Defying US sanctions, Iran is delivering oil to Venezuela.

[ThunderKiss1965]

It's none of our business. This does show what it's all still about though. Oil. We bankrupt our future over it. We kill thousands over it.

Then some wonder why so many of us want to move away from it.

Yeah right. Its a very long list of things that need oil. Why don't you loons take the first step and stop using them.

 

[pknopp]

It's none of our business. This does show what it's all still about though. Oil. We bankrupt our future over it. We kill thousands over it.

Then some wonder why so many of us want to move away from it.

Yeah right. Its a very long list of things that need oil. Why don't you loons take the first step and stop using them.

Rant away. I'm arguing for the free flow of oil. It's not up to us to tell other countries how they can use their assets.

 

[Aletheia4u]

In this crazy world, nothing surprises me anymore.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

This is nothing new actually.
(6 months ago)

Venezuela isn't the enemy. I know that the Globalist had tried to bribe Maduro to let them rule over their country like they've done to other countries' leaders, but he refused their offer. And so they've had stopped lending money and stopped the production of drilling for oil in their country in order to bring down their country.
These Global bankers destroys anyone who don't go along with their agendas like how they are destroying Pres. Trump's supporters source of income.
Obama have leftover intel agents giving Pres. Trump fake intel to make him to do what they want him to do.
In the beginning of Pres. Trump's term. He said he don't trust the intelligence community. But all of the politicians and MSM kept on slamming him until he submitted to them.
But our first gay president, Obama knew that Iran kills gays. But he never sanctioned them because the Iranian government submitted to the Globalist it's because they had paid very handsomely with U.S. tax dollars for them to submit.

• President Barack Obama signed the Venezuela Defense of Human Rights and Civil Society Act of 2014, a U.S. Act imposing sanctions on Venezuelan individuals held responsible by the United States for human rights violations during the 2014 Venezuelan protests, in December of that year.

International sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

Obama administration acknowledges $1.7B transfer to Iran was all cash

Treasury spokeswoman says cash payments necessary because of "effectiveness of U.S. and international sanctions," which isolated Iran from international finance system

www.cbsnews.com

The failed agricultural policies by the US made sure Haiti, a country that produced its own rice, would be reliant on US food to the extent that Haiti imports food from the US. Foreign aid is continuously pumped into Haiti, and no plan is made to bolster the country’s own capacity to rebuild and produce.

Haiti is still run on which business finds favor with the US, and while the Clintons were in charge of the US, they presided over all these failed policies. It is high time the onus to build Haiti shifts back to the government.

How the Clintons robbed and destroyed Haiti | The Canada-Haiti Information Project

canada-haiti.ca

Venezuela's 'people as legislators' ban GMOs, protect traditional seeds

A radical new Seed Law drafted by Venezuelan people, farmers and NGOs was signed into law in the closing days of 2015, write William Camacaro, Frederick B. Mills & Christina M. Schiavoni. Striking back against the corporate takeover of seeds and peddling of GMOs, the Seed Law bans transgenic...

theecologist.org

One of the main issues is violence perpetrated by landowners who have opposed the Venezuelan government’s land redistribution policy going back to the landmark 2001 Land Law introduced by former President Hugo Chavez.

In 2017, a committee of victims’ relatives asked the National Constituent Assembly to declare campesino killings crimes against humanity. They likewise demanded justice be done for the more than 300 leaders killed in their struggle for land, especially in the states of Zulia, Barinas, Apure and Portuguesa.

Campesino leaders have also denounced evictions pushed forward by the National Land Institute. In a recent case, the institute revoked the property deed of the 300-hectare Cacho e’ Venao plot that had been turned over to 45 families in Portuguesa State, only to return it to the previous landowner, even though the campesinos are currently producing food.

Venezuela’s Maduro Demands Investigation into Landlord Violence - Venezuelanalysis

Mérida, August 8, 2020 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro ordered a detailed probe into the assassination of 370 campesinos by landowners over the last 20 years. Maduro tasked Interior Minister Néstor Reverol and Agriculture Minister Wilmar Castro Soteldo with providing...

venezuelanalysis.com

Nabors pulls last rig in Venezuela as Chevron halts drilling program

Drilling rig operator Nabors is pulling its last rig out of oil-rich Venezuela after Chevron halted its drilling program in the troubled South American nation.

www.houstonchronicle.com

.

So everything you posted is ridiculous. It's hard to even know where to start with so much nonsense.

Oil production in Venezuela started falling, long before there were any sanctions. The idea that we could stop their government run oil companies form drilling and producing oil on their own land, is stupid.

How could we do that? Exxon left Venezuela, not because of sanctions, but because Chavez expropriated their property.

Then you complain that oil production fell, and sanctions stopped them from producing oil?

That's like me, signing a deal with you, to operate a business on my property... and then when you start making money, stealing your stuff, and kicking you out.... then when I can't run the business like you......

I complain you are sabotaging me and making me poor?

Are you going to keep working in on my property, after I stole all your stuff?

No, that's stupid.

And this ignores everything else. For example, Venezuela was a net exporter of rice. Now they can't even grow enough rice to feed themselves, and people are starving.

Do you see US government agents out in the rice fields of Venezuela stopping them from farming?

Do tell, what sanctions do you think prevents a farmer in Venezuela from planting rice, and harvesting it?

Then you complain about violence from land owners. Well yeah..... if you show up at my house, and declare it yours, you and me brother, are going to have a problem. I paid for this place, I own it, it's mine. You don't get to just take other people's stuff.

When you do, people will rightfully get violent, and that is morally justified.

You don't to just steal what you want, and then complain about get getting hurt.

It is because the International bankers stopped lending them money that they are unable to farmed and they've paid someone to sabotage the farmer's seeds.
The Big banks made Venezuela dependent on loans, like the way they are doing to the U.S. That anytime the Big banks can stop lending out causing the economy to collapse. And Big banks wants the world to depend on their currency. But will not let countries to create their own currency.
But once they have collapsed the countries; economy. That is when they come in to collect on their debts.
The Big bank kept on encouraging Venezuela to borrow more to create this Green economy. They've told the Venezuelan's government to do not worry about them reneging on the loans. Because they are trying to stop pollution. But when the Venezuelans stopped using their cash crop, GMO. That is when all hell started to break out. That big bank will instantly pull out their nursing nipples from out of the Venezuelan's mouths, not giving them time to wean themselves off the nipple. But now the Big banks sees that the country is trying to get back on their feet again without their help. That they comes around and push them back on the ground, forcing them to stay down.
You can't depend on anyone.


Thirdly, they used the period of high oil prices between 2004 and 2012 not to save for a rainy day, but to borrow as it if was going out of fashion. They sextupled the public debt in the middle of an oil boom, spending as if the price of oil was at $200 a barrel when it was only at $100. When the markets decided that Venezuela’s debt was too big, they stopped lending, and the price of oil collapsed.

Harvard expert tries to make sense of Venezuela’s collapse

Harvard Kennedy’s School’s Ricardo Hausmann, director of the Center for International Development and professor of the practice of economic development, discusses deteriorating conditions in Venezuela.

news.harvard.edu

It is because the International bankers stopped lending them money that they are unable to farmed and they've paid someone to sabotage the farmer's seeds.

No, you are lying.

First off, if you are making money profitably, you don't need to get money from international bankers.

If my business is making a profit, I don't need to borrow money.

Second, they have interviewed farmers in Venezuela, and not one said anyone sabotaged their seeds.

False claim.

The Big banks made Venezuela dependent on loans, like the way they are doing to the U.S.

How can you "Make" someone dependent on loans? You can't force people to borrow money. The US is not being forced to borrow money.

The US is spending more money than it earns, and thus is borrowing because they are over spending.

Stop over spending, and you don't need loans or a bank.

And Big banks wants the world to depend on their currency. But will not let countries to create their own currency.

Venezuela issues new currency, amid hyperinflation and social turmoil | CNN

Venezuela is starting to use a new currency Monday to help bolster its collapsing economy

www.cnn.com

Venezuela has already created new currency. Zimbabwe has a new currency. China has issued a new currency, as well. Cuba has actually had two completely different currencies issued by the government at the same time.

Any country can create their own currency whenever they wish. Big Banks can't prevent you from issuing currency.

The Big bank kept on encouraging Venezuela to borrow more to create this Green economy. They've told the Venezuelan's government to do not worry about them reneging on the loans.

There is zero evidence of that. You are just making up stuff.

Venezuela was not trying to create a green economy. Was never the plan. In fact, Venezuela opposed the Green Economy.

Venezuela climate summit calls for end to "green economy"

NEWS: UN-backed event ends with unusual call from civil society groups to end capitalism

www.climatechangenews.com

The purpose of a bank, is to earn money, by lending money. If the bank doesn't believe the borrower will pay back the loan, thus losing the bank money, they are not going to loan them money.

The reason banks are not loaning Venezuela money, has nothing to do with helping or not helping Venezuela. Nor should it by the way.

The reason they are not loaning Venezuela money, is because Venezuela simply does not have the ability to pay back the loans.

If your broke alcoholic brother-in-law, who just drank all this rent money at the bar, asks you to pay his rent... would you do it? If you are smart... no. Because you know he'll drink away all his money again, and you'll just lose all your money.

Banks are not going to lend to someone who can't pay the back, and Venezuela can't pay them back.

And you actually make that case below.

Thirdly, they used the period of high oil prices between 2004 and 2012 not to save for a rainy day, but to borrow as it if was going out of fashion. They sextupled the public debt in the middle of an oil boom, spending as if the price of oil was at $200 a barrel when it was only at $100. When the markets decided that Venezuela’s debt was too big, they stopped lending, and the price of oil collapsed.

Now this part you have correct. The gave money to the poor, free food, free housing, free education, free health care, free electricity, free fuel, free everything.... and ran out of money, and imploded.

Venezuela was not borrowing money to just borrow so that they could borrow, and have borrowed money.

They were over spending. They were providing endless government programs and spending, to everyone. Which is exactly why people in Venezuela even to this very day, love Hugo Chavez, even though he's is exactly who caused Venezuela to be in ruins today.

You can't just spend everything. You can claim all those programs were such a benefit, but all socialism ends up running out of "other people's money" eventually. That's what happened.

Remember, Venezuela was in the process to turn the whole country Green. And so they were borrowing a lot to reach that goal. I wonder what will happen if we go Green with this Paris Climate Accord?
The International bankers loved when a country goes Green. Because it takes a long time and lots on money to convert everything over.
Venezuela wasn't eating any zoo animals before they've discovered oil reserves on their land.

 

[Andylusion]

It's none of our business. This does show what it's all still about though. Oil. We bankrupt our future over it. We kill thousands over it.

Then some wonder why so many of us want to move away from it.

No evidence to support that claim, whatsoever.

The wars that really are about the oil | The Spectator

Just not true though. You can post a million ridiculous articles until the end of time saying things like this, it doesn't make it true.

Name the oil field that we captured in Iraq, and started pumping oil into the US from? Name it. Name the field that we own... that we don't pay money for... that we are getting oil from?

Trump OKs wider Syria oil mission, raising legal questions

'Secure the oil': Trump's Syria strategy leaves Pentagon perplexed

Esper: US troops, armored vehicles going to Syria oil fields

You can't. You know why you can't? Because it never happened. Nor did we start confiscating oil from anywhere else, not Venezuela, not Iran, not anywhere.

How can you say "it's a war over oil", when we were buying oil from the country before the war... and we're buying oil from the country after the war? How can you say it's a war over oil, when absolutely nothing oil related changed?

Now have we had some problems when another country confiscates the property of US citizens? Sure, but that's not because it's oil... that's because they stole the property of our citizens. The United Fruit company, had nothing to do with oil.

But hey, prove me wrong. Show me the exact fields in Iraq or anywhere else, that we sent our troops to confiscate the oil, and now we have billions of barrels of free oil flowing into the US. Where is it?

You know what the deal is which is why you phrase your question as you did. It's not just taking the oil, it's deciding who other countries will sell their oil to also. Syria was all about an oil pipeline.

U.S. warns energy cos like Rosneft, Chevron over ties to Venezuela's Maduro

Name the oil field that we captured in Iraq, and started pumping oil into the US from? Name it. Name the field that we own... that we don't pay money for... that we are getting oil from?

Trump OKs wider Syria oil mission, raising legal questions

'Secure the oil': Trump's Syria strategy leaves Pentagon perplexed

Esper: US troops, armored vehicles going to Syria oil fields

I didn't ask you if they were securing oil fields. I have no problem with US troops securing oil fields. Remember what happened in Kuwait, when we didn't?

You need to protect the oil fields for many obvious reasons.

But that doesn't mean, that the entire purpose of us going there is to get oil. Obviously, when we liberated Kuwait, we didn't steal their oil. We don't currently own any oil fields in Kuwait.

Before the first gulf war in 1991, we paid for oil from Kuwait, just like we pay for oil from kuwait now.

And after this deal is Syria is over, we won't own a single oil field there either, and we'll still pay for oil from Syria after the civil war ends, just like we did before the Civil war started, and just like we're doing right now.

Right now, we are paying the market price for oil from Syria.

Why do we need to protect the oil fields in Syria? Because if radical Islamic terrorist organizations take control of the oil fields, they'll use their money to fund international terror. We don't want that.

But we're not there to steal the oil, and never have been. We're their to protect are national security.

You know what the deal is which is why you phrase your question as you did. It's not just taking the oil, it's deciding who other countries will sell their oil to also. Syria was all about an oil pipeline.

No, it's not, and that isn't even logical.

Oil is sold on an international market.
It does not matter who gets the initial sale, because eventually it all ends up in global trades.

Meaning this.... Let's say that you pknop, don't like Andy. You decide that you don't want Siria over there, selling Andy oil, because you hate Andy.

Even if you convince Siria to not sell Andy the Oil, it doesn't matter. Because if Siria sells that oil to Turi instead of Andy, what is Turi going to do? Sell it to Andy. Because now Andy will be a higher bidder, and Turi will have a surplus of oil they don't normally use.

It's global market. If you sell the oil to someone else, they'll sell it to whom ever needs it... which will be the people they didn't sell the oil to before.

Regardless of who Syria sells their oil too... we're not taking the oil. We're not stealing it. We are not confiscating it. We are not living on free oil from Syria right now. Nor in the future.

That's the reality.

U.S. warns energy cos like Rosneft, Chevron over ties to Venezuela's Maduro

The Trump administration is ramping up pressure against Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro's government, and energy companies with ties to it, from Russia's Rosneft <ROSN.MM> to U.S.-based Chevron Corp <CVX.N>, should "tread cautiously," a senior administration official...

www.reuters.com

Yes, and rightly so.

Again, still is not proof of any claim that we are stealing their oil.

It's ironic that you post that link. Which is it? Do we go to countries and steal their natural resources, or are we forcing our companies out of Venezuela and demanding they not steal their resources?

I thought left-wingers in general claimed that evil western capitalists forced their way into foreign countries, to take all their stuff, and here you are linking an article of evil western capitalist refusing to steal their natural resources?

Is having US companies operating around the world, bad because we're taking their resources?

Or is having a US company in Venezuela good, and it's evil that we're demanding they stop producing oil in Venezuela for a profit??

Which is it? Contradictory claims in your own post.

 

[Andylusion]

It's none of our business. This does show what it's all still about though. Oil. We bankrupt our future over it. We kill thousands over it.

Then some wonder why so many of us want to move away from it.

By all means, be the first American to stop using oil. Billion products use oil, and if you want to go live in a mud hut somewhere to avoid using oil, let's see you do it.

Lead by example. Show us your oil free life. Enjoy your horse and buggy.

We are not bankrupting our future on oil. Entitlements are bankrupting our future, which left-winger are in favor of increasing.

We haven't killed thousands over it. Just not true.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

In this crazy world, nothing surprises me anymore.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

This is nothing new actually.
(6 months ago)

10% for the Big Guy

 

[Andylusion]

In this crazy world, nothing surprises me anymore.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

This is nothing new actually.
(6 months ago)

Venezuela isn't the enemy. I know that the Globalist had tried to bribe Maduro to let them rule over their country like they've done to other countries' leaders, but he refused their offer. And so they've had stopped lending money and stopped the production of drilling for oil in their country in order to bring down their country.
These Global bankers destroys anyone who don't go along with their agendas like how they are destroying Pres. Trump's supporters source of income.
Obama have leftover intel agents giving Pres. Trump fake intel to make him to do what they want him to do.
In the beginning of Pres. Trump's term. He said he don't trust the intelligence community. But all of the politicians and MSM kept on slamming him until he submitted to them.
But our first gay president, Obama knew that Iran kills gays. But he never sanctioned them because the Iranian government submitted to the Globalist it's because they had paid very handsomely with U.S. tax dollars for them to submit.

• President Barack Obama signed the Venezuela Defense of Human Rights and Civil Society Act of 2014, a U.S. Act imposing sanctions on Venezuelan individuals held responsible by the United States for human rights violations during the 2014 Venezuelan protests, in December of that year.

International sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

Obama administration acknowledges $1.7B transfer to Iran was all cash

Treasury spokeswoman says cash payments necessary because of "effectiveness of U.S. and international sanctions," which isolated Iran from international finance system

www.cbsnews.com

The failed agricultural policies by the US made sure Haiti, a country that produced its own rice, would be reliant on US food to the extent that Haiti imports food from the US. Foreign aid is continuously pumped into Haiti, and no plan is made to bolster the country’s own capacity to rebuild and produce.

Haiti is still run on which business finds favor with the US, and while the Clintons were in charge of the US, they presided over all these failed policies. It is high time the onus to build Haiti shifts back to the government.

How the Clintons robbed and destroyed Haiti | The Canada-Haiti Information Project

canada-haiti.ca

Venezuela's 'people as legislators' ban GMOs, protect traditional seeds

A radical new Seed Law drafted by Venezuelan people, farmers and NGOs was signed into law in the closing days of 2015, write William Camacaro, Frederick B. Mills & Christina M. Schiavoni. Striking back against the corporate takeover of seeds and peddling of GMOs, the Seed Law bans transgenic...

theecologist.org

One of the main issues is violence perpetrated by landowners who have opposed the Venezuelan government’s land redistribution policy going back to the landmark 2001 Land Law introduced by former President Hugo Chavez.

In 2017, a committee of victims’ relatives asked the National Constituent Assembly to declare campesino killings crimes against humanity. They likewise demanded justice be done for the more than 300 leaders killed in their struggle for land, especially in the states of Zulia, Barinas, Apure and Portuguesa.

Campesino leaders have also denounced evictions pushed forward by the National Land Institute. In a recent case, the institute revoked the property deed of the 300-hectare Cacho e’ Venao plot that had been turned over to 45 families in Portuguesa State, only to return it to the previous landowner, even though the campesinos are currently producing food.

Venezuela’s Maduro Demands Investigation into Landlord Violence - Venezuelanalysis

Mérida, August 8, 2020 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro ordered a detailed probe into the assassination of 370 campesinos by landowners over the last 20 years. Maduro tasked Interior Minister Néstor Reverol and Agriculture Minister Wilmar Castro Soteldo with providing...

venezuelanalysis.com

Nabors pulls last rig in Venezuela as Chevron halts drilling program

Drilling rig operator Nabors is pulling its last rig out of oil-rich Venezuela after Chevron halted its drilling program in the troubled South American nation.

www.houstonchronicle.com

.

So everything you posted is ridiculous. It's hard to even know where to start with so much nonsense.

Oil production in Venezuela started falling, long before there were any sanctions. The idea that we could stop their government run oil companies form drilling and producing oil on their own land, is stupid.

How could we do that? Exxon left Venezuela, not because of sanctions, but because Chavez expropriated their property.

Then you complain that oil production fell, and sanctions stopped them from producing oil?

That's like me, signing a deal with you, to operate a business on my property... and then when you start making money, stealing your stuff, and kicking you out.... then when I can't run the business like you......

I complain you are sabotaging me and making me poor?

Are you going to keep working in on my property, after I stole all your stuff?

No, that's stupid.

And this ignores everything else. For example, Venezuela was a net exporter of rice. Now they can't even grow enough rice to feed themselves, and people are starving.

Do you see US government agents out in the rice fields of Venezuela stopping them from farming?

Do tell, what sanctions do you think prevents a farmer in Venezuela from planting rice, and harvesting it?

Then you complain about violence from land owners. Well yeah..... if you show up at my house, and declare it yours, you and me brother, are going to have a problem. I paid for this place, I own it, it's mine. You don't get to just take other people's stuff.

When you do, people will rightfully get violent, and that is morally justified.

You don't to just steal what you want, and then complain about get getting hurt.

It is because the International bankers stopped lending them money that they are unable to farmed and they've paid someone to sabotage the farmer's seeds.
The Big banks made Venezuela dependent on loans, like the way they are doing to the U.S. That anytime the Big banks can stop lending out causing the economy to collapse. And Big banks wants the world to depend on their currency. But will not let countries to create their own currency.
But once they have collapsed the countries; economy. That is when they come in to collect on their debts.
The Big bank kept on encouraging Venezuela to borrow more to create this Green economy. They've told the Venezuelan's government to do not worry about them reneging on the loans. Because they are trying to stop pollution. But when the Venezuelans stopped using their cash crop, GMO. That is when all hell started to break out. That big bank will instantly pull out their nursing nipples from out of the Venezuelan's mouths, not giving them time to wean themselves off the nipple. But now the Big banks sees that the country is trying to get back on their feet again without their help. That they comes around and push them back on the ground, forcing them to stay down.
You can't depend on anyone.


Thirdly, they used the period of high oil prices between 2004 and 2012 not to save for a rainy day, but to borrow as it if was going out of fashion. They sextupled the public debt in the middle of an oil boom, spending as if the price of oil was at $200 a barrel when it was only at $100. When the markets decided that Venezuela’s debt was too big, they stopped lending, and the price of oil collapsed.

Harvard expert tries to make sense of Venezuela’s collapse

Harvard Kennedy’s School’s Ricardo Hausmann, director of the Center for International Development and professor of the practice of economic development, discusses deteriorating conditions in Venezuela.

news.harvard.edu

It is because the International bankers stopped lending them money that they are unable to farmed and they've paid someone to sabotage the farmer's seeds.

No, you are lying.

First off, if you are making money profitably, you don't need to get money from international bankers.

If my business is making a profit, I don't need to borrow money.

Second, they have interviewed farmers in Venezuela, and not one said anyone sabotaged their seeds.

False claim.

The Big banks made Venezuela dependent on loans, like the way they are doing to the U.S.

How can you "Make" someone dependent on loans? You can't force people to borrow money. The US is not being forced to borrow money.

The US is spending more money than it earns, and thus is borrowing because they are over spending.

Stop over spending, and you don't need loans or a bank.

And Big banks wants the world to depend on their currency. But will not let countries to create their own currency.

Venezuela issues new currency, amid hyperinflation and social turmoil | CNN

Venezuela is starting to use a new currency Monday to help bolster its collapsing economy

www.cnn.com

Venezuela has already created new currency. Zimbabwe has a new currency. China has issued a new currency, as well. Cuba has actually had two completely different currencies issued by the government at the same time.

Any country can create their own currency whenever they wish. Big Banks can't prevent you from issuing currency.

The Big bank kept on encouraging Venezuela to borrow more to create this Green economy. They've told the Venezuelan's government to do not worry about them reneging on the loans.

There is zero evidence of that. You are just making up stuff.

Venezuela was not trying to create a green economy. Was never the plan. In fact, Venezuela opposed the Green Economy.

Venezuela climate summit calls for end to "green economy"

NEWS: UN-backed event ends with unusual call from civil society groups to end capitalism

www.climatechangenews.com

The purpose of a bank, is to earn money, by lending money. If the bank doesn't believe the borrower will pay back the loan, thus losing the bank money, they are not going to loan them money.

The reason banks are not loaning Venezuela money, has nothing to do with helping or not helping Venezuela. Nor should it by the way.

The reason they are not loaning Venezuela money, is because Venezuela simply does not have the ability to pay back the loans.

If your broke alcoholic brother-in-law, who just drank all this rent money at the bar, asks you to pay his rent... would you do it? If you are smart... no. Because you know he'll drink away all his money again, and you'll just lose all your money.

Banks are not going to lend to someone who can't pay the back, and Venezuela can't pay them back.

And you actually make that case below.

Thirdly, they used the period of high oil prices between 2004 and 2012 not to save for a rainy day, but to borrow as it if was going out of fashion. They sextupled the public debt in the middle of an oil boom, spending as if the price of oil was at $200 a barrel when it was only at $100. When the markets decided that Venezuela’s debt was too big, they stopped lending, and the price of oil collapsed.

Now this part you have correct. The gave money to the poor, free food, free housing, free education, free health care, free electricity, free fuel, free everything.... and ran out of money, and imploded.

Venezuela was not borrowing money to just borrow so that they could borrow, and have borrowed money.

They were over spending. They were providing endless government programs and spending, to everyone. Which is exactly why people in Venezuela even to this very day, love Hugo Chavez, even though he's is exactly who caused Venezuela to be in ruins today.

You can't just spend everything. You can claim all those programs were such a benefit, but all socialism ends up running out of "other people's money" eventually. That's what happened.

Remember, Venezuela was in the process to turn the whole country Green. And so they were borrowing a lot to reach that goal. I wonder what will happen if we go Green with this Paris Climate Accord?
The International bankers loved when a country goes Green. Because it takes a long time and lots on money to convert everything over.
Venezuela wasn't eating any zoo animals before they've discovered oil reserves on their land.

I don't see any evidence anywhere, that they were borrowing money, to achieve a green economy.

International bankers do not care about the country going green. No evidence of that either.

Venezuela wasn't eating any zoo animals before they've discovered oil reserves on their land.

Those two facts, are not even remotely related. We were not eating zoo animals either, and we still ear not. Nor is any other country with vast fossil fuel resources.

The only countries eating the family dog to survive, are countries that engage in Socialism. When you try and control the economy, and spend endless money on entitlements like Social Security, you end up like Greece, like N.Korea, like Venezuela, like 1980s Russia, like Cuba and so on.

If Venezuela had remained a capitalist system, they never would have starved to death, regardless of oil.

 

[Andylusion]

Who cares what Iran does !!
The only enemy is the Democratic Party

I hope Iran gets its nukes

~~~~~~
If Biden is inaugurated be rest assured Iranian will be mounting nuclear weapons on their missiles.

Iran has moved closer to nuke capability quicker under Trump than Obama.......but whatever makes you feel better....

There is no proof of that, other than your partisan view of the data. Everything shows the Iran deal was a bad one. Their influence and terrorist organizations dramatically grew under Obama, which was only magnified by the mass of civil wars that broke out due to Obama's failed influence.

Only an idiot thinks that Iran was somehow not pursing nuclear weapons during the Obama years, especially since their own clerics were saying openly in Arabic at mosques in Iran, that they were doing so.

By the way, not exactly insider info, but we have an Iranian couple who showed up here in Ohio before Trump was elected, who came here specifically because her husband was in the nuclear program, and deserted because they were shooting people for not achieving the governments weapon goals.

They said this openly.

Can't prove it, because for obvious reasons, it would be bad if their names got out. So you can take it or leave it.

Regardless, the claim that things are worse now, without us openly supporting Iran's nuclear program.... is just flat out insanity by the left-wing liars who claimed Trump was a Russian plant, and Bret Kavanough was a rapist.

You guys just lie constantly. That's all there is to that claim.

 

[Quasar44]

Yes Iran continues to move ahead but it’s not our problem
Iran’s goals is to finish Israel

 

[Quasar44]

I don’t care what Iran does ,and my only enemy are white leftist in the USA ,and it seems they’re winning the war

 

[pknopp]

It's none of our business. This does show what it's all still about though. Oil. We bankrupt our future over it. We kill thousands over it.

Then some wonder why so many of us want to move away from it.

No evidence to support that claim, whatsoever.

The wars that really are about the oil | The Spectator

Just not true though. You can post a million ridiculous articles until the end of time saying things like this, it doesn't make it true.

Name the oil field that we captured in Iraq, and started pumping oil into the US from? Name it. Name the field that we own... that we don't pay money for... that we are getting oil from?

Trump OKs wider Syria oil mission, raising legal questions

'Secure the oil': Trump's Syria strategy leaves Pentagon perplexed

Esper: US troops, armored vehicles going to Syria oil fields

You can't. You know why you can't? Because it never happened. Nor did we start confiscating oil from anywhere else, not Venezuela, not Iran, not anywhere.

How can you say "it's a war over oil", when we were buying oil from the country before the war... and we're buying oil from the country after the war? How can you say it's a war over oil, when absolutely nothing oil related changed?

Now have we had some problems when another country confiscates the property of US citizens? Sure, but that's not because it's oil... that's because they stole the property of our citizens. The United Fruit company, had nothing to do with oil.

But hey, prove me wrong. Show me the exact fields in Iraq or anywhere else, that we sent our troops to confiscate the oil, and now we have billions of barrels of free oil flowing into the US. Where is it?

You know what the deal is which is why you phrase your question as you did. It's not just taking the oil, it's deciding who other countries will sell their oil to also. Syria was all about an oil pipeline.

U.S. warns energy cos like Rosneft, Chevron over ties to Venezuela's Maduro

Name the oil field that we captured in Iraq, and started pumping oil into the US from? Name it. Name the field that we own... that we don't pay money for... that we are getting oil from?

Trump OKs wider Syria oil mission, raising legal questions

'Secure the oil': Trump's Syria strategy leaves Pentagon perplexed

Esper: US troops, armored vehicles going to Syria oil fields

I didn't ask you if they were securing oil fields. I have no problem with US troops securing oil fields. Remember what happened in Kuwait, when we didn't?

View attachment 427270

You need to protect the oil fields for many obvious reasons.

But that doesn't mean, that the entire purpose of us going there is to get oil. Obviously, when we liberated Kuwait, we didn't steal their oil. We don't currently own any oil fields in Kuwait.

Before the first gulf war in 1991, we paid for oil from Kuwait, just like we pay for oil from kuwait now.

And after this deal is Syria is over, we won't own a single oil field there either, and we'll still pay for oil from Syria after the civil war ends, just like we did before the Civil war started, and just like we're doing right now.

Right now, we are paying the market price for oil from Syria.

Why do we need to protect the oil fields in Syria? Because if radical Islamic terrorist organizations take control of the oil fields, they'll use their money to fund international terror. We don't want that.

But we're not there to steal the oil, and never have been. We're their to protect are national security.

You know what the deal is which is why you phrase your question as you did. It's not just taking the oil, it's deciding who other countries will sell their oil to also. Syria was all about an oil pipeline.

No, it's not, and that isn't even logical.

Oil is sold on an international market.
It does not matter who gets the initial sale, because eventually it all ends up in global trades.

Meaning this.... Let's say that you pknop, don't like Andy. You decide that you don't want Siria over there, selling Andy oil, because you hate Andy.

Even if you convince Siria to not sell Andy the Oil, it doesn't matter. Because if Siria sells that oil to Turi instead of Andy, what is Turi going to do? Sell it to Andy. Because now Andy will be a higher bidder, and Turi will have a surplus of oil they don't normally use.

It's global market. If you sell the oil to someone else, they'll sell it to whom ever needs it... which will be the people they didn't sell the oil to before.

Regardless of who Syria sells their oil too... we're not taking the oil. We're not stealing it. We are not confiscating it. We are not living on free oil from Syria right now. Nor in the future.

That's the reality.

U.S. warns energy cos like Rosneft, Chevron over ties to Venezuela's Maduro

The Trump administration is ramping up pressure against Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro's government, and energy companies with ties to it, from Russia's Rosneft <ROSN.MM> to U.S.-based Chevron Corp <CVX.N>, should "tread cautiously," a senior administration official...

www.reuters.com

Yes, and rightly so.

Again, still is not proof of any claim that we are stealing their oil.

It's ironic that you post that link. Which is it? Do we go to countries and steal their natural resources, or are we forcing our companies out of Venezuela and demanding they not steal their resources?

I thought left-wingers in general claimed that evil western capitalists forced their way into foreign countries, to take all their stuff, and here you are linking an article of evil western capitalist refusing to steal their natural resources?

Is having US companies operating around the world, bad because we're taking their resources?

Or is having a US company in Venezuela good, and it's evil that we're demanding they stop producing oil in Venezuela for a profit??

Which is it? Contradictory claims in your own post.

I never said it was about getting the oil but you know that and just can't be honest.

 

[pknopp]

It's none of our business. This does show what it's all still about though. Oil. We bankrupt our future over it. We kill thousands over it.

Then some wonder why so many of us want to move away from it.

By all means, be the first American to stop using oil. Billion products use oil, and if you want to go live in a mud hut somewhere to avoid using oil, let's see you do it.

Lead by example. Show us your oil free life. Enjoy your horse and buggy.

We are not bankrupting our future on oil. Entitlements are bankrupting our future, which left-winger are in favor of increasing.

We haven't killed thousands over it. Just not true.

See more dishonesty. I never said we had to quit using oil. I said we need to start moving away from it which we are. For some reason that upsets you even though you know oil is not infinite. Screw future generations, right?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

In this crazy world, nothing surprises me anymore.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

This is nothing new actually.
(6 months ago)

They must think a sleezy half-century Washington ass wipe won the POTUS and will look the other way for some cash.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I don’t care what Iran does ,and my only enemy are white leftist in the USA ,and it seems they’re winning the war

Wait until the real violence starts.

 

[Shawnee_b]

Sink them.

 

[Andylusion]

I don’t care what Iran does ,and my only enemy are white leftist in the USA ,and it seems they’re winning the war

Yeah, we said that before World War 2. Let's not let crazy people get nukes and start WW3.

 

[Andylusion]

It's none of our business. This does show what it's all still about though. Oil. We bankrupt our future over it. We kill thousands over it.

Then some wonder why so many of us want to move away from it.

No evidence to support that claim, whatsoever.

The wars that really are about the oil | The Spectator

Just not true though. You can post a million ridiculous articles until the end of time saying things like this, it doesn't make it true.

Name the oil field that we captured in Iraq, and started pumping oil into the US from? Name it. Name the field that we own... that we don't pay money for... that we are getting oil from?

Trump OKs wider Syria oil mission, raising legal questions

'Secure the oil': Trump's Syria strategy leaves Pentagon perplexed

Esper: US troops, armored vehicles going to Syria oil fields

You can't. You know why you can't? Because it never happened. Nor did we start confiscating oil from anywhere else, not Venezuela, not Iran, not anywhere.

How can you say "it's a war over oil", when we were buying oil from the country before the war... and we're buying oil from the country after the war? How can you say it's a war over oil, when absolutely nothing oil related changed?

Now have we had some problems when another country confiscates the property of US citizens? Sure, but that's not because it's oil... that's because they stole the property of our citizens. The United Fruit company, had nothing to do with oil.

But hey, prove me wrong. Show me the exact fields in Iraq or anywhere else, that we sent our troops to confiscate the oil, and now we have billions of barrels of free oil flowing into the US. Where is it?

You know what the deal is which is why you phrase your question as you did. It's not just taking the oil, it's deciding who other countries will sell their oil to also. Syria was all about an oil pipeline.

U.S. warns energy cos like Rosneft, Chevron over ties to Venezuela's Maduro

Name the oil field that we captured in Iraq, and started pumping oil into the US from? Name it. Name the field that we own... that we don't pay money for... that we are getting oil from?

Trump OKs wider Syria oil mission, raising legal questions

'Secure the oil': Trump's Syria strategy leaves Pentagon perplexed

Esper: US troops, armored vehicles going to Syria oil fields

I didn't ask you if they were securing oil fields. I have no problem with US troops securing oil fields. Remember what happened in Kuwait, when we didn't?

View attachment 427270

You need to protect the oil fields for many obvious reasons.

But that doesn't mean, that the entire purpose of us going there is to get oil. Obviously, when we liberated Kuwait, we didn't steal their oil. We don't currently own any oil fields in Kuwait.

Before the first gulf war in 1991, we paid for oil from Kuwait, just like we pay for oil from kuwait now.

And after this deal is Syria is over, we won't own a single oil field there either, and we'll still pay for oil from Syria after the civil war ends, just like we did before the Civil war started, and just like we're doing right now.

Right now, we are paying the market price for oil from Syria.

Why do we need to protect the oil fields in Syria? Because if radical Islamic terrorist organizations take control of the oil fields, they'll use their money to fund international terror. We don't want that.

But we're not there to steal the oil, and never have been. We're their to protect are national security.

You know what the deal is which is why you phrase your question as you did. It's not just taking the oil, it's deciding who other countries will sell their oil to also. Syria was all about an oil pipeline.

No, it's not, and that isn't even logical.

Oil is sold on an international market.
It does not matter who gets the initial sale, because eventually it all ends up in global trades.

Meaning this.... Let's say that you pknop, don't like Andy. You decide that you don't want Siria over there, selling Andy oil, because you hate Andy.

Even if you convince Siria to not sell Andy the Oil, it doesn't matter. Because if Siria sells that oil to Turi instead of Andy, what is Turi going to do? Sell it to Andy. Because now Andy will be a higher bidder, and Turi will have a surplus of oil they don't normally use.

It's global market. If you sell the oil to someone else, they'll sell it to whom ever needs it... which will be the people they didn't sell the oil to before.

Regardless of who Syria sells their oil too... we're not taking the oil. We're not stealing it. We are not confiscating it. We are not living on free oil from Syria right now. Nor in the future.

That's the reality.

U.S. warns energy cos like Rosneft, Chevron over ties to Venezuela's Maduro

The Trump administration is ramping up pressure against Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro's government, and energy companies with ties to it, from Russia's Rosneft <ROSN.MM> to U.S.-based Chevron Corp <CVX.N>, should "tread cautiously," a senior administration official...

www.reuters.com

Yes, and rightly so.

Again, still is not proof of any claim that we are stealing their oil.

It's ironic that you post that link. Which is it? Do we go to countries and steal their natural resources, or are we forcing our companies out of Venezuela and demanding they not steal their resources?

I thought left-wingers in general claimed that evil western capitalists forced their way into foreign countries, to take all their stuff, and here you are linking an article of evil western capitalist refusing to steal their natural resources?

Is having US companies operating around the world, bad because we're taking their resources?

Or is having a US company in Venezuela good, and it's evil that we're demanding they stop producing oil in Venezuela for a profit??

Which is it? Contradictory claims in your own post.

I never said it was about getting the oil but you know that and just can't be honest.

Well, that's stupid. "It's all about oil!".... "I never said it as about getting the oil".

If it is not about getting the oil, then that defeats the entire argument.

The whole argument, is that we only involve ourselves in countries with oil, and the given reason is because we're their for the oil.

That simply isn't true. If all we wanted was the oil, or oil was the reason for us being involved... why is our government demanding we NOT get the oil from Venezuela? Why are we demanding our companies NOT making a profit off of Venezuelan oil fields?

It just isn't true.

I don't know how else to say it. The facts do not fit that claim.

 

[Andylusion]

It's none of our business. This does show what it's all still about though. Oil. We bankrupt our future over it. We kill thousands over it.

Then some wonder why so many of us want to move away from it.

By all means, be the first American to stop using oil. Billion products use oil, and if you want to go live in a mud hut somewhere to avoid using oil, let's see you do it.

Lead by example. Show us your oil free life. Enjoy your horse and buggy.

We are not bankrupting our future on oil. Entitlements are bankrupting our future, which left-winger are in favor of increasing.

We haven't killed thousands over it. Just not true.

See more dishonesty. I never said we had to quit using oil. I said we need to start moving away from it which we are. For some reason that upsets you even though you know oil is not infinite. Screw future generations, right?

Impossible. There are simply far too many uses that can't be replaced with any other form of power. We're not even remotely close to seeing a non-oil powered jet liner.

The only remote chance we would have, would be to use nuclear power. For example a single used fuel rod, could be used to power a car continuously for the duration of a human life. Literally run an electric car for 100 years.

But we already know where the left-wing stands on this. They oppose nuclear power, under the mythology that we can run everything from turbines and panels. That's impossible.

There is nothing "dishonest" about scientific fact.

 

[Likkmee]

In this crazy world, nothing surprises me anymore.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

This is nothing new actually.
(6 months ago)

You shouldn't worry about a thing. Joey Xi will allow the Iranian Mullahs to do whatever they want and that goes for the Chinese too.

Trump is the POTUS 2day what is he going to do about it?

We do not have the ability to fight after a first round of mass destruction of our military hardware with another world class military power like China. If many of our naval vessels are destroyed, we can not reproduce them fast. China can for theirs. So the use of WMD's becomes a very somber move.

We have the best military in the world and that was long before your saviour showed up on the scene.

Then try fighting a country that has more than IED's carried by pickups and camels(and winning) . Show us how it works out

 

[pknopp]

It's none of our business. This does show what it's all still about though. Oil. We bankrupt our future over it. We kill thousands over it.

Then some wonder why so many of us want to move away from it.

No evidence to support that claim, whatsoever.

The wars that really are about the oil | The Spectator

Just not true though. You can post a million ridiculous articles until the end of time saying things like this, it doesn't make it true.

Name the oil field that we captured in Iraq, and started pumping oil into the US from? Name it. Name the field that we own... that we don't pay money for... that we are getting oil from?

Trump OKs wider Syria oil mission, raising legal questions

'Secure the oil': Trump's Syria strategy leaves Pentagon perplexed

Esper: US troops, armored vehicles going to Syria oil fields

You can't. You know why you can't? Because it never happened. Nor did we start confiscating oil from anywhere else, not Venezuela, not Iran, not anywhere.

How can you say "it's a war over oil", when we were buying oil from the country before the war... and we're buying oil from the country after the war? How can you say it's a war over oil, when absolutely nothing oil related changed?

Now have we had some problems when another country confiscates the property of US citizens? Sure, but that's not because it's oil... that's because they stole the property of our citizens. The United Fruit company, had nothing to do with oil.

But hey, prove me wrong. Show me the exact fields in Iraq or anywhere else, that we sent our troops to confiscate the oil, and now we have billions of barrels of free oil flowing into the US. Where is it?

You know what the deal is which is why you phrase your question as you did. It's not just taking the oil, it's deciding who other countries will sell their oil to also. Syria was all about an oil pipeline.

U.S. warns energy cos like Rosneft, Chevron over ties to Venezuela's Maduro

Name the oil field that we captured in Iraq, and started pumping oil into the US from? Name it. Name the field that we own... that we don't pay money for... that we are getting oil from?

Trump OKs wider Syria oil mission, raising legal questions

'Secure the oil': Trump's Syria strategy leaves Pentagon perplexed

Esper: US troops, armored vehicles going to Syria oil fields

I didn't ask you if they were securing oil fields. I have no problem with US troops securing oil fields. Remember what happened in Kuwait, when we didn't?

View attachment 427270

You need to protect the oil fields for many obvious reasons.

But that doesn't mean, that the entire purpose of us going there is to get oil. Obviously, when we liberated Kuwait, we didn't steal their oil. We don't currently own any oil fields in Kuwait.

Before the first gulf war in 1991, we paid for oil from Kuwait, just like we pay for oil from kuwait now.

And after this deal is Syria is over, we won't own a single oil field there either, and we'll still pay for oil from Syria after the civil war ends, just like we did before the Civil war started, and just like we're doing right now.

Right now, we are paying the market price for oil from Syria.

Why do we need to protect the oil fields in Syria? Because if radical Islamic terrorist organizations take control of the oil fields, they'll use their money to fund international terror. We don't want that.

But we're not there to steal the oil, and never have been. We're their to protect are national security.

You know what the deal is which is why you phrase your question as you did. It's not just taking the oil, it's deciding who other countries will sell their oil to also. Syria was all about an oil pipeline.

No, it's not, and that isn't even logical.

Oil is sold on an international market.
It does not matter who gets the initial sale, because eventually it all ends up in global trades.

Meaning this.... Let's say that you pknop, don't like Andy. You decide that you don't want Siria over there, selling Andy oil, because you hate Andy.

Even if you convince Siria to not sell Andy the Oil, it doesn't matter. Because if Siria sells that oil to Turi instead of Andy, what is Turi going to do? Sell it to Andy. Because now Andy will be a higher bidder, and Turi will have a surplus of oil they don't normally use.

It's global market. If you sell the oil to someone else, they'll sell it to whom ever needs it... which will be the people they didn't sell the oil to before.

Regardless of who Syria sells their oil too... we're not taking the oil. We're not stealing it. We are not confiscating it. We are not living on free oil from Syria right now. Nor in the future.

That's the reality.

U.S. warns energy cos like Rosneft, Chevron over ties to Venezuela's Maduro

The Trump administration is ramping up pressure against Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro's government, and energy companies with ties to it, from Russia's Rosneft <ROSN.MM> to U.S.-based Chevron Corp <CVX.N>, should "tread cautiously," a senior administration official...

www.reuters.com

Yes, and rightly so.

Again, still is not proof of any claim that we are stealing their oil.

It's ironic that you post that link. Which is it? Do we go to countries and steal their natural resources, or are we forcing our companies out of Venezuela and demanding they not steal their resources?

I thought left-wingers in general claimed that evil western capitalists forced their way into foreign countries, to take all their stuff, and here you are linking an article of evil western capitalist refusing to steal their natural resources?

Is having US companies operating around the world, bad because we're taking their resources?

Or is having a US company in Venezuela good, and it's evil that we're demanding they stop producing oil in Venezuela for a profit??

Which is it? Contradictory claims in your own post.

I never said it was about getting the oil but you know that and just can't be honest.

Well, that's stupid. "It's all about oil!".... "I never said it as about getting the oil".

If it is not about getting the oil, then that defeats the entire argument.

The whole argument, is that we only involve ourselves in countries with oil, and the given reason is because we're their for the oil.

That simply isn't true. If all we wanted was the oil, or oil was the reason for us being involved... why is our government demanding we NOT get the oil from Venezuela? Why are we demanding our companies NOT making a profit off of Venezuelan oil fields?

It just isn't true.

I don't know how else to say it. The facts do not fit that claim.

You skipped an entire part of my argument. You know why.