Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Attacks in Saudi Arabia on two oil factories

124

Comments

  • #92
    rockatansky
    Registered Users Posts: 1,336 ✭✭✭rockatansky


    Danzy wrote: »
    The Saudis forces are widely reported to be shocking, overweight, lazy, cowardly, badly trained unmotivated.

    What use the most advanced plane in the world if the person flying it is substandard by any definition.

    Fair point.

    I'd imagine the Iranians are much more battle hardend with knowledge built up over Iraq and Syria conflicts.


  • #93
    Danzy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,218 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    rockatansky wrote: »
    Fair point.

    I'd imagine the Iranians are much more battle hardend with knowledge built up over Iraq and Syria conflicts.

    Guess so.

    The Saudis pay every one a large stipend from the Oil, used be lot bigger, but no one really has to work hard, no one has to try.

    It's a big problem for them, but they can't be armed to fix it. 😉

    Seems they are really pushing the fighting the rafidi, their duty to God to eliminate Shia.

    That's an open seam of motivation and some say it's a help.


  • #94
    smurfjed
    Registered Users Posts: 10,025 ✭✭✭✭smurfjed


    The Saudis pay every one a large stipend from the Oil
    Garbage, where did you get this idea from?
    however I think civilians would have seen/ heard cruise missiles as they traversed the country.
    Have you ever seen the North Eastern area of Saudi Arabia, lots of sand, not that many civilians.
    Where were the Patriot defense system
    How many Patriot systems would you need to protect an area the size of Europe?

    Iran is certainly playing an interesting game of Russian Roulette, neither side can win a land war, but they can fire a hell of a lot of missiles that will kill civilians, destroy the Middle Eastern oil and gas infrastructure and throw the whole world into recession, not to mention destroy a lot of travel plans for Christmas.


  • #95
    johnmcdnl
    Registered Users Posts: 3,739 ✭✭✭johnmcdnl


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Russia and China need to buy oil, also. Economics usually trumps shaky alliances.

    For what it's worth Russia don't need to buy oil by a long shot. (produce 11 million barrels,export 5 million barrels per day)

    China on the other-hand do. (produce 4.7 million barrels ,import 10 million barrels per day)

    (ballpark numbers)


  • #96
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    blackwave wrote: »
    Just as well Bolton is gone from the White House, god know's what he would be suggesting right now if he was still there.

    Honestly when I saw Bolton was gone from the WH, I thought something like this might happen.

    He was like a guard-dog that could be unleashed, a credible threat to Iran or anyone in the middle-east. The ultimate 'Trump' card... see what I did there?

    Working backwards, could one assume (if this was Iran) that they wouldn't have done it if Bolton was still involved in the administration?

    Now the administration is left with only doves.

    September 10th: Bolton submits resignation(or was fired depending on who you ask :P)
    September 14th: Pipeline hit by drone attacks

    This poster was on the money:
    the_syco wrote: »
    I hope nothing bad happens now that Bolton has gotten sacked.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    s7ryf3925pivug
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,007 ✭✭✭s7ryf3925pivug


    They attacked the processing machinery. They didn't burn huge amounts of the oil itself. Temporarily reducing the rate of extraction affected its price which might reduce its consumption. So it might have a beneficial effect in terms of carbon emissions.

    Pretty sure the post about internal combustion engine was a troll, but obviously it produces CO2 regardless of whether it's burnt in one or not.


  • #98
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Once all the I's are dotted and T’s are crossed, and everything points to Iran’s regime of religious psychopaths..

    Raisring the question: which is more dangerous, religious or neo-liberal psychopaths? Global warming, regieme changers, resource rapists seem to have a definite edge.

    Let's not forget that the 'world economy' which floats on oil, is the preserve of folk who don't actually own the oil in the middle east.

    using one its proxies to undertake the oil field attach, they must be punished severely or they will continue their actions.

    Punishment infers some kind of wrong doing. This isn't about wrong or right. This is about maintaining cheap supplies of oil on which an uber-consumerist (a.k.a. American) mindset depends.

    The attack on Saudi Arabia was actually a global attack as the financial repercussions are already being felt around the world. A retaliatory air attack on their oil fields, ports, factories, military installations, and nuclear sites would probably be the best course of action. It might just give the Iranian people the motive needed to finish the job this time and oust the mullahs.

    Which presumes they are all clamouring for the lifestyle of the West.

    Given the lifestyle of the West has driven the world off the edge of a cliff and is doomed, you'd be hoping the Iranian people would have more sense.
    I saw a pair of A10 Warthogs flying near where I live the other day. Haven’t seen them in quite some time even though a squadron is based about 60 miles south of me. Thought they would make the perfect attack plane to take on the small Iranian swarm boats that have been hijacking tanker ships lately.

    Three cheers for the leaders of the free world laying waste to yet another country in the protection of own interests. Heck, I'm sure they got missiles and ordinance approaching its best before date needing consuming in a hurry...


  • #99
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Three cheers for the leaders of the free world laying waste to yet another country in the protection of own interests. Heck, I'm sure they got missiles and ordinance approaching its best before date needing consuming in a hurry...

    Taking out a couple of small swarm boats trying to hijack oil tankers in international waters is “laying waste to yet another country?” That’s some stretch of the imagination by any standard.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • #100
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    AMKC wrote: »
    Well he certainly is not a genius so I think its the other one. He is a big child. Really when have you ever before heard a P.O.T.U.S say '' we are locked and loaded''

    Its something a child or a teenager would say not the most powerful man in the world.
    And yet the most beatable candidate in American history will have won the presidency… TWICE? He plays ya’ll for fools and you all seem more than happy to oblige him.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • #101
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    notobtuse wrote: »
    And yet the most beatable candidate in American history will have won the presidency… TWICE? He plays ya’ll for fools and you all seem more than happy to oblige him.

    You mean he's not a perverted hate mongering dirt bag? Wow!

    FYI: I didn't envy the American's having to choose between either of them.

    He'll do what most U.S. president's do. Make a fortune for his pals while ordinary American's give their lives for 'freedom'.


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    You mean he's not a perverted hate mongering dirt bag? Wow!
    Not even close.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • #103
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Taking out a couple of small swarm boats trying to hijack oil tankers in international waters is “laying waste to yet another country?” That’s some stretch of the imagination by any standard.

    Such an arbitrary moment to pick. Do you imagine the Iranians woke up one day and decided 'hey! Lets blow up some tankers'.

    The US has long been antagonistic towards Iran .. and vice versa. Winding back to zero, who do you think started it. Hint: oil.

    The question is where will this end. And the answer lies in part on the desire of the US.

    Regieme change is the US preferred option. Other than protecting their interests the regieme is none of their business any more than regieme change in all the places they've attempted or succeeded it is none of their business.

    For sure all those poor 'oppressed' people which the 'leader of the free world /worlds policeman' aims to liberate could go and take a leap as far as the US is concerned. Were it not for US interests being served.


  • #104
    CrankyHaus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,281 ✭✭✭CrankyHaus


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Such an arbitrary moment to pick. Do you imagine the Iranians woke up one day and decided 'hey! Lets blow up some tankers'.

    The US has long been antagonistic towards Iran .. and vice versa. Winding back to zero, who do you think started it. Hint: oil.

    The question is where will this end. And the answer lies in part on the desire of the US.

    Regieme change is the US preferred option. Other than protecting their interests the regieme is none of their business any more than regieme change in all the places they've attempted or succeeded it is none of their business.

    For sure all those poor 'oppressed' people which the 'leader of the free world /worlds policeman' aims to liberate could go and take a leap as far as the US is concerned. Were it not for US interests being served.


    Do we really have to take sides between one warmongering repressive theocracy and another one backed by the US?


  • #105
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    notobtuse wrote: »
    And yet the most beatable candidate in American history will have won the presidency… TWICE? He plays ya’ll for fools and you all seem more than happy to oblige him.

    He plays fools as fools and they are happy to oblige him. It doesn't matter what the rest of us think. I mean, imagine the mentality of a person who actually thinks Trump is other than a sorry excuse for a human being. Even if he smart enough to become POTUS (which says nothing about his ability to be a POTUS).

    And for those who aren't thick or religious fundamentalists with less than a nodding acquaintance with the Bible, what a sorry state that is was Trump.. or the alternative. How rotten can democracy be that you feel the best choice is him.


  • #106
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Such an arbitrary moment to pick. Do you imagine the Iranians woke up one day and decided 'hey! Lets blow up some tankers'.

    The US has long been antagonistic towards Iran .. and vice versa. Winding back to zero, who do you think started it. Hint: oil.

    The question is where will this end. And the answer lies in part on the desire of the US.

    Regieme change is the US preferred option. Other than protecting their interests the regieme is none of their business any more than regieme change in all the places they've attempted or succeeded it is none of their business.

    For sure all those poor 'oppressed' people which the 'leader of the free world /worlds policeman' aims to liberate could go and take a leap as far as the US is concerned. Were it not for US interests being served.
    The US is energy independent and has become a net exporter of energy. Allowing Iranian missiles to continue to take out Saudi oil operations and their pirating of tankers in international waters will drive up the cost of energy worldwide and therefore bring in additional revenues to the US. Action against Iran would benefit you much more than us, economically, in the resulting stabilization of oil prices.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • #107
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    notobtuse wrote: »
    The US is energy independent and has become a net exporter of energy. Allowing Iranian missiles to continue to take out Saudi oil operations and their pirating of tankers in international waters will drive up the cost of energy worldwide and therefore bring in additional revenues to the US. Action against Iran would benefit you much more than us, economically, in the resulting stabilization of oil prices.

    This is the attitude. It's all about money and what the U.S. wants. How about not being so dependent on foreign oil or oil for that matter? Also less greedy would help. Or would the U.S. leave any 'free' Iran to their own devices? I doubt it. The world is like a big money and oil apple pie they are looking to carve up for pals on the blood of the common American soldier.


  • #108
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Matt Barrett wrote: »

    He'll do what most U.S. president's do. Make a fortune for his pals while ordinary American's give their lives for 'freedom'.

    It must be said that ordinary Americans have a choice whether they want to fight for 'freedom' or whatever the current strapline happens to be.

    You could argue that there is sufficient information available to them to judge the motives of their government. And if hoodwinked still, despite clarion proof as to what their imperialistic plutocracy of a nation is, then at some point the onus falls on them (and their stupidity) in relation to what befalls them.

    You can't solely blame the conman for the willingness of the 'mark' to continue being conned.

    Remember: the process of Evolution and survival of the fit hasn't stopped.


  • #109
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    notobtuse wrote: »
    The US is energy independent and has become a net exporter of energy. Allowing Iranian missiles to continue to take out Saudi oil operations and their pirating of tankers in international waters will drive up the cost of energy worldwide and therefore bring in additional revenues to the US. Action against Iran would benefit you much more than us, economically, in the resulting stabilization of oil prices.

    Bring in additional revenues for US oil holders.. with some extra income for the government by way of tax.

    The rest of that oil-addicted economy would tank if prices rose - extra tax revenue being a drop in the ocean.

    You seriously aren't suggesting that the US operates altruistically? Its not in the nature of plutocracies to be altruistic.

    It doesn't matter what the home reserves are. There is a finite amount and the US wants as much control over as much of that finite amount as it can possibly exert - it matters not a fig where it is in the world so long as it can be controlled.

    Think of oil as air. Do you really think the US would be content with its home reserves if there was a finite amount?




    The Star Spangled banner is a song. Just a song. No one (bar perhaps some Americans) actually believe it. The rest of us, in varying degrees, see a land as corrupted as that of any tinpot dictator. Its dressed in finer clothes and hides its dubious nature behind the myth of a city on a hill - beacon to the world.

    That myth (for it was always a myth - your country was floated on blood) has been evaporated by what we, the rest of the world can now plainly see.

    America is a frightening power and will brook no competitor. Luckily, the nature of things is that empires fall. Always.


  • #110
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    It must be said that ordinary Americans have a choice whether they want to fight for 'freedom' or whatever the current strapline happens to be.

    You could argue that there is sufficient information available to them to judge the motives of their government. And if hoodwinked still, despite clarion proof as to what their imperialistic plutocracy of a nation is, then at some point the onus falls on them (and their stupidity) in relation to what befalls them.

    You can't solely blame the conman for the willingness of the 'mark' to continue being conned.

    Remember: the process of Evolution and survival of the fit hasn't stopped.

    Many join for economic reasons. Also some are believing the 'hero' baloney, true. Doesn't take away from the point. I've not heard any service person claim they wanted to fight to help make Dick Cheney more wealth.


  • #111
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    Many join for economic reasons. Also some are believing the 'hero' baloney, true. Doesn't take away from the point. I've not heard any service person claim they wanted to fight to help make Dick Cheney more wealth.

    When your economic self interest means signing up for a nation involved in permawar then you have some responsibilities. You know the chances are that you will be killing for your nation. Killing trumps economic self interest and demands your attention. Its not like they can say they didn't know.

    I've little sympathy for someone dying whilst fighting for a pretty blatant mafia. I understand they are brainwashed to think they are a great nation, fighting for freedom and all that. But you're going to be killing and that begs some questioning.

    If you are so thick as to believe the myth in the face of all the evidence against that myth being true then like I say, evolution fodder.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    When your economic self interest means signing up for a nation involved in permawar then you have some responsibilities. You know the chances are that you will be killing for your nation. Killing trumps economic self interest and demands your attention. Its not like they can say they didn't know.

    I've little sympathy for someone dying whilst fighting for a pretty blatant mafia. I understand they are brainwashed to think they are a great nation, fighting for freedom and all that. But you're going to be killing and that begs some questioning.

    If you are so thick as to believe the myth in the face of all the evidence against that myth being true then like I say, evolution fodder.

    None of which takes away from my initial comment you quoted:
    He'll do what most U.S. president's do. Make a fortune for his pals while ordinary American's give their lives for 'freedom'.


  • #113
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    None of which takes away from my initial comment you quoted:

    Very 'survival of the fittest' don't you think. For now at least.

    If the wheels of modern society are coming off and that society is doomed, as some think, then the fittest might well turn out to be those with military training. Trump Towers doesn't look that impenetrable.

    It would be ironic if oil was the rope they hung themselves from


  • #114
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    ^^^^^^This thread was okay until both you goons ruined it.

    Thanks.


  • #115
    Paddy Samurai
    Registered Users Posts: 3,014 ✭✭✭Paddy Samurai


    2Mad2BeMad wrote: »
    I filled up my tank today, so im good for about 10 days fingers crossed


    Your way ahead of the rest,the yanks have’nt even Landed with their tanks.


  • #116
    Paddy Samurai
    Registered Users Posts: 3,014 ✭✭✭Paddy Samurai


    Danzy wrote: »
    The Saudis forces are widely reported to be shocking, overweight, lazy, cowardly, badly trained unmotivated.

    What use the most advanced plane in the world if the person flying it is substandard by any definition.

    Saudis are afraid of the Iranians .If they had’nt the US behind them they would’nt say boo. That’s why they are trying to make out it is a attack of global proportions.
    Hopefully that way they can get someone else to do the fighting for them.


  • #117
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    AMKC wrote: »
    So they are now saying that America might bomb Iranian oil fields. Will this be the start of another war in the Middle East if that happens? A war none of us want and hope will never happen. Very bad if that happens
    Trump is not really much of a war guy, especially one that could drag on into his reelection attempt. Shape throwing, sanctions and increased isolation of Iran suits his bravado.


  • #118
    Danzy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,218 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    Paddy Samurai wrote: »
    Saudis are afraid of the Iranians .If they had’nt the US behind them they would’nt say boo. That’s why they are trying to make out it is a attack of global proportions.
    Hopefully that way they can get someone else to do the fighting for them.

    It is an attack of global proportions, if it had destroyed that facility, we'd be heading for a global recession, possibly even as bad as 2008, which given the economic cluster **** the Eurozone is, would probably crash it.

    The truth is if they had blown up the capital of Turkmenistan and killed a million it would not be globally significant, targeting 10% of the stuff that keeps the world moving is.


  • #119
    Danzy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,218 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    is_that_so wrote: »
    Trump is not really much of a war guy, especially one that could drag on into his reelection attempt. Shape throwing, sanctions and increased isolation of Iran suits his bravado.

    The Iranians know he is different to other US Presidents, he is reluctant to have US troops in places like Germany, nevermind fighting wars.

    While conflict might be the least favoured option for Trump, if pushed he may have no choice.


  • #120
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Danzy wrote: »
    The Iranians know he is different to other US Presidents, he is reluctant to have US troops in places like Germany, nevermind fighting wars.

    While conflict might be the least favoured option for Trump, if pushed he may have no choice.
    I think pretty much every country is smarter than the current US foreign policy, even Britain. There's also the source of the evidence.
    Going to war needs the approval of too many people who will not cooperate with him. Even a proportional military response looks OTT as they haven't attacked the US in any way. Expect lots of noise from him and more "super sanctions".


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    Danzy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,218 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    is_that_so wrote: »
    I think pretty much every country is smarter than the current US foreign policy, even Britain. There's also the source of the evidence.
    Going to war needs the approval of too many people who will not cooperate with him. Even a proportional military response looks OTT as they haven't attacked the US in any way. Expect lots of noise from him and more "super sanctions".

    Trump is the least military oriented President in 40 years.

    He'd get it if he wanted it but he is the one saying no.

    Do you honestly believe he is anything but the least military adventure oriented President since the 70s. He is getting slated by his opponents for it.

    Trump has basically rejected pax americana as a doctrine, told Europe and others, use tour own troops and money for defence, America should go home. He may even be withdrawing from areas they shouldn't be but he doesn't believe yank soldiers should be abroad fighting in near any circumstances.

    He got slated for that as an attack on NATO, largely from his opponents.

    Bushes, Clinton,Reagan, Obama, would have had the sky lit up over this.

    The dems will use this against him next year, as things stand now.

    You can argue convincingly that he is a narcissistic nut but pretending he likes war, wants war, is bizarre.


Advertisement