Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Rhiannon on January 04, 2016, 02:36:54 PM
-
The current situation with Saudi Arabia and Iran appears to be a religious conflict, but actually this is all about the oil price. Obama allowed US shale oil to flood the market in order to cripple the Russian economy - didn't quite pull it off - to which the Saudis responded with more production in the belief they could put the US shale production out of business. They couldn't, and now the Saudis are in hock up to the eyeballs with their currency on the verge of collapse. So the fact Iran can also now contribute significant amounts of oil to the world market and force the price of crude even lower is seriously bad news for them. They've executed a man in order to fuel conflict with Iran in the hope they can provoke them to cross the line and end up being isolated from the global market once more.
On a day when the Chinese stock market cratered the price of crude has gone up, solely because of the Saudi/Iran situation and fears over supply.
If Saudi Arabia collapses and can no longer defend itself, IS has significant support among ordinary Saudis.
-
On a slight tangent, should we be bombarding Cameron with requests to cut ties with Saudi Arabia, stopping any more arms being exported there and freezing their hierarchy's funds and properties here in the UK? Or would that actually help ISIS?
By the way, I think that - even without the complication of oil - the religious issue would be riding high. The Saudis like to make out that they are the spokespersons for the Arabs.
-
Well the facts are shale oil production in the USA was going all out long before the trouble with Russia began. And Iran has a long history of stirring up trouble in Arabia and this is exactly what that Shia cleric was doing for some time. It is true that Arabia has kept up oil production in the silly belief that it would put shale oil production in the USA out of business.
-
I wonder if Cameron will say anything about the Saudi executions? I suppose they are our new best friends, though.
-
I wonder if Cameron will say anything about the Saudi executions? I suppose they are our new best friends, though.
Isn't it time that he was shamed into doing so by those who either voted for him, or who voted agin him?
-
Isn't it time that he was shamed into doing so by those who either voted for him, or who voted agin him?
Would it make the slightest jot of difference? No.
-
Would it make the slightest jot of difference? No.
Exactly.
You cannot shame someone who is shameless.
I was reading this thoroughly depressing piece earlier - if you needed anymore evidence of the corrupt, craven nature of this shower then here it is:
http://www.thecanary.co/2015/11/04/osborne-just-gave-a-gift-to-his-friends-in-the-city-which-added-135bn-to-the-national-debt/
-
The religious conflict has been going on for decades - the names of the protagonists change with time, but Shia and Sunni have been at loggerheads for generations.
Oil is the excuse this decade, but that doesn't mean that it's actually about oil.
O.
-
This particular execution, at this time, is. Saudi Arabia is on the brink of collapse (personally I can't see it surviving even with huge bail-outs from outside) and the impact from Iranian oil hitting the market could be the thing that tips it over the edge. You could argue that the Saudis regard saving themselves as a religious duty but they can only do that through successfully manipulating the price of crude in their favour - something they have spectacularly failed to do so far.
-
Would it make the slightest jot of difference? No.
I think it might - after all, there is the epetition process which, if enough signatures are collected, triggers a debate in the House. Are you suggesting that there aren't enough British people who care about this issue to raise that number of signatures.
-
There might be a debate. Followed by the House not doing very much, just like the UN haven't. We have weapons to sell to them and joint ventures to reap. And we don't want to spook Qatar given that they own some of the most significant parts of London.
-
There might be a debate. Followed by the House not doing very much, just like the UN haven't. We have weapons to sell to them and joint ventures to reap. And we don't want to spook Qatar given that they own some of the most significant parts of London.
In other words, you don't believe that the majority of MPs of all parties have the welfare of the country at heart on issues like this?
-
In other words, you don't believe that the majority of MPs of all parties have the welfare of the country at heart on issues like this?
They're MPs. Of course they don't, idiot.
-
There might be a debate. Followed by the House not doing very much, just like the UN haven't. We have weapons to sell to them and joint ventures to reap. And we don't want to spook Qatar given that they own some of the most significant parts of London.
I think its more to do with; if not the current regime in Saudi the country would be more of a basket case with its cross hairs on the West.
-
I think its more to do with; if not the current regime in Saudi the country would be more of a basket case with its cross hairs on the West.
Well yes, Saudi is IS without the expansionism. We've been keeping them sweet for decades out of fear of what happens if we don't.
-
They're MPs. Of course they don't, idiot.
That seems to fly in the face of various other posts you've made over the months suggesting that they do care. Which is it?
-
That seems to fly in the face of various other posts you've made over the months suggesting that they do care. Which is it?
The word that you're missing here is "majority."
-
I was talking about this crisis over the weekend with someone I know in the O&G industry, and they said that if IS had aircraft with bombing capability it would take two runs to knock out the entire Saudi supply chain - fields and pipes. Presumably Iran do have aircraft that can do this.