Attacks in Saudi Arabia on two oil factories

TheValeyard · 16-09-2019 4:41pm

Boggles wrote: »

Yeah that really is a bug bear of mine.

Price rises they can't up the prices quick enough, prices come down they claim they have bought old stock at higher prices and the price decrease will take time.

I really wouldn't put it past Mossad. They want the Iranian regime gone.

theguzman · 16-09-2019 5:53pm

The house of Saud is a US - Israeli client state, the Saudis sell their oil in Dollars, propping up the Dollar hegemony, in return they get security and can rule the country and spread their Wahhabi hate worldwide. Iran is selling oil to China for Yuan and like Saddam Hussein and Colonel Gaddafi abandoning the petrodollar then regime change swiftly follows. Bashar Al Assad refused access for the pipeline and shortly after Mossad and CIA equipped ISIS and unleashed their wardogs of hell in the country, Putin came to Syria's rescue and effectively bombed Islamic State back to the stone age and preserved Bashar Al Assad the legitimate democratic leader of Syria.

I can see Russia intervening again with Iran if the Saudi's or American's try anything, Russia has a massive slice of the declining oil market. Oil is declining as an energy source even though oil consumption is expanding. Trump's trade war has crushed Chinese demand and oil prices were forecast to go to $25 per barrel next year as European and Asian demand shrinks as the new global recession is only just beginning and Germany is now in recession.

Trump is embattled all around but no sitting US President at War has ever lost an election. Wise people remarked that when Bolton was got rid off that something worse was surely coming. I can see another false flag coming soon to beat the drums of war against Iran.

The Iranian economy is being destroyed and they are backed into a corner so war is a certainty now I feel. It will be far worse than Vietnam because Iran is unconquerable unless they carpet bomb it in Nukes, it is a natural fortress and the sort of military numbers required to take the country would see a million US deaths easily, something unachievable without enforced conscription.

China and Russia won't stand idly by and watch America conquer Tehran either, if America stupidly goes into Iran expect a Chinese Invasion of Hong Kong and maybe even Taiwan simultaneously. The Chinese are itching to have a go off America for what they perceive as Trump's sheer imperialism towards them.

notobtuse · 16-09-2019 6:17pm

Once all the I's are dotted and T’s are crossed, and everything points to Iran’s regime of religious psychopaths using one its proxies to undertake the oil field attach, they must be punished severely or they will continue their actions. 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.

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.

Danzy · 16-09-2019 6:19pm

American troops won't set foot in Iran, that would take a full scale war effort not the piddling efforts of Iraq or Vietnam.

They could take out every military base, bridge, power plant over the first few nights.

Think the initial air strikes on Iraq but with a vastly increased capability of destruction.

Think Iran is pushing for leverage but it's actions are such a threat to the global economy, it may well lead to military escalation.

Think both sides will be reluctant for war.

Danzy · 16-09-2019 6:20pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I love the way everyone turns a blind eye to prices rising instantly despite there being reserves and stock bought at older pricing. Of course prices will drop the moment the fires are put out

Trump is 'locked and loaded' anyway. It's like having a dumb petulant teenager in the WH. It could be Kuwait all over again. These people have no regard for 'the troops'.

Puts on tinfoil hat: Mossad?

Mossad, lol.

punisher5112 · 16-09-2019 6:22pm

I was going to order kerosene yesterday and as soon as this hit the news prices are up €15-€20 for 500 litres....

Just had to bite the bullet today as no knowing how much more it could go up.

I completely forgot to put order through last night.

Cheerful Spring2 · 16-09-2019 6:25pm

Danzy wrote: »

American troops won't set foot in Iran, that would take a full scale war effort not the piddling efforts of Iraq or Vietnam.

They could take out every military base, bridge, power plant over the first few nights.

Think the initial air strikes on Iraq but with a vastly increased capability of destruction.

Think Iran is pushing for leverage but it's actions are such a threat to the global economy, it may well lead to military escalation.

Think both sides will be reluctant for war.

You overlooking something here. What do you think will happen when American aircraft and American ships are hit and sailors and soldiers die? US will prepare for a ground invasion.

This is not a Iraq. Iran possesses the same missiles as Israel and America and can hit every US base in the region. This is not empty threat.

notobtuse · 16-09-2019 6:27pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You overlooking something here. What do you think will happen when American aircraft and American ships are hit and sailors and soldiers die? US will prepare for a ground invasion.

This is not a Iraq. Iran possesses the same missiles as Israel and America and can hit every US base in the region. This is not empty threat.

There will be no ground invasion. Pinpoint air attacks and global boycotts just might be the incentive needed for the Iranian people to accomplish a regime change.

kravmaga · 16-09-2019 6:29pm

Sources: The US has assessed that the attack on Saudi oil facilities originated inside Iran
From CNN's Kylie Atwood and Ryan Browne

The US has told at least one US ally in the Middle East, that they have intelligence showing that the launch was “likely” coming from staging grounds in Iran, but they have not shared that intelligence yet. “It is one thing to tell us, it is another thing to show us,” said a diplomat from the region.

A US official separately tells CNN that the US has assessed that the attack originated from inside Iran, the official spoke on condition of anonymity because they are authorized to speak to the press.

No public evidence has been shared.

What countries in the region decide to do, in reaction to the Saudi oil field attack, largely depends on what the US is willing to do, the source said. CNN reported earlier that Secretary of State is expected to speak with the UAE Crown Prince on Monday and other nations.

The Pentagon declined to comment. The State Department and the White House did not respond to a request for comment.

The WSJ first reported that the US was telling countries region that the attacks were launched inside Iran.

More context: The attack on oil facilities in Saudi Arabia likely involved cruise missiles and attack drones, a separate US official familiar with the intelligence assessment told CNN earlier today. The official said that the attacks did not originate from Iraq but would not say whether they originated from Iran or Yemen. Iraq's Prime Minister issued a statement Monday saying that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had told him that the attacks had not originated from Iraq. The State Department when asked about the call, said “no comment.”

The US maintains an enhanced awareness of the airspace over Iraq given US military operations there as part of the counter-ISIS coalition.

While the Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen have used attack drones in the past, those attacks have typically been launched against Saudi targets close to the border.

The recent attacks against the Saudi oil facilities would represent a major improvement in the Houthis ability to accurately hit targets at a much greater distance than previously demonstrated.

James Brown · 16-09-2019 6:31pm

notobtuse wrote: »

Once all the I's are dotted and T’s are crossed, and everything points to Iran’s regime of religious psychopaths using one its proxies to undertake the oil field attach, they must be punished severely or they will continue their actions. 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.

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.

So the Alt-Right jury is in is it?
Last time the people of Iran rose up it was with the help of the CIA. Worked out great didn't it? Maybe if the US just f***ed off out of it for a spell?

Cheerful Spring2 · 16-09-2019 6:32pm

notobtuse wrote: »

There will be no ground invasion. Pinpoint air attacks and global boycotts just might be the incentive needed for the Iranian people to accomplish a regime change.

Funny thing is Iran has the capability to strike back. If this goes down don't be shocked if Iran destroys US airbases and aircraft carriers at sea. They not Iraq. Very likely Russia and China will support them with satellite coverage.

I don't think people realise Iran base is Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and Yemen. You going to have take them on across mutiple fronts at the same time.

notobtuse · 16-09-2019 6:34pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So the Alt-Right jury is in is it?
Last time the people of Iran rose up it was with the help of the CIA. Worked out great didn't it? Maybe if the US just f***ed off out of it for a spell?

There's a new sheriff in town and the mullahs' lock on power is now shakier than ever.

notobtuse · 16-09-2019 6:36pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Funny thing is Iran has the capability to strike back. If this goes down don't be shocked if Iran destroys US airbases and aircraft carriers at sea. They not Iraq. Very likely Russia and China will support them with satellite coverage.

I don't think people realise Iran base is Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and Yemen. You going to have take them on across mutiple fronts at the same time.

Russia and China need to buy oil, also. Economics usually trumps shaky alliances.

James Brown · 16-09-2019 6:39pm

notobtuse wrote: »

There's a new sheriff in town and the mullahs' lock on power is now shakier than ever.

You know Trump is a laughing stock all over the world right? Yeah him being a little nutty means anything can happen but to be fair to the Trump administration, it's the yanks in general. Who ever is in the WH they like throwing their weight around when money and oil is involved. I'm sure Trump and friends are writing up contracts as we speak.
'Merica f*** yeah!

Gatling · 16-09-2019 6:42pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

This is not a Iraq. Iran possesses the same missiles as Israel and America and can hit every US base in the region. This is not empty threat.

Hitting unprotected civilian infrastructure is one thing ,
Hitting highly defended US military bases is a whole different ball game especially when the US can strike anywhere inside of Iran from the air ,sea , ground 24/7 in retaliation

You certainly big up Iran

notobtuse · 16-09-2019 6:43pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You know Trump is a laughing stock all over the world right? Yeah him being a little nutty means anything can happen but to be fair to the Trump administration, it's the yanks in general. Who ever is in the WH they like throwing their weight around when money and oil is involved. I'm sure Trump and friends are writing up contracts as we speak.
'Merica f*** yeah!

You do know at the recent G7, when it comes to approval ratings, only Japan's Shinzo Abe had Trump beat amongst world leaders.

Danzy · 16-09-2019 6:47pm

American strikes in Iran will cement the leadership and bring their current internal opponents fully behind them.

Recent regime change ideas have been among the mist catastrophic **** ups in US foreign policy in the last century.

Turning Iraq into a vassal state of Iran was the smallest **** up from that trip.

I can't see how America would win on the ground in Iran.

Look at how Vietnam effected them, 55k dead over 10 years, put of s population of 250 million.

Then go up against a population of 80 million where getting volunteers to clean a minefield by running across it, was no problem.

Smaller countries in Europe called 50k dead a bad day or week in the last century.

They don't have the appetite, that not a bad thing.

Outside of that Iran will be able to hit hard but it may be in such a dirty way, using proxies that it makes a large US response inevitable.

James Brown · 16-09-2019 6:53pm

notobtuse wrote: »

You do know at the recent G7, when it comes to approval ratings, only Japan's Shinzo Abe had Trump beat amongst world leaders.

In what Teen Beat magazine? Is he still telling himself loads turned up for the inauguration? You hear him say the other day that he looks orange all the time because of the environmentally friendly light bulbs?

'New sheriff'

Danzy · 16-09-2019 6:56pm

Gatling wrote: »

Hitting unprotected civilian infrastructure is one thing ,
Hitting highly defended US military bases is a whole different ball game especially when the US can strike anywhere inside of Iran from the air ,sea , ground 24/7 in retaliation

You certainly big up Iran

Iran will use proxies and operatives abroad.

They'll hit back hard.

They'll figure out on a war of attrition that America will crack before they do.

They could well be right but the body count would be astronomical and the harder they hit America at home and it's people and interests across the world, it may awaken the Yanks for an all out effort and screw the costs in money or dead GIs

They can go that way too.

notobtuse · 16-09-2019 7:02pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

In what Teen Beat magazine? Is he still telling himself loads turned up for the inauguration? You hear him say the other day that he looks orange all the time because of the environmentally friendly light bulbs? 'New sheriff'

He does love having some fun and driving the biased media bat$hit crazy.

And that tidbit from the G7 was reported in Bloomberg. Not The Woke Warriors Gazette, but pretty prestigious in their own right.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-08-23/at-the-g7-trump-s-approval-rating-is-second-to-one

kildare lad · 16-09-2019 7:08pm

For all the saudis billions , they're having a hard time defeating the houthis . They've killed thousands of people in airstrikes including a lot of civilians , I just hope this doesn't escalate into something a lot worse

cameramonkey · 16-09-2019 7:14pm

CrankyHaus wrote: »

The range involved makes drones unlikely. Anything big enough to fly that far from Yemen should be a big, slow, loud target. In fact it seems likely that the Houthis taking credit for a drone attack is deliberate misinformation.

Aramco believes it was missiles. Even cruise missiles would be harder to intercept than drones, particularly if they came from a less expected direction. While Saudi Arabia has world class Air Defence systems there is ample evidence that human failings in its military severely undermines the effectiveness of even 1st rate gear.

This is a good read on it.

https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1208062/meet-the-quds-1/

We don't know the range involved.

Cruise missiles would be hard to miss, they are loud, low flying and slow. Any modern air defense system actually it does not even need to be modern could take them out. I agree that the Saudi army is not fit for purpose and could miss an attack like this. however I think civilians would have seen/ heard cruise missiles as they traversed the country.

cameramonkey · 16-09-2019 7:23pm

notobtuse wrote: »

Once all the I's are dotted and T’s are crossed, and everything points to Iran’s regime of religious psychopaths using one its proxies to undertake the oil field attach, they must be punished severely or they will continue their actions. 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.

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.

It would be shot out of the sky if it appeared in Iranian airspace. The Americans would not deploy such a slow vulnerable aircraft. They have pleanty of gear that could do a much better job.

notobtuse · 16-09-2019 7:29pm

cameramonkey wrote: »

It would be shot out of the sky if it appeared in Iranian airspace. The Americans would not deploy such a slow vulnerable aircraft. They have pleanty of gear that could do a much better job.

The swarm boats go after tankers in international waters. First missile shot by Iran would bring about massive destruction of key bases from more potent US aircraft.

Homelander · 16-09-2019 7:30pm

Why is the Saudi military so appallingly weak when they spend such absolutely enormous amounts of money on it? Iran would wipe the floor with them despite having a fraction of the military budget. It's like a fascist era Italy for the modern day.

cameramonkey · 16-09-2019 7:31pm

Homelander wrote: »

Why is the Saudi military so appallingly weak when they spend such absolutely enormous amounts of money on it? Iran would wipe the floor with them despite having a fraction of the military budget. It's like a fascist era Italy for the modern day.

nepotism and bad training. They have also no will to fight for a corrupt regime.

16-09-2019 7:33pm

Homelander wrote: »

Why is the Saudi military so appallingly weak when they spend such absolutely enormous amounts of money on it? Iran would wipe the floor with them despite having a fraction of the military budget. It's like a fascist era Italy for the modern day.

From what I understand their military and Society has a very top-down approach in that that they don't trust individual soldiers to make autonomous decisions and thus have a top-heavy command structure that can be slow to react during a crisis.

cameramonkey · 16-09-2019 7:49pm

https://www.businessinsider.com/saudi-arabia-iran-yemen-military-proxy-war-2017-12?r=US&IR=T

YFlyer · 16-09-2019 7:51pm

Where were the Patriot defense system

Homelander · 16-09-2019 7:53pm

Good article, thanks. Very interesting. Compare the Saudi intervention in Yemen to the Russian one in Syria and the resulting outcomes. Stark.

Gatling · 16-09-2019 8:00pm

YFlyer wrote: »

Where were the Patriot defense system

Not at isolated oil fields likely only deployed to military infrastructure and to protect they royal family,

If America shot down the missles over another state and there was casualties as a result people would have been up in arms screaming for revenge ,if they acted and stopped the missles over Saudi ,the kingdom would look helpless .

It's a no win situation for the US.

It didn't stop them docking a destroyer in Lebanon earlier today

Homelander · 16-09-2019 8:06pm

Pretty interesting what Trump said about waiting to hear from 'The Kingdom' on action to take. That's genuinely piling pressure on SA in a big way, and the resulting response could make SA look even weaker, but on the flip side, the US is hardly going to go to war if SA responds saying "let's hit them hard".
Not sure if that man's a secret genius, or just absurdly dumb beyond comphrehension, it's impossible to tell at times.

cameramonkey · 16-09-2019 8:28pm

Gatling wrote: »

Not at isolated oil fields likely only deployed to military infrastructure and to protect they royal family,

If America shot down the missles over another state and there was casualties as a result people would have been up in arms screaming for revenge ,if they acted and stopped the missles over Saudi ,the kingdom would look helpless .

It's a no win situation for the US.

It didn't stop them docking a destroyer in Lebanon earlier today

The US has killed tens of thousands of civilians in the recent past and no one has done anything about it and very few care. If they knocked out a missile over SA and killed a few people no one would care.

Anyway here is what maybe hit the SA oilfield.

https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1208062/meet-the-quds-1/

AMKC · 16-09-2019 8:37pm

Homelander wrote: »

Pretty interesting what Trump said about waiting to hear from 'The Kingdom' on action to take. That's genuinely piling pressure on SA in a big way, and the resulting response could make SA look even weaker, but on the flip side, the US is hardly going to go to war if SA responds saying "let's hit them hard".
Not sure if that man's a secret genius, or just absurdly dumb beyond comphrehension, it's impossible to tell at times.

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.

Micky 32 · 16-09-2019 8:40pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

listen genius, once its burned it cant pollute the atmosphere running filthy internal combustion engines !

I'm going outside now to rev my lovely diesel engine :-)

rockatansky · 16-09-2019 9:14pm

notobtuse wrote: »

There's a new sheriff in town and the mullahs' lock on power is now shakier than ever.

Their grip on power is just as strong as the first few months after the Revolution.

No one person in the country is challenging either Ayatollah Ali Khamenei or Qasem Soleimani.

There's only one possible way of Regime change, and that's an awful lot of US boots on the ground. Never going to happen.

CrankyHaus · 16-09-2019 9:31pm

Homelander wrote: »

Why is the Saudi military so appallingly weak when they spend such absolutely enormous amounts of money on it? Iran would wipe the floor with them despite having a fraction of the military budget. It's like a fascist era Italy for the modern day.

You're assuming that their priority is to have a top rate military with unified command by professional officers. In fact this would just be a potential coup threat. Many more middle Eastern regimes fall to internal threats than external ones. So any self respecting despot needs to appoint commanders based on loyalty above competence, this rationale extends down the chain of command.

They also split the military up in ways that frustrate potential coups but undermine effectiveness : so in Saudi Arabia you have the regular military under the Ministry of Defence, the National Guard under its own Ministry, Ministry of Interior paramilitaries, a Royal Guard that reports directly to the King and a Border Guard under its own Directorate. Most Middle Eastern states are similar.

The heavy military spending is at least as much a form of diplomacy as it is an attempt to build an effective military. For some time the House of Saud has been keeping the lights on in the British defence industry and the influence this gives it over British governments is considerable (massive job losses in industrial regions are electorally hard to shake off). The rest of the gulf states do similar and they share the love all over to curry goodwill with disparate western powers. For instance Qatar's purchase of F15s, Rafales, Typhoons and C17 heavy strategic transports is more a reflection of diplomatic than military necessity. What all this buys is a blind eye to human rights abuses and terrorism support in the good times and a safe place to fly the private jet if and when an angry mob storm the presidential palace.

Danzy · 16-09-2019 9:39pm

Fat Saudi soldiers fighting hill farmers and herders. Lads who had a gun at 8 and run over mountains vs lads who have a McDonald's on base.

rockatansky · 16-09-2019 9:42pm

Homelander wrote: »

Why is the Saudi military so appallingly weak when they spend such absolutely enormous amounts of money on it? Iran would wipe the floor with them despite having a fraction of the military budget. It's like a fascist era Italy for the modern day.

Can I ask what this is based on? Iran still uses the F-14 tomcats while the Saudi Airforce uses much more advanced fighters?

Danzy · 16-09-2019 10:22pm

rockatansky wrote: »

Can I ask what this is based on? Iran still uses the F-14 tomcats while the Saudi Airforce uses much more advanced fighters?

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.

rockatansky · 16-09-2019 10:32pm

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.

Danzy · 16-09-2019 10:45pm

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. ðŸ˜‰

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.

smurfjed · 17-09-2019 5:23am

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.

johnmcdnl · 17-09-2019 5:54am

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)

Veritas Libertas · 17-09-2019 6:14am

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.

s7ryf3925pivug · 17-09-2019 6:34am

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.

antiskeptic · 17-09-2019 8:58am

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...

notobtuse · 17-09-2019 2:07pm

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.

notobtuse · 17-09-2019 3:31pm

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.

James Brown · 17-09-2019 6:07pm

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'.

Attacks in Saudi Arabia on two oil factories

Comments