Jump to content
F250

Misadventures in the Middle East

Recommended Posts

The SDF is being put under Russian control.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

It was a birthday present from Trump and just lacked the bow. I'm sure Putin will thank him.

giphy.gif

You miss the bigger picture: Sponge Bob Square Pants critics are the ones really paying the price.

Go Trump!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ISIS prison camps overran and hundreds escaped. US troops fired on by Turkish militias. Oh but we are ending endless wars by sending 1800 troops to Saudi Arabia because apparently any dictator can pay for our military to show up despite having murdered a US resident and journalist 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a reminder most of the Middle East fighting still revolves around oil and gas.  The sooner we stop running our economies on fossil fuels, the more irrelevant Russia and the Middle Eastern oligarchs will become.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Just a reminder most of the Middle East fighting still revolves around oil and gas.  The sooner we stop running our economies on fossil fuels, the more irrelevant Russia and the Middle Eastern oligarchs will become.  

 

That is down thread a few more decades more than likely, but very true. That's when they'll be the most dangerous with nothing to lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

That is down thread a few more decades more than likely, but very true. That's when they'll be the most dangerous with nothing to lose.

Bolded for emphasis.

Long-term strategic thinking needs to be planning for a world where the staggeringly rich petrocracies lose their wealth and power.  That descent into chaos will be really, really nasty.  Like, "could end the fucking world" level of nasty.

We have a population that has swelled in a region that can't support that many people without the massive influx of wealth and resources (water, power, food) that petroleum extraction provides for.  When that means of providing for them is gone....shit will hit the fan.

You think the middle east is a mess because people want its oil?  Wait till people DON'T want it anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

That is down thread a few more decades more than likely, but very true. That's when they'll be the most dangerous with nothing to lose.

the oil crises were more than 40 years ago.  we should be done by now.  instead the world is still handing billions to the saudis, iranis, and russians.  thanks again, ronald.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Bolded for emphasis.

Long-term strategic thinking needs to be planning for a world where the staggeringly rich petrocracies lose their wealth and power.  That descent into chaos will be really, really nasty.  Like, "could end the fucking world" level of nasty.

We have a population that has swelled in a region that can't support that many people without the massive influx of wealth and resources (water, power, food) that petroleum extraction provides for.  When that means of providing for them is gone....shit will hit the fan.

You think the middle east is a mess because people want its oil?  Wait till people DON'T want it anymore.

I have no doubts about the end of the world scenario potential.  How we manage that shift away from oil will go a long way to creating allies or more enemies.

 However the shift away form fossil fuels may generate new technologies that won't create a long term vacuum, but maybe offer new opportunities (what they may be I have no idea). That's my wish for civilization at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, elfenix said:

the oil crises were more than 40 years ago.  we should be done by now.  instead the world is still handing billions to the saudis, iranis, and russians.  thanks again, ronald.

An artificially created crisis. The supply of crude and natural gas is much more abundant than we knew with the new technologies that allow for deeper drilling, and better exploration techniques. Dollars will driver the change for sure.

 

EDIT:  Yeah it's all Ronnies fault... (sarcasm for you folks in Peoria)

Edited by Onboard 2.0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I have no doubts about the end of the world scenario potential.  How we manage that shift away from oil will go a long way to creating allies or more enemies.

 However the shift away form fossil fuels may generate new technologies that won't create a long term vacuum, but maybe offer new opportunities (what they may be I have no idea). That's my wish for civilization at least.

Wish in one hand, shit in the other, you know how that goes.

This world is desperately in need of some strategic thinking.  And across the board, we seem to be fighting against it with all we've got.  Short-term thinking for the win (but ultimately, for the BIG loss).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

An artificially created crisis. The supply of crude and natural gas is much more abundant than we knew with the new technologies that allow for deeper drilling, and better exploration techniques. Dollars will driver the change for sure.

 

EDIT:  Yeah it's all Ronnies fault... (sarcasm for you folks in Peoria)

but a crisis nonethefuckingless and our response to it, instead of realizing the strategic shit hole the world was in, was to go backward.  and yes, fuck ronald, he bent the country this way.  and fuck all you boomers who voted for him.  handed a fresh new world after WW2 and left it covered in plastic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, elfenix said:

but a crisis nonethefuckingless and our response to it, instead of realizing the strategic shit hole the world was in, was to go backward.  and yes, fuck ronald, he bent the country this way.  and fuck all you boomers who voted for him.  handed a fresh new world after WW2 and left it covered in plastic. 

Grow up, and stop making up reasons to hate everybody that's not you or your group.  Reagan took over an economy that had  inflation, double digit interest rates, stagnant growth, etc. etc.  The 80's ushered in a more prosperous turn for the nation.  Presidents typically act in the here and now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Wish in one hand, shit in the other, you know how that goes.

This world is desperately in need of some strategic thinking.  And across the board, we seem to be fighting against it with all we've got.  Short-term thinking for the win (but ultimately, for the BIG loss).

I gotta say I think we're heading in the right direction.  Technology marches on regardless of who's in power. It's going to be old school thinking till the new technologies for solar storage become better, and more economically attainable by the regular folks out there. How long that takes is the big question. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

The 80's ushered in a more prosperous turn for the nation

Did they?  I mean, I know that's the popular mythology - one I ascribed to for longer than I should have, by the way.

But, ummm.....

saupload_wage-disparity3-17.jpg

 

We've been on a super-fucked path since right around 1980.  It has gutted what used to be our strength -- the middle class.  Which is important, as that was ALSO the achievable status for the lower/working class.  So, that spot for upward mobility has shrunk, which also means that the spot of strength and stability has shrunk.

Again, we are all about short-term gains, with zero long-term strategic thinking.  The society we have been devoted to building for the past 40 years is NOT sustainable.  That's some bad planning, man.  Layer on how we've enriched (and armed) the middle east....we're shitty long-term planners.

The Chinese are better at it.  Of course, historically, they're also fine with a plan that may mean that they suffer the "setback" of half their population dying, so, umm, we might oughta try a different model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Grow up, and stop making up reasons to hate everybody that's not you or your group.  Reagan took over an economy that had  inflation, double digit interest rates, stagnant growth, etc. etc.  The 80's ushered in a more prosperous turn for the nation.  Presidents typically act in the here and now. 

which was due in large part to the oil crises that he didn't fucking address!  instead he used it as an excuse to lower taxes on wealthy people and steal middle income wealth by inflating the social security trust fund.

 

carter had the balls to let volker address the situation. cost him the presidency.  and then reagan rode the fucking wave into the beach. 

Edited by elfenix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Did they?  I mean, I know that's the popular mythology - one I ascribed to for longer than I should have, by the way.

But, ummm.....

saupload_wage-disparity3-17.jpg

 

We've been on a super-fucked path since right around 1980.  It has gutted what used to be our strength -- the middle class.  Which is important, as that was ALSO the achievable status for the lower/working class.  So, that spot for upward mobility has shrunk, which also means that the spot of strength and stability has shrunk.

Again, we are all about short-term gains, with zero long-term strategic thinking.  The society we have been devoted to building for the past 40 years is NOT sustainable.  That's some bad planning, man.  Layer on how we've enriched (and armed) the middle east....we're shitty long-term planners.

The Chinese are better at it.  Of course, historically, they're also fine with a plan that may mean that they suffer the "setback" of half their population dying, so, umm, we might oughta try a different model.

I would agree the middle class is suffering the burden of the growth, but the growth occurred nonetheless.  My life has been on an upward trajectory since the mid 80's.  My entire career (and the careers of millions of other folks) owes it's success to that resurgent growth in the 80's.  

The Chinese are only better at authoritative gov't. If they had an open society we would be under their economic rule by now.  That won't ever happen under their current philosophy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Onboard 2.0 said:

I would agree the middle class is suffering the burden of the growth, but the growth occurred nonetheless.  My life has been on an upward trajectory since the mid 80's.  My entire career (and the careers of millions of other folks) owes it's success to that resurgent growth in the 80's.  

The Chinese are only better at authoritative gov't. If they had an open society we would be under their economic rule by now.  That won't ever happen under their current philosophy.

Yeah.  Congratulations, and welcome to the top 5%.  We have it pretty good.

Now....about the other 95% of your fellow Americans....

Dude, your sample bias is terrible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, elfenix said:

which was due in large part to the oil crises that he didn't fucking address!  instead he used it as an excuse to lower taxes on wealthy people and steal middle income wealth by inflating the social security trust fund.

 

carter had the balls to let volker address the situation. cost him the presidency.  and then reagan rode the fucking wave into the beach. 

I believe lowering taxes was generally thought of as positive, it helped spur new economic growth. The continued priming of the pump was another thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Yeah.  Congratulations, and welcome to the top 5%.  We have it pretty good.

Now....about the other 95% of your fellow Americans....

Dude, your sample bias is terrible.

I'm right out of the middle class.  95% ?  Please stop with the hyperbole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I believe lowering taxes was generally thought of as positive, it helped spur new economic growth. The continued priming of the pump was another thing.

falling interest rates and collapsing oil prices were far larger drivers of new growth.   and taxes didn't fall for most people, only the top few percent.  in particular, social security was pulling way more money out of the middle class than necessary to pay for its ongoing outflows, making the net into a tax increase on anyone under the 90th percentile through the 80s and into the 90s.  since consumption is the driver of the economy the net effect was probably a drag.  there's a reason HW called this shit voodoo economics. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I'm right out of the middle class.  95% ?  Please stop with the hyperbole.

I'm willing to bet you're much closer to the top 5% than you think if not outright in it.  Top 5% AGI is about 200k, right? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Huckleberry said:

I'm willing to bet you're much closer to the top 5% than you think if not outright in it.  Top 5% AGI is about 200k, right? 

I'm not disputing the 5% figure.  And currently no. The wifes co. closed it's offices here in Va. so we're a one income family right now, and not in that $200k stratosphere.  

95 % of the country is not doing poorly. That's the ledge walking talk I'm used to reading from Brisket.  There for damn sure is a wealth disparity in this country and it will bite us in the ass (SEE: 1929).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

95 % of the country is not doing poorly.

Compare their position today versus their position in 1979.  Consider matters of great expense, such as the cost of housing, healthcare, and higher education, and the percentage of their income required to handle all three.

Sure, those folks at the 93rd percentile are probably doing okay.  But even getting down to the 80 percentile, you've got a lot of folks who can't afford to get sick, can't afford to send their kids to college without taking on crippling debt, etc.

We are consuming our seed stock.  It's a bad, bad plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, there are probably millions of Americans in the top 20% of earners who would be financially ruined by a family member contracting a major illness such as cancer. 

Health care costs, debt based society, lack of real dollar wage growth below the top 5% all contribute. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Yes, there are probably millions of Americans in the top 20% of earners who would be financially ruined by a family member contracting a major illness such as cancer. 

Health care costs, debt based society, lack of real dollar wage growth below the top 5% all contribute. 

That has never changed.  People don't save and health issues have wiped folks out since long before Reagan was in office.  And again, I wholeheartedly agree there's a wealth disparity in this country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Compare their position today versus their position in 1979.  Consider matters of great expense, such as the cost of housing, healthcare, and higher education, and the percentage of their income required to handle all three.

Sure, those folks at the 93rd percentile are probably doing okay.  But even getting down to the 80 percentile, you've got a lot of folks who can't afford to get sick, can't afford to send their kids to college without taking on crippling debt, etc.

We are consuming our seed stock.  It's a bad, bad plan.

The cost of living increases aren't unique to America.  And yes they all 3 need to be addressed.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this talk about middle class seems to be a little far from topic and the fact that TRUMP PULLED SUPPORT FROM THE SDF AND THEY ARE NOW CONTROLLED BY / SIDED WITH THE RUSSIANS.

We gave up a foothold in the Middle East to the Russians. I mean, this is the stuff that Republicans told democrats they were cooky for even thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I believe lowering taxes was generally thought of as positive, it helped spur new economic growth. The continued priming of the pump was another thing.

If you believe the economic policies of the 80's were responsible for much of the economic growth starting in the 80's, I got some beachfront property in Kansas I'd like to talk to you about.  It's arguable if exploding the national deficit and debt in those decades attributed much to GDP growth or what you call economic prosperity.  It sure did lead us down a road to economic disparity and irresponsibility though.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a cluster fuck. I mean Syria has been a cluster fuck but this is an elephant in a China shop situation and Trump decided to inject the elephant full of cocaine and light a fire under its ass.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 4th&Five said:

 

Does he think Saudi Arabia is 7,000 miles from Syria, or is he just forgetting that our troops are there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Dirk X West said:

Does he think Saudi Arabia is 7,000 miles from Syria, or is he just forgetting that our troops are there?

I checked -- it's 7,456 miles from Mar-A-Lago to Riyadh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I checked -- it's 7,456 miles from Mar-A-Lago to Riyadh.

Like anyone could even know that.

upton3f-2-web.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 4th&Five said:

 

Trying to understand this makes me feel high.

 spacer.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Just a reminder most of the Middle East fighting still revolves around oil and gas.  The sooner we stop running our economies on fossil fuels, the more irrelevant Russia and the Middle Eastern oligarchs will become.  

 

while the Kurds do have some oil , the Turk-Kurd feud is deeper than that IMO.  Syria isn't about oil for Russia as Syria has no oil. The Turk-Kurd is an ethnic war, not religious or economic but over land, control and independence.  Go Kurds!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

protecting people 7000 miles away who have literally fought and died alongside americans to defeat ISIS - no can do

protect a regime 7000 miles away that dismembered a US resident and whose people flew airliners into the WTC and pentagon - where do we sign up?

Edited by elfenix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, elfenix said:

protecting people 7000 miles away who have literally fought and died alongside americans to defeat ISIS - no can do

protect a regime 7000 miles away that dismembered a US resident and whose people flew airliners into the WTC and pentagon - where do we sign up?

as much as i hate the Saudi regime, they were not involved in 9/11. Yet this myth perpetuates, it's to my benefit as a regime hate, but I also prefer truth.

btw, the Turks favor ISIS and have been known to give material assistance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sanctions coming. Yep, we know how well these work. 

Quote

Michael R. Pompeo, Secretary of State

On Friday, the United States signaled its intent to take action in response to Turkey’s ongoing unilateral military offensive in northeast Syria. President Donald J. Trump has now signed an Executive Order to press Turkey to halt its military offensive against northeast Syria and adopt an immediate ceasefire. The Executive Order gives the Department of Treasury and the Department of State, the authority to consider and impose sanctions on individuals, entities, or associates of the Government of Turkey involved in actions that endanger civilians or lead to the further deterioration of peace, security, and stability in northeast Syria. Three senior Turkish officials, the Ministry of Energy, and the Ministry of Defense have been designated for sanctions under these authorities, concurrent with the signing of the Executive Order.

As the President has made clear, Turkey’s actions in northeast Syria severely undermine the D-ISIS campaign, endanger civilians, and threaten the security of the entire region. If Turkey’s operation continues, it will exacerbate a growing and daunting humanitarian crisis, with potentially disastrous consequences. To avoid suffering further sanctions imposed under this new Executive Order Turkey must immediately cease its unilateral offensive in northeast Syria and return to a dialogue with the United States on security in northeast Syria.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Grade of D as in David said:

Not surprised at all. I mean they already ceded the GOP to the Russians, might as well throw in Syria as well.

We're a fucking Russian client state.  Let THAT sink in for a bit.

Make America an SSR again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mpu


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...