701–710 of 750 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody wanted a war in Iran, recall how Trump wasnt going to start any new wars? We are in this conflict bc of Zionists - it had nothing to do with US interests at all.
Oh yes, Trump famously lets people tell him what to do. It's always the "Zionists"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A sovereign wealth fund with over $1 trillion USD (so with over $1 million per Emirati citizen) which invests heavily in U.S. equities will be sold for pennies? So U.S. equities will be sold for pennies? Are you predicting a U.S. stock market crash bigger than the Great Depression, when oil runs out?
Foreign assets are only as good as your alliance with those foreign nations. When you lose your only bargaining chip(oil), things start to look dicey.
So the U.S. will begin to rob and plunder the bank accounts of countries that don't have a bargaining chip?
Is that where the U.S. heading? The daylight roberry of the bank accounts of foreigners?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You yourself said "five year from now, there will be far better bypass options". That is very, very long term for what is now going on with Hormuz. Yes, petrochemicals have many, many applications. But those are not in millions barrels per day, that volume is driven primarily by transportation, that can (and is, currently) being replaced by electric.
You still are not reading any of the articles i have linked to nor understanding them. I did not say "five year from now, there will be far better bypass options"; that is the expert being quoted in the last linked article above. If you had read that you would know he was talking about the situation as a whole i.e. involving Saudi Arabia, Iraq, UAE and other gulf countries all of whom are looking at ways to bypass Ho…
We are still talking past each other.
Your main point is long-term plans of UAE to increase its production and to build up its ability to bypass Hormuz.
My main point is that in the short-term (say before 2030), UAE has no way to significantly increase its capability to bypass Hormuz, so to make effective use of the increase of its production, it is still dependent on Hormuz.
To quote from few posts above:
Me: 1) The pipeline to Fujairah has capacity of 1.5m barrels per day, i.e. less than half of UAE's current oil production. They still need Hormuz badly.
You: Not quite. ADCOP was carrying 50% of UAE production (1.5-1.8 million bpd) and is being ramped up significantly.
When pressed about 'being ramped up significantly', you pointed to sources about the production being ramped up significantly and build-up of port and storage facilities at Fujeira, and about plans to build a parallel pipeline in the future. That is not 'pipeline capacity being ramped up significantly', that is 'there are plans to increase the pipeline capacity'.
Perhaps misunderstanding.
Anyway, I do not really understand your pumping-up UAE future. The war has severely disturbed their non-oil income and continued regional instability would not bode well for their future (rich people do not like unsafe places).
Their recall of Pakistan's line of credit, intention to leave OPEC and their super-hostile stance to Iran do not make them friends in the region. And relying on USA/Israel for security/help is only for fools.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, lot of stuff to unpack here, but I'll stick to just pointing out obvious misinfo, which is often repeated: Chomsky never backed the Khmer rouge, he questioned some of the claims and western focus on the Khmer rouge, which was ignoring US culpability. He also never denied that the Khmer rouge were committing atrocities. Was he wrong? Yes, at least in specific instances. But he was never outright supportive of the…
I've read Chomsky's work (more extensively than most people here, I'd wager, given I have degrees in both polsci and linguistics) and his sympathy to the Khmer Rouge was pretty clear. Chomsky was about as pro-Khmer Rouge as Tucker Carlson is pro-Russia; he's not out there waving flags and singing patriotic songs for them, but he's sure as hell doing a lot of very useful work "just asking questions" about biolabs in U…
But you should still not spread misinformation. Also, America _has_ been accused of worse things than the Cambodian genocide (as far as genocides can be compared, but I'm following your lead on comparing atrocities here): take the genocide of the indigenous American population for one.
But you're extrapolating quite a bit here. Could you please 1) provide the reference for this "provoke"-bit, so that we can evaluate it ourselves, and 2) explain exactly what the damning evidence is.
Show me the smoking gun, please.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Racial theorists are out in full force today. I do wonder if you all can hear yourself: a lot of subtle implications of genetic defects in Palestinians' character and selective understanding of geopolitics in the region, or just basic societal dynamics. I invited another commenter to transpose their reasoning to groups it's less popular to openly discriminate, I'd suggest you do the same.
Saying that no nations want to take Palestinian refugees does not make you a racist. The fact remains; no Middle Eastern nation wants Palestinian refugees, not for their genes, but for their politics.
Most states (talking about decision-makers, not populations) don't want to take in large groups of refugees, not because of their genes or politics, but because it has a cost and risks (in terms of integration, gov perception, fuelling far right parties, etc.). Nothing to do with Middle-Eastern/Palestinian.
Even though there are examples of massive refugee intakes by states, everywhere, including in the Middle-East, including of Palestinians, including voluntary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've read Chomsky's work (more extensively than most people here, I'd wager, given I have degrees in both polsci and linguistics) and his sympathy to the Khmer Rouge was pretty clear. Chomsky was about as pro-Khmer Rouge as Tucker Carlson is pro-Russia; he's not out there waving flags and singing patriotic songs for them, but he's sure as hell doing a lot of very useful work "just asking questions" about biolabs in U…
Oh, Chomsky is by no means perfect. He's an Epstein associate. But you should still not spread misinformation. Also, America _has_ been accused of worse things than the Cambodian genocide (as far as genocides can be compared, but I'm following your lead on comparing atrocities here): take the genocide of the indigenous American population for one. But you're extrapolating quite a bit here. Could you please 1) provide…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've read Chomsky's work (more extensively than most people here, I'd wager, given I have degrees in both polsci and linguistics) and his sympathy to the Khmer Rouge was pretty clear. Chomsky was about as pro-Khmer Rouge as Tucker Carlson is pro-Russia; he's not out there waving flags and singing patriotic songs for them, but he's sure as hell doing a lot of very useful work "just asking questions" about biolabs in U…
Oh, Chomsky is by no means perfect. He's an Epstein associate. But you should still not spread misinformation. Also, America _has_ been accused of worse things than the Cambodian genocide (as far as genocides can be compared, but I'm following your lead on comparing atrocities here): take the genocide of the indigenous American population for one. But you're extrapolating quite a bit here. Could you please 1) provide…
Thus far we have your claim v. mine. Not sure why an absence of evidence would somehow make you right and me wrong, nor am I sure why I bear any burden of proof when you're the one who's shown up out of nowhere to bandy around accusations of bad faith and demand to be disproven.
For what it's worth, I don't consider your factually-deficient posts to be "misinformation"; I just think you're making a good faith error out of an unfamiliarity with the sum of Chomsky's work. You could read more of him if you think that would be of merit, though I don't consider a lot of the time I spent reading his political works time well spent, so make of that what you will. :)
Read his linguistics works instead! This would be a much better world if all the people who read Chomsky's politics had read his linguistics instead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Asian countries in particular are going to burn They won't sit still, though. Eventually, if this were tried, we'd see Chinese-flagged tankers buying passage rights from Iran and being escorted by PLAN ships. No way does Commander TACO take that shot. The US interdiction threat in the gulf is empty, and everyone know it. Iran gets paid at the end of every story. The whole boondoggle has been a failure for the US in…
+1 for "Commander TACO". Mass killing, global recession, fertilizer shortages potentially leading to widespread famine and....Slashdot references? Oh man, this timeline is the worst, but it is absolutely the most entertaining.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
+1 for "Commander TACO". Mass killing, global recession, fertilizer shortages potentially leading to widespread famine and....Slashdot references? Oh man, this timeline is the worst, but it is absolutely the most entertaining.
Commander TACO isn't a reference to CmdrTaco from Slashdot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Always_Chickens_Out