Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-30-2020, 02:06 PM
 
19,573 posts, read 8,451,514 times
Reputation: 10096

Advertisements

President Trump told Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman that if he did not cut oil production, then the US would withdraw military support. Without US Military support, the House of Saud would fall very quickly, so this was an offer that MBS could not refuse. And he did not refuse.

Quote:
Trump told Saudis: Cut oil supply or lose U.S. military support

In an April 2 phone call, Trump told Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman that unless the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) started cutting oil production, he would be powerless to stop lawmakers from passing legislation to withdraw U.S. troops from the kingdom, four sources familiar with the matter told Reuters.

Trump delivered the message to the crown prince 10 days before the announcement of production cuts. The kingdom’s de facto leader was so taken aback by the threat that he ordered his aides out of the room so he could continue the discussion in private, according to a U.S. source who was briefed on the discussion by senior administration officials.

The effort illustrated Trump’s strong desire to protect the U.S. oil industry from a historic price meltdown as governments shut down economies worldwide to fight the virus. It also reflected a telling reversal of Trump’s longstanding criticism of the oil cartel, which he has blasted for raising energy costs for Americans with supply cuts that usually lead to higher gasoline prices. Now, Trump was asking OPEC to slash output.
Some people are pleased to see the US oil industry devastated and hundreds of thousands of people loose their jobs in this industry - mostly pretty good paying jobs. In some cases, this is because they support an insane environmental agenda which is simply not achievable at the current time, regardless of their naive fantasies to the contrary. Others are just plain short sited and selfish, as they like the cheaper gasoline prices they have to pay to fill their cars.

We need to be as self sufficient in oil as we can be until the technologies are developed to provide transportation in a way that is superior to that provided by petroleum based fuels. We are not there yet. We are not particularly close to being there yet. Some day, I expect we will get there, but it will be decades at least.

President Trump's bold move is a well timed come-uppance for a dictator and a regime that has gotten too big for their proverbial britches. In response, the Saudis are backing down and increasing production. It may be a while before we see the full results, as there is such a huge surge in oil in storage right now as a result of the lower demand from the worldwide shutdowns, that the prices are going to take a while to recover.

However, WTI is back up to $18.91 just a little while ago. That is up over $2 a barrel in just a few hours. So that is progress, in any case.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-30-2020, 02:14 PM
 
Location: Florida
76,918 posts, read 47,227,002 times
Reputation: 14749
He is offering Saudi Arabia to Iran & Russia on a silver platter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2020, 02:19 PM
 
19,573 posts, read 8,451,514 times
Reputation: 10096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
He is offering Saudi Arabia to Iran & Russia on a silver platter.
If they refused to stand down, perhaps. But that would mean the fall of the House of Saud, which is literally an existential threat for MBS. So he stood down.

Would Obama have taken such bold leadership? Or Joe Biden? Bwahaha.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2020, 02:21 PM
 
Location: Sonoran Desert
38,972 posts, read 50,909,546 times
Reputation: 28149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713 View Post
President Trump told Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman that if he did not cut oil production, then the US would withdraw military support. Without US Military support, the House of Saud would fall very quickly, so this was an offer that MBS could not refuse. And he did not refuse.

Some people are pleased to see the US oil industry devastated and hundreds of thousands of people loose their jobs in this industry - mostly pretty good paying jobs. In some cases, this is because they support an insane environmental agenda which is simply not achievable at the current time, regardless of their naive fantasies to the contrary. Others are just plain short sited and selfish, as they like the cheaper gasoline prices they have to pay to fill their cars.

We need to be as self sufficient in oil as we can be until the technologies are developed to provide transportation in a way that is superior to that provided by petroleum based fuels. We are not there yet. We are not particularly close to being there yet. Some day, I expect we will get there, but it will be decades at least.

President Trump's bold move is a well timed come-uppance for a dictator and a regime that has gotten too big for their proverbial britches. In response, the Saudis are backing down and increasing production. It may be a while before we see the full results, as there is such a huge surge in oil in storage right now as a result of the lower demand from the worldwide shutdowns, that the prices are going to take a while to recover.

However, WTI is back up to $18.91 just a little while ago. That is up over $2 a barrel in just a few hours. So that is progress, in any case.
Did you even read the article you cited? It says that Trump told the Saudis that unless they cut oil production CONGRESS would pass legislation to stop military support - NOT THAT HE WOULD because he does not have that authority anyway (just like Ukraine if you remember). Fear Nancy!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2020, 02:25 PM
 
Location: Tri STATE!!!
8,518 posts, read 3,716,251 times
Reputation: 6349
gimme gas at 50 cents a gallon. let the free market reign right? freeeeeedom.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2020, 02:27 PM
 
Location: Florida
76,918 posts, read 47,227,002 times
Reputation: 14749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713 View Post
If they refused to stand down, perhaps. But that would mean the fall of the House of Saud, which is literally an existential threat for MBS. So he stood down.

Would Obama have taken such bold leadership? Or Joe Biden? Bwahaha.
Yes, it would be end of house of Saud, and expansion Iranian influence.

I dont know if this is bold leadership, or just an unplanned and reckless move. Trump has dishonored lot of agreements, and threatened to dishonor others, so he is fast-tracking US to become an ally who cannot be trusted.

Obama? Who knows, the Saudis didn't play him like they play Trump, so he didn't end up in these situations. I suppose good leadership prevents stuff by being pro-active rather than Trump style reactive. It is better to prevent a fire, rather than try to fight it when its already raging.

Either way, I hope the US oil gets on its feet again one way or another.

PS It seems Trump is denying he said it.

Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 04-30-2020 at 02:36 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2020, 02:28 PM
 
19,573 posts, read 8,451,514 times
Reputation: 10096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponderosa View Post
Did you even read the article you cited? It says that Trump told the Saudis that unless they cut oil production CONGRESS would pass legislation to stop military support - NOT THAT HE WOULD because he does not have that authority anyway (just like Ukraine if you remember). Fear Nancy!
President Trump is also required under the constitution to ratify any such legislation for it to become law. And it is the exective branch of our government - President Donald J. Trump, presiding - who is responsible for us carrying out our foreign policy and negotiations with other nations and national leaders.

What is better? Escalating this conflict by producing legislation targeting one of our few allies in that region? Or negotiating and deal that allows everyone an out and a path to a better place, which is based on their own choice?

The path that President Trump is providing leadership for here is the more mature and more constructive, better path. This was an excellent move by President Trump. And again, this kind of bold and effective leadership is not what we would have gotten from Barack Obama, or that we would ever see from Joe Biden.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2020, 02:36 PM
 
Location: Tri STATE!!!
8,518 posts, read 3,716,251 times
Reputation: 6349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713 View Post
President Trump is also required under the constitution to ratify any such legislation for it to become law. And it is the exective branch of our government - President Donald J. Trump, presiding - who is responsible for us carrying out our foreign policy and negotiations with other nations and national leaders.

What is better? Escalating this conflict by producing legislation targeting one of our few allies in that region? Or negotiating and deal that allows everyone an out and a path to a better place, which is based on their own choice?

The path that President Trump is providing leadership for here is the more mature and more constructive, better path. This was an excellent move by President Trump. And again, this kind of bold and effective leadership is not what we would have gotten from Barack Obama, or that we would ever see from Joe Biden.
We get it. The Kenyan born terrorist ISIS leader Obama is bad and Golden Haired Angelic Genius Trump is all that is good on earth. Has he walked on water yet? geeeeeeeeez. Its gotta be exhausting bowing and kissing your dear leaders feet that many times a day.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2020, 02:47 PM
 
Location: Sonoran Desert
38,972 posts, read 50,909,546 times
Reputation: 28149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713 View Post
President Trump is also required under the constitution to ratify any such legislation for it to become law. And it is the exective branch of our government - President Donald J. Trump, presiding - who is responsible for us carrying out our foreign policy and negotiations with other nations and national leaders.

What is better? Escalating this conflict by producing legislation targeting one of our few allies in that region? Or negotiating and deal that allows everyone an out and a path to a better place, which is based on their own choice?

The path that President Trump is providing leadership for here is the more mature and more constructive, better path. This was an excellent move by President Trump. And again, this kind of bold and effective leadership is not what we would have gotten from Barack Obama, or that we would ever see from Joe Biden.
It is always better to let the market work it out. Using US military aid as a tool to manipulate oil markets in favor of US multi-nationals and their billionaire investors is bad policy. It's how we got into quagmires like Iraq.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2020, 02:48 PM
 
3,339 posts, read 1,253,015 times
Reputation: 3156
Quote:
Originally Posted by AfriqueNY View Post
We get it. The Kenyan born terrorist ISIS leader Obama is bad and Golden Haired Angelic Genius Trump is all that is good on earth. Has he walked on water yet? geeeeeeeeez. Its gotta be exhausting bowing and kissing your dear leaders feet that many times a day.
Black Man Bad.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top