International News
See other International News Articles
Title: Saudi Arabia may go broke before the US oil industry buckles
Source:
The Telegraph
URL Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ ... e-US-oil-industry-buckles.html
Published: Aug 6, 2015
Author: Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
Post Date: 2015-08-06 12:13:39 by nativist nationalist
Keywords: None
Views: 5222
Comments: 39
It is too late for OPEC to stop the shale revolution. The cartel faces the prospect of surging US output whenever oil prices rise If the oil futures market is correct, Saudi Arabia will start running into trouble within two years. It will be in existential crisis by the end of the decade. The contract price of US crude oil for delivery in December 2020 is currently $62.05, implying a drastic change in the economic landscape for the Middle East and the petro-rentier states. The Saudis took a huge gamble last November when they stopped supporting prices and opted instead to flood the market and drive out rivals, boosting their own output to 10.6m barrels a day (b/d) into the teeth of the downturn. Bank of America says OPEC is now "effectively dissolved". The cartel might as well shut down its offices in Vienna to save money. If the aim was to choke the US shale industry, the Saudis have misjudged badly, just as they misjudged the growing shale threat at every stage for eight years. "It is becoming apparent that non-OPEC producers are not as responsive to low oil prices as had been thought, at least in the short- run," said the Saudi central bank in its latest stability report. "The main impact has been to cut back on developmental drilling of new oil wells, rather than slowing the flow of oil from existing wells. This requires more patience," it said. One Saudi expert was blunter. "The policy hasn't worked and it will never work," he said. By causing the oil price to crash, the Saudis and their Gulf allies have certainly killed off prospects for a raft of high-cost ventures in the Russian Arctic, the Gulf of Mexico, the deep waters of the mid-Atlantic, and the Canadian tar sands. Consultants Wood Mackenzie say the major oil and gas companies have shelved 46 large projects, deferring $200bn of investments. The problem for the Saudis is that US shale frackers are not high-cost. They are mostly mid-cost, and as I reported from the CERAWeek energy forum in Houston, experts at IHS think shale companies may be able to shave those costs by 45pc this year - and not only by switching tactically to high- yielding wells. Advanced pad drilling techniques allow frackers to launch five or ten wells in different directions from the same site. Smart drill-bits with computer chips can seek out cracks in the rock. New dissolvable plugs promise to save $300,000 a well. "We've driven down drilling costs by 50pc, and we can see another 30pc ahead," said John Hess, head of the Hess Corporation. It was the same story from Scott Sheffield, head of Pioneer Natural Resources. "We have just drilled an 18,000 ft well in 16 days in the Permian Basin. Last year it took 30 days," he said. The North American rig-count has dropped to 664 from 1,608 in October but output still rose to a 43-year high of 9.6m b/d June. It has only just begun to roll over. "The freight train of North American tight oil has kept on coming," said Rex Tillerson, head of Exxon Mobil. He said the resilience of the sister industry of shale gas should be a cautionary warning to those reading too much into the rig-count. Gas prices have collapsed from $8 to $2.78 since 2009, and the number of gas rigs has dropped 1,200 to 209. Yet output has risen by 30pc over that period. Until now, shale drillers have been cushioned by hedging contracts. The stress test will come over coming months as these expire. But even if scores of over-leveraged wild-catters go bankrupt as funding dries up, it will not do OPEC any good. The wells will still be there. The technology and infrastructure will still be there. Stronger companies will mop up on the cheap, taking over the operations. Once oil climbs back to $60 or even $55 - since the threshold keeps falling - they will crank up production almost instantly. OPEC now faces a permanent headwind. Each rise in price will be capped by a surge in US output. The only constraint is the scale of US reserves that can be extracted at mid-cost, and these may be bigger than originally supposed, not to mention the parallel possibilities in Argentina and Australia, or the possibility for "clean fracking" in China as plasma pulse technology cuts water needs. Mr Sheffield said the Permian Basin in Texas could alone produce 5-6m b/d in the long-term, more than Saudi Arabia's giant Ghawar field, the biggest in the world. Saudi Arabia is effectively beached. It relies on oil for 90pc of its budget revenues. There is no other industry to speak of, a full fifty years after the oil bonanza began. Citizens pay no tax on income, interest, or stock dividends. Subsidized petrol costs twelve cents a litre at the pump. Electricity is given away for 1.3 cents a kilowatt-hour. Spending on patronage exploded after the Arab Spring as the kingdom sought to smother dissent. The International Monetary Fund estimates that the budget deficit will reach 20pc of GDP this year, or roughly $140bn. The 'fiscal break-even price' is $106. Far from retrenching, King Salman is spraying money around, giving away $32bn in a coronation bonus for all workers and pensioners. He has launched a costly war against the Houthis in Yemen and is engaged in a massive military build-up - entirely reliant on imported weapons - that will propel Saudi Arabia to fifth place in the world defence ranking. The Saudi royal family is leading the Sunni cause against a resurgent Iran, battling for dominance in a bitter struggle between Sunni and Shia across the Middle East. "Right now, the Saudis have only one thing on their mind and that is the Iranians. They have a very serious problem. Iranian proxies are running Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon," said Jim Woolsey, the former head of the US Central Intelligence Agency. Money began to leak out of Saudi Arabia after the Arab Spring, with net capital outflows reaching 8pc of GDP annually even before the oil price crash. The country has since been burning through its foreign reserves at a vertiginous pace. The reserves peaked at $737bn in August of 2014. They dropped to $672 in May. At current prices they are falling by at least $12bn a month. Khalid Alsweilem, a former official at the Saudi central bank and now at Harvard University, said the fiscal deficit must be covered almost dollar for dollar by drawing down reserves. The Saudi buffer is not particularly large given the country's fixed exchange system. Kuwait, Qatar, and Abu Dhabi all have three times greater reserves per capita. "We are much more vulnerable. That is why we are the fourth rated sovereign in the Gulf at AA-. We cannot afford to lose our cushion over the next two years," he said. Standard & Poor's lowered its outlook to "negative" in February. "We view Saudi Arabia's economy as undiversified and vulnerable to a steep and sustained decline in oil prices," it said. Mr Alsweilem wrote in a Harvard report that Saudi Arabia would have an extra trillion of assets by now if it had adopted the Norwegian model of a sovereign wealth fund to recyle the money instead of treating it as a piggy bank for the finance ministry. The report has caused storm in Riyadh. "We were lucky before because the oil price recovered in time. But we can't count on that again," he said. OPEC have left matters too late, though perhaps there is little they could have done to combat the advances of American technology. In hindsight, it was a strategic error to hold prices so high, for so long, allowing shale frackers - and the solar industry - to come of age. The genie cannot be put back in the bottle. The Saudis are now trapped. Even if they could do a deal with Russia and orchestrate a cut in output to boost prices - far from clear - they might merely gain a few more years of high income at the cost of bringing forward more shale production later on. Yet on the current course their reserves may be down to $200bn by the end of 2018. The markets will react long before this, seeing the writing on the wall. Capital flight will accelerate. The government can slash investment spending for a while - as it did in the mid-1980s - but in the end it must face draconian austerity. It cannot afford to prop up Egypt and maintain an exorbitant political patronage machine across the Sunni world. Social spending is the glue that holds together a medieval Wahhabi regime at a time of fermenting unrest among the Shia minority of the Eastern Province, pin-prick terrorist attacks from ISIS, and blowback from the invasion of Yemen. Diplomatic spending is what underpins the Saudi sphere of influence caught in a Middle East version of Europe's Thirty Year War, and still reeling from the after-shocks of a crushed democratic revolt. We may yet find that the US oil industry has greater staying power than the rickety political edifice behind OPEC. 
> 
> 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: nativist nationalist, Pericles (#0)
One Saudi expert was blunter. "The policy hasn't worked and it will never work," he said. The Saudis thought America would cap its wells but they are continuing on, even as every oil depot and pipeline and refinery in America is at capacity. The American oil industry called the Saudi bluff. The Saudis were losing $40 billion a year initially. But those losses will accelerate as soon as they raises their oil prices, making American and Russian oil quite profitable. The Saudis waited about 5 years longer than they should have to drop prices to kill of American shale. And now they can't put the genie back in the bottle. And it couldn't come at a worse time as the Saudis and emirates ramp up to face the Iranian challenge and that posed by ISIS/al-Qaeda/al-Nusra, all of them violent Sunni factions who want to depose the Saudi royal family. At the same time, the Obama deal with Iran means that the Saudis must now fund their own nukes program fully, an expensive undertaking. Back when the Saudis were flush, they funded the Paki nuke program, possibly receiving warheads/missiles in exchange (which have been stored in Pakistan). But to meet the threat of a full-blown Iranian nuke program and their emerging ICBM threat in ten years from now, the Saudis will have to spend very heavily on nukes and everything that goes along with such a program.
Production costs have gotten cheaper for some shale and for alternate energy also.
Plus their war in Yemen; that's got to be a drain on the wallet. I love to see the House of Saud in this type of bind, even better if Saudi gets closer to China. A Sunni-Shia version of the Thirty Year War, with Russia and China backing opposite sides, and America on the sidelines; that is the stuff dreams are made of.
Also, there are the inevitable scales of economy as you ramp up production. You can't predict them precisely but they are pretty routine in technology. You get bigger because you've gotten bigger. You capture mindshare for your new tech then you realize economies of scale as more and more consumers buy into your tech.
It has been expensive but the Saudis have a tremendous arsenal for a country and military of small size. No matter how rich you are, you can only fire so many missiles and tank shells and use your jets. And the Saudis lack real expertise in occupying and controlling hostile territory. You can't ever finally win from the air or with missiles or artillery. That is their real weakness, not any lack of arms or jets that we've sold them like hotcakes. Early in the Obama years, Congress approved a $50 billion purchase of jets and helicopters and missiles and all kinds of military hardware. One of the largest single orders ever placed and approved, outside of our NATO allies. It was an astonishing purchase. And yet, the Houthi are resisting with some success against the Saudis unleashing a good dose from that arsenal. Lack of a real ground military, IMO. And they are quaking in their boots at the thought of a nuclear Iran. On top of that, the Yankees are spoiling their oil monopoly and crushing their economic power.
We know where 15 of the 19 hijackers came from; they are an ally to America like Judas was an ally to Jesus.
Actually, 16 as I recall it. The other 3 were Egyptian and Lebanese and Yemeni (just from memory but that's my recall). Update: I recalled wrong according to Wiki:
Yemen used to be 2 countries. I admit I don't know how different the two Yemen's are ethnically or religiously (I know the Houthis are Shiite) but it could be the old Cold War split of Yemen where one was Soviet aligned and the other USA aligned was underlined by tribal or religious divisions. The Saudis can probably help push back the Houthis using local forces where they went outside of their tribal zones but would probably fail to defeat them on their home turf.
Goes back to a few conversations we had in the recent past. No matter how much technology or superior weapons a nation procures, the leadership behind it all from Platoon level to Corps level is what matters most. I would put in the thousands, the number of military and/or civilian contract advisors the US and other Western nations have in Saudi Arabia to help train on and maintain (maintenance) the equipment we sold them. Add to that a pampered officer corps which has connections (even shirt tail) at the very lowest levels to the royal family and oil barons. I have a retired Army LTC buddy over there now and his job is to advise mid to senior level officers on tactics and the operational art. Well that is what his job description says, but what he really does is write operations orders for these officers, prepare their planning documents, and presentation slides. The pampered officer corps in SA don't want to do any staff work or get involved in the details like our officer corps will do in the US Army. So either SA decides it needs to send in their own ground troops to do their job or they 'hire out' Palestinians to do the dirty work, much like Iran hires out Hezbollah. "When Americans reach out for values of faith, family, and caring for the needy, they're saying, "We want the word of God. We want to face the future with the Bible.'"---Ronald Reagan
It never works. When things hit the fan, you have to do your own grunt work. And you have to be prepared for it all along. Our military and the Brits have always excelled at this. You can't hire foreigners to do real fighting for you. It doesn't work.
It works against press ganged rebel armies like the South African mercs used against the Liberian rebel armies. But against a dedicated fanatical religious based home grown movement like the Houthis? That won't work.
Especially when they are already hardened to the cruelties of war, as all the Yemenis are over the last decade.
Especially when they are already hardened to the cruelties of war, as all the Yemenis are over the last decade. The Liberian wars were pretty horrific - I mean Mad Max cannibalistic horrific but the rebels were drugged out 12 year olds made to wear dresses. The South African mercs made short work of them. The Houthis are another animal all together: These are the Houthis:
Shale isn't the limitless resource that it's fracked-up to be...
But against a dedicated fanatical religious based home grown movement like the Houthis? That won't work. A lot of places over there use Yemenis as mercenaries already. I'm not sure which ones (I'd guess Sunni), but these folks are no strangers to war. Isolated clannish mountain peoples often tend to excel at war, the British employed the Gurkhas; and where the rubber met the road the highland Scots were indispensable in building their empire. Today we see the mountain Kurds cleaning ISIS's clock, where flatland Arab Shia drop rifles and run from a force a tenth their size. Saudi opened a can of worms, and they'll need someone to bail them out. I hope it is not us; President Trump will be able to tell them to pound sand; but cuckservatives like JEB will be happy to spill American blood on their behalf. And cuckservatives mouthpieces like Kevin D. Williamson will weave fanciful stories of how the Saudi-Yemini border is the "frontline of freedom!"
That was probably the case all along. The nation state in those areas is an imposition. and "free" North Yemen was no stranger to conflict. Nasser went in the North Yemen in the name of pan Arab nationalism, and came to rue the day. Saudi needed to be bailed out, and they had to suffer the inconvenience of pretending to outlaw slavery as part of the fiction of being part of the "free" world. In the end the Six Day War forced Nasser to withdraw from Yemen. It'll be interesting to see if Saudi tries to draw Egypt in this time, and how well it goes over in Egypt; that was a half century ago after all. And Saudi can cast it as a religious war; with some truth actually.
In your dreams. Trump looked pretty rattled last night. So far, he's gotten the kid glove treatment from libmedia who hope he'll destroy the GOP for them.
In your dreams. Trump looked pretty rattled last night. So far, he's gotten the kid glove treatment from libmedia who hope he'll destroy the GOP for them. Trump did not look rattled - but he had no come backs to counter the claims or witty retorts. On the question of him saying bad things about women - he should have looked at the FOX babe and said, that is a clown question and we are here to fix real problems not if I used angry words at someone over twitter. On raise your hands or not - I would have said, FOX tv is not the Republican party and I won't take an oath to you, a TV show. Or something like that. OK, it took me a while to think of those come back lines - but that is what debate prep is for. and FOX is literally easy to figure out what they will ask. So my advise to Trump is if you are for real get a real crew around you. I actually don't think Trump has any sort of campaign team? I actually no longer know the state of mind of the American conservative base that watches FOX news and listens to the right wing radio. I stopped paying attention to those a while ago so I can't tell if Trump did good in their eyes or not. When Bush would stumble for answers that actually seemed to make him more popular with the base because he sounded like "one of them". That is the theory I heard, anyways. So Trump maybe is attacked in more refined circles for calling Rosie a fat pig but Joe Blow Six-pack, esquire may get a kick out of it.
I'd say the closest he is likely to have is Roger Stone. For what that's worth. I would bet he doesn't have the one thing that every successful candidate needs: a campaign manager that can tell him off when he's being an asshole. Guys like Trump don't tolerate that from anyone; their ego is too colossal. No one comes out of the box ready to run a national presidential campaign. Trump has a long history of making degrading remarks about women. Megan Kelly, much as I dislike her, was not wrong about that. She didn't pin him on it and force him to answer but that issue will return. She did do more to pin him on "how long have you been a Republican" question but, again, she didn't pin him and force him to answer the question after he veered off babbling about anything but the answer to the question he was asked. If Trump had a real campaign, about half the gotchas scored on him last night would have failed. As it was, he took some fairly serious damage. These are unforced errors.
I don't disagree with anything you said. I am a reluctant Trump supporter. I jumped on the bandwagon and I am still on even though the hay lining the wagon is uncomfortable. With that said, Trump's performance may have stunk last night to you and me - but what does Joe Six-Pack, esq. think?
I dunno if it matters. The kind of people who watch a debate the summer before the primaries are probably not exactly Joe Six-Pack types. They're political nerds of some flavor.
The kind of people who watch a debate the summer before the primaries are probably not exactly Joe Six-Pack types. They're political nerds of some flavor. I am under the assumption Trump drew in more than the nerds to watch. Which brings up a question - if you are not a politics nerd and barely pay attention to debates - what would you think of last night? Would you be more upset at the tones of the questions to Trump or his answers.
And lets not forget all the billions they spend funding terrorists as well as building Wahhabi Mosques/spy and terror centers all over America and Europe. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
HEY! Be more respectful about how you talk about Boy Jorge's Sugar Daddies! He ordered the invasion of Iraq to protect them,and all they had ever done to him was bail him out of bankruptcy in the oil business by buying him out,and then giving him a 6-figure no-show consulting contract that gave him the ability to buy the Texas Rangers. I'm guessing they did that in case they ever needed to know how to go bankrupt in the oil bidnez. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Maybe the non-nerds were more interested in the local baseball team, following celebs or social media, doing some BBQ and drinking beer. C'mon, people that watch an early political debate in August with 17 candidates are not yer Average Joe.
They've spent big, taking over subsidizing Egypt from us. They pledged $15 billion over something like 5 years. They took Egypt away from us. I think the Saudis were overconfident in their ability to manipulate us and global oil prices. And a lot of other players have called their bluff, starting with the American shale industry and its investors. This is where history meets big money.
For all their conservatism, the Saudis fear the Islamic Brotherhood - probably because it is not a Saudi waahbi based Islamist group but one that grew out of Egypt on its own and is anti-monarchist.
Who at the state dept thought it was a good idea to back the Muslim brotherhood take over? Since the State Dept used the "democracy and human rights" thing as a weapon - when confronted in cases of democracy gone bad they can't be seen to be hypocrites and back military coups is best I can think of. It is the USA's foreign policy buying it's own propaganda talking points.
Hillary. Who else?
Hillary. Who else? Fuck. I can't do 4 to 8 years of Clinton.
I recall a number of years ago where the rank and file in the SA army would hire foreigners to dig their foxholes for them.
Fox News was the biggest supporter of Operation Iraqi Freedom. As a result of Fox News supported policies; women are now sold as sex slaves in Iraq.
He can hire some good talent. Pat Buchanan would be a good one, lots of experience, and he has a gift for knowing when to apply historic analogs. Trump does have some good political instincts, some of which he just seems to know intuitively. Like picking a fight with McCain; he was about the worst guy the GOP ever nominated, if you can tie your opponents to McCain you can gain a lot of leverage. I would have chosen my words differently on the POW issue, using the point that Benedict Arnold was once a war hero too. When the rest of RINO pack jumps to McCain's defense they're providing you with ammunition to use against them. That seems to good thing about Trump, he's looking pretty good based on the enemies he's making now.
About right. During the Gulf War in 90-91 I was a 2LT. I watched a SA artillery unit occupy a firing point using the best in French artillery technology (which was very good, better than we had at the time). They occupied the position using old fashioned aiming stakes instead of the French fire control systems. Amazing to watch as the SF advisor and artillery mentors tried to tell them to use the fire control systems. We left amazed hours later. Two days pass and the SA artillery unit received Iraqi mortar fire and displaced and left for home base. We were later told they did that in order to avoid "losing face." "When Americans reach out for values of faith, family, and caring for the needy, they're saying, "We want the word of God. We want to face the future with the Bible.'"---Ronald Reagan
Then hope Obama sticks the shiv to Hillary and elevates Biden.
So can we blame Megan Kelly for ISIS sex slaves? Sure, that makes sense. I recall the other networks being pretty gung ho too. And they sent plenty of embedded reporters to the invasion too.
So how far away was "home base"?? 200km. Long way.
"When Americans reach out for values of faith, family, and caring for the needy, they're saying, "We want the word of God. We want to face the future with the Bible.'"---Ronald Reagan
Yea I would say that is way outside the range of those mortars, just being safe/careful you know...
"The main impact has been to cut back on developmental drilling of new oil wells, rather than slowing the flow of oil from existing wells. This requires more patience," it said.
Social spending is the glue that holds together a medieval Wahhabi regime at a time of fermenting unrest among the Shia minority of the Eastern Province, pin-prick terrorist attacks from ISIS, and blowback from the invasion of Yemen.
#2. To: TooConservative (#1)
#3. To: TooConservative (#1)
At the same time, the Obama deal with Iran means that the Saudis must now fund their own nukes program fully, an expensive undertaking. Back when the Saudis were flush, they funded the Paki nuke program, possibly receiving warheads/missiles in exchange (which have been stored in Pakistan). But to meet the threat of a full-blown Iranian nuke program and their emerging ICBM threat in ten years from now, the Saudis will have to spend very heavily on nukes and everything that goes along with such a program.
#4. To: Pericles (#2)
Production costs have gotten cheaper for some shale and for alternate energy also.
#5. To: nativist nationalist, redleghunter (#3)
Plus their war in Yemen; that's got to be a drain on the wallet.
#6. To: TooConservative (#5)
On top of that, the Yankees are spoiling their oil monopoly and crushing their economic power.
#7. To: nativist nationalist (#6)
(Edited)
We know where 15 of the 19 hijackers came from
Two were from UAE.
The hijackers in the September 11 attacks were 19 men affiliated with al-Qaeda, and 15 of the 19 were citizens of Saudi Arabia.[1] The others were from the United Arab Emirates (2), Egypt and Lebanon. The hijackers were organized into four teams, each led by a pilot-trained hijacker with three or four "muscle hijackers" who were trained to help subdue the pilots, passengers, and crew.
#8. To: TooConservative, nativist nationalist, redleghunter (#5)
#9. To: TooConservative, nativist nationalist, CZ82, tomder55, GarySpFc, *Military or Vets Affairs* (#5)
It has been expensive but the Saudis have a tremendous arsenal for a country and military of small size. No matter how rich you are, you can only fire so many missiles and tank shells and use your jets. And the Saudis lack real expertise in occupying and controlling hostile territory. You can't ever finally win from the air or with missiles or artillery. That is their real weakness, not any lack of arms or jets that we've sold them like hotcakes. Early in the Obama years, Congress approved a $50 billion purchase of jets and helicopters and missiles and all kinds of military hardware. One of the largest single orders ever placed and approved, outside of our NATO allies. It was an astonishing purchase. And yet, the Houthi are resisting with some success against the Saudis unleashing a good dose from that arsenal. Lack of a real ground military, IMO.
#10. To: redleghunter (#9)
I would put in the thousands, the number of military and/or civilian contract advisors the US and other Western nations have in Saudi Arabia to help train on and maintain (maintenance) the equipment we sold them. Add to that a pampered officer corps which has connections (even shirt tail) at the very lowest levels to the royal family and oil barons.
So either SA decides it needs to send in their own ground troops to do their job or they 'hire out' Palestinians to do the dirty work, much like Iran hires out Hezbollah.
#11. To: TooConservative, redleghunter (#10)
You can't hire foreigners to do real fighting for you. It doesn't work.
#12. To: Pericles (#11)
But against a dedicated fanatical religious based home grown movement like the Houthis? That won't work.
#13. To: TooConservative (#12)
But against a dedicated fanatical religious based home grown movement like the Houthis? That won't work.
#14. To: Pericles (#2)
Production costs have gotten cheaper for some shale and for alternate energy also.
Shale Oil is a bubble and expected to peak around 2020...
Natural Gas production is expected to peak around 2040...
That's why they're all maneuvering to claim drilling rights where the polar ice cap used to be... they're running out of easier places to extract the crap.
#15. To: Pericles (#11)
It works against press ganged rebel armies like the South African mercs used against the Liberian rebel armies.
#16. To: Pericles (#8)
Yemen used to be 2 countries. I admit I don't know how different the two Yemen's are ethnically or religiously (I know the Houthis are Shiite) but it could be the old Cold War split of Yemen where one was Soviet aligned and the other USA aligned was underlined by tribal or religious divisions.
#17. To: nativist nationalist (#15)
President Trump will be able to tell them to pound sand;
#18. To: TooConservative, nativist nationalist (#17)
President Trump will be able to tell them to pound sand;
#19. To: Pericles (#18)
(Edited)
So my advise to Trump is if you are for real get a real crew around you. I actually don't think Trump has any sort of campaign team?
So Trump maybe is attacked in more refined circles for calling Rosie a fat pig but Joe Blow Six-pack, esquire may get a kick out of it.
#20. To: TooConservative (#19)
#21. To: Pericles (#20)
With that said, Trump's performance may have stunk last night to you and me - but what does Joe Six-Pack, esq. think?
#22. To: TooConservative (#21)
I dunno if it matters.
#23. To: nativist nationalist, TooConservative, *Arab Spring Jihad* (#3)
Plus their war in Yemen; that's got to be a drain on the wallet.
#24. To: nativist nationalist (#6)
We know where 15 of the 19 hijackers came from; they are an ally to America like Judas was an ally to Jesus.
#25. To: Pericles (#22)
Which brings up a question - if you are not a politics nerd and barely pay attention to debates - what would you think of last night? Would you be more upset at the tones of the questions to Trump or his answers.
#26. To: sneakypete (#23)
And lets not forget all the billions they spend funding terrorists as well as building Wahhabi Mosques/spy and terror centers all over America and Europe.
#27. To: TooConservative (#26)
#28. To: TooConservative (#26)
#29. To: Pericles (#28)
Who at the state dept thought it was a good idea to back the Muslim brotherhood take over?
#30. To: TooConservative (#29)
Who at the state dept thought it was a good idea to back the Muslim brotherhood take over?
#31. To: redleghunter (#9)
I have a retired Army LTC buddy over there now and his job is to advise mid to senior level officers on tactics and the operational art. Well that is what his job description says, but what he really does is write operations orders for these officers, prepare their planning documents, and presentation slides. The pampered officer corps in SA don't want to do any staff work or get involved in the details like our officer corps will do in the US Army.
#32. To: Pericles (#18)
On the question of him saying bad things about women - he should have looked at the FOX babe and said, that is a clown question and we are here to fix real problems not if I used angry words at someone over twitter.
#33. To: Pericles (#18)
So my advise to Trump is if you are for real get a real crew around you. I actually don't think Trump has any sort of campaign team?
#34. To: nativist nationalist, CZ82, Vicomte13, liberator, TooConservative, GarySpFc (#31)
I recall a number of years ago where the rank and file in the SA army would hire foreigners to dig their foxholes for them.
#35. To: Pericles (#30)
Fuck. I can't do 4 to 8 years of Clinton.
#36. To: nativist nationalist (#32)
Fox News was the biggest supporter of Operation Iraqi Freedom. As a result of Fox News supported policies; women are now sold as sex slaves in Iraq.
#37. To: redleghunter (#34)
We were later told they did that in order to avoid "losing face."
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#38. To: CZ82 (#37)
#39. To: redleghunter (#38)
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]