Washington Eyes Crackdown On OPEC

19 hours ago, mthebold said:

The US can produce anything it needs domestically

Any country can produce anything it needs.  So Europe could go around shouting "Europe first" and ban any European company from buying or renting an American plane, or allowing American oil companies to obtain oil licences etc..  The idea that America has been tricked by the rest of the world into looking after them is strange.  Americas position in the world is what America wanted it to be and if it wants to change and be more insular then that is up to America. 

Obviously someone else will fill the void.  This process is already happening in the Middle East with Russia's presence in Syria and the co-operation between OPEC and Russia.

Russia and China obviously are trying to influence Venezuela.  They are investing at a loss in this country but they are not claiming that they have been tricked into it.  They want to do it.

And this is the point, you have countries like Saudi Arabia, China, Russia who have long term goals and strategic desires and then you have Trump who lies to his allies to get past the mid term elections.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

14 hours ago, NWMan said:

Any country can produce anything it needs.  So Europe could go around shouting "Europe first" and ban any European company from buying or renting an American plane, or allowing American oil companies to obtain oil licences etc..  The idea that America has been tricked by the rest of the world into looking after them is strange.  Americas position in the world is what America wanted it to be and if it wants to change and be more insular then that is up to America. 

Obviously someone else will fill the void.  This process is already happening in the Middle East with Russia's presence in Syria and the co-operation between OPEC and Russia.

Russia and China obviously are trying to influence Venezuela.  They are investing at a loss in this country but they are not claiming that they have been tricked into it.  They want to do it.

And this is the point, you have countries like Saudi Arabia, China, Russia who have long term goals and strategic desires and then you have Trump who lies to his allies to get past the mid term elections.

  

No, they can't.  Europe can't produce it's own oil, the Middle East can't produce much of anything aside from oil, I'd love to see Central/South America attempt advanced aerospace & semiconductor products, and Africa - for all its natural resources - is hopeless. The US may be the only country on earth that possesses both the natural resources and expertise to do anything it wants.  Russia is a possible second, although I'm not entirely sure about that.

Some US industries would be set back by isolationism, but others would thrive.  In the end, it would be a net economic positive.  As an added bonus, we wouldn't need to waste money policing the sea lanes, defending 3rd world countries, and throwing money at dictatorships to keep everything stable.  We also wouldn't suffer foreign money interfering in our elections & housing markets, nor would we suddenly lose entire industries (E.g. furniture manufacturing) to unfair trade practices. 

Let's assume we lost a little GDP.  If the last century of globalization and federal reserve intervention has taught us anything, it's that GDP growth isn't everything.  What isolation would lose in GDP, it would more than compensate for in increased employment, reduced income inequality, national security, economic stability, and freedom from international interference.  Equally importantly, we don't want a handful of large companies dominating a national economy, a fate globalization moves every country closer to.  The GDP growth of globalization isn't worth it. 

The rest of the world would suffer immensely without the US, but the US would be fine.  If the world wants an unstable, interconnected economy that's too big to fail, they're more than welcome to try it on their own.  I've no interest in it. 

Edited by mthebold
  • Like 2
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Osama said:

Well, once again I am surprised at the narrowmindedness of this argument.

I've noticed that foreigners call me "narrow minded" almost exclusively when they want me to pay for something. 

Unfortunately, y'all lack even the ability to keep yourselves afloat.  Therefore, your opinions don't matter. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, NWMan said:

Any country can produce anything it needs. 

 

3 hours ago, mthebold said:

No, they can't.  Europe can't produce it's own oil, the Middle East can't produce much of anything aside from oil, I'd love to see Central/South America attempt advanced aerospace & semiconductor products, and Africa - for all its natural resources - is hopeless.

^

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The model put forward is one of isolationism.  Europe does have North Sea oil but it is to expensive to produce profitably when you can buy oil on the open market.  Europe unlike America is not producing oil at a loss.  If Europe was isolated it would produce oil at a loss because it had to - There is Norwegian Gas and Europe would have to build Nuclear power stations.  So it could produce energy.

South America are a major source of planes and in a world of isolationism these countries would produce what they need (maybe not anything).  Other people can produce semi conductors.

But again the main point is ignored - America is where it is because it put itself there.  Nobody tricked it.  It is a major source of Globalization.  If it want to change to isolationism then so be it. 

"If the world wants an unstable, interconnected economy that's too big to fail, they're more than welcome to try it on their own."

Again the big bad world has done something bad to poor little America!!

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, mthebold said:

I've noticed that foreigners call me "narrow minded" almost exclusively when they want me to pay for something. 

Unfortunately, y'all lack even the ability to keep yourselves afloat.  Therefore, your opinions don't matter. 

OK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 2/12/2019 at 12:05 AM, Justin Hicks said:

Never have understood that reasoning.

Wish it were that easy. US doesnt have the largest oil reserves (not even among the top-10). At the current pace of prod, US shale will start declining in another 5-7years. Sooner if the production accelerates led by opec production going offline. US might even be an exporter of oil, but for a very briwlef time period. You want to take on Saudi - no problem. But you cant take Iran, Venezuela, Saudi all on at the same time. Not to mention aligning with whom - Russia - who has a very poor track record of international relations (remember Crimea). Beware what you wish for...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 2/15/2019 at 1:55 PM, NWMan said:

The model put forward is one of isolationism.  Europe does have North Sea oil but it is to expensive to produce profitably when you can buy oil on the open market.  Europe unlike America is not producing oil at a loss.  If Europe was isolated it would produce oil at a loss because it had to - There is Norwegian Gas and Europe would have to build Nuclear power stations.  So it could produce energy.

South America are a major source of planes and in a world of isolationism these countries would produce what they need (maybe not anything).  Other people can produce semi conductors.

But again the main point is ignored - America is where it is because it put itself there.  Nobody tricked it.  It is a major source of Globalization.  If it want to change to isolationism then so be it. 

"If the world wants an unstable, interconnected economy that's too big to fail, they're more than welcome to try it on their own."

Again the big bad world has done something bad to poor little America!!

 

18 minutes ago, AcK said:

Wish it were that easy. US doesnt have the largest oil reserves (not even among the top-10). At the current pace of prod, US shale will start declining in another 5-7years. Sooner if the production accelerates led by opec production going offline. US might even be an exporter of oil, but for a very briwlef time period. You want to take on Saudi - no problem. But you cant take Iran, Venezuela, Saudi all on at the same time. Not to mention aligning with whom - Russia - who has a very poor track record of international relations (remember Crimea). Beware what you wish for...

It has been a common acknowledgement that the trendy and advanced video games have been rather violent. It teaches nothing but fire and kill................. with friends........... Reminded me a very old game........."mickey mouse fetching eggs"...... For those who are not familiar here's the brief: Mickey Mouse has to be moved left or right to collect the falling eggs in sequence. The higher the falling speed of eggs.... the faster one has to move the mickey mouse........... until enough eggs are broken and game over............ ....... the point is......... while we are busy fetching eggs that are abundant left and right already why not let others be busy with their egg collecting farms?? In case we do not have egg farms........... common sense dictates we can always buy from the farm offering the lowest price................ For world peace........... dear commies (friends of community)....... let's fetch some eggs with mickey mouse.................^_^

mickeymouse eggs collector.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 2/12/2019 at 5:25 AM, mthebold said:

What "cooperation" do we get from them, and do we still need it?  E.g. if they decide to play games, what's to prevent us from wrecking them now that we don't need their oil?  They're dependent on us for defense; we own them. 

it's not all about oil...

If Saudi regime fall apart which is going to happen for sure, there will be new rules for the game in MENA.

by the way, our MR BONE SAW is a real close friend to trump


https://twitter.com/mujtahidd/status/927580827495649280

Edited by العنزي ،،،

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I predict Trump would not sign such a bill.  It wreaks of globalism.   Why do such a thing when America is the number one energy producer in the world?  It's really not my problem as a USC if the Saudi's need to make $70 a barrel just to b/e on their bloated budgets.  America will merely crank up production to keep prices lower, at least that's what I would hope.    #MAGA 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, العنزي ،،، said:

it's not all about oil...

If Saudi regime fall apart which is going to happen for sure, there will be new rules for the game in MENA.

 by the way, our MR BONE SAW is a real close friend to trump


https://twitter.com/mujtahidd/status/927580827495649280

Ok.  MENA was only relevant to the US when we needed the oil.  We no longer need the oil; why should we care?

Who is "MR BONE SAW"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

11 minutes ago, mthebold said:

Ok.  MENA was only relevant to the US when we needed the oil.  We no longer need the oil; why should we care?

Who is "MR BONE SAW"?

I suspect it’s a reference to MBS who is widely believed and likely to have called the play on the murder and dismemberment of “journalist” Jamal Khashoggi.

Edited by TXPower
Clarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 2/12/2019 at 6:03 PM, mthebold said:

That's the usual story, but it doesn't work that way exactly.  Trump needs low oil prices until such time as:
1)  He gets re-elected
2)  OR he can blame high prices on something else (E.g. a massive war in the Middle East)
3)  OR the economy & wages improve enough to mask the effect of high oil prices
4)  OR he's able to use export controls to keep prices low for his constituents while they're high everywhere else. 

#3 is particularly salient.  During a recession, people are pessimistic and every dollar matters.  Pessimistic people notice fuel prices.  When the economy is booming, wages are rising, everyone is optimistic, and we're all buying new, fuel-efficient vehicles, $3-4/gallon gasoline doesn't matter so much.  It'll matter to poor, inner-city liberals, of course, but they don't vote for Trump and, thus, don't matter.  Once Trump gets enough of the economy sorted out, he'll have freedom to play games with OPEC.

#4 sound far-fetched until we realize that Trump Country burns domestic fuel while the North East, California, and Pacific Northwest - all liberal havens - import.  Thus, with a simple regulation, Trump could feasibly keep his constituents happy while financially screwing his opponents. 

The US is the world's biggest consumer of oil, but by the time this scenario happened, his constituents would be net exporters.  They even may be already.  The shale oil boom would accelerate to meet newfound foreign demand - further adding jobs and wealth to the US - even as domestic prices stayed reasonable.  US oil producers would accept lower profits at home because the alternative is oblivion under leftist politicians.  Keeping voters happy is the cost of doing business. 

#2 is particularly interesting.  Trump doesn't necessarily want lower oil prices; he just benefits from railing about them.  The people think he wants prices bottomed out when, in fact, he wants prices to float in a happy middle: high enough to keep shale alive, but low enough to make OPEC suffer.  That's where we're at right now.  To accomplish this, Trump decided to turn OPEC into involuntary swing producers.  He need only look at current market conditions and, when sufficient production capacity exists, attack the next enemy.  If prices go too high, he could feasibly ease off one of his enemies.  He's in control of this process now, and he knows it.  The only actions that could wrestle control away from him would be major wars, and that would only give him more ammunition to expand domestic production. 

Heads he wins; tails they lose. 

This is an OIL forum,   and yet we tend to spend most of our time arguing about the POLITICS that affect the oil consumers and producers.

I have not commented on this thread yet because i believe the answer to the question of    "WHY IS CONGRESS RESURRECTING THIS BILL NOW,  AND WHY WOULD TRUMP AGREE TO SIGN IT IF IT PASSES ?    is very simple....

It has been the position of the United States for almost 100 years that MONOPOLIES are not allowed....

YET,  despite that,  the MONOPOLY that calls itself OPEC was created in the mid 1970's,  and has continued UN-CHALLENGED by the USA for almost 50 years......?

The USA was never in a position to do anything about OPEC before now....

At the moment,  OPEC is in disarray,   and the USA ,  through it's production,  and exports,  HAS MASSIVELY INCREASED IT'S WORLDWIDE INFLUENCE IN THE OIL SECTOR...

Therefore,    NOW,     TODAY,     THIS MOMENT IN TIME,      IS AN "OPPORTUNITY",    TO KILL OPEC ONCE AND FOR ALL........  TO ELIMINATE THE "ONE GREAT INTERNATIONAL MONOPOLY."

So that is my answer.   This bill would prevent OPEC from getting back on its feet...

As simple as that...

As i wrote above,  OPEC,  is perhaps that "greatest" monopoly that has ever existed....

If it were a building,  it would be listed as one of the "7 wonders of the world"...

But the world does not need OPEC.

Edited by Illurion
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 2/13/2019 at 5:36 AM, mthebold said:

The US can produce anything it needs domestically.  Even after decades of globalization and terrible domestic policy, only 10% of our GDP involves foreign trade.  The rest of the world needs the US to maintain their interdependent economies, but the US has no need for the rest of the world. 

The standard line of "we're all in this together" is a lie the world tells US citizens because, quite frankly, the world profits from our benevolence.  When we finally tire of wasting our blood and treasure maintaining the globalist system, everyone else will be in trouble. 

Unfortunately for the world, about half the US population has already decided where y'all can shove that lie.  Personally, I'll get a good chuckle out of watching the ingrates of the world suffer. 

Cooperation is peace unless it gets out of balance and one participant takes advantage of another participant. Think China taking advantage of the rest of the world while still claiming to be a developing country. The European Union not negotiating with Britain on Brexit. Mexico allowing illegal immigrants to infiltrate our border and drugs to flow. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 2/12/2019 at 10:10 PM, John Foote said:

The Arab Spring scared the bejeezus out of two sets of key people in Arab lands (Iran is not Arab for this discussion). . 

Iran's leaders mucked up a country that in it's nature is civilized and educated. Those current rulers are nothing if not resilient. We've been projecting their demise since mid-1979 and we keep getting it wrong.

IRONY  is the only term that fits my feelings about Iran,  in comparison to it's neighbors...

 

Iran used to be the United States greatest ally in the middle east other than Israel....

The Iranian people were the closest thing to a "westernized" population that you could find in the middle east...

 

A long long time ago,  when i was in college,  i had many Iranian friends.

The Shah was doing his best to westernize,  and upgrade the standard of living of the country at the time.

The Shah had taken thousands of his finest your officers and enlisted men from his Military,  and sent them to America to attend college,  and learn how to create,  and run businesses..

I went to college with over 20 of those guys...

The Shah had decided that the key to success in his country was to "create a middle class" that was made up of "small businesses."

These men that he sent to college in America were to be the backbone of that new "middle class."

Upon returning home,  the Shah had set up funding that the men could access to start businesses..

It was a great plan.

Then our President Jimmy Carter pulled the rug out from under the Shah,  and the Monarchy was overthrown.

 

My friends in College were called back to Iran in that last month to "Defend the Government."

Most of the guys i knew were executed by the Revolutionary Guard.............

 

Most of the "civilized and educated" citizens of Iran,  were subsequently executed by the Revolutionary Guard...

 

Over a 20 year period under the last Shah,  his SAVAK is said to have killed almost 10,000 muslim terrorists who had been trying to overthrow his regime...

 

The REVOLUTIONARY GUARD have killed millions of the brightest and best of the citizenry..............

 

The IRONY in all of this is that:

 

*  after the Gulf Wars,  even though the people of IRAQ do not like the USA,  we have spent BILLIONS on a NATION BUILDING project to rebuild Iraq....

whereas:

*  even after all these years,  polls show that the actual Iranian people still have a positive view of the USA,    BUT,   if there is a war between the USA and Iran,    after it is over,    you can damn well bet that the USA will make no attempt to rebuild Iran...

 

The feelings between us are just that bitter....

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Joseph Scarafone said:

I predict Trump would not sign such a bill.  It wreaks of globalism.   Why do such a thing when America is the number one energy producer in the world?  It's really not my problem as a USC if the Saudi's need to make $70 a barrel just to b/e on their bloated budgets.  America will merely crank up production to keep prices lower, at least that's what I would hope.    #MAGA 

The long term future of oil may not be bright. Natural gas, renewables, biogas, ethanol, soy fuel, methanol are all competitors. Natural gas is actually lower in price and cleaner. Renewables say they are cheaper. Ethanol is cheaper sometimes but is limited in production. Methanol is an unproven fuel for mass use. Oil will always be of some value but it may not always be as profitable as it was in recent history. Those nations such as OPEC and Russia who are overly dependent on oil revenue better wake up and look at their options for the future. The Middle East is in the worst shape because it has had a population explosion since WW1 and has few natural resources. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Illurion said:

Then our President Jimmy Carter pulled the rug out from under the Shah,  and the Monarchy was overthrown.

Why did Jimmy Carter do that? 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, TXPower said:

I suspect it’s a reference to MBS who is widely believed and likely to have called the play on the murder and dismemberment of “journalist” Jamal Khashoggi. 

Ah.  Not sure if I'm being threatened here, what with our new friend's ominous looking profile picture. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, العنزي ،،، said:

By the way, our MR BONE SAW is a real close friend to trump

Close friend?  Doubtful.  At the moment, MBS needs American support & weapons to avoid destruction, Trump enjoys the profits from those weapons, and the world benefits from Saudi oil.  When SA's coffers are depleted and the world has sufficient spare oil capacity, that arrangement will collapse. 

I'm reminded of the oil crises, when OPEC drove up the price of oil, placing a burden on poor Americans - the same Americans who now vote for Trump.  With the incredible wealth they amassed, OPEC engaged in ridiculous lifestyles, producing nothing of value and adding nothing to humanity's accomplishments.  When the Middle East collapses, there won't be much sympathy for their plight. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Illurion said:

IRONY  is the only term that fits my feelings about Iran,  in comparison to it's neighbors...

 

Iran used to be the United States greatest ally in the middle east other than Israel....

The Iranian people were the closest thing to a "westernized" population that you could find in the middle east...

 

A long long time ago,  when i was in college,  i had many Iranian friends.

The Shah was doing his best to westernize,  and upgrade the standard of living of the country at the time.

The Shah had taken thousands of his finest your officers and enlisted men from his Military,  and sent them to America to attend college,  and learn how to create,  and run businesses..

I went to college with over 20 of those guys...

The Shah had decided that the key to success in his country was to "create a middle class" that was made up of "small businesses."

These men that he sent to college in America were to be the backbone of that new "middle class."

Upon returning home,  the Shah had set up funding that the men could access to start businesses..

It was a great plan.

Then our President Jimmy Carter pulled the rug out from under the Shah,  and the Monarchy was overthrown.

 

My friends in College were called back to Iran in that last month to "Defend the Government."

Most of the guys i knew were executed by the Revolutionary Guard.............

 

Most of the "civilized and educated" citizens of Iran,  were subsequently executed by the Revolutionary Guard...

 

Over a 20 year period under the last Shah,  his SAVAK is said to have killed almost 10,000 muslim terrorists who had been trying to overthrow his regime...

 

The REVOLUTIONARY GUARD have killed millions of the brightest and best of the citizenry..............

 

The IRONY in all of this is that:

 

*  after the Gulf Wars,  even though the people of IRAQ do not like the USA,  we have spent BILLIONS on a NATION BUILDING project to rebuild Iraq....

whereas:

*  even after all these years,  polls show that the actual Iranian people still have a positive view of the USA,    BUT,   if there is a war between the USA and Iran,    after it is over,    you can damn well bet that the USA will make no attempt to rebuild Iran...

 

The feelings between us are just that bitter....

I disagree about American feelings toward the people of Iran. We might not be able to help rebuild Iran though. We wasted too much money in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

4 hours ago, ronwagn said:

I disagree about American feelings toward the people of Iran. We might not be able to help rebuild Iran though. We wasted too much money in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. 

Yeah.....   Maybe you are right about the "average Americans' feelings"..... 

Who am i to speak for anyone other than me...

Maybe it is just ME that is bitter over the loss of my friends.

 

You may also be right that we would not have the money to rebuild Iran anyway...

Edited by Illurion
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

4 hours ago, mthebold said:

Why did Jimmy Carter do that? 

Good Question....

He actually started with central America........

The policy of the USA had always been that,  while we prefer democracies,  we will deal with whoever is running a particular country,  as WHO runs their country,  and HOW they maintain power is "none of our business."

Then Jimmy Carter was elected President.

He started what he called his "Carter Doctrine"...

The "Carter Doctrine" essentially stated that the USA "would not deal with totalitarian strongmen",  and that the USA would use it's influence to destabilize such leaders,  and encourage them to be replaced with "democracies."

He started with various central American countries...

Then the media took the "Carter Doctrine" and stated that "how could Carter support the Shah of Iran,  who was a "Monarch",  whose SAVAK had killed almost 10,000 ?     (the media ignored the fact that the 10,000 were muslim terrorists who were trying to overthrow the Iranian Government in order to make Iran an Islamic State.)

Carter "publicly supported what the media stated,  that no-one should stay in power if they "massacre their own people."

Then the Ayatollah Khomeini in Paris announced that he would be taking a plane to Teheran to confront the Shah,  and Carter publicly demanded that the Shah not interfere with the flight.

The Ayatollah arrived,  riots began,  and the government fell....

............................

All of that was long ago...

I still have my "STICK A HOLE-A IN THE AYATOLLAH " dartboard......

.............................

I voted for Jimmy Carter in the 1976 election.    A decision i later decided was a mistake.

I actually met Jimmy Carter some 20 years later.   We were both volunteer workers that helped build houses for the poor... 

I consider Jimmy Carter to be a "good and kind person."    But he was a naive, and very bad President.

Edited by Illurion
  • Great Response! 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

13 hours ago, العنزي ،،، said:

it's not all about oil...

If Saudi regime fall apart which is going to happen for sure, there will be new rules for the game in MENA.

by the way, our MR BONE SAW is a real close friend to trump


https://twitter.com/mujtahidd/status/927580827495649280

Given that you say "our" mr bone saw,  i take it that you are Saudi.

Also given that you seem to want MBS to fall "for sure",   does that mean that you are against your own Government ?

If so,    i think you should second-guess what you want,     as you may not be happy with who MBS might be replaced by.

 

I have many friends in Cairo.    

When the "Arab Spring" happened a few years ago,  several of those friends were against Mubarak,  and stated they wanted him overthrown.

I told my Cairo friends the same thing i just told you.  ie:  that you may not be happy with the replacement.

 

But Mubarak was overthrown anyway,  and replaced with the Muslim Brotherhood.

 

Under the Muslim Brotherhood,  my friends were very alarmed and unhappy.   One of them was arrested and tortured,  but eventually released...

They are glad that  "El-SISI"   is in charge now,   but the revolution destroyed their economy,   and now no one is happy in Egypt....

 

In other words my friend,   BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR............

Edited by Illurion
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A considerable number of people on this site appear to have modified their view of how America should behaved in the world based on "oil independence".  America's main production is from offshore fields which are in significant decline due to a lack of investment.  This production decline is masked by the rise of un-economic shale oil production which is working its way through basins at an alarming rate. 

The reality is that over the last 100 years America has produced and used its onshore economic oil reserves and is dependent on oil imports and will be until a viable alternative to petroleum is developed.  The middle east has an abnormally large amount of oil, reservoired in high quality reservoirs (geologically unique). 

Oil usage continues to rise.  All alternative energy sources which are highly subsidised are only reducing the rate of this increase.

Sorry but God appears to have a poor sense of humour but the Arabs do have all the oil.  This is clearly understood by American strategist who maintain a military presence in the middle east so that reserves can be accessed by America in all circumstances. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Illurion said:

Yeah.....   Maybe you are right about the "average Americans' feelings"..... 

Who am i to speak for anyone other than me...

Maybe it is just ME that is bitter over the loss of my friends.

 

You may also be right that we would not have the money to rebuild Iran anyway...

I made a $20,000 furniture sale to a very nice Iranian professor who had moved to Sacramento. I spoke freely with him in the store about the conditions in Iran. This was in the late seventies. When I met him at his home he cautioned me not to speak politics in front of his own family. I also met another very nice Iranian man in the area. I am bitter also about the Iranian regime. The communists in America supported overthrowing the Shah. Probably due to Russian influence and the Communist LIne. People need to realize that communists are the true leaders of socialist movements, and work behind the scenes to manipulate everything they can. This is especially in line with the way that groups of people are intentionally divided by Democrats in our country. Black versus White, straight versus gay, rich versus poor, urban versus rural, etc.

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites