As I previously explained, if oil production facilities are not maintained, oil production falls. If Mother Russia fails to look for and drill new wells and build more infrastructure, Mother Russia's oil production falls. If Mother Russia wants to just maintain current oil production it needs to invest in oil production. It's not doing that. It doesn't have the money or ability to do so. You want to believe the cheap oil is temporary, and because of that you refuse to acknowledge fundamental changes in the oil industry. As has been repeatedly explained to you, new oil production technologies have ruined the old paradigm. Arab oil producers can no longer control the oil markets by restricting supply. The US has tremendous oil reserves which will kick in whenever the price of oil sells between 40 and 50 dollars a barrel. Also as has been previously and repeatedly explained to you, that isn't true either. I and I think everyone else in the Western world wants a responsible, successful, democratic, and free Russian state. That's not what we have now. Mother Russia has gone rogue by repeatedly invading and annexing neighboring states and is hell bent on repeating all the mistakes which led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. I don't want to see Mother Russia menace is neighbors and take their lands as Mother Putina has done. That wasn't an analogy. That was a straw man. Government isn't a "guy". And per my previous references, I have cited the Libertarian position on government using Libertarian sources and it differs from your assertion.
First, I couldn't care less. If there really would be fundamental changes in the oil industry, so that oil would be cheap forever, fine. But for all I have read about it, the situation is different. There has been a lot of progress, which makes it possible to get oil where this was simply impossible and certainly not worth to try years ago, but it is nonetheless more expensive than what is worth to do with the actual price. And the price where the US will kick in has to be more than 50 \$ a barrel. Ok, in your newspeak this is not what you have now. In this newspeak "democratic" means approved by the US, "free" means freedom for the Western press and the Western firms, and "responsible" means obedient to US orders. The Russians don't use that newspeak, and they are, instead, quite comfortable with the responsibility and success of their leadership, the actual state of democracy and their personal freedoms. No, it does not. Because among the things a government is allowed to do, they have not mentioned - because it is self-evident - what in a libertarian society everybody is allowed to do. Every person as well as every organization is allowed there to have property, and to do with this property what one likes. There are different variants of libertarians. The anarchists think that there is nothing a government should be allowed to do but what should be forbidden to other people. And there are minarchists, who think that there is a minimal list of things which only the government is allowed to do, but nobody else. Here is your quote: "The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected." This is what theses minarchists think should be a government monopoly. Instead, anarchists favor models where even these things are not restricted to a government monopoly. This quote in no way wants to restrict the rights of those working for the government, as well as the rights of the government as an organization, which everybody else has too. In particular, the right of those working for the government as well as for the government as an organization to own some property is not questioned.
Yes you have well established that you don't like to recognize facts, that don't care about facts. No, in English. Democratic means democratic. It doesn't mean killing off your political opponents. It doesn't mean throwing them in jail and beating them up (e.g. Pussy Riot) or blowing up apartment buildings. The fact is your version or description of libertarianisim isn't consistent and much less with reality. PS: The Syrian peace agreement have fallen apart. Assad's troops have bombed a hospital, and life is getting back to normal.
Thanks for quoting my texts again, even if you have not made any interesting comment, but this is nothing one could expect anyway. The oil price continued to go up during the last weeks according to http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/crude-oil.aspx and is actually around 45\$. That there is no longer any chance for an agreement about reduction has not changed the raise at all. Here about the role of the \$50 level for the Western oil industry from Bloomberg http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...r-becomes-50-a-barrel-for-promise-of-recovery The Syrian peace agreement has not somehow mystically fallen apart, Al Qaida and all its pro-Turkish and pro-American friends have started offensives at several places. In South of Aleppo they have even reached a success, taken a strategic height Tal Eis. At the other places, some initial progress (if it has been reached) has already been reverted. (Claims about bombed hospitals nobody takes serious, expect a few NATO-propaganda-believers. ) The most intense battles are nonetheless against Daesh, in particular in Deir Ezzor and on the way from Palmyra toward Deir Ezzor.
Well, at least you are consistent. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Every time the price of oil goes up, it's happy days are here again for Mother Russia with you and has been repeatedly pointed out to you, that simply isn't the case. There have been fundamental structural changes in the oil industry. The oil prices Mother Putina needs are gone and they are not coming back. That means Mother Russia doesn't have the resources Mother Putina needs to feed and house Russians much less militarily dominate, invade and annex its neighbors as it has done. So you think the bombing on civilian hospitals as Assad has done is in accordance with the cease fire agreement? The fact is the US is leading an effort to negotiate a new peace deal because the previous peace accord did fall apart. Assad refused to honor his agreement. I don't know how you can claim the most "intense" engagements have occured against "daesh". Bombing civilian hospitals is pretty intense, not to mention a war crime. And despite videos of the bombing, eye witness, and independent testimony, you summarily and without merit dismiss it as NATO propaganda even though you have ZERO evidence the reports are false or in any way NATO related. It's what you do. It's what you have done. You are an Mother Putina advocate. You are not an honest broker.
Of course Putin is happy if the oil price increases. But if not, the problem is not as big as you like to present it. The Russian oil industry is able to survive with the actual price, Russia too. That one of the biggest exporters of wheat would have a problem to feed the people is your fantasy. No, I think it has not been done but is one of the many usual propaganda lies. I look at various sources, and most information about heavy fighting comes from the regions I have mentioned. There is also some fighting in East Ghouta. Then there is also a lot of infight among terrorists, Al Qaida against Daesh, in particular near the Turkish border, but also near Damaskus. There has been a time I have checked such things. Every single claim about a bombed hospital appeared to be a lie, with fake pictures from completely different events, fake hospitals in villages without any hospital, hospitals already destroyed long before, and hospitals yet intact, with something damaged only nearby. After some time, I had enough of this and have decided to ignore claims about bombed hospitals in future. I do not feel obliged to check the (n+1)st claim about a bombed hospital from pro-NATO terrorist sources. I do not claim to be a broker at all. If I see some interesting information, I give that information, if I consider it as reliable. That we have different criteria for reliability is obvious and trivial, nothing new. It is also obvious that no matter how much evidence I would present that this is a propaganda lie, you would nonetheless continue to cry "this is a fact" and so on. Boring. If I would be paid for doing such things, maybe I would do it. But for free?
Except of course it is a problem...a very big problem as evidenced by Russia's economy. And as previously explained to you, this isn't only about Russia's oil industry. It's about all the bills Mother Russia has to pay with her petroleum dollars. Two, we have been down this Russian export rabbit hole before. You are being more than a little disingenuous. Oil and natural gas exports account for more than 2/3 rd s of all Russian exports. And as previously explained to you, Russia isn't investing in new oil production. Russian oil is like other oil, oil wells become depleted and new wells must be found and drilled. Those are not fantasies, those are facts. Well here is the thing, you cannot prove they are "usual propaganda lies". You have no evidence they are lies much less propaganda. And that should be a problem for you. But it isn't. you just summarily and without merit dismiss all inconvenient facts as lies and NATO propaganda. What you do is promulgate Russian and Assad owned propaganda and summarily and without merit and without evidence dismiss everything else as lies and NATO propaganda. That is what you have consistently done. You are not an honest broker. You are a Mother Putina advocate.
Of course, to you I would be unable to prove even 2+2=4, you would simply cry "this is not a proof, and 2+2=5 is simply a fact". You are known to be proof-resistant.
LOL...well fortunately for you we are not talking about 2+2. We are talking about credible evidence to support your assertions, and not just a regurgitation of Putin's and Assad's state owned and controlled media.
Brent has reached the \$ 50 line. Which is an interesting line. If I remember correctly, you think that with this oil price the American oil industry is fine. We will see. Actually, the US crude oil production seems to decline. Looks like the US has increased oil production to reach the peak while the price is the lowest and now declines, given that the price is raising. Looks like a really good idea, not? For Russia it is, of course, good news. The oil price attack seems over. With \$ 50, Russia is in a comfortable region. And can wait for future raise.
The US now starts to openly propagate war: http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/06/17/the-case-against-peace-syria-europe-brexit-donald-trump/
Well, I think you had better check your numbers. Brent is now trading below $50 per barrel. The American oil industry is fine. Pioneer Natural Resources, a large American oil producer, has raised billions in additional cash and has recently purchased huge tracks of American oil fields from Devon Energy. Pioneer Natural Resources is investing heavily in new production and is increasing production. US rig count is actually increasing now. That's bad news for your beloved Mother Russia. Additionally, $50 oil, isn't good news for Mother Russia as she needs $100 per barrel oil in order to pay her bills. It's better than $20 dollars per barrel, but it's still not enough for Mother Russia. And then there are a number of wildcards like Iran. We don't know how much oil Iran will produce or when it will produce it. But in any case, oil prices won't save your beloved Mother Putina's derriere.
And how is that exactly? Where has the US advocated for war? It hasn't. But that doesn't stop you from lying about it, does it?
A number of mid-level US State Department employees have dissented with Obama's Syrian policies. The recommend Obama attack Assad's forces when Assad violates the terms of the cease fire agreement he signed with dissident forces. I think that's a very reasonable recommendation. Assad cannot break the cease fire agreement he signed with impunity as he has repeatedly done. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/17/world/middleeast/syria-assad-obama-airstrikes-diplomats-memo.html
Whatever ceasefire Assad has signed with local terrorists, this is nothing which justifies an aggression against Syria even if Assad would break it. That you would name a war "very reasonable" is not surprising at all. The really horrible thing is not that such a NATO propagandist like you wants war, but that one of the candidates for president wants war, and that it is this candidate which is favored by the establishment and, therefore, will win (the US establishment knows how to cheat). And before objecting against my numbers, check the date of my post and the price at that day. With \$ 48 Russia can live too. Your fantasy numbers about how much Russia needs are irrelevant. In fact, Russia can wait, it is the US oil industry which has real problems. It looks like the recession in Russia is over even without a high oil price and despite the continuation of the sanctions.
Well, whatever Assad signed was a peace agreement with Syrian dissidents. You've got this chronic problem, you cannot discern the difference between a dissident and a terrorist. But while you and your fellow Russians cannot recognize the difference, everyone else can. Assad and his Russian buddies are the ones who are bombing hospitals in clear violation of international law. Further, I have no links to NATO, and I'm certainly not a NATO propagandist. The truth isn't propaganda comrade. It's just the truth. Being from Mother Russia, I can understand why you have difficulty discerning truth from propaganda. But you and your fellow comrades need to learn that important skill. Just because your beloved Mother Putina doesn't like the truth, it doesn't make the truth NATO propaganda. People who seek the truth and who tell the truth are not NATO propagandists. You are once again lying comrade. Where is your evidence Americans want war? Where is your evidence an American presidential candidate wants war as you have alleged? As with everything else, you have none. Americans aren't invading and annexing the lands of its neighbors as your beloved Mother Russia has done. America isn't supporting terrorist governments who gas and barrel bomb their own people and bomb hospitals in violation of international law as your beloved Mother Russia has and continues to do. The truth is America doesn't want war, and it goes to great pains to avoid warfare. But the US isn't afraid of warfare either if that is what circumstances warrant. The US has the most powerful military on the planet, and equally important and unlike your beloved Mother Russia, it has many allied nations around the globe. Your assertions about the Russian economy and US oil producers are also false. Unfortunately, for you comrade, you well know my numbers are not fictions. We have had this discussion many times before. Unfortunately for you, you are on the wrong side of those numbers. Even Russian officials don't agree with your assertion that the recession is over, because they know it isn't. They, along with everyone else, are projecting further economic contraction this year for your beloved Mother Russia. That's not NATO propaganda, that's a very simple and easily verifiable fact. Contrary to your assertion, US oil producers are doing just fine. If they weren't big oil producers like Pioneer Natural Resources couldn't raise billions in new capital and purchase new oil fields and develop new production facilities as they have done and continue to do. And as you well known, the US economy unlike your beloved Mother Russia's economy is well diversified and several orders of magnitude larger than that of your beloved Mother Russia's economy. http://www.ibtimes.com/russia-econo...d-low-oil-prices-sanctions-government-2357358 http://thediplomat.com/2016/05/russias-economy-in-2016/ http://www.businessinsider.com/morgan-stanley-on-the-state-of-the-russian-economy-2016-5?r=UK&IR=T Putina is repeating the mistakes of The Soviet Union. He's trying to compete with the US, and it just doesn't have the resources to successfully do so. It can't compete militarily or economically. If Putina wants to run Russia into the ground again trying to compete with the US as he seems hellbent on doing, so be it. It's no skin off American backs. And the unfortunate fact for you is that your beloved Mother Russia is a one horse economy, and that horse is oil. It's very dependent on oil. Oil revenues fund the Russian government, and because oil prices are less than half of what they were, that means Mother Russia has less than half the oil revenues it needs to fund its government. Whither you want to admit it or not, and you don't, that's a problem for Mother Russia.
Oh, this is quite simple. The terrorist has weapons and uses them to kill his political opponents, the dissident is peaceful. in Western propaganda fantasies which nobody believes. Which Americans? Nobody cares what the sheeple want. Clinton wants war, and openly propagates it, these diplomats want war and openly told about this. Read what they want Clinton wants a "no-fly zone". To realize this, they have to shoot all enemy planes in this zone, but that means, they have to shoot all planes which are there in agreement with international law - Syrian and Russian planes. And this would be, of course, an annexation of Syrian land. Hospitals they bomb themselves, their terrorists (dissidents don't use any weapons, that means, they don't use gas) have used gas many times. https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/video-ghouta-rebels-attack-syrian-army-nerve-gas/ They have been, indeed, predicting a further small decline, but actually there is a small increase of industrial production. Militarily, they have to compete, else they will be murdered. The US is, up to now, the only state who has murdered people, mostly civilians, with nuclear weapons. Compete or get killed. Ok, or submit and become slaves of the US, but this is not the Russian choice. Fortunately, the US military is so corrupt that with 10% of the US military budget one can compete. This year Russia became the world leader in wheat export. But wheat is, of course, completely irrelevant, necessary only for a few very special bakeries or so.
If that is your definition of a terrorist, then you have described Putin and Assad to a T. Both Assad and Putin have weapons and use them to kill their political opposition. That's how the Syrian insurrection began. Assad began by killing his own people. Assad attacked peaceful demonstrators. LOL...unfortunately for you comrade, the truth isn't propaganda. It's just the truth. Don't you remember? You made the accusation, you said Americans want war. I asked you who are these Americans that want war and where is the credible evidence to back up your assertion? That has noting to do with "sheeple". The only sheeple here are people like you who mindlessly believe whatever Mother Putina tells you and ignore everything and everyone else. You do realize there is a difference between a no-fly zone and war? Clinton does advocate a no-fly zone in Syria, but that doesn't mean she is a war monger. She wants a no-fly zone to prevent Syria from bombing its own people and hospitals. It creates safe zones, and that's a good thing. And it's not like Mother Russia hasn't had one of its warplanes shot down. It has, and rather recently. Clinton also argues that a no-fly zone would require Russian cooperation. That's another one of those facts you like to leave out. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-syria-russia_us_5614695de4b0fad1591a0574 So it's your view that these hospitals are bombing themselves. Seriously....? And where is the credible evidence to support that one? Let me guess, as with everything else with you, you have none. You label all "non believers" as sheeple, yet you unquestioningly believe whatever Mother Putina and his stooges tell you. The fact is contrary to your previous assertion, the recession in Mother Russia isn't over. Russia's economy continues to decline (i.e. worsen). Per my previous references, that small increase in industrial production is directly attributable to Mother Putina's military rearmament program. That's not going to save Mother Russia's ass. The fact remains, Russia's economy is in a state of decline and is still reeling from dramatic declines in oil prices and international sanctions. Oh, and who would murder them? And why would anyone want to murder them? There is no reason for anyone to murder them, not even the Chinese have good reason to murder Russians. If the United States doesn't want to be in Iran or Afghanistan, which it doesn't. why would it want troops in your beloved Mother Russia? It doesn't. And there is the part you have left out, the Japan declared war on the US. Japan, in a sneak attack, attacked US forces on Hawaii. It invaded and occupied American lands in Alaska and the South Pacific including but not limited to the Philippines. And the cities the US targeted for nuclear bombing were legitimate military targets. So if you don't want the US military showing up on your doorstep, don't declare war on the US or attack the US militarily. There is no legitimate reason why Mother Russia should do any of those things. Therefore, there is no reason for Russia to try to compete with the US especially, when it can't possibly hope to succeed at is costs so much. It wastes precious Russian resources, just to make Mother Putina feel more important. As as been endlessly pointed out to you, the US by itself can easily outspend your Mother Russia by more than 20 to one. The US alone can more than double the number of military recruits. For every person your Mother Russia puts in military uniform, the US alone can put more than two, and then their is the technology factor which is hugely skewed in favor of the US. Unfortunately for you comrade, facts do matter. I think this boils down to a case of chronic penis envy. If Mother Russia wants to compete with the US it needs to do it through peaceful means. It needs to compete economically, and it cannot do that with the present Russian leadership. Russia is a land of vast natural resources. It is the largest country in the world by land mass. But Russians will always be held back, unless they change the way they govern themselves. They need to stop being sheeple. They need a government that isn't corrupt to the core. They need a government that is open and transparent and the rest will follow. But that isn't what Mother Putina is offering. Unfortunately, Russia is intent on fighting wars it cannot possibly hope to win. And do you have credible proof the US military is "so corrupt"? No you don't, as with everything else with you, you are just making stuff up again. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, your beloved Mother Russia has been consistently found to be one of the most corrupt countries in the world. That should be a problem for you, but it isn't. LOL...well yet again you are reading or listening to too much Russian state propaganda. How can you say that when this year isn't even over? How can you say that when the crops haven't been harvested? The fact is thus far, US wheat crop yields have almost doubled previous year harvests. The unfortunate fact for you and your beloved Mother Russia is that Canada is the world's largest wheat exporter, followed by the US. Your beloved Mother Russia is number 5 and not number one as you had asserted. But even so, wheat exports are in total nothing in comparison to oil and aren't sufficient to make a significant impact on Russia's economy. Because of the bumper crop yields this year, wheat prices are down this year. http://www.worldstopexports.com/wheat-exports-country/
As well as all other politicians with some power in whatever state. Indeed, I'm a libertarian, thus, politicians are in my opinion criminals. All. In Libya we have learned that there is no difference between what the NATO names a no-fly zone and war. This is really good news. No, the US bombs hospitals themselves. Search about Kunduz. I no longer care about NATO claims that Russia or Syria have bombed hospitals. I have cared some time, but after the fifth or so case when it appeared to be a propaganda lie I have stopped to care. The US, with nuclear bombs, like they have done in Hiroshima. Because they want to rule the whole world. With Russia destroyed, they could blackmail the whole world, inclusive China, with their nuclear weapons to complete submission. As if this would justify to murder civilians, whole towns, with nuclear weapons. Many countries would be happy if this would be all one has to do. Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Panama, ... If one takes the NATO as a whole, they probably already do. Whatever, even this is sufficient to have a military which the US is afraid of. Or at least claim to be afraid of to get more money from the taxpayers. Russia does not start wars, it finishes them. I compare US and Russian military budget and compare the results. This strongly suggests that the Russian military is much more efficient in spending their money. Given that I don't think Americans are stupid, I think the explanation is corruption in the US. The Russians count the year in the agrarian sector from 1. July to 30. June, for whatever reasons. So they are close enough to the end of this, and have given a number of 24-25 Mio t.
Except, it doesn't. It was Assad who killed peaceful demonstrators. It was Assad who first responded to peaceful protest with acts of violence. It was Assad who used WMD against his own people. It was Assad who has dropped and continues to drop barrel bombs on the Syrian people. Oh, and how exactly have you learned that? It's just another case of you not knowing what you are writing about. No, they don't. The US has never intentionally bombed a hospital. In Kunduz, the bombing was accidental and based on flawed intelligence. Unlike your beloved Mother Russia and Assad, the US admitted making a mistake. It apologized and made amends with the victims, and it reprimanded those individuals who made mistakes, and it took steps to ensure that never happens again. Russia's and Assad's bombing of hospitals have been repeated and intentional. They have admitted no wrong doing. They have not made amends with victims. They have not reprimanded anyone. They have not stopped the bombing of hospitals. That's very obvious, you have never cared about the truth. You summarily and without merit dismiss everything which might reflect negatively against your beloved Mother Russia as NATO propaganda. And where is your evidence the US wants to rule the world? As with everything else, you have none. The US isn't like your beloved Mother Russia. It doesn't want to rule the world. It could have easily taken out the Soviet Union after WWII. It didn't. At that time the US could have taken over the world, it didn't. It was the sole nuclear power in the world. Unlike your beloved Mother Russia (i.e. Soviet Union) the US reconstructed the West and Japan by working with locals to construct new democratic governments, so they could govern themselves. That's not what your beloved Mother Russia did. The West didn't have to erect physical barriers to keep people from leaving as Mother Russia did. Well for starters, it wasn't murder. It was war, and the targets were legitimate war targets. Those are important distinctions you refuse to recognize. Using nuclear weapons wasn't illegal, nor is it now illegal. And the number of people killed in those nuclear attacks, including civilians, was nothing, a few thousand, compared to the millions of civilians who died on the Eastern Front (the Nazi-Soviet border) during the war. What was remarkable about the nuclear bombings isn't the number of dead and wounded, but the efficiency of the attack - how one plane and one bomb could cause so much devastation. That's what finally convinced the Imperial Japanese government to surrender. The unfortunate fact for you is, seeing that efficiency of destruction brought about an immediate end to the war and in doing so saved millions of lives. That was and remains a very good reason to use the nuclear weapons. And remember the issue here, your claim that Mother Russia needs to be able to defend itself. You still haven't answered the questions I posed to you. Why would the US want to invade or attack Mother Russia? If the US doesn't want to be in Iraq and Afghanistan, as is the case, then why would it want to be in Mother Russia? It wouldn't. You still haven't laid out a reason why the US would want Mother Russia? You can't cite a reason why the US would want to threaten your beloved Mother Russia. That should be a problem for you. But it isn't. And Russia hasn't used its military to defend itself. It has used its military to invade and annex the lands of its neighbors. That's not defense, that's offense...oops. Mother Putina's actions betray you comrade. If all those countries had not attacked the US they wouldn't have had a problem. Libya blew up an American airliner. Iraq invaded its neighbor, an American ally. Panama attacked American soldiers. Afghanistan hosted the terrorists who blew were responsible for the 9/11 attack on American soil. And they were given an option, Afghanistan could surrender the attackers, or the US would go after them. They chose the latter, and the US went after them. Facts matter comrade. If you don't want American troops on your doorstep, don't attack Americans or her allies. It really is that simple. You are grasping at straws. How does that make sense? It doesn't change the fact that your beloved Mother Russia could never win an arms war with the United States. The United States alone can outspend your beloved Mother Russia by a fact of more than 20 to one. Even if Mother Russia put everyone alive in the country in uniform, the US alone would outnumber Mother Russia by more than twofold. And I haven't even added in allied nations. There is no way in hell, your beloved Mother Russia could win an arms race with the West. And the fact remains, your beloved Mother Russia is hellbent on repeating the mistakes of its past. LOL....does it now. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I think thee needs to get thyself to a library post haste. You don't remember the Afghanistan War when Soviet troops were sent packing with their tails between their legs? You don't remember the Russo-Japanese War, WWI, The Finish Civil War, or any of the other wars your beloved Mother Russia started but didn't finish. Did you now? How can you come to that conclusion by just looking at budgets? You can't, and for you to think you can is either delusional or ignorance. As previously pointed out to you, Mother Russia is the least productive nation in Europe, Japan and North America. But yet you want people to believe that the Russian military is the exception based on your analysis of budget numbers? Well other people don't, and the fact is this year isn't over. So you cannot declare victory as you have when the war far from over. In year over year comparisons, Mother Russia isn't the largest wheat exporter. Canada is followed by the US, your beloved Mother Russia is number 5 where it has been. But even so, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, that isn't enough to cover the losses caused by low oil prices. The money Russia uses to fund its government has dropped by more than half, and whither you want to recognize it or not, that's a big problem for the Russian government. And within months, the US will begin shipping oil and natural gas ot Europe which places the US in direct competition with Russian oil and natural gas producers.
