Cardi: Trump is a terrorist

[Floppy 7,951]

I don't like everything Cardi does but she said what needed to be said. 

[Economy 49,803]

21 minutes ago, ReginaGeorge said:

Not necessarily Trump but Iran in general is pretty important when it comes to natural oil and in reality higher prices of oil actually are in interest of MANY world economies. This is something that is strategically done and IMO one of main reasons why Irans territory is important for bigger countries like America, Russia, China...... 

Important how? Like to supply them?

 

Cuz both America and Russia are huge producers of oil and Gas and don't really need Iran. 

 

Or do u mean the global market overall?

 

I'm just trying to understand where u were going with this cuz I still didn't fully get what u meant by the oil aspect.

 

Also Iran may have the 4th largest reserves (After Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Canada) but they aren't in the top producers (sanctions in the past have greatly crippled their oil industry) and produce less than 2% of global supply last time I checked (less than 2M barrels a day)

[Regina George 59,387]

3 minutes ago, Economy said:

Important how? Like to supply them?

 

Cuz both America and Russia are huge producers of oil and Gas and don't really need Iran. 

 

Or do u mean the global market overall?

 

I'm just trying to understand where u were going with this cuz I still didn't fully get what u meant by the oil aspect.

 

Also Iran may have the 4th largest reserves (After Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Canada) but they aren't in the top producers (sanctions in the past have greatly crippled their oil industry) and produce less than 2% of global supply last time I checked (less than 2M barrels a day)

I’m not at home rn and I won’t go into details but Iran was always very important when it comes to oil industry and I’ll just leave few interesting articles for you to read:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/13/middleeast/iran-natural-gas-reserves-discovery/index.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thebakersinstitute/2020/01/08/how-russian-oil-has-the-most-to-gain-from-iran-us-crisis/

https://oilprice.com/Geopolitics/Middle-East/The-Real-Reason-The-US-Is-Interested-In-Iran.html

[Economy 49,803]

21 minutes ago, ReginaGeorge said:

I’m not at home rn and I won’t go into details but Iran was always very important when it comes to oil industry and I’ll just leave few interesting articles for you to read:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/13/middleeast/iran-natural-gas-reserves-discovery/index.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thebakersinstitute/2020/01/08/how-russian-oil-has-the-most-to-gain-from-iran-us-crisis/

https://oilprice.com/Geopolitics/Middle-East/The-Real-Reason-The-US-Is-Interested-In-Iran.html

Thanks for taking the time to find the articles

 

2/3 articles talk more about Iran's reserves and potential but we already know they have a lot of oil and gas. But war with them doesn't affect what they aren't producing. They may have huge reserves but aren't even in the top 5 producers

 

Now what they could affect is instability in the region, or the flow and raise prices but again that would be the opposite of what people claim the US wants so that seems contradictory.

 

Unless Trump secretly wants to raise prices to help the shale industry. That's the only thing that would make sense to me if this had anything to do with oil

[Regina George 59,387]

2 minutes ago, Economy said:

Thanks for taking the time to find the articles

 

2/3 articles talk more about Iran's reserves and potential but we already know they have a lot of oil and gas. But war with them doesn't affect what they aren't producing. They may have huge reserves but aren't even in the top 5 producers

 

Now what they could affect is instability in the region, or the flow and raise prices but again that would be the opposite of what people claim the US wants so that seems contradictory.

 

Unless Trump secretly wants to raise prices to help the shale industry. That's the only thing that would make sense to me if this had anything to do with oil

I think you’re missing the point. Yes they are not producing much of it but the potential is HUGE and if only those bigger countries like USA, Russia and China could get their territory- they could make billions out of their oil potential. Do you understand now? They are not trying to destroy their oil industry, they are trying to take over. 

[Economy 49,803]

3 minutes ago, ReginaGeorge said:

I think you’re missing the point. Yes they are not producing much of it but the potential is HUGE and if only those bigger countries like USA, Russia and China could get their territory- they could make billions out of their oil potential. Do you understand now? They are not trying to destroy their oil industry, they are trying to take over. 

Ah that's what u mean. Like have their companies in their soil?

 

Well, I guess that can't be denied as a possibility tho it seems stupid to start a war to try to own fossil fuel reserves that are being phased out of the economy anyway

 

What would the US even gain from it anyway? Can the US even collect taxes on operations overseas if the US companies got to use their land

 

To my knowledge resource extraction royalties have to be paid to to the country it's extracted from not the country of origin from the company

 

Perhaps general Corporate income taxes (besides the royalties per land) which would be payed wherever they are headquartered but what these companies would pay to the US in that form would be too trivial an amount of money to really even make a difference to the US budget so I don't creating instability over such a small thing 

 

Setting profit aside, In the past energy security would have been a factor but we pretty much have accepted that now peak demand will come before peak supply and fossil fuel supplies are unlikely to be an issue so that shouldn't even be a factor anymore unless Trump just doesn't believe this fact

[Curunir 7,510]

5 hours ago, Varys said:

I was just kidding btw @Gov Hooka @Faysalaaa I live in Belgium 

In that case the argument still doesn't apply since you don't have a government 

Or so I was told 

[TheQueenEnthusiast 937]

I love Cardi even though she has said some questionable stuff before. She's the epitome of growth. I remember I was one of first ones to see her come up. I used to follow sis when she had like 20k followers. 

It's important to highlight though that Obama should also be considered a terrorist.

She's made points though with this. The bottom line here is innocent lives. Regardless if you're Democrat or Republistank, NO ONE should be taking innocent lives. Foreign innocent lives at that too. 

[dit 46,473]

She and Rihanna are literally one of the few major music artists who consistently speak up against Trump and speak up for Middle Eastern communities on the regular. 

[Guest]

10 hours ago, August3 said:

Do you realize that there are different types of government? It's not all the same. 
I reject the hypothesis that America is a terrorist country.
And I agree there's not much point in continuing the discussion.

You just have different standards for western countries committing terrorism because they wear a suit and tie while they do it and write their own laws. But when a bearded person who lives in the desert does the same exact thing, you have a different standard. If we will go by your logic, then nothing is terrorism because the leaders keep changing.

Its not a hypothesis that America is a terrorist country, its based on facts of the American government openly admitting they would kill human beings for political gains. The American government openly admits they are terrorists and you are refusing to believe it. They still continue their terrorism and the people responsible are still in power.

Im not anti American, all governments are terrorists is my point including America and Denmark

[Queen Bitch 10,513]

45 minutes ago, Faysalaaa said:

You just have different standards for western countries committing terrorism because they wear a suit and tie while they do it and write their own laws. But when a bearded person who lives in the desert does the same exact thing, you have a different standard. If we will go by your logic, then nothing is terrorism because the leaders keep changing.

Its not a hypothesis that America is a terrorist country, its based on facts of the American government openly admitting they would kill human beings for political gains. The American government openly admits they are terrorists and you are refusing to believe it. They still continue their terrorism and the people responsible are still in power.

Im not anti American, all governments are terrorists is my point including America and Denmark

You're twisting my words. I don't say that nothing is terrorism. I don't have different standards. White people in suits can be terrorists just like "a bearded person living in a desert". It's not a fact that America is a terrorist country, that's your opinion. But I guess your one of those people who believe that your opinions are facts. As you wrote in an earlier post "I think you are misinformed".

I'm done.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, August3 said:

You're twisting my words. I don't say that nothing is terrorism. I don't have different standards. White people in suits can be terrorists just like "a bearded person living in a desert". It's not a fact that America is a terrorist country, that's your opinion. But I guess your one of those people who believe that your opinions are facts. As you wrote in an earlier post "I think you are misinformed".

I'm done.

I never used my personal opinion as an argument, I gave evidence to back my claims like the example I shared of Operation Northwoods. So you are not being honest when you accuse me of this.

We both acknowledge the facts, we just have different understanding of what government is. You believe if a new president comes, everything the country did in the past is invalid, while I believe its invalid who the current president is.

When Lincoln ended slavery, America did not all of the sudden became an anti slavery country because the president was good. To be an anti slave country, America had to earn that for more than hundred years. To earn that label, they had to go to war with slave owners, end slavery and Jim Crow, Change the law and practice it, Acknowledge and Apologize for the past, then take systemic actions to help people effected by slavery which America has not done yet.

[Queen Bitch 10,513]

23 minutes ago, Faysalaaa said:

I never used my personal opinion as an argument, I gave evidence to back my claims like the example I shared of Operation Northwoods. So you are not being honest when you accuse me of this.

We both acknowledge the facts, we just have different understanding of what government is. You believe if a new president comes, everything the country did in the past is invalid, while I believe its invalid who the current president is.

When Lincoln ended slavery, America did not all of the sudden became an anti slavery country because the president was good. To be an anti slave country, America had to earn that for more than hundred years. To earn that label, they had to go to war with slave owners, end slavery and Jim Crow, Change the law and practice it, Acknowledge and Apologize for the past, then take systemic actions to help people effected by slavery which America has not done yet.

Again that is not what I said.

[Guest]

On 1/8/2020 at 9:43 PM, Thomas P said:

Trump sweetie you got a gaga stan who stans you too. 
The duality 

 

On 1/8/2020 at 7:55 PM, Lionel Hutz said:

Ah, the whataboutism. We should make it a drinking game, drink a shot if you find Faysalaaa defending literal fascists. You'll die of intoxication.

Still waiting.. 

[River 117,003]

I mean, all the ME is held hostage by their terrorist governments and the terrorist western governments that funds the terrorism or actively there throwing bombs..

Dis you know that the “neutral” Switzerland is selling weapons to other countries?