Attacks in Saudi Arabia on two oil factories

notobtuse · 17-09-2019 6:09pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

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

Not even close.

antiskeptic · 18-09-2019 12:21pm

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.

CrankyHaus · 18-09-2019 12:30pm

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?

antiskeptic · 18-09-2019 12:32pm

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.

notobtuse · 18-09-2019 2:42pm

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.

James Brown · 18-09-2019 2:52pm

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.

antiskeptic · 18-09-2019 4:27pm

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.

antiskeptic · 18-09-2019 4:35pm

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.

James Brown · 18-09-2019 4:39pm

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.

antiskeptic · 18-09-2019 4:56pm

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.

James Brown · 18-09-2019 5:55pm

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'.

antiskeptic · 18-09-2019 6:06pm

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

18-09-2019 6:40pm

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

Thanks.

Paddy Samurai · 18-09-2019 6:50pm

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.

Paddy Samurai · 18-09-2019 6:56pm

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.

is_that_so · 18-09-2019 7:50pm

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.

Danzy · 18-09-2019 7:55pm

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.

Danzy · 18-09-2019 8:00pm

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.

is_that_so · 18-09-2019 8:06pm

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".

Danzy · 18-09-2019 8:21pm

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.

antiskeptic · 18-09-2019 11:10pm

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".

Evidence isn't an issue. Or at least it wasn't when it was WMD. Neither was an attack on the US required. Kuwait might effectively belong to the US but it wasn't the US anymore that Saudi Arabia is. As for support? That would depend on whether war is considered good for reelection or not. Let those prices rise and hit folk in their pockets a while. They'll be clamouring to hit them mad mullahs. Could be swung the right way: not too many body bags coming home to ruin reelection.

Was there something about no at-war predident failing to be re-elected?

antiskeptic · 18-09-2019 11:13pm

Danzy wrote: »

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.

Question is: does he want reelection. And if so, does war serve that aim.

Given he's a narcissist.

is_that_so · 19-09-2019 9:06am

antiskeptic wrote: »

Evidence isn't an issue. Or at least it wasn't when it was WMD. Neither was an attack on the US required. Kuwait might effectively belong to the US but it wasn't the US anymore that Saudi Arabia is. As for support? That would depend on whether war is considered good for reelection or not. Let those prices rise and hit folk in their pockets a while. They'll be clamouring to hit them mad mullahs. Could be swung the right way: not too many body bags coming home to ruin reelection.

Was there something about no at-war president failing to be re-elected?

He can't go to war without Congress. Even limited military responses could blow up in his face, especially as no Americans were involved. More sanctions would be a lot easier and make him look strong, at least in his own mind. A war would also kill off any goodwill that might accrue out of the Afghan withdrawal. The irony here is how the Saudis benefit from the surge in oil prices.

Danzy · 19-09-2019 9:30am

antiskeptic wrote: »

Question is: does he want reelection. And if so, does war serve that aim.

Given he's a narcissist.

He was partially elected in rejection of foreign adventures. His base don't want it, his rival next year, will probably disagree on it and use it against him.

Why do people pretend he is mad for war?

It makes no sense.

Veritas Libertas · 19-09-2019 5:26pm

Danzy wrote: »

Why do people pretend he is mad for war?

It makes no sense.

My guess is when people saw him appoint Bolton, they used the same old 'guilty by association' card they use with everything.

I don't think people realize you could appoint someone for that position you completely disagree with good cause.

notobtuse · 19-09-2019 5:58pm

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

My guess is when people saw him appoint Bolton, they used the same old 'guilty by association' card they use with everything.

I don't think people realize you could appoint someone for that position you completely disagree with good cause.

Winner winner chicken dinner.

“His view was not always the same as everybody else in the room. That’s why you wanted him there. The fact that he was a contrarian from time to time is an asset not a liability,” Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) told reporters.

Veritas Libertas · 21-09-2019 12:57am

:eek:

Is this also the first admission from the U.S. that the attacks on the pipeline were Iran's fault?(If this has been admitted before I would appreciate if someone could link me)

"All of this is threatened by Iran's significant escalation of violence"-US Secretary of Defense Mark Esper

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpUlp5taIGw

Attacks in Saudi Arabia on two oil factories

Comments