Current Affairs General US politics (ie, not POTUS related)
- Thread starter Dylan
- Start date
- Status
She’s an absolute diamond
tsubaki
Player Valuation: £90m
Gesture politics at its most stupid that - all it will result in is a slap down for him and embarrassment for Biden, whilst OPEC+ feel pushed together more and guarantees further cuts in production in response.
As I said in my earlier post, if we want to punish them for the decision to cut production then we should cut consumption - not only is it relatively easy to do (especially here in the UK) it is going to result in a whole load of other wins in the short (cost of living), medium (health benefits) and long terms (health benefits and the environment). It will also make that weapon (oil price rises) less effective over time, and it is almost impossible for them to do anything about.
If we reduced the number of registered cars in the UK to the 2010 number, we'd lose 3.4 million of them (just over 10% of the total). Taking it back to 1994 would result in 10 million fewer cars. With a couple of years of really easy policy changes we could reduce our exposure to petrol and diesel significantly, and if coordinated with the rest of the G7 (and other energy consuming countries) we could do something that is demonstrably in their, our and the rest of the world's interest.
Agree on cutting consumption/investing in non-oil alternatives sources the best approach but can’t say I’m sorry if we stop giving Saudis arms even if only short term.
tsubaki
Player Valuation: £90m
The problem is that someone will give them arms, its a huge market and everyone needs the money (especially now that oil is more expensive). They are also still quite dependent on all that military support; reduce that support and they reduce their dependence on us.
The oil price is the biggest stick they (and the UAE) have, and its best to deal with it in a way that removes that stick from them.
Someone will probably still sell them arms, just happy that it wouldn’t be US ones - probably overly simplistic on my part but hate supplying that regime with anything.
tsubaki
Player Valuation: £90m
Indeed, but the same argument applies in terms of consumption - they consume a lot of those arms and so they are dependent on their suppliers. Cut consumption and you cut dependence.
Martin Alvito
Player Valuation: £50m
We're better off selling them the arms, because then we can deny them repair parts. I think Bob is making a mistake here. I get that there's an election coming up and that it's fairly critical, but we can only cut the Saudis off once. Doing it now won't get us anything. There are ways to register displeasure publicly for domestic audience consumption without going all the way up the ladder to a blanket freeze.
Eventually yes but presumably weapons systems aren’t that easy to just switch like you would between say commodities and who supplies the new systems would be important.
There would be significant costs associated with combining systems that are not designed to work together and you still would need maintenance for the existing US systems unless you planned to obsolete those entirely.
I disagree. Not on a strategic/realist basis - I just morally find the selling of arms to that regime repugnant especially since the peace deal in Yemen recently expired.
Yemen: US-made weapon used in air strike that killed scores in escalation of Saudi-led coalition attacks
The Saudi-led coalition used a precision-guided munition made in the United States in last week’s air strike on a detention centre in Sa’adah, north-western Yemen, which, according to Doctors without Borders, killed at least 80 people and injured over 200, Amnesty International said today. The...
www.amnesty.org
Not that the selling of arms is often a great place to be morally.
Well, seeing as the US are a guarantor for the GFA, Pelosi and Biden’s stance on NI is perfectly rational.
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
There are two guarantors to the GFA, the U.K. and the ROI. There are two signatories to the GFA, the U.K. and ROI. Neither the USA nor the EU have any legal part of it. Neither Biden nor Pelosi have anything to do with it other than cultivate the Irish vote…..
the chair of the house ways and means committee says the US are a guarantor of the GFA.
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
The Chair can say whatever it likes but it is incorrect. No one other than the U.K. and ROI are guarantors of anything. Clinton did a great job in being an honest broker, but that’s it, it was good foreign policy, but it gave the USA no other part in respect of NI and it’s border with ROI. Some Americans may imagine it does but it doesn’t. Neither the U.K. nor ROI want any kind of border, only the EU wants a border to ‘protect’ their single market, completely ignoring the fact that the U.K. also has a single market, a single market established long before the EU came into existence. But Biden and Pelosi value the EU and the Irish vote more than the U.K. and that’s fair enough, that’s their choice. If they don’t wish a trade deal with the U.K. then fine. However it would be nice if they actually understood the situation. Try to help by all means, but merely taking the EU position and ignoring the fact that NI is part of the U.K., just like Alaska is part of the USA does no one any favours. The sooner they are both gone the better…..
BirkenheadBlue
Player Valuation: £70m
So Tulsi Gabbard has announced she’s “no longer a Democrat” (as if she ever was in anything but paperwork).
Anyone want to set the over/under on how long before she’s peddling The Big Lie?
Anyone want to set the over/under on how long before she’s peddling The Big Lie?
- Status