More international destabilization from our very stable genius. My generation has never experienced war but my parents' generation seem hell bent on making it happen. I would sooner slit my own wrist then defend you piles of garbage.

"Capitalism is not cheap."

Yeah, but, what better way to make a killing?

@5 The Iranians don’t seem to think so.

@5 Maybe, maybe not - Flip a coin on that one.
Ike warned us about the military-industrial complex. Too bad we never listened.

Bingo, Pat -- if we had to be Hijacked by one Industry
why did it hafta be the fucker that KILLS for a Living?

Who the fuck decided that?
B. For how much longer must we live
with that Boneheaded decision?

Dear Iran,

Please, please, please, whatever you do, don’t blow up America’s Worst Family: Mar-a-Lardass; Melanoma; Dumbfuck, Jr.; Fembot; and The Ugly One.

Also, puhleeeeez don’t blast the US Senate, the Supreme KKKourt, the cruel, sadistic Evilungelical ChrISIStian fascists, the corporate media, and the governments Israel, Russia, and Saudi Arabia back to the hellfire inferno that they came from.

Actually, I’ll email a list of who definitely NOT to put out of our misery. Kthnxbi.

We're gonna need some more tax cuts to pay for this war and trump better get his Dr lined up for a bonespur diagnosis for his kid cause this gonna be a long one.

I've been thinking about these Australian wildfires, and it's just so saddening and sickening that, to be honest, I can't bring myself to read the stories because I'm afraid the horrors I find will there haunt me and give me nightmares and fill me with despair and rage and helplessness to the point where I can't function. I feel ashamed even mentioning this because it sounds like I'm making this all about myself and the problems that only exist in my mind because I'm such a sensitive snowflake.

I've gotten in the habit of clicking on the stories just to not sink into apathy. Speaking of apathy, there's a story on nymag.com, "Global Apathy Toward the Fires in Australia Is a Scary Portent for the Future" by David Wallace-Wells, author of a troubling book on climate change that (again) I'm afraid to read:
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/12/new-south-wales-fires-in-australia-the-worlds-response.html

We look back and ask ourselves how "we" (the developed world) could ever have allowed the Holocaust to happen. Climate change really is our modern-day Holocaust. (There are other enormous evils of the modern world which I won't get into that one could also justifiably call a modern-day Holocaust and then proceed to be shouted down as a crazy radical. Well, I guess climate change isn't all that different.)

P.S. Hey, Stranger, here's a New Year's Resolution for you. If you give a shit yourselves about climate change, upgrade your commenting software to automatically delete posts by these drive-by burner accounts that amount to climate change denialist graffiti. And if that's too hard for ya, here's something easier. Get rid of the comments threads entirely. The world won't miss us.

As long as we're reinvigorating the Crusades, let's bring back Monty Python's Holy Hand Grenade! I'm sure all those flag-waving Fundies would approve!

@12 -- Yep. Holocaust deniers spawned climate science deniers.
It's totally Hereditary. Nothing can be done.

@13 -- Totally Concur.
But I'll miss us.

Hmmm.
Maybe there's a Deal to be made somewhere...
Where's our Dealmaker-in-Chief when we need the fucker the most?
Oh, that's right -- WWIIIin'.

Just got my first paycheck of the year from work (though I know it's from days worked the end of December) and my federal taxes jumped 30%. Was not expecting that. Not sure where it came from either since I haven't been hearing any hand wringing from anyone about it anywhere. Anyway, that sucks.

@7 should have thought of that before you dimwits destroyed the Iraqi state.

scratch that, you were told it would happen before you morons sent Iraq back to the stone age, and you ignored it as the smell of the 2nd largest reserve of cheap oil on the planet were just too hard to resist.

As with Brazil, it's hard to empathize with Australia because this was the inevitable and foreseeable consequence of electing a climate change denier. We're not any better since we elected a narcissist to somehow improve America. We all make mistakes but the appropriate response should be to correct course, not embrace pity.

@ 12,

Let’s give ourselves some credit. Many of us care deeply about the environment and future generations, and we’ve adjusted our lifestyles to match, like reducing consumerism, going vegetarian, and giving up our cars. Anything less smacks of collective guilt, and those nihilists that’re driving us into this dystopia don’t share our concerns, so we’re just needlessly torturing ourselves.

We’re doing the best we can in a global society that’s been built upon fossil fuels and socially engineered over the last century to serve resource extractors and the seemingly untouchable oligarchs that control them. If you’ve done everything within your span of control to make the world a better place, then your conscience should be clear.

"My generation has never experienced war"

????

Perhaps, that is a problem when people don't feel like they are at war despite taxes financing decades old conflicts.

If WW3 was going to start, don't you think it'd start over something more than the killing of a two bit 'general' in the iranian army... Iran, that powerhouse of a country (I'm exaggerating). Charles, put the bottle down. Leftists love hyperbole though.

@12 there is no message of urgency because corporate media doesn't convey one. It's called manufacturing consent.

This is all because Trump knew he was losing the fundraising game and Putin cut off his allowance.

Anything to distract.

Original Andrew @19, this is a bit of a nitpick, but you're missing the point of my self-reflection @12. I don't feel any guilt about my lifestyle. When it comes to carbon footprint, I'm sure I'm better than 99% of Americans who aren't in poverty. Or probably better than 99% of Americans, period, considering that poverty in America can be quite costly.

My point is that we should consider the Australian wildfires the most important event of our time, compared to which something like impeachment or the Iraq/Iran tensions (barring WWIII breaking out) are but a sideshow. And yet, I'm purposely trying to do a personal quasi-news blackout of this historic and apocalyptic catastrophe.

The real news and a hint as to why it happened can be found in trump's tweets few years back, predicting Obama will start a war with Iran in order to save face and get reelected, as well as lack of negotiating skills.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/476631-trump-repeatedly-said-obama-would-start-war-with-iran-to-get-elected

We waxed Iran's John Bolton. Give them our John Bolton and call it even?

@23 --- more on your "two bit 'general"' in the iranian army:

"General Soleimani has long been one of the most powerful figures in Iran. He was the leader of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Quds Force — Iran’s powerful foreign military force, similar to a combination of the CIA and U.S. Special Forces."

https://www.democracynow.org/2020/1/3/trita_parsi_us_assassination_of_iranian

@1 it's not nice to say that about FLOTUS, even if she did say piss on the world.

@8 & 9

given that a) we were approaching peak conventional oil in the early 2000, b) Iraq has the 2nd largest reserves of conventional oil in the world, c) the world economy doesn't function with $100/barrel of oil (see the years following the market crash which occured just as oil prices were reaching stratopheric levels), and d) 2008 finally saw the advent of the shale "revolution" (a very costly way to extract oil), I'll wager that invading Iraq was about energy and sustaining the world economy rather than profits for the MIC

“ Climate change really is our modern-day Holocaust”

Calm down sugartits.

“tossed a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox.” This is kind of a terrible expression. I get where he's going here - something worse than just throwing a match into a tinderbox. But dynamite might not even catch the tinder on fire - just spread it in all directions at high velocity. And is it even lit? Might be a pretty safe place to store your dynamite - dry, soft, in a box, assuming everyone's careful with their matches.

More from Democracy Now!:

"So, it’s clear now that even without John Bolton in the White House, Trump has surrounded himself with so many neoconservatives, or people who are very close in their thinking to the neoconservatives, that he is continuously getting advice that is very similar to the advice that the Bush administration was given went it came to the invasion of Iraq.

And [National Security Adviser John] Bolton has for long urged not only war with Iran, but regime change in Iran, and has been pushing the United States to go in that direction.

And I think part of the reason why many of these war hawks are celebrating on Twitter today is not because they think that this actually was a decisive blow to Iran or a decisive blow to the IRGC [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps]; I think it’s because they view this as a point of irreversible escalation.

After this, there can only be more escalation and, ultimately, war. And that’s what they’re celebrating."
--Trita Parsi

"A point of irreversible escalation."

And trump's terrified of Impeachment...
Gosh I wonder if the two might be Connected, in some insane way....

Remember the Cheney/ bush Administration
Lying into Iraq? (We are Still there)
.
Now it's trumpfy's Turn.

Is he gonna get Away with it?

Fixing: Remember the Cheney/ bush Administration
Lying US into Iraq? (We are Still there)

apologies!

@21 There's been a two decade "occupation" but war was never declared. Conscription hasn't been around in my lifetime but there have been attempts to revive it since the start of our occupation. I can't even imagine what it would look like for this nation to ask its youth to involuntarily fight for our impeached commander in chief. If people can't even make small changes to fight climate change do you think they'll be willing to make the changes necessary to fight a worldwide war?

Hyperbolic, at best. This isn’t WW3. At worst, it will be a replay of the second Gulf War.

Iran is not by any measure a major world power, militarily or otherwise. They don’t have any allies that are, either. We have much more to fear from North Korea or Pakistan, because of the historic alliance they both have with China, which actually is a major world power, than we do from Iran.

You do however correctly hint at the actual root cause for the conflict- oil. Until such a time as the United States becomes fully independent from petroleum, we will constantly be at war in the Middle East. Our farm equipment runs exclusively on benzine. The very moment we lose cheap access to oil, we will see a surge in food prices. The real horror of gasoline has nothing to do with Climate Change, which is a gradual, insidious process. The much more abrupt, sudden drop into hell is when we see the food riots that regularly break out in Port-au-Prince happen in New York or LA. There is no biological imperative to avoid sea level rise, however, there is an involuntary drive to avoid starvation; you can pretend Global Warming isn’t real if you want to, and you can persist in that delusion for many years. You cannot, however, convince yourself that you’re not starving if you go a week without any food. That is how the shit really hits the fan. Nobody needs Greta Thunberg to tell them to riot if there isn’t any food- that instinct comes naturally.

We are going to war with Iran because Saudi Arabia wills it. We have resisted their call, by supplying them with arms to fight the Iranian backed Houthi militias in Yemen, by fighting two proxy wars in Iraq, and by looking the other way when MBS makes embarrassing mistakes in an Ankara embassy. We have been on the Saudi leash ever since the oil shock of the 1970’s, and every POTUS gets briefed by the CIA on who really runs US foreign policy- Its Riyadh, and it has been all along. They keep that sweet, sweet raw crude flowing or cheap, and we can appease them only so long before they demand we invade, bomb and destroy their most hated enemy of all- Iran.

Trump opened the taps on the Strategic Oil Reserve, which was never intended to last very long and had been there only for emergency use. Now that it’s tapped out, we have no buffer left. It’s either we do whatever the House of Saud commands, or they jack up the price of fuel, and we turn Chicago into Gonaives.

Ok, one more (many words!) from the Awesome 'Democracy Now!':

"AMY GOODMAN: And finally, of course, the U.S. is calling him a terrorist; Iran, a hero. Talk about Soleimani’s significance around the world and the fact that both Obama, who you’ve written extensively about, and George W. Bush, though they too had the opportunity, did not assassinate him.

TRITA PARSI: Because they recognized that that would be such a major escalation that it likely would lead to war. It doesn’t mean that they, in any way, shape or form, had a positive view of Soleimani, but they did recognize, I think, that he is revered in corners in the Middle East that may be outside of the control of Iran.

And as a result, even if the Trump administration and the government of Iran would end up in a scenario in which both of them would like to de-escalate the situation, they may not be able to do so, because they may not be able to control other entities that will seek to take revenge for Soleimani’s assassination by killing Americans.

And, as a result, their ability to put out this fire may be much, much more limited. I think the Bush administration and the Obama administration recognized this and, as a result, chose not to go in this direction, because they recognized how uncontrollable the situation would be."

This just in -- trump's (even now) sending in 3,500 more troops.
Waggin' the (Fawkin') Dawg.

@40 People wouldn't have a choice. During major wars demanding a national mobilization the state becomes a quasi dictatorship.

Anyway, people can and will make changes to fight climate change when we find the political will to act. Until then nothing will change. Vote the bums out.

@20,

Dammit.

Well, I should probably just go ahead and enlist now before I get drafted.

Mudede--fine guest appearance!

Taking out the Iran general who has been supporting operations that kill Americans throughout the middle east seems like a much better strategy than the previous administration.

Biden and Obama handed over 1.7 BILLION to Iran after repeatedly violating agreements over nuclear arms. Not to mention supporting terrorism targeting Americans.

50,

If that’s at all true (it’s not, but let’s entertain the thought for a moment), then adopt a foreign policy hostile to Riyadh. Prove your point. If the US ready doesn’t need to heed the beck and call of Saudi Arabia, then your boy in the White House can demonstrate that by not jumping like a trained poodle every time MBS snaps his royal fingers.

Let’s see POTUS keep American arms and money out of the war in Yemen, let’s see him openly condemn MBS for what happened in Ankara, let’s see him decline an invitation for a state visit the Kingdom. Even one minor, small snub.

He hasn’t, has he? It’s as if every single policy Riyadh has openly endorsed just “coincidentally” found its way into his own foreign policy. I mean, if he isn’t a puppet of the House of Saud, then why does he obey them so slavishly?

Prove me wrong. Stand up to Riyadh. Even once. And if you can’t, then why is that?

@49
You are confusing a tactic for a strategy. Don the Con wouldn't know a strategy if one pissed on him in a hotel room.

52,

I respectfully disagree. Every POTUS since Carter has gone to Riyadh to do the sword dance and proclaim the Kingdom our closest ally. That would be idiosyncratic at best if we were not dependent on them, as SA represents everything we oppose as a nation. The Kingdom is a hereditary absolute monarchy with no democratic institutions at all, which has adopted Sharia based Wahabi Islam as a state religion. In what way is that a natural ally of the United States?

Regardless of your political affiliation, the House of Saud is an abomination. If you’re a Republican (I assume by your moniker that you are), then their anti-Christian stance combined with their state owned oil monopoly should offend you. If you’re a Democrat, their abuse of human rights should offend you. If you’re a Libertarian, the very idea of an absolute monarchy should offend you. If you’re a Green, the economy based entirely on oil should offend you. I could go on, but I really don’t think there is even one organized political party in America that should not find the very idea of Saudi Arabia as it currently exists should not be antithetical to their core beliefs.

And yet, they all go to Riyadh to kiss the ring of His Majesty. Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative.

If we are not dependent upon them, then explain this strang alacrity.

@49 It's cute, but really kinda sad, how gullible you are.

@16 If you make more than $157,500 a year you maybe have jumped into a ~30% bracket, but there's only been 2 work days of 2019 so it sounds more like there may be an issue with your withholdings, not your tax rate.

56,

You can’t have it both ways. Either we are independent of the Saudis, or we are not. In post 50, you suggest that we do not need the Saudi regime at all to supply even one drip of oil. In post 56, you suggest that we need the experts to determine when we will, at some future date, no longer need Saudi oil.

Well, which is it? Do we need their oil, or don’t we? My dear David of the most glorious city of Shoreline, you contradict yourself.

58,

Our wartime affection for Uncle Joe’s regime ended as soon as the Nuremberg Trials were over. And even while it continued, we did not send FDR to Moscow every six months to dance the hopak. We have, however, been sending our Presidents to do the sword dance every time the throne beckoned since 1974. Which is about 9.5 times as long as the Grand Alliance of WW2 lasted. Further, we only signed on with Churchill and Stalin out of necessity. There has not been an ongoing military conflict with a foreign power that required us to link up with Riyadh.

Respectfully, your equivocation is false. The two alliances in no way compare.

The United States has a relationship with Saudi Arabia because only two things matter, the money and the oil. The United States worships money and is addicted to oil. The relationship will never be severed and all human rights violations, no matter whom they offend, will continue to be ignored. And is the U.S. really offended? Doesn't seem like it. We sold them the weapons the Saudis used to murder children in Yemen.

60,

Weirdly, that was a cogent, well thought out post I agree completely with. I tried my best to think of anything you said there that might be incorrect, and I can’t. You’re exactly right.

62,

It does not compare to the actual hot war fought against Germany, Italy and Japan, does it? The US and the KSA haven’t been sending troops into Iran constantly since 1979, and Iranian military forces have no invaded either country during that time, has not declared war or fired upon troops of both countries consistently without respite since 1979.

The Grand Alliance did not begin until those conditions began to take place consistently against the members of that alliance. We did not enter the alliance until after Dunkirk, and we did not ally with the USSR until after Barbarossa began.

The two alliances in no way compare.

Good Afternoon Charles and Happy New Year,
Well, I'm not sure what is worse, assassinating an Iranian General with the risk of a wider war, the great Australian wildfires or Rosie McGowan apologizing on Twitter to Iran. I'll have to go with the last one. That's a sure sign of the end of times :)

Speaking of ends check this out:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/01/03/our_real_existential_crisis_--extinction142067.html

65,

You’re factually incorrect here. The Saudi regime openly stated it supported the first Iraq War, as it felt the invasion of Kuwait was the opening move in Saddam Hussein’s gambit to gain control of territory along Iraq’s borders. The Saudi regime supported Bush by allowing him to stage troops on Saudi soil in preparation for the invasion.

One of the stated reasons for Osama Bin-Laden’s attacks on the United States was that he felt the US military presence on what he considered sacred ground was an affront to his religion- the Wahabi Strain of Islam.

Did you just make that up, or did you read it some place? I did a little bit of internet research before typing this response to make sure I was factually correct, and I didn’t find any web pages supporting your argument.

The US just values stability of world resources. Over & under production of resources can cause major global crises. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, & UAE are the only major OPEC countries that are really stable. Saudi Arabia keeps the region much more stable and for that reason we are allies.

@67 reread the #65 they were talking about the second gulf war.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/18/sprj.irq.saudi/

68,

There are also large oil patches in the North Sea, Norway and Russia. Of the three it is only the last one that has been at times alienated by US foreign policy, and even then, that was only because the one thing better than an ally with a lot of oil is a colony with a lot of oil.

You could say that China is stabilizing force in the region too, but they have no major oil reserves, so we aren’t really that interested in being their ally. Even countries that are failed states with barely functioning governments like South Sudan are allies just because of the oil. We loved the Shah not because he was some great humanitarian or proponent of American values- SAVAK would jail and torture any dissident in Evan prison until they died. We did it because he sold us oil on the cheap. We hate the Ayatollahs not because of the attack on our embassy or their egregious human rights violations- we hate them because they won’t give us the oil for cheap, and until now most POTUSes have felt an invasion would cost more than we would get in cheap oil.

America is a junkie. Our heroin is oil. It’s killing us, but without it, we’d die shitting the bed and howling in pain. Stability was the foreign policy of the Hohenzollern family, not the United States. We destabilized Venezuela rather than prop up Maduro- again, in the quest for more cheap oil. We don’t really give a shit about democracy, stability, peace or any of that- we just want a cheap fix of that black tarry smack flowing out of the ground under desert sands.

70,

It isn’t. I just look stuff up online. I also confused the little Bush with the big Bush. I’m in the medical field, so this whole thing is waaaay out of my area of expertise. That said, I do love a good discussion, and this one is especially interesting.

We are on opposing sides of the political spectrum, you on the right, I on the left. That said, I am pleased this discussion has remained both informative and civil. I’ve also learnt a lot. Thank you for adding a bit of intellectual pleasure to an otherwise boring day.

@72 that is a simplistic view of global economics. The OPEC had to cut oil production a few years back because there was a surplus of oil that would cause a Global Crisis. The US is a net exporter of oil and energy independent (link below). If oil prices get too low the US will be fine, we can produce our own oil and control the production at a steady price, but smaller countries that economies depend on oil such as UAE, South Sudan, Norway, etc would collapse if oil prices dropped below $1/gal. So now these countries aren't importing anything and there are probably a couple Governments that collapse or need bail outs. Which probably comes from the US.

If there were major wars in the Middle East and oil production reduced significantly, the US would be fine from a production standpoint but the Global Price would skyrocket and countries that are dependent on oil (China) would have to significantly increase the prices of their exports due to the price of oil increasing costs. Once again Global instability, prices on everything would increase economies would crap the bed, people would lose jobs etc etc etc.

That is why we need stability because natural resources are part of everything we use and live off of.

https://www.ft.com/content/9cbba7b0-12dd-11ea-a7e6-62bf4f9e548a

So... how many weeks before we have the Saudis whispering in Donald's compliant ear that he should be dropping nukes on rapidly advancing Iranian forces headed across Iraq terrain towards Riyadh?

How long before Trump claims dangerous Iraqis are coming across the Mexican border and tries to write funding for a wall into a wartime spending bill?

...and have Senator Bubba (R - Mississippi) and Faux News mouthbreathers all agreeing that that was a GREAT idea.

Let me get this logic straight.
Step one: Trump does repeated airstrikes within Iraqi borders near populated areas killing dozens (to possibly hundreds) of civilians (BTW Iraq is our so-called ALLY in the region after the bang-up success of the decade long, $2-3 Trillion US occupation).

Step Two: These airstrikes spark outrage and protests. Thousands of Iraqi's gather outside the US embassy to protest. A civil right WE said they had after WE "liberated" them from that evil dictator Saddam Hussein. So they do. Thousands of outraged Iraqis engage in their right to protest our airstrikes in their borders.

Step Tree: Trump responds to protest about airstrikes by DOING AN AIRSTRIKE on one the largest most crowded civilian international airports in the middle east. Killing civilians. All to kill an Iranian general. Committing an act or war against a sovereign nation, Iran.

Yup. Sound Legit. So Trump Trolls are cool if like if Iran did an airstrike at Heathrow to kill Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark A. Milley.

I'm sure the trolls would be super psyched if, say, the Chinese did an Airstrike at SeaTac to kill who ever they deemed a "terrorist."

Totally cool with that. Totally legal.

Trump Trolls two months ago:
"Yeah. Trump ain't no warmonger like Obama! He's withdrawing our troops from Syria! We don't need no more middle east entanglements!"

Trump Trolls Today:
"Yeah! Trump is finally dealing with Iran (-- by bombing a civilian airport in Iraq? --) and sending troops to the middle east!"

And The Inevitable Trump criticizes Trump Tweets:

"In order to get elected, ‪@BarackObama‬ will start a war with Iran.
~Trump Nov 29, 2011"

"Now that Obama’s poll numbers are in tailspin – watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate.
~Trump Oct. 9, 2012 "

"Don't let Obama play the Iran card in order to start a war in order to get elected--be careful Republicans!
~Trump Oct. 22, 2012"

"Barack Obama will attack Iran in the not too distant future because it will help him win the election
~ Trump Nov 14, 2011 (repeated 14X)"

Post #76 works equally plausibly for both #74 & #75

"Today (and for the foreseeable future) we are oil independent."

HAHAHAHA!

God you are dumbshit. Do you know what a traded commodity is? Do you have any idea how that works?

Oil is a COMMODITY.

Any oil pulled out of the ground anywhere in the world is sold on a world market. There is no "our" oil. There is oil that is pulled out of the ground in North America (heavily subsidizes by the US tax payer, BTW) and placed in a commodities market.

And that market is totally and utterly dependent on GLOBAL prices.

If there is war in the middle east EVERYONES oil prices spike. Not just because of the disruption but because of speculation.

Wait and see. You will know we are in trouble when first Trump attempts to dip into our vanishingly small strategic oil reserves (which are not traded commodity). Bush and Obama did this. But it goes quick. Three to four months later if we're at war oil prices will begin to spike just like they did during both Iraq wars. Trump may luck out and be already a lame duck and can blame the resulting recession on democrats and bail out with all those sweet Saudi "donations."

@80 you are correct, however it would likely be more detrimental to the global economy/US economy to ban the export of oil and retroactively other countries wouldn't sell things with need like lithium etc. As long as commodities stay stable the global economy stays stable.

@79 no reason to be so hostile

@79 oh you are also incorrect check the link in 73. US trades oil and does not need to import to be self sufficient. However, the US does because our refineries are built to process crude oil from the Middle East so we export a lot of oil and bring in oil from the Middle East and Canada.

Commodities prices rise and fall globally. You see it here all the time. An accident in the North Sea effected prices in the US just few years ago.

For fuck sake, it doesn’t matter that much if the oil extracted and refined domestically itself is exported or imported. The commodity itself is traded globally. Futures are traded globally. The market is global.

Other than the actions of a cartel willing to take a loss or buck making more money - it’s taxes, tariffs, subsidies, or a free (Nationalized) supply injected into the market that would stabilize a disrupted commodity.

Us having huge reserves of oil is no immunity to inflation or speculation overseas. not unless we nationalized that oil.

Ps. Better way of saying this: The only thing protect by US domestic oil reserves/production is US oil company profits. Not the consumer. There is no reason for US producers not to raise prices if every other producer does. They are not going to miss out on profit if they can get it.

@83/4 see 73. Were basically saying the same thing except it is in the best interest of the world to keep oil prices stable in a certain range ~$50-$80 a drum

Charlie Mudede is being a bit of a drama queen here.

A terrorist has been blowed up, and Charlie weeps for him.

President Trump has done a wonderful thing. #tangeringatang2020

The Mideast: Quarrels with borders.

88, 90,

No war but the class war.

Fuck business.

https://youtu.be/RQthFDpYCys

@8 pat L for the WIN! My father, a U.S. Navy Korean War veteran said exactly the same thing: Ike warned us. Did we listen?