Arms sales to Saudis

  • maxferguson

    Posts: 321

    Jan 08, 2016 1:08 AM GMT
    He'd certainly support background checks for gun sales in the U.S., but never mind background checks when it's a government. Very disappointed in Trudeau. Maybe he can partially redeem himself and buy some real submarines for us.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeau-advised-to-deepen-ties-with-saudi-arabia/article28058715/?click=sf_globefb
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Jan 08, 2016 1:23 AM GMT
    maxferguson saidHe'd certainly support background checks for gun sales in the U.S., but never mind background checks when it's a government. Very disappointed in Trudeau. Maybe he can partially redeem himself and buy some real submarines for us.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeau-advised-to-deepen-ties-with-saudi-arabia/article28058715/?click=sf_globefb


    Alberta is in serious trouble (re: oil)

    Trudeau really just needs the cash (which not surprisingly, the Saudi's don't have)

    Plus, Trudeau is a new guy, so all these globalist scum bags that attend Davos, etc are going to try to strong-arm him into the global weapons trade (it's just what they do)

    the French and Germans, for instance, are huge arms sellers to Russia, Uganda, Nigeria, Libya
  • maxferguson

    Posts: 321

    Jan 08, 2016 1:50 AM GMT
    Should also mention, this is the same PM who said the Pope should apologize to First Nations for human rights abuses.
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Jan 08, 2016 1:53 AM GMT
    lol, the Pope should be apologizing to 3rd world and 2nd world nations for promoting pumping out babies they can't afford to feed, educate or clothe and not promoting birth control
  • maxferguson

    Posts: 321

    Jan 08, 2016 1:54 AM GMT
    tj85016 said
    maxferguson saidHe'd certainly support background checks for gun sales in the U.S., but never mind background checks when it's a government. Very disappointed in Trudeau. Maybe he can partially redeem himself and buy some real submarines for us.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeau-advised-to-deepen-ties-with-saudi-arabia/article28058715/?click=sf_globefb


    Alberta is in serious trouble (re: oil)

    Trudeau really just needs the cash (which not surprisingly, the Saudi's don't have)

    Plus, Trudeau is a new guy, so all these globalist scum bags that attend Davos, etc are going to try to strong-arm him into the global weapons trade (it's just what they do)

    the French and Germans, for instance, are huge arms sellers to Russia, Uganda, Nigeria, Libya


    I am very surprised Saudi is making this purchase (among others). They have rocketing youth unemployment and if they make the holes in their social safety net bigger, they are going to have big, big social unrest. They drew down over $80B of FX reserves last year and paid out $32B in government bonuses to keep social unrest down. And just today they publicly floated the idea of taking Aramco public.

    Another problem if oil stays low will be whether they choose to de-peg their currency to the USD (it is very expensive to maintain a pegged currency). They are so dependent on imports for absolutely everything but oil; the inflation will almost certainly threaten the viability of the government. Adding to that, they know nobody will touch their bond market.


  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Jan 08, 2016 1:58 AM GMT
    I saw that about a possible Aramco IPO, amazing, that really spells desperation - they would have to shell out a huge dividend (but they still do have control over the physical oil and god only knows what sort of financial bullshit they would pull - because you know darn well they want to keep 100% control no matter what this month's EPS comes out as)
  • maxferguson

    Posts: 321

    Jan 08, 2016 2:02 AM GMT
    tj85016 saidI saw that about a possible Aramco IPO, amazing, that really spells desperation - they would have to shell out a huge dividend (but they still do have control over the physical oil and god only knows what sort of financial bullshit they would pull - because you know darn well they want to keep 100% control no matter what this month's EPS comes out as)


    Nobody would buy it (at least the upstream segment). If they listed on anything other than a developed market stock exchange, they'd have to list in riyals and nobody wants that when their terms of trade are deteriorating so quickly (and they wouldn't need to list if oil wasn't down). If they list on a developed market index, they will be subject to so many reporting requirements that they won't be willing to satisfy (reserves.....).

    My guess is they would go more for petrochemical business, small refineries, etc.... it would be a drop in the bucket compared to what they need.
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Jan 08, 2016 2:04 AM GMT
    no, they would have to list it on the NYSE or the London exchange
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 08, 2016 2:05 AM GMT
    maxferguson saidHe'd certainly support background checks for gun sales in the U.S., but never mind background checks when it's a government. Very disappointed in Trudeau. Maybe he can partially redeem himself and buy some real submarines for us.


    Where in this linked article are submarines mentioned?

    And where is it stated that a government decision has been made? I see discussion about recommendations, but what is the Canadian government decision?
  • maxferguson

    Posts: 321

    Jan 08, 2016 2:06 AM GMT
    tj85016 saidno, they would have to list it on the NYSE or the London exchange


    Ya but that would subject them to SEC/FSA. Their next option would be selling in a bought deal to another government (China...), but that would also be a nono.
  • maxferguson

    Posts: 321

    Jan 08, 2016 2:09 AM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    maxferguson saidHe'd certainly support background checks for gun sales in the U.S., but never mind background checks when it's a government. Very disappointed in Trudeau. Maybe he can partially redeem himself and buy some real submarines for us.


    Where in this linked article are submarines mentioned?

    And where is it stated that a government decision has been made? I see discussion about recommendations, but what is the Canadian government decision?


    Lol I mentioned the subs icon_razz.gif See this article for why: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/canadas-submarine-fleet-never-worked-its-time-to-stop-ignoring-the-problem/article12468338/

  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Jan 08, 2016 2:09 AM GMT
    maxferguson said
    tj85016 saidno, they would have to list it on the NYSE or the London exchange


    Ya but that would subject them to SEC/FSA. Their next option would be selling in a bought deal to another government (China...), but that would also be a nono.


    China is a broke, house of cards more than you might think
  • badbug

    Posts: 800

    Jan 08, 2016 2:14 AM GMT

    I am probably considered a massive "liberal" in the context of today's black and white political paradigm....but i would be massively disappointed if we weren't selling arms to the Saudis. They have money, they are going to find a seller...might as well be us.

    By all means criticize their shitty regime and attempt to use whatever leverage possible to get them to stop funding terror, but be realistic about it. We're a small player and there is no need to do anything at the expense of our own citizens.

    The real issue, is where is that 15 billion going?




    As for the Saudis, gotta buy arms. All they do is buy expensive shit, i imagine there is an entire economy among the elites related to their buying expensive shit that is more immediately important to keep active.

  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Jan 08, 2016 2:20 AM GMT
    ahhh, even a staunch liberal will make the weapons deal with the devil

    but you will never see the $15 billion other than through the corporate taxes trickling down through whatever channels - and the jobs (and profits) that the arms manufacturers provide your citizens
  • badbug

    Posts: 800

    Jan 08, 2016 3:26 AM GMT
    but you will never see the $15 billion other than through the corporate taxes trickling down through whatever channels


    that's my point.