2 ms·

Though the OP is mostly correct. You're response is straining reality. Russia is technically a democracy, but given that Putin controls the press directly, mur

by jariel 7y ago

Though the OP is mostly correct. You're response is straining reality. Russia is technically a democracy, but given that Putin controls the press directly, murders opposition members, and thwarts opponents from running in elections, it's a de-facto dictatorship. Those are all terrible, terrible places frankly we shouldn't trade with them purely on a moral basis - but we would tolerate them if they played nice. FYI: Cuba did not 'steal oil' this is false. And nobody cares about Iran's Oil power, they care that Iran has a publicly stated objective literally of overthrowing the USA. And Syria has no oil, your points verge on conspiracy theory. The US would love to rid itself of any entanglement in Syria, and frankly Iran if it could.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
> Those are all terrible, terrible places frankly we shouldn't trade with them purely on a moral basis - but we would tolerate them if they played nice. The Saudis are the same and they also didn't play nice. > FYI: Cuba did not 'steal oil' this is false. I wrote "oil refineries", and I must be misunderstanding Wikipedia then, when it says: "on October 19, 1960 (almost two years after the Cuban Revolution had led to the deposition of the Batista regime) the U.S. placed an embargo on exports to Cuba except for food and medicine after Cuba nationalized American-owned Cuban oil refineries without compensation and as a response to Cuba's role in the Cuban missile crisis. On February 7, 1962 the embargo was extended to include almost all exports.[1]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_... > And nobody cares about Iran's Oil power, Doubtful, given the amount of oil they have and export. > they care that Iran has a publicly stated objective literally of overthrowing the USA. Which is entirely because of the "tried to take them over and fucked up" thing I mentioned. > And Syria has no oil, your points verge on conspiracy theory. Of course it has oil, it's even an exporter. But here I thought about the longer-term US involvement over the last decades. They didn't start messing with countries in the region because of terrorists or WMDs. (I don't claim to be an expert in geopolitics, I'm just saying how the "look at these sanctions, they're all against dictatorships!" claim upthread reads to me, with my mind currently primed on worldwide energy economy.)
- jariel 7y ago
  I don't think your points are well supported. The state of Saudi Arabia absolutely does play nice with the rest of the world - that's why we support them even though they are ugly internally. They are a source of stability in the region, the opposite of Iran. Iran is a hostile, belligerent state, trying to obtain nuclear weapons, they are actively threatening Saudi Arabia trying to turn it into Syria-like chaos. Conversely, Saudi Arabia is not trying to overthrow the Iranian state. Iran is actively trying to overthrow Israel (Hezbollah, Hamas, bases in Syria, control of Lebanon). Iran has troops all over Syria and Iraq. They are holding ships in the Gulf hostage, playing tricky military games, threatening everyone's shipping. Iran's source of Oil wealth is an important factor in their ability to make money - but nobody in Saudi or the West cares about it in the sense that they will ever have access to it. There are zero 'Oil Contracts' for Exxon, Halliburton, Total or anyone else in the future. The American 'embargo' of Cuban Oil is irrelevant - Cuba does not have meaningful oil resources, moreover, the term 'embargo' is misapplied: the US does not 'embargo' Cuba. Cuba can sell to the entire world, just not the USA. Again, it's irrelevant because there's very little oil and the US would be just one customer. Syria doesn't have any meaningful Oil reserves to the point wherein it rises to being part of the geopolitical equation - ergo - nobody cares. Iran doesn't care about Syria 'because of Oil' - and nobody else does either. It's a small part of their economy, just like anything else. Like the 'Cuban oil' point, it's not going to factor into the regional equation. 'Human Rights' progress can only be made when areas are relatively stable, so if you care about that, then look to have the hostile regimes aborted.

by jariel 7y ago

TeMPOraL 7y ago

> Those are all terrible, terrible places frankly we shouldn't trade with them purely on a moral basis - but we would tolerate them if they played nice. The Saudis are the same and they also didn't play nice. > FYI: Cuba did not 'steal oil' this is false. I wrote "oil refineries", and I must be misunderstanding Wikipedia then, when it says: "on October 19, 1960 (almost two years after the Cuban Revolution had led to the deposition of the Batista regime) the U.S. placed an embargo on exports to Cuba except for food and medicine after Cuba nationalized American-owned Cuban oil refineries without compensation and as a response to Cuba's role in the Cuban missile crisis. On February 7, 1962 the embargo was extended to include almost all exports.[1]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_... > And nobody cares about Iran's Oil power, Doubtful, given the amount of oil they have and export. > they care that Iran has a publicly stated objective literally of overthrowing the USA. Which is entirely because of the "tried to take them over and fucked up" thing I mentioned. > And Syria has no oil, your points verge on conspiracy theory. Of course it has oil, it's even an exporter. But here I thought about the longer-term US involvement over the last decades. They didn't start messing with countries in the region because of terrorists or WMDs. (I don't claim to be an expert in geopolitics, I'm just saying how the "look at these sanctions, they're all against dictatorships!" claim upthread reads to me, with my mind currently primed on worldwide energy economy.)

jariel 7y ago
I don't think your points are well supported. The state of Saudi Arabia absolutely does play nice with the rest of the world - that's why we support them even though they are ugly internally. They are a source of stability in the region, the opposite of Iran. Iran is a hostile, belligerent state, trying to obtain nuclear weapons, they are actively threatening Saudi Arabia trying to turn it into Syria-like chaos. Conversely, Saudi Arabia is not trying to overthrow the Iranian state. Iran is actively trying to overthrow Israel (Hezbollah, Hamas, bases in Syria, control of Lebanon). Iran has troops all over Syria and Iraq. They are holding ships in the Gulf hostage, playing tricky military games, threatening everyone's shipping. Iran's source of Oil wealth is an important factor in their ability to make money - but nobody in Saudi or the West cares about it in the sense that they will ever have access to it. There are zero 'Oil Contracts' for Exxon, Halliburton, Total or anyone else in the future. The American 'embargo' of Cuban Oil is irrelevant - Cuba does not have meaningful oil resources, moreover, the term 'embargo' is misapplied: the US does not 'embargo' Cuba. Cuba can sell to the entire world, just not the USA. Again, it's irrelevant because there's very little oil and the US would be just one customer. Syria doesn't have any meaningful Oil reserves to the point wherein it rises to being part of the geopolitical equation - ergo - nobody cares. Iran doesn't care about Syria 'because of Oil' - and nobody else does either. It's a small part of their economy, just like anything else. Like the 'Cuban oil' point, it's not going to factor into the regional equation. 'Human Rights' progress can only be made when areas are relatively stable, so if you care about that, then look to have the hostile regimes aborted.