Sofa seems just fine thanks.

[edv]

Feisty Fausto!

[Roamy]

What say the Euros
http://www.cbn.com/tv/embedplayer.aspx?bcid=1509282970001

[Rollo]

Is the Christian Broadcasting Network credible?

[Starter]

Is the Christian Broadcasting Network credible?
Nah, they don't have a prayer.

[Rollo]

It's been not quite a fortnight since this thread was started and I'm mystified as to what Roamy's intent actually was. This all seems rather a bit vague.

[Gregor-y]

I guess everyone needs to be shooting something (http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-shooting-range-instructor-dies-20140826-story.html).

[TheFamousEccles]

Well, at a guess I would say that Roamy wants his rootin' tootin' 'Merican coal-rollin', god-fearin', from my cold-lifeless-hand open carry, semi-auto Bro's to rise up, coz those spineless euro-weiners are just gonna bend over for a good sharia rogering, brokeback style.

Or not.

[airshifter]

In this case I actually agree with Roamy. Take a look at what is going on in the world, then look at the countries stopping it. Which is none. Many of the same that condemn the US for getting involved will do nothing unless the US does get involved, and instead choose to watch ethnic cleansing, overthrown governments, etc.

I would think that the one time the world would agree to use military force would be to stop just crimes against people. But instead, the world will sit on the sidelines and do nothing. I guess they will just hope such things never happen in their country, as it's possible nobody will come to help.

[Starter]

Well, at a guess I would say that Roamy wants his rootin' tootin' 'Merican coal-rollin', god-fearin', from my cold-lifeless-hand open carry, semi-auto Bro's to rise up, coz those spineless euro-weiners are just gonna bend over for a good sharia rogering, brokeback style.

Or not.
What he said. :D :D :D :D

[555-04Q2]

It's been not quite a fortnight since this thread was started and I'm mystified as to what Roamy's intent actually was. This all seems rather a bit vague.

To understand fousto (aka Roamy) is to admit you are a nutter!!! Leave it be ;)

[Rollo]

To understand fousto (aka Roamy) is to admit you are a nutter!!! Leave it be ;)

Surely we already know that this is true; I am a nutter :D

[airshifter]

Surely we already know that this is true; I am a nutter :D

Count me in as well. But these days if you think for yourself someone will think you are a nutter regardless. Easier to embrace it and go with it than to fight it.

[555-04Q2]

Surely we already know that this is true; I am a nutter :D

:laugh: :D

[keysersoze]

Our superior Eurocentric friends seem conspicuously incognito on this thread. Those big bad mean American bullies. At least Barry talked tough tonight. I was frankly proud of him tonight. We shall see . . .

[Rollo]

Our superior Eurocentric friends seem conspicuously incognito on this thread. Those big bad mean American bullies. At least Barry talked tough tonight. I was frankly proud of him tonight. We shall see . . .

I live in Australia. We have no foreign policy other than to do whatever big brother tells us to do. Firstly we did what John Bull told us and now we do what Uncle Sam tells us. That's pretty well much been the reason Australia has been to every war it's been in ever.
Little Barry McKenzie is too much of an idiot to question what others tell him to do.

[Rudy Tamasz]

In this case I actually agree with Roamy. Take a look at what is going on in the world, then look at the countries stopping it. Which is none. Many of the same that condemn the US for getting involved will do nothing unless the US does get involved, and instead choose to watch ethnic cleansing, overthrown governments, etc.

I would think that the one time the world would agree to use military force would be to stop just crimes against people. But instead, the world will sit on the sidelines and do nothing. I guess they will just hope such things never happen in their country, as it's possible nobody will come to help.

Before getting involved into something make sure your involvement is going to improve things. That's not been the case with the latest U.S. military interventions.

[Starter]

Before getting involved into something make sure your involvement is going to improve things. That's not been the case with the latest U.S. military interventions.
Which one are you speaking of? You've got to be more specific. :D

If you mean the Iraq/Syria thing, perhaps you think our best course would just to stay out and let ISIS do whatever it wants? Personally, I think that might not be a bad way to go. It's a Muslim problem so let the Muslim countries of the world deal with it. What is going on there can't be too bad - shooting prisoners; raping women and/or forcing marriage; killing non combatants and children; etc. - since we don't see the populations of the majority Muslim countries of the world taking to the streets to demand immediate action against the "Islamic State". If its OK with the rest of Islam I guess its OK with me.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Which one are you speaking of? You've got to be more specific. :D

If you mean the Iraq/Syria thing, perhaps you think our best course would just to stay out and let ISIS do whatever it wants? Personally, I think that might not be a bad way to go. It's a Muslim problem so let the Muslim countries of the world deal with it. What is going on there can't be too bad - shooting prisoners; raping women and/or forcing marriage; killing non combatants and children; etc. - since we don't see the populations of the majority Muslim countries of the world taking to the streets to demand immediate action against the "Islamic State". If its OK with the rest of Islam I guess its OK with me.

I mean Iraq, first of all. I don't question the right of the U.S. to launch the preemptive strikes if the terrorist threat is real but in the case of Iraq it wasn't. The invasion was unnecessary. What's I'm saying is not the wisdom of hindsight. Most facts about terrorism sponsoring and WMD were clear enough back then. What happened, the U.S. gov't decided to invade anyway and turned Iraq into a bloody mess. As bad as Saddam was, an ordinary citizen, Arab or Kurd, Sunni, Shiite or Christian had way better chances of walking to the grocery store and coming back home alive with food for his kids, than he does now in the liberated Iraq. ISIS is the direct if distant result of the 2003 invasion, which created the vacuum of power. I'm afraid something like that can happen again if the U.S. attacks ISIS, just worse. I don't see a good solution to this mess.

[schmenke]

I live in Australia. We have no foreign policy other than to do whatever big brother tells us to do. Firstly we did what John Bull told us and now we do what Uncle Sam tells us. That's pretty well much been the reason Australia has been to every war it's been in ever.
....

??

I'll admit my Australian history is a bit fuzzy, but...

War on Iraq, 2003: Australia commits military resources to the Iraq conflict as part of the UN Coalition, in support for the UN resolution to disarm Iraq.

WWII: Australia enters the war in 1939, shortly after Germany invades Poland.

WW I: Australia enters the war on the dame day as Britain declares war on Germany in August 1914.

Boer War: Australia, as a Commonwealth, were compelled to serve under the British Empire.

[Starter]

I mean Iraq, first of all. I don't question the right of the U.S. to launch the preemptive strikes if the terrorist threat is real but in the case of Iraq it wasn't. The invasion was unnecessary. What's I'm saying is not the wisdom of hindsight. Most facts about terrorism sponsoring and WMD were clear enough back then. What happened, the U.S. gov't decided to invade anyway and turned Iraq into a bloody mess. As bad as Saddam was, an ordinary citizen, Arab or Kurd, Sunni, Shiite or Christian had way better chances of walking to the grocery store and coming back home alive with food for his kids, than he does now in the liberated Iraq. ISIS is the direct if distant result of the 2003 invasion, which created the vacuum of power. I'm afraid something like that can happen again if the U.S. attacks ISIS, just worse. I don't see a good solution to this mess.
I agree with you there. I initially supported the 2nd invasion of Iraq (the first being in the 90s when they invaded Kuwait). That was because our government lied to us about the threat of WMD and the Iraqi terrorist connection. I blame Bush II and more so his advisers like Chaney & Wolfowitz as I believe he was partially duped too. As the truth came out, I changed my opinion about the entire affair. It was a complete disaster for the entire nation of Iraq which will be decades in fixing if it can be fixed at all.

I also blame Obama for the current mess. You are correct about what happens when there is a power vacuum and that vacuum is rarely filled by any group with good intentions. He is responsible for creating the current situation with his pull out and his reckless support of the Shia sectarian government (just so he could claim we didn't need to be there any more) which divided Iraq even more than it already was. Add in the situation in Syria; the long playing issues between Israel and the Palestinians; the unrest in Egypt, Libya, etc.; and the simmering Sunni - Shia conflict and that entire region of the world is much like the swirling vortex at the bottom of a toilet. The US didn't create all of the problems there, but we sure didn't help much either. A couple of US presidents who were/are much more interested in political expediency and promoting their own party's brand instead of solving problems have only exacerbated the situation.

[Roamy]

I mean Iraq, first of all. I don't question the right of the U.S. to launch the preemptive strikes if the terrorist threat is real but in the case of Iraq it wasn't. The invasion was unnecessary. What's I'm saying is not the wisdom of hindsight. Most facts about terrorism sponsoring and WMD were clear enough back then. What happened, the U.S. gov't decided to invade anyway and turned Iraq into a bloody mess. As bad as Saddam was, an ordinary citizen, Arab or Kurd, Sunni, Shiite or Christian had way better chances of walking to the grocery store and coming back home alive with food for his kids, than he does now in the liberated Iraq. ISIS is the direct if distant result of the 2003 invasion, which created the vacuum of power. I'm afraid something like that can happen again if the U.S. attacks ISIS, just worse. I don't see a good solution to this mess.

The only answer is to take out ISIS. I think arming the Kurds with air support will do it. But it has to be done or we will be screwed in a few years. Also we will need to take out extremists in Libya.
Moral of the story is "don't remove dictators that you don't have to" Saddam killed over 300k God know how many Assad and Libya killed. The world is a sh!thole and the trick is to let someone else do your killing for you. The Euros are good at this. Especially Merkle.

[Gregor-y]

??

I'll admit my Australian history is a bit fuzzy, but...

War on Iraq, 2003: Australia commits military resources to the Iraq conflict as part of the UN Coalition, in support for the UN resolution to disarm Iraq.

WWII: Australia enters the war in 1939, shortly after Germany invades Poland.

WW I: Australia enters the war on the dame day as Britain declares war on Germany in August 1914.

Boer War: Australia, as a Commonwealth, were compelled to serve under the British Empire.
Also Korea (UN/Commonwealth), Malaysia (Commonwealth) and Vietnam (first suckle off the US teat?)

[airshifter]

Before getting involved into something make sure your involvement is going to improve things. That's not been the case with the latest U.S. military interventions.

But at the end of the day if the WORLD rather than the US alone with maybe a few allies was involved in ending real humanitarian crisis, it would have more of a humanitarian effect and less of a political effect IMO. Stopping people from being displaced, sent to mass graves, isolated, discriminated against, etc should be something the entire world doesn't tolerate.

The problem IMO is that the political influence is greater often than the humanitarian crisis. Even the middle east does more in some cases. During the Iraq invasion there were security issues with aid coming from Kuwait crossing the border to Iraq before it was even safe to do so. Yet it's not uncommon for us countries with a lot more ability to help sitting on our hands on doing nothing productive.

[Roamy]

so airshifter you think the world should have completely open borders?????

[Koz]

as part of the UN Coalition, in support for the UN resolution to disarm Iraq.

UN Coalition? UN Resolution?
Say what now?

There was no UN resolution of any kind calling for an invasion, that is why the war has been called illegal.

[airshifter]

so airshifter you think the world should have completely open borders?????

Not for a second have I thought that. Immigration policies should be up to individual countries and based on a number of things, primarily the negative effect it will potentially have on the economy with more benefits going out and jobs in a given country being taken by those willing to work for lower wages.

But what I'm saying is that countries and people as a whole could do a lot more to care about other human beings and get rid of all the stereotypes. Just as you might hang out with some gringos, there are plenty of good people of all other races and religions. The only Pakistani's I know personally own a local business and contribute to the economy. I don't know any Somali's personally but had a neighbor directly from Africa who was a linguist in the US Navy. The first Muslim I was ever friends with served with me in the Marines, and in his case he worked in military intelligence.

It's just like the gringos you might hang out with Roamy. Not all of them are drug smuggling cartel members that kill people on both sides of the border. But I'm sure you can find people that will tell you otherwise.




UN Coalition? UN Resolution?
Say what now?

There was no UN resolution of any kind calling for an invasion, that is why the war has been called illegal.

The war has been called illegal by people that have no basis in reality. Resolution 1441 clearly paved the way for use of military force. The fact that later attempts at resolutions failed doesn't change that. There is no legitimate court that would ever find any participating nation in violation of international laws.


But, if you or others think it was illegal, it brings up a great example of Roamys point. So a coalition of 30 some countries went into Iraq illegally as you and others claim? Well what has the rest of the world done to stop it? Nothing. Nothing at all other than lip service. But the rest of the world could have taken drastic measures that would have impacted the economies of the countries involved, and/or used military means to stop it. But they didn't.



And I think the turning of this discussion is a prime example of how the world often reacts when something happens. It quickly turns to finger pointing and politics rather than the situation at hand. Saddam filling mass graves should have been stopped long before it was. The situation with ISIS, as well as Russia, should have been stopped sooner. But the world will turn it into a political thing, and allow thugs to do what thugs do because of that.

And human beings that have no hand in the politics will die because of the chicken shit world doing nothing about it. I'd bet money if it was people any of us knew personally being killed we would be more involved in the situations. But since it isn't people we know personally, those people will continue to die.


I personally think Obama is an idiot, and I surely don't want him to involve the US in a mess the way Bush did. But I'm glad he at least has the cajones to do something. And if the rest of the developed world wasn't a bunch of chicken shits, the entire UN membership would at a bare minimum stop the killing and displacement of innocent people.

[Koz]

The war has been called illegal by people that have no basis in reality. Resolution 1441 clearly paved the way for use of military force. The fact that later attempts at resolutions failed doesn't change that. There is no legitimate court that would ever find any participating nation in violation of international laws.

Here is Resolution 1441: http://www.un.org/depts/unmovic/documents/1441.pdf
Where does it "clearly pave the way for use of military force"?

I believe, and I may be wrong here, the only "legal" authority that can sanction a "legal war" is the UN Security Council.

As for your notion of a legitimate court, where exactly would I find one?

Regardless of the legality, my point was that it was pretty ignorant of schmenke to call the forces in Iraq a "UN Coalition".



But, if you or others think it was illegal, it brings up a great example of Roamys point. So a coalition of 30 some countries went into Iraq illegally as you and others claim? Well what has the rest of the world done to stop it? Nothing. Nothing at all other than lip service. But the rest of the world could have taken drastic measures that would have impacted the economies of the countries involved, and/or used military means to stop it. But they didn't.

Exactly, they didn't do anything.
Saddam wasn't a nice guy, so why bother anything but a condemnation?

Who would economic sanctions against the likes US, UK, Australia and Japan hurt most?
The ones imposing the sanctions. So what choice do they have?




Saddam filling mass graves should have been stopped long before it was. The situation with ISIS, as well as Russia, should have been stopped sooner. But the world will turn it into a political thing, and allow thugs to do what thugs do because of that.

In 2003, we could have had the attitude you have right now. But now we must all enter reality.
Look what has happened to every country that has been "fixed".

Look at Libya, do you think it was a good solution to bomb Gaddafi?
Do you think the Libyan are better off?

Libya no longer exists.

Tunisia on a brink of civil war.

In Egypt, a legitimately elected government was ousted by a military coup; and this was a good thing.

Syria and Iraq also no longer exist. And I tell you, it isn't even about the IS anymore. If and when IS is stopped or destroyed, who do you think will take their place? It will probably be Iran's Shia militia.

The reality is that these democracy will not work for these people. And for the most part strongmen who can maintain peace are the best that we'll ever get.

Look at what we now have: a series of failed states stretching from North Africa to India.




And human beings that have no hand in the politics will die because of the chicken shit world doing nothing about it. I'd bet money if it was people any of us knew personally being killed we would be more involved in the situations. But since it isn't people we know personally, those people will continue to die.

I personally think Obama is an idiot, and I surely don't want him to involve the US in a mess the way Bush did. But I'm glad he at least has the cajones to do something. And if the rest of the developed world wasn't a bunch of chicken shits, the entire UN membership would at a bare minimum stop the killing and displacement of innocent people.

I urge you to read Diplomacy by Kisinger.

[Rollo]

And I think the turning of this discussion is a prime example of how the world often reacts when something happens. It quickly turns to finger pointing and politics rather than the situation at hand. Saddam filling mass graves should have been stopped long before it was. The situation with ISIS, as well as Russia, should have been stopped sooner. But the world will turn it into a political thing, and allow thugs to do what thugs do because of that.


The coin of the realm on the battlefield is people's lives. The problem with going out and spending that coin is that there should be some general benefit for doing so.
With IS, the net benefits to most western nations is at the moment unknown. The benefits of going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan are possibly one of the best examples of the parable of the broken window yet invented.

What is the endgame with attacking IS? In Syria, it'd be doing al-Assad's work for him; that's not brilliant. In Iraq, who knows what the possible outcome is? IS is Sunni like al-Qaeda and just like al-Qaeda it's nominally stateless, though with the intent of establishing a Caliphate.

Bomb part of IS and then what? Is this a case of fighting a perpetual war against spot fires? Some historic Caliphates have lasted several hundred years. What government of any nation would openly commit to starting a fight that might not end beyond the end of your grandchildrens' lives?

[Starter]

The coin of the realm on the battlefield is people's lives. The problem with going out and spending that coin is that there should be some general benefit for doing so.
With IS, the net benefits to most western nations is at the moment unknown. The benefits of going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan are possibly one of the best examples of the parable of the broken window yet invented.

What is the endgame with attacking IS? In Syria, it'd be doing al-Assad's work for him; that's not brilliant. In Iraq, who knows what the possible outcome is? IS is Sunni like al-Qaeda and just like al-Qaeda it's nominally stateless, though with the intent of establishing a Caliphate.

Bomb part of IS and then what? Is this a case of fighting a perpetual war against spot fires? Some historic Caliphates have lasted several hundred years. What government of any nation would openly commit to starting a fight that might not end beyond the end of your grandchildrens' lives?
Believe it or not, I actually agree with a lot of what you said here. Though I disagree about Afghanistan. That was an attempt to get to the 9/11 perpetrators. We never should have gone into Iraq (the second time).

There seems to be zero appetite for other Muslim nations to do anything about ISIS and I fail to see how US interests are greatly served by doing their work for them. Perhaps the best solution is to isolate those areas and let the Sunni - Shia war play out.

The down side to the above course of action is a similar scenario to the beginning of WWII (this applies to Ukraine too). The countries of the world did not want anything to do with a war, the US included, so let Hitler do as he liked until a much, much bigger, more costly and longer war was inevitable, when earlier decisive action could have changed the course of history. The parallels to current world conditions, particularly in the middle east are uncanny.

[Rudy Tamasz]

The down side to the above course of action is a similar scenario to the beginning of WWII (this applies to Ukraine too). The countries of the world did not want anything to do with a war, the US included, so let Hitler do as he liked until a much, much bigger, more costly and longer war was inevitable, when earlier decisive action could have changed the course of history. The parallels to current world conditions, particularly in the middle east are uncanny.

Revisionists would argue that if Western powers had abstained from siding with Poland in 1939, what would have happened, Germany would dominate Europe, which it pretty much does these days, anyway, but at a lesser cost for everybody involved.

In any case, history has no subjunctive mood. What happened, happened. If there is a situation to address, it has to be addressed regardless of who was responsible for it.

[Starter]

Revisionists would argue that if Western powers had abstained from siding with Poland in 1939, what would have happened, Germany would dominate Europe, which it pretty much does these days, anyway, but at a lesser cost for everybody involved.

In any case, history has no subjunctive mood. What happened, happened. If there is a situation to address, it has to be addressed regardless of who was responsible for it.
I wasn't commenting on what was past, only using it as an example of those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

[Rollo]

The down side to the above course of action is a similar scenario to the beginning of WWII (this applies to Ukraine too). The countries of the world did not want anything to do with a war, the US included, so let Hitler do as he liked until a much, much bigger, more costly and longer war was inevitable, when earlier decisive action could have changed the course of history. The parallels to current world conditions, particularly in the middle east are uncanny.

I rather think that Chamberlain's dithering saved many thousands of lives. Britain was in no way capable of prosecuting any case against Germany in 1938 despite what Churchill had to say. Churchill was prepared to spend the coin of the realm because he personally wasn't paying the price; he proved that quite nicely in WW1.

The difference between Germany of 1939 and IS of 2014 is that IS isn't exactly a defined thing. Maybe it dates back to 1999? But is that the same thing as even AQI (al-Qaeda in Iraq) in 2004 or IS in 2014? Who knows?


I wasn't commenting on what was past, only using it as an example of those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Also in The Life of Reason (1906) by George Santayana is this:
Fanaticism consists in redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim.

How about when you can't even define your aim? How do you fight a war against something which itself is only a few steps away from utter chaos?

[airshifter]

Here is Resolution 1441: http://www.un.org/depts/unmovic/documents/1441.pdf
Where does it "clearly pave the way for use of military force"?

I believe, and I may be wrong here, the only "legal" authority that can sanction a "legal war" is the UN Security Council.

As for your notion of a legitimate court, where exactly would I find one?

Regardless of the legality, my point was that it was pretty ignorant of schmenke to call the forces in Iraq a "UN Coalition".



"Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all
necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August
1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore
international peace and security in the area"

The reason the UN couldn't stop the US or any other member nation from entering Iraq is clearly laid out in 1441 and previous resolutions. Not even the most biased could claim that Iraq was in compliance with the resolutions, and the list of breaches was long.

Unless someone wants to nitpick wording, Schemeke was accurate. The UN authorized the military action. Some will argue the use of the term "all necessary means" but then again Bill Clinton wrapped up defining the word "is" as well. Either argument is on about the same footing IMO.




Exactly, they didn't do anything.
Saddam wasn't a nice guy, so why bother anything but a condemnation?

Who would economic sanctions against the likes US, UK, Australia and Japan hurt most?
The ones imposing the sanctions. So what choice do they have?

Though I didn't agree with it, the US leadership thought that going into Iraq was the right thing to do. So they did so, even though it carried a great economic burden. Are you claiming that for other countries the economic burden of doing what they considered the right thing convinced them to NOT do the right thing? If so, they may as well bow down and accept their positions as lap dogs to the countries that don't think the way they do.

Why bother? It's only human lives after all.




In 2003, we could have had the attitude you have right now. But now we must all enter reality.
Look what has happened to every country that has been "fixed".

Look at Libya, do you think it was a good solution to bomb Gaddafi?
Do you think the Libyan are better off?

Libya no longer exists.

Tunisia on a brink of civil war.

In Egypt, a legitimately elected government was ousted by a military coup; and this was a good thing.

Syria and Iraq also no longer exist. And I tell you, it isn't even about the IS anymore. If and when IS is stopped or destroyed, who do you think will take their place? It will probably be Iran's Shia militia.

The reality is that these democracy will not work for these people. And for the most part strongmen who can maintain peace are the best that we'll ever get.

Look at what we now have: a series of failed states stretching from North Africa to India.


Personally I consider political instability and uprisings preferable to people living under and iron fist and brutality. The former are both things that happen on a regular basis in the worlds democracies, and are accepted in developed countries as freedoms provided by such democracy.

Filling mass graves, on the other hand, seems to only be accepted by those that fill the graves, not those under the threat of ending up in one.




I urge you to read Diplomacy by Kisinger.

I read it a couple years after it was published. It's a good read, and Kissinger was very good at times. But IMO there is a time to accept when all attempts at diplomacy are doing nothing other than delay the inevitable.

[Rudy Tamasz]

BTW, whatever is going on with oil these days, anybody has any idea? Is the production increasing or falling, prices going up or down?

[schmenke]

As with any commodity the trading price fluctuates with supply and demand.

There is currently a glut on oil supply imported into the US that is causing the price per barrel to drop, i.e. supply is currently exceeding demand. Currently oil (specifically “Brent” sweet crude; the stuff that comes primarily from the North Atlantic) is trading at less than $100.
A high supply from internally in the US, coupled with increasing exports from Canada (although this is traded as “West Texas Intermediate” and does not impact the trading price) and resumed exports from Libya are all contributing to the current overabundance.

That’s my simplified understanding :mark: .

[Rollo]

Brent Sweet is trading at $97.11
Tapis* is trading at $102.04
(as at 08:31 EST - 16/09/2014)

Oil production which includes is still above 30 million barrels a day, yet demand; particularly from China has fallen off a cliff.

Schmenke's "simplified understanding" is pretty well bang on the money.


*Tapis is not Tapas - the thought of a 44 gallon drum of Spanish appetisers and snacks is rather humorous to me. Maybe there should be a world exchange mechanism for pintxos and jamón serrano.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Thanks, Schmenke and Rollo!

I wonder if the declining price of oil is an unintended (or intended) result of the collapse of Iraq and Lybia. After all, all those illegitimate rebel groups want to sell oil to make money, and they might resort to dumping, as their bargaining positions are weaker than those of the "normal" governments.

[schmenke]

Dumping is difficult to achieve with oil as its price is heavily controlled by the world market. Not to mention that Libya, Iraq and Iran (your so called "rebel groups") are all members of OPEC which manages production volumes, which in turn affects oil prices.

Also, when countries "sell" oil internally they are really selling to oil companies that happen to have refineries or upgrade facilities that can transform the crude feedstock into other marketable materials, e.g. diesel, gasoline, plastics, etc. Governments generally profit from crude sourced internally in two ways:
1. If the government happens to “own” a national petroleum company (think CNOOC in China or Petrobas in Brazil), or;
2. The government levies royalties on the crude produced by petroleum developers (this is what Canada does).

Ironically countries like Canada has an abundance of crude oil but very little refinery or upgrading capacity. 90% of our oil is exported to refineries in the U.S. and then the final product (e.g. gasoline) is imported back to Canada.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Dumping is difficult to achieve with oil as its price is heavily controlled by the world market. Not to mention that Libya, Iraq and Iran (your so called "rebel groups") are all members of OPEC which manages production volumes, which in turn affects oil prices.

Also, when countries "sell" oil internally they are really selling to oil companies that happen to have refineries or upgrade facilities that can transform the crude feedstock into other marketable materials, e.g. diesel, gasoline, plastics, etc. Governments generally profit from crude sourced internally in two ways:
1. If the government happens to “own” a national petroleum company (think CNOOC in China or Petrobas in Brazil), or;
2. The government levies royalties on the crude produced by petroleum developers (this is what Canada does).

Ironically countries like Canada has an abundance of crude oil but very little refinery or upgrading capacity. 90% of our oil is exported to refineries in the U.S. and then the final product (e.g. gasoline) is imported back to Canada.

Interesting. That's pretty much the situation we have here. We have some crude oil in Belarus, but not a lot. But we have refinery capacities, which Russia lacks. Russians send us crude oil, we process it and sell gas back to Russia and other European countries. In 2005-2010 that was the biggest source of income for the budget as we were buying oil real cheap and selling it at a market price. Then Russia increased exports fees and the margin of profit became smaller.