Large gas belt discovered in China

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

5 hours ago, 0R0 said:

US didn't need to invade Venezuela to get the Maduro regime ousted. He is so secure in his position that when he sent out troops to secure his offices against mobs, he didn't allow the soldiers to carry ammunition, just positioned them with empty assault rifles and machine guns. It is the end if you can't trust your soldiers. 

The sanctions against Venezuela are nothing compared to the deprivations created by the Chavez regime. There is a Venezuelan refugee crisis going up to the Mexican border and deep into Brazil. It started before the sanctions. First the money fled, then the engineers and the doctors and businessmen. Only  Chavez' close allies and assorted looters stayed behind. Russia and Cuba "assisted" but eventually left. 

Venezuela today is no prize. As NG displaces diesel, that leaves only jet fuel to be produced from heavy crudes uniquely. The world will not need Venezuelan grades for quite a while. 

Agree with your "assisted".  Russia and China came sniffing around to see if a failed and abandoned oil state was worth the effort and the associated headaches.  And as you say, it wasn't, and so they are pretty much gone.  They were never going to be Venezuela's saviours; only their own.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

4 hours ago, Wombat said:

It also pays to have some balls and tell the Chinks where to shove it?

Of course that will always be the eventual outcome, after the quarter is satisfied!  And after you can untangle yourselves.  Tricks like those quickly expose longer term ambitions and un-trustworthiness.

[NickW + 2,714]

5 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Nothing worth doing is easy...

Chinas Achilles heel is food. Mind so is the USA's but it's citizens carry more stock in hand (or waist) 😀

Edited May 13, 2020 by NickW
typo

[Hotone + 412]

On 5/13/2020 at 3:08 AM, 0R0 said:

China's BRI project is a senseless kleptocratic process of "soft power" projection, where fraudulent "contracts" are used to provide China with "claims" against participating state's assets. Those states will eventually negate the Chinese claims and re-nationalize the assets in due course the moment Chinese money stops flowing in sufficient quantity. The reason this was abandoned as a method by the West, which practiced it through the World Bank in the 1960s to the 1990s was because it was useless for the West. So they set up stricter conditions for the funding so that it is not a permanent financial leak. 

👆This I agree with you.

As for America being the world's policeman, it's just an excuse.  You Americans don't feel any guilt at all for what you do? 

Edited May 14, 2020 by Hotone

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

@Hotone Can you provide a link to that last video?  Looks like a good one.

[specinho + 440]

On 5/8/2020 at 5:42 PM, Douglas Buckland said:

@Tom Kirkman
Mahatir is gone now. Old crowd back in. Expect more of the same. If so, after the covid19 scare, Malaysia is no longer solvent. China will own it.

(Whispering mode...............) China might be too late. Pakistan and brother Bangladesh co-own the country............. Indians want their ethnic mentioned next.................

 

On 5/8/2020 at 3:52 PM, Tom Kirkman said:

The contracts were very much one-sided, heavily in favor of China, and very bad economically for Malaysia.

The theory is seemingly this................... It's called reverse evolution..............................................Theory of evolution says that owing to the limitation or availability of food sources at different locations, and/or the naughtiness of birds which were active intimately (that gave birth to smaller and smaller birds with smaller, thinner and sharper beaks that survived smaller food sources like grains, compared to initial nuts), birds of a species evolved to have smaller and smaller beaks  ......... Theory of reverse evolution says that owing to the availability of abundant food flow, the mouths of a species are getting bigger and bigger.....................So, the reverse theory started once upon a time................... there was an agreement signed saying that after the construction of highways, the toll fees must be increased every year. Otherwise, the government must pay compensation to the builder....... Both parties agreed, small sum to increase any way. Few hundred thousands of dollars involved. Later, a third link project from the Cause Way to Singapore was proposed. Singapore declined it. Malaysia representatives insisted. They said (roughly), "We will build half the bridge even if Singapore refuses to connect it to show our determination to improve the traffic congestion for many." Millions of dollars involved............. And the epic...........  the seemingly redundant and costly rail project (not very sure if the very big sink hole that sunk part of the city near Time Square was related to it...)  ........... billions involved............ Species evolves is the deduction.......

Edited May 14, 2020 by specinho

[Hotone + 412]

9 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

@Hotone Can you provide a link to that last video?  Looks like a good one.

 

 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

Thanks ^^

 

[Marcin2 + 724]

-

Edited May 19, 2020 by Marcin2
-

[Hotone + 412]

7 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

Thanks ^^

 

You are welcome. If you liked the original post and inserted videos, would appreciate if you can hit the upvote button.

[frankfurter + 562]

On 5/12/2020 at 10:08 AM, pisstol said:

Marcin2, you are not a good listener. 

After I told you this: "I am American, but I don't think the USA can afford a Marshall Plan or anything like BRI - or even medical care at 20 percent of GDP, or even its military."

You told me: "And just because you have American exceptionalism philosophy embedded into your conscious is not a cause to be rude to you."

And you said that America is a "brainwashed society".

You asked what I thought about the US military presence in Syria and Iraq. I don't think you will remember this, but I already told you before that the USA can't afford a bunch of stuff including the military. And by that statement, I think I meant something similar to what Trump meant when he campaigned against foreign wars. I don't want the USA to be the policeman of the world. IT COSTS A LOT OF MONEY. But I am not politically sophisticated. I don't know all the reasons the USA intervened in Syria. I just know that we have an enormous deficit. I WANT A BALANCED BUDGET.

So, the only reason you wish to see no wars is because they cost you too much. So, if you could afford, you would continue?  What an utterly despicable, immoral, inhumane, vile stance.  If the majority of drugged-up dumbed-down 'murcans share this stance, the world has no hope of peace. 

Edited May 14, 2020 by frankfurter

[pisstol + 48]

18 hours ago, frankfurter said:

So, the only reason you wish to see no wars is because they cost you too much. So, if you could afford, you would continue?  What an utterly despicable, immoral, inhumane, vile stance.  If the majority of drugged-up dumbed-down 'murcans share this stance, the world has no hope of peace. 

No, frankfurter. The money is not the ONLY reason. You read that word into what I said. I deliberately didn't say other reasons. The money is all I wanted to talk about. Most "'murcans" agree that the USA shouldn't have a budget deficit. But they disagree about who is at fault. Is the medical establishment charging too much? The military-industrial complex? Is too much being spent for social programs? I wrote the way I did to avoid unnecessary arguments with other "'murcans". You think that world peace depends on "'Murca". But "'Murca" may soon cease to be a world power because of deficit spending, including excessive spending to combat the corona virus.

Now aren't you embarrassed for putting words in my mouth and then totally overreacting, in front of the whole world? 

[frankfurter + 562]

3 hours ago, pisstol said:

No, frankfurter. The money is not the ONLY reason. You read that word into what I said. I deliberately didn't say other reasons. The money is all I wanted to talk about. Most "'murcans" agree that the USA shouldn't have a budget deficit. But they disagree about who is at fault. Is the medical establishment charging too much? The military-industrial complex? Is too much being spent for social programs? I wrote the way I did to avoid unnecessary arguments with other "'murcans". You think that world peace depends on "'Murca". But "'Murca" may soon cease to be a world power because of deficit spending, including excessive spending to combat the corona virus.

Now aren't you embarrassed for putting words in my mouth and then totally overreacting, in front of the whole world? 

You seem to miss the point entirely.  me?-Not at all.  Sadly, over a lifetime, I have met perhaps thousands of people like you who want to stop the wars because they cost too much: not because 'murcans care anything about the mass murder and destruction your armed forces cause against innocents.  Korea never declared war, never fired a shot, against USA, yet your forces carpet bombed them to murder millions.  Vietnam never declared war, never fired a shot, against USA, yet your forces applied bombs and chemical weopans to murder millions.  Iraq never declared war, never fired a shot against USA, yet your forces attacked twice.  Cambodia, Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria, the list is very long.  Should America cease to be a world power, in your eyes, resulting from lack of funds, only the means to war will be curtailed: the war-mongering attitude will yet prevail. 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

That nasty American ‘war mongering’.... I suppose the Ukraine, the Chinese 9 line map land grab and Assad in Syria are simply foreign aid?

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 5/14/2020 at 1:42 AM, Dan Warnick said:

Agree with your "assisted".  Russia and China came sniffing around to see if a failed and abandoned oil state was worth the effort and the associated headaches.  And as you say, it wasn't, and so they are pretty much gone.  They were never going to be Venezuela's saviours; only their own.

Indeed, apparently Russia has virtual control of Iran's oil and gas now as well.

[pisstol + 48]

19 hours ago, frankfurter said:

You seem to miss the point entirely.  me?-Not at all.  Sadly, over a lifetime, I have met perhaps thousands of people like you who want to stop the wars because they cost too much: not because 'murcans care anything about the mass murder and destruction your armed forces cause against innocents.  Korea never declared war, never fired a shot, against USA, yet your forces carpet bombed them to murder millions.  Vietnam never declared war, never fired a shot, against USA, yet your forces applied bombs and chemical weopans to murder millions.  Iraq never declared war, never fired a shot against USA, yet your forces attacked twice.  Cambodia, Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria, the list is very long.  Should America cease to be a world power, in your eyes, resulting from lack of funds, only the means to war will be curtailed: the war-mongering attitude will yet prevail. 

I have carefully read your exposes about how bad I and other 'murcans are. I have to admit that dozens of people despise me just as much as you do. That's one reason I don't use my real name online.

It is very impressive that you have talked to THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE LIKE ME. You really get around. As a member of the oilprice.com community, you have a right to start a new discussion about this subject that you know so much about. Some other 'murcans are just as argumentative and unpleasant as you are, and they will be sure to take the bait.

I prefer to spend my time reading oil articles.

[Rufus + 15]

“Commercial quantities” of gas hydrates is a nice sound bite, but doesn’t actually say much. South China Sea has loads of it, so if it’s also economic and scalable it would make a difference for sure. Japan is working on their own deposits as well, but it’s tricky to work with safely. It’s also going to have environmental issues, both because of the methane use and possible seafloor dropping as the beds of ice get harvested.

[0R0 + 6,251]

On 5/13/2020 at 11:50 AM, Hotone said:

On 5/12/2020 at 3:08 PM, 0R0 said:

China's BRI project is a senseless kleptocratic process of "soft power" projection, where fraudulent "contracts" are used to provide China with "claims" against participating state's assets. Those states will eventually negate the Chinese claims and re-nationalize the assets in due course the moment Chinese money stops flowing in sufficient quantity. The reason this was abandoned as a method by the West, which practiced it through the World Bank in the 1960s to the 1990s was because it was useless for the West. So they set up stricter conditions for the funding so that it is not a permanent financial leak. 

👆This I agree with you.

As for America being the world's policeman, it's just an excuse.  You Americans don't feel any guilt at all for what you do? 

The Americans are oblivious to the current decades of war operations. It is taken as an unwanted burden we are trying to figure out how to shake. Trump ran against this. Yet still hasn't managed to get the heck out of there. There is just nobody friendly available to pick up the burden of the ME. The Russians and Chinese are both incapable and willing. They would not be protecting the ME from its natural state of war. They would carve out the gulf oil field, Send the people into exile, and let them war among each other to eternity without oil money to fund it.

Americans identify with their military. As in the soldiers. Not the actions. They do not identify with the CIA and don't believe anything they do is related to their benefit.

Since the fall of the Soviets, The American attitude towards the globe is utterly oblivious. Now that has shifted to wanting to detach from China - completely. Everyone is trying to find out if an Amazon product is from China so they can avoid buying it.

 

 

[Yoshiro Kamamura + 274]

On 5/8/2020 at 4:59 AM, pisstol said:

Marcin2,

You asked Tom, but I would like to ask a question. Do you live under a totalitarian government? You said, "I would make detailed geological surveys, etc.", but you are not a government. That is what a wise totalitarian government with central economic planning might do. And you said: "Is is greed or democracy ...", which suggests that you don't live in a democratic country or don't believe in democracy. Those writers who favor communism in South China Morning Post frequently criticize democracy as being chaotic.
 

I think today's Americans often confuse communism with social democratic systems, and similarly, put incorrectly an equal sign between capitalism and democracy. Social democratic systems are systems were profit of private subjects is not put on the the pedestal of glorified universal measure of success and metrics of efficiency, but other aspects of society-wide importance are not let from sight. For example, the value of universal healthcare is appreciated in hard times like these, where lower income individuals are not left to fend for themselves (which in today's America lead to massive opium abuse epidemic, because the increasing amount of people unable to afford proper medical care at least try to suppress the symptoms). When the weaker members of society are given at least basic health care, education and living, they won't become a weight that drags the society down as a whole - they do not turn to crime as often, because they have an alternative, and they do not spread the viral infections through cities, because having a place to stay allows them to maintain a basic level of hygiene. 

Similarly, universal and free education translates into more intelligent, informed, and in effect independent population that is less gullible and prone to manipulation, and thus eager to vote for narcissistic, psychopatic egomaniacs that would then drag their country to disaster. By voluntarily sacrificing a part of their wealth (which the rich can do easier than the poor), everybody benefits in the end, in proportions that are very advantageous. 

On the other hand, capitalism is fundamentally incompatible with democracy, because it is build on animalistic, predatory instincts of seeing others as either prey or predators. You either grow, and consume others, or are consumed yourself. Peaceful coexistence are hardly stable for a long time (unless enforced by vigilant and incorruptible anti-monopoly watchdogs empowered by a strong government, which is not the reality of today) - instead, every specialized business tries to drive competition out of business and establish a monopoly that in turn allows to dictate everything - prices, wages, contracts, working conditions, and with enough capital, customized laws can be bought from political parties whose campaigns these monopolies finance. In the very extreme, the voters are given a binary choice between red and blue, while both sides lead to non-transparent structures of campaign gifts, SUPERPACS, donations and charities, effectively meaning uninterrupted rule of the same, concentrated capital for decades in quite absolutistic manner. In reality, not very different from the elections of the former eastern bloc, where you had but one choice - the Communist party (that was at least more honest). 

The "democracy" today has degenerated in a sort of marketing slogan, a logo and a brand that allows the USA and "the boys" lead aggressive military campaign against targets of opportunity (most often smaller, poor countries that cannot hit back, but provide reimbursement for war efforts in terms of mineral wealth, strategic position on the military and trade maps, or have key strategic values for future needs, like arable land, fresh water, rare earth deposits, etc.). Very little attention is paid to the fact that these "democratic jihads" leave the nations whom they were supposed to help and liberate in shambles, sentencing local inhabitants to decades of suffering (Iraq is still unstable, unsafe country with many hostile factions fighting for controls, Libya has been turned from the richest African country into a scorched battlefield with and endless proxy war between the East and the West, etc.)

And if a regime like the current Donald Trump's presidency is the result of the cherished "democracy", one has to wonder if the sleek, attractive look if this social order does not present a disguise for something entirely different. I certainly do not see people "ruling" and deciding their future. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

On 5/11/2020 at 10:08 PM, pisstol said:

I WANT A BALANCED BUDGET.

YOu will never have a "balanced budget."  There are at least two reasons for this.

Reason #1:   Governments do accounting different from individuals and private enterprises.  When the Govt purchases a capital good, such as a bridge or an aircraft carrier, the entire cost is expensed in the year of the budget it was purchased, even though the capital good may have a life-span of fifty years.   In accounting of businesses, the expenditure in the budget is taken as the depreciation of that asset in the year it was depreciated.  So governments, when purchasing capital goods, always run a huge cost.  That cost is never amortized, it is charged to that year's taxes, but since the public has no interest in actually paying for it in that tax year, the budget shows a deficit.  the capital cost is paid for with printed money.

Reason #2:   The public wants many more goods and services for the govt than it is prepared to pay for.  Easily half the US federal budget is transfer payments, things like medicare, social security, and payments to States.  Of the rest, a lot goes for military goods including the navy and the air force, very expensive stuff.  The public is not prepared to actually pay money via taxes for those goods, so it goes on the national credit-card, i.e. the Feds issue some T-bill or bond and investors buy those things in the idea that future taxpayers will pay it, or that the Feds will raise that cash by selling land in the Western States.  It never happens, of course, so the deficit continues to climb, well into the trillions.

So forget the idea of balanced budgets, not going to happen.   Ever.   

Edited May 21, 2020 by Jan van Eck

[Strangelovesurfing + 737]

On 5/16/2020 at 10:33 AM, 0R0 said:

The Americans are oblivious to the current decades of war operations. It is taken as an unwanted burden we are trying to figure out how to shake. Trump ran against this. Yet still hasn't managed to get the heck out of there. There is just nobody friendly available to pick up the burden of the ME. The Russians and Chinese are both incapable and willing. They would not be protecting the ME from its natural state of war. They would carve out the gulf oil field, Send the people into exile, and let them war among each other to eternity without oil money to fund it.

Americans identify with their military. As in the soldiers. Not the actions. They do not identify with the CIA and don't believe anything they do is related to their benefit.

Since the fall of the Soviets, The American attitude towards the globe is utterly oblivious. Now that has shifted to wanting to detach from China - completely. Everyone is trying to find out if an Amazon product is from China so they can avoid buying it.

 

 

I don't think it's rational to expect large percentages people in one part of the world to be very enlightened/caring about people long distances from themselves. Human nature is mostly about your immediate surrounding and society, long distances just increase the mental haze.

[Strangelovesurfing + 737]

On 5/14/2020 at 3:54 PM, frankfurter said:

You seem to miss the point entirely.  me?-Not at all.  Sadly, over a lifetime, I have met perhaps thousands of people like you who want to stop the wars because they cost too much: not because 'murcans care anything about the mass murder and destruction your armed forces cause against innocents.  Korea never declared war, never fired a shot, against USA, yet your forces carpet bombed them to murder millions.  Vietnam never declared war, never fired a shot, against USA, yet your forces applied bombs and chemical weopans to murder millions.  Iraq never declared war, never fired a shot against USA, yet your forces attacked twice.  Cambodia, Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria, the list is very long.  Should America cease to be a world power, in your eyes, resulting from lack of funds, only the means to war will be curtailed: the war-mongering attitude will yet prevail. 

So much to unpack here....

Korea, a civil war, Korean war wasn't started by the US, and I suppose you'd rather all that death/destruction that was inflicted ON South Korea was ignored and the whole Korean peninsula was a gulag instead of the vibrant country South Korea is today. 

Vietnam, another civil war, the US had a defense treaty with South Vietnam and once again it was the North that was the aggressor. Was the US involvement a disaster, IMO, yes it was, if we never got involved it would have been for the best but hindsight's 20/20.

Iraq, in fact attacked the Stark DDG in the 80's but I digress... humm, if memory serves Iraq attacked Kuwait, yep just did a google search and that seems to be recorded history. Now, did the US screw up by not finishing off Saddam the first time around? Yeppers, they sure did. Bush #1 figured Saddam would be taken out by other Iraqi's  The whole US/Iraq saga, IMO, is a result of the US not finishing the job the first time and yes more people died than should have. Looked at through one 20 year long lens, it looks like one long war, just with a really long intermission. Just to save you the time, yes the US gave Saddam precursors of chemical agents, that is our shame. But if you actually cared to take a look Iraq was flying French fighters and almost had a French nuclear reactor along with various other European nations armaments, Russian scuds ground vehicles, Chinese small arms and ammunition ie. cheaper versions of Russian gear. Oh, and that attack on the Stark was a French Mirage jet firing a French missile.

Cambodia=Vietnam, if the VC weren't using Cambodia for logistics the US never would have gone over the boarder at any point. So who brought war to Cambodia? You seem to be conveniently forgetting that part of the equation.

Yugoslavia, another civil war, yep the US got involved in another European war. After years and years and years of diplomatic efforts and European impotency the US stepped in and stopped another cancerous European war.

Libya, another civil war, you seem to be conveniently forgetting all the European nations clamoring for action lest the people of eastern Libya get butchered. Obama obviously wanted nothing to do with it, but he didn't want to take the wrap for doing nothing at the time, so he half-assed it and tried to make the Europeans take the responsibility which inevitably led to the current situation as Europeans cant get anything done anymore except complaining about the US when it finally does what they aren't willing/able to do. European bitching = do something, do something, followed a few years later by.... you Americans, I just cant BELIEVE that when we DEMANDED you do something you did it and now look what happened! How dare you, BAD AMERICA, BAD BAD BOY! If Europeans did their job maybe Libya would look different today.

Syria, another civil war, let's start with a bit of a history lesson. After a prolonged period of horrid governance a devastating drought hit Syria. Left with no options but destitution, the people of Syria, being fed up with the Assad family BS revolted. Eventually the US got majorly involved when ISIS became a dangerous entity. The US then proceeded to work with the local population to destroy a terrorist state. Who was that dropping cluster munitions at will in Aleppo? That would be the Russians but let's ignore reality and move on.

As for finances you can read "Unrivaled"by Michael Beckley,  just because the US runs a public deficit doesn't mean it's going broke. The combined net worth public and private of the US, even after subtracting for deficit spending, increases by trillions every year. The US Govt. budget deficit is a result of not taxing enough to pay for Govt. expenditures which is completely different than not having the resource base at all. I'll just throw out it's not really a bad thing if capital is kept in private hands with a return of 20-30% when the Tbill is being bought for almost nothing. See, the US overall actually gets a better return by running Govt. deficits, the reason the currency holds up, even with all this money printing is the US net worth keeps increasing by trillions a year even while running a govt fiscal deficit. The net worth of the US is in the hundreds of trillions.

Taking a look at history it appears the US's real mistake has been getting involved in other nation's wars, not initiating the wars themselves. All these wars started without any US involvement, they just didn't end without us involvement. You seem to be indulging in a fantasy that if the US was out of the equation those wars wouldn't have happened and mass deaths wouldn't have occurred, that is quite an assumption.

You're taking offense for a lot of people who don't seem to share your sense of outrage. Korea/US alliance has overwhelming (85-95%) support in S.Korea, Vietnam is making noises (see Viet. latest defense white paper) about forming an alliance with the US, not to mention Nimitz carriers port visits at Cam Ranh Bay. Iraqi's as a whole (70-80%) were glad Saddam was taken out, they don't like the US being in their country bossing people around. They don't want the US to leave despite what you believe because they're scared if the US leaves the'll be eaten by the wolves lurking all around the Mid. East. Barham Salih, the new Iraqi PM, is a supporter of the American presence, Iraqi's are figuring out who they want to associate with and obviously it's still the US. If Iraq really wanted the US out, they could easily make it happen. There is no public appetite for US involvement in Iraq at this point. The US govt would have to bow to this reality if Iraq really wanted it.

Theres a comedy special on Netflix by Bert Kreischer (absolutely hilarious, look for the fat guy with no shirt). One of his bits is about him buying a coffee and trying to win over a barista with his comedy. The jokes he was telling the Barista were racial (black) jokes and the Barista, who was black, thought they were hilarious. The lady in line behind Bert Kreischer got all offended at the racial nature of the jokes and started to "defend" the poor Barista from the racial jokes he was, at that moment, almost on the floor laughing about.

Mr. Frankfruter, don't be that lady.

Edited May 18, 2020 by Strangelovesurfing

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,132]

14 hours ago, Yoshiro Kamamura said:

Blah blah blah

On the other hand, X is fundamentally incompatible with Y, because it is build on

While truth/morals are empirical, humans always try to hide the truth due to their amoral nature so no matter which side of government style you wish to take, there are always problems. 

Now most cultures have a touch of religion but usually have another layer of amoral tendencies which is rubbed in to assuage those who refuse to adhere to said religion which then also stress different aspects of society and morality in regards to people-people interactions and governmental interactions. 

So, rail away against Capitalism and Democracy all you want, there is no better solution as the only other solution is one person deciding for everyone else in a capricious manner how they must live

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

5 hours ago, Strangelovesurfing said:

So much to unpack here....

Korea, a civil war, Korean war wasn't started by the US, and I suppose you'd rather all that death/destruction that was inflicted ON South Korea was ignored and the whole Korean peninsula was a gulag instead of the vibrant country South Korea is today. 

Vietnam, another civil war, the US had a defense treaty with South Vietnam and once again it was the North that was the aggressor. Was the US involvement a disaster, IMO, yes it was, if we never got involved it would have been for the best but hindsight's 20/20.

Iraq, in fact attacked the Stark DDG in the 80's but I digress... humm, if memory serves Iraq attacked Kuwait, yep just did a google search and that seems to be recorded history. Now, did the US screw up by not finishing off Saddam the first time around? Yeppers, they sure did. Bush #1 figured Saddam would be taken out by other Iraqi's  The whole US/Iraq saga, IMO, is a result of the US not finishing the job the first time and yes more people died than should have. Looked at through one 20 year long lens, it looks like one long war, just with a really long intermission. Just to save you the time, yes the US gave Saddam precursors of chemical agents, that is our shame. But if you actually cared to take a look Iraq was flying French fighters and almost had a French nuclear reactor along with various other European nations armaments, Russian scuds ground vehicles, Chinese small arms and ammunition ie. cheaper versions of Russian gear. Oh, and that attack on the Stark was a French Mirage jet firing a French missile.

Cambodia=Vietnam, if the VC weren't using Cambodia for logistics the US never would have gone over the boarder at any point. So who brought war to Cambodia? You seem to be conveniently forgetting that part of the equation.

Yugoslavia, another civil war, yep the US got involved in another European war. After years and years and years of diplomatic efforts and European impotency the US stepped in and stopped another cancerous European war.

Libya, another civil war, you seem to be conveniently forgetting all the European nations clamoring for action lest the people of eastern Libya get butchered. Obama obviously wanted nothing to do with it, but he didn't want to take the wrap for doing nothing at the time, so he half-assed it and tried to make the Europeans take the responsibility which inevitably led to the current situation as Europeans cant get anything done anymore except complaining about the US when it finally does what they aren't willing/able to do. European bitching = do something, do something, followed a few years later by.... you Americans, I just cant BELIEVE that when we DEMANDED you do something you did it and now look what happened! How dare you, BAD AMERICA, BAD BAD BOY! If Europeans did their job maybe Libya would look different today.

Syria, another civil war, let's start with a bit of a history lesson. After a prolonged period of horrid governance a devastating drought hit Syria. Left with no options but destitution, the people of Syria, being fed up with the Assad family BS revolted. Eventually the US got majorly involved when ISIS became a dangerous entity. The US then proceeded to work with the local population to destroy a terrorist state. Who was that dropping cluster munitions at will in Aleppo? That would be the Russians but let's ignore reality and move on.

As for finances you can read "Unrivaled"by Michael Beckley,  just because the US runs a public deficit doesn't mean it's going broke. The combined net worth public and private of the US, even after subtracting for deficit spending, increases by trillions every year. The US Govt. budget deficit is a result of not taxing enough to pay for Govt. expenditures which is completely different than not having the resource base at all. I'll just throw out it's not really a bad thing if capital is kept in private hands with a return of 20-30% when the Tbill is being bought for almost nothing. See, the US overall actually gets a better return by running Govt. deficits, the reason the currency holds up, even with all this money printing is the US net worth keeps increasing by trillions a year even while running a govt fiscal deficit. The net worth of the US is in the hundreds of trillions.

Taking a look at history it appears the US's real mistake has been getting involved in other nation's wars, not initiating the wars themselves. All these wars started without any US involvement, they just didn't end without us involvement. You seem to be indulging in a fantasy that if the US was out of the equation those wars wouldn't have happened and mass deaths wouldn't have occurred, that is quite an assumption.

You're taking offense for a lot of people who don't seem to share your sense of outrage. Korea/US alliance has overwhelming (85-95%) support in S.Korea, Vietnam is making noises (see Viet. latest defense white paper) about forming an alliance with the US, not to mention Nimitz carriers port visits at Cam Ranh Bay. Iraqi's as a whole (70-80%) were glad Saddam was taken out, they don't like the US being in their country bossing people around. They don't want the US to leave despite what you believe because they're scared if the US leaves the'll be eaten by the wolves lurking all around the Mid. East. Barham Salih, the new Iraqi PM, is a supporter of the American presence, Iraqi's are figuring out who they want to associate with and obviously it's still the US. If Iraq really wanted the US out, they could easily make it happen. There is no public appetite for US involvement in Iraq at this point. The US govt would have to bow to this reality if Iraq really wanted it.

Theres a comedy special on Netflix by Bert Kreischer (absolutely hilarious, look for the fat guy with no shirt). One of his bits is about him buying a coffee and trying to win over a barista with his comedy. The jokes he was telling the Barista were racial (black) jokes and the Barista, who was black, thought they were hilarious. The lady in line behind Bert Kreischer got all offended at the racial nature of the jokes and started to "defend" the poor Barista from the racial jokes he was, at that moment, almost on the floor laughing about.

Mr. Frankfruter, don't be that lady.

An excellent post, well worth repeating.  Someone should send this to Fox News with hopes of having it read on air, without changing a word.  It is that good.  Well done @Strangelovesurfing

[frankfurter + 562]

9 hours ago, Strangelovesurfing said:

So much to unpack here....

Korea, a civil war, Korean war wasn't started by the US, and I suppose you'd rather all that death/destruction that was inflicted ON South Korea was ignored and the whole Korean peninsula was a gulag instead of the vibrant country South Korea is today. 

Vietnam, another civil war, the US had a defense treaty with South Vietnam and once again it was the North that was the aggressor. Was the US involvement a disaster, IMO, yes it was, if we never got involved it would have been for the best but hindsight's 20/20.

Iraq, in fact attacked the Stark DDG in the 80's but I digress... humm, if memory serves Iraq attacked Kuwait, yep just did a google search and that seems to be recorded history. Now, did the US screw up by not finishing off Saddam the first time around? Yeppers, they sure did. Bush #1 figured Saddam would be taken out by other Iraqi's  The whole US/Iraq saga, IMO, is a result of the US not finishing the job the first time and yes more people died than should have. Looked at through one 20 year long lens, it looks like one long war, just with a really long intermission. Just to save you the time, yes the US gave Saddam precursors of chemical agents, that is our shame. But if you actually cared to take a look Iraq was flying French fighters and almost had a French nuclear reactor along with various other European nations armaments, Russian scuds ground vehicles, Chinese small arms and ammunition ie. cheaper versions of Russian gear. Oh, and that attack on the Stark was a French Mirage jet firing a French missile.

Cambodia=Vietnam, if the VC weren't using Cambodia for logistics the US never would have gone over the boarder at any point. So who brought war to Cambodia? You seem to be conveniently forgetting that part of the equation.

Yugoslavia, another civil war, yep the US got involved in another European war. After years and years and years of diplomatic efforts and European impotency the US stepped in and stopped another cancerous European war.

Libya, another civil war, you seem to be conveniently forgetting all the European nations clamoring for action lest the people of eastern Libya get butchered. Obama obviously wanted nothing to do with it, but he didn't want to take the wrap for doing nothing at the time, so he half-assed it and tried to make the Europeans take the responsibility which inevitably led to the current situation as Europeans cant get anything done anymore except complaining about the US when it finally does what they aren't willing/able to do. European bitching = do something, do something, followed a few years later by.... you Americans, I just cant BELIEVE that when we DEMANDED you do something you did it and now look what happened! How dare you, BAD AMERICA, BAD BAD BOY! If Europeans did their job maybe Libya would look different today.

Syria, another civil war, let's start with a bit of a history lesson. After a prolonged period of horrid governance a devastating drought hit Syria. Left with no options but destitution, the people of Syria, being fed up with the Assad family BS revolted. Eventually the US got majorly involved when ISIS became a dangerous entity. The US then proceeded to work with the local population to destroy a terrorist state. Who was that dropping cluster munitions at will in Aleppo? That would be the Russians but let's ignore reality and move on.

As for finances you can read "Unrivaled"by Michael Beckley,  just because the US runs a public deficit doesn't mean it's going broke. The combined net worth public and private of the US, even after subtracting for deficit spending, increases by trillions every year. The US Govt. budget deficit is a result of not taxing enough to pay for Govt. expenditures which is completely different than not having the resource base at all. I'll just throw out it's not really a bad thing if capital is kept in private hands with a return of 20-30% when the Tbill is being bought for almost nothing. See, the US overall actually gets a better return by running Govt. deficits, the reason the currency holds up, even with all this money printing is the US net worth keeps increasing by trillions a year even while running a govt fiscal deficit. The net worth of the US is in the hundreds of trillions.

Taking a look at history it appears the US's real mistake has been getting involved in other nation's wars, not initiating the wars themselves. All these wars started without any US involvement, they just didn't end without us involvement. You seem to be indulging in a fantasy that if the US was out of the equation those wars wouldn't have happened and mass deaths wouldn't have occurred, that is quite an assumption.

You're taking offense for a lot of people who don't seem to share your sense of outrage. Korea/US alliance has overwhelming (85-95%) support in S.Korea, Vietnam is making noises (see Viet. latest defense white paper) about forming an alliance with the US, not to mention Nimitz carriers port visits at Cam Ranh Bay. Iraqi's as a whole (70-80%) were glad Saddam was taken out, they don't like the US being in their country bossing people around. They don't want the US to leave despite what you believe because they're scared if the US leaves the'll be eaten by the wolves lurking all around the Mid. East. Barham Salih, the new Iraqi PM, is a supporter of the American presence, Iraqi's are figuring out who they want to associate with and obviously it's still the US. If Iraq really wanted the US out, they could easily make it happen. There is no public appetite for US involvement in Iraq at this point. The US govt would have to bow to this reality if Iraq really wanted it.

Theres a comedy special on Netflix by Bert Kreischer (absolutely hilarious, look for the fat guy with no shirt). One of his bits is about him buying a coffee and trying to win over a barista with his comedy. The jokes he was telling the Barista were racial (black) jokes and the Barista, who was black, thought they were hilarious. The lady in line behind Bert Kreischer got all offended at the racial nature of the jokes and started to "defend" the poor Barista from the racial jokes he was, at that moment, almost on the floor laughing about.

Mr. Frankfruter, don't be that lady.

An excellent, indoctrinated retort.  For the countries noted, did any leader at any time fire a shot or declare war against the USA?