U.S. Navy says mine fragments suggest Iran behind Gulf tanker attack

[Morch]

1 hour ago, FritsSikkink said:

True, there is a lot wrong with Iran but the local people need to sort that out.

 

Who are the "local people"? And seeing as oil supply and nuclear proliferation are global concerns, how and why should it be left for "local people" to deal with?

[mikebike]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

...how and why should it be left for "local people" to deal with?

I'll guess! Sovereign nations and the resources belong to them?

 

As Biden has highlighted, sometimes you have to work with people with a different view than yours to get the job done!! I wonder if BH1916 agrees with that in this case... ????????

[Morch]

9 minutes ago, mikebike said:

I'll guess! Sovereign nations and the resources belong to them?

 

As Biden has highlighted, sometimes you have to work with people with a different view than yours to get the job done!! I wonder if BH1916 agrees with that in this case... ????????

 

Global oil supply, nuclear proliferation etc. are matters of international concern. Not sure how the "belong to them" relates. For example, the cargo aboard these tankers "belonged" to another country/company.

 

 

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, from the home of CC said:

turning a blind eye to the killing of Khashoggi could be construed as complicity considering the cantankerous relationship with the WSJ -  at least to those not blinded.. 

 

I think there's a difference between the original premise I responded to and your comment. Kinda doubt it was on the behest of the USA government, unless one is much into conspiracy theories.

[from the home of CC]

6 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I think there's a difference between the original premise I responded to and your comment. Kinda doubt it was on the behest of the USA government, unless one is much into conspiracy theories.

not much difference between behest and tacit approval to his widow..

[Morch]

17 minutes ago, from the home of CC said:

not much difference between behest and tacit approval to his widow..

 

Not much on topic either. Or to do with my post. Or the post I was responding to.

[FritsSikkink]

20 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Who are the "local people"? And seeing as oil supply and nuclear proliferation are global concerns, how and why should it be left for "local people" to deal with?

The Iranians. It isn't USA oil to start with, they steal it from the countries they invade. So why give nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia, which has the worst human rights situation in the world?

[meand]

20 hours ago, Morch said:

 

If you say so, it must be true.

None of this is about me.

 

It is about the NUMBER ONE sponsor if terror, who is clearly Saudi Arabia. But, we have certain deals with Saudi Arabia that make our rich get richer. So, we go after countries like Iran who have nationalized their oil.

 

Nationalizing oil and getting off the dollar are acts of war as far as the pentagon is concerned. All they need to do after that is convince people (go back a couple decades) "the commies are coming!". And now, it is "terrorists are coming, we are going in to save the people". 

 

What is your reason the US government would make such strong (ie factual) statements it was Iran only hours after the incident. With no investigations or information? I would say my guess is much more probable, all the dots connect and the history and patterns are right there.

 

People need to wake up. That is the only defense we have, waking up and voting in candidates/administrations who do not facilitate regime change for the rich. 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, FritsSikkink said:

The Iranians. It isn't USA oil to start with, they steal it from the countries they invade. So why give nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia, which has the worst human rights situation in the world?

 

Oh, so the Iranians will sort themselves out. Yeah, well - kinda not  happening, for quite a while now. Not sure if that was actually a serious comment, even. Back in the real world, no one trusted Iran to comply with the agreement's terms without strict inspections in place and a stick at the ready. Unless you missed it, the people of Iran do not seem to have a lot of say in the matters discussed - the nuclear program, the standoff vs. the USA, Iran's regional efforts and so on.

 

The rest of your post is just shooting in all directions - never said anything about the oil belonging to the USA. But the oil in them tankers wasn't Iran's as well. Nothing said in favor of arming Saudi Arabia, either. You've got nothing, hence deflections and moving of goal posts.

[FritsSikkink]

9 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Oh, so the Iranians will sort themselves out. Yeah, well - kinda not  happening, for quite a while now. Not sure if that was actually a serious comment, even. Back in the real world, no one trusted Iran to comply with the agreement's terms without strict inspections in place and a stick at the ready. Unless you missed it, the people of Iran do not seem to have a lot of say in the matters discussed - the nuclear program, the standoff vs. the USA, Iran's regional efforts and so on.

 

The rest of your post is just shooting in all directions - never said anything about the oil belonging to the USA. But the oil in them tankers wasn't Iran's as well. Nothing said in favor of arming Saudi Arabia, either. You've got nothing, hence deflections and moving of goal posts.

I got nothing? The USA is looking for another invasion of an oil rich country with bogus excuses. 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, meand said:

None of this is about me.

 

It is about the NUMBER ONE sponsor if terror, who is clearly Saudi Arabia. But, we have certain deals with Saudi Arabia that make our rich get richer. So, we go after countries like Iran who have nationalized their oil.

 

Nationalizing oil and getting off the dollar are acts of war as far as the pentagon is concerned. All they need to do after that is convince people (go back a couple decades) "the commies are coming!". And now, it is "terrorists are coming, we are going in to save the people". 

 

What is your reason the US government would make such strong (ie factual) statements it was Iran only hours after the incident. With no investigations or information? I would say my guess is much more probable, all the dots connect and the history and patterns are right there.

 

People need to wake up. That is the only defense we have, waking up and voting in candidates/administrations who do not facilitate regime change for the rich. 

 

It's about nonsense posts. Which you happen to indulge in. Posting opinion as fact doesn't make it so.

 

Kindly refer to your previous post, and pray tell what does it have to do with your current Saudi Arabia deflection.

 

That you announce this is about Saudi Arabia doesn't make the topic about Saudi Arabia, same holds for your previous comment.

 

And "acts of war as far as the pentagon is concerned"? Seriously? Kinda doubt the current crisis is driven by the Pentagon, or even that Trump hawkish advisors and the Pentagon are on the same page.

 

I think that the current administration often shoots from the hip. It shouldn't come as a surprise by now, and it's not unique to the situation at hand. Reading too much into it is a choice. Seems like that how the Trump administration rolls. And I'm pretty sure that had the USA been slow to respond, you would have come up with another conspiracy theory on how their cooking the narrative or something. 

 

 

[Morch]

1 minute ago, FritsSikkink said:

I got nothing? The USA is looking for another invasion of an oil rich country with bogus excuses. 

 

You've got nothing when it comes to making a coherent argument supporting your view. The same holds for the above - an invasion would require much more troops and military hardware than is in place. It would also necessitate wider international participation.

[FritsSikkink]

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You've got nothing when it comes to making a coherent argument supporting your view. The same holds for the above - an invasion would require much more troops and military hardware than is in place. It would also necessitate wider international participation.

Have a look at that Iranian aggression, right in the middle of the US army bases

[Rimmer]

An off topic post trying to drag the Julian Assange case into the topic has been removed

[mikebike]

23 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Global oil supply, nuclear proliferation etc. are matters of international concern. Not sure how the "belong to them" relates. For example, the cargo aboard these tankers "belonged" to another country/company.

 

 

How strange then that we don't see these incidents in other oil-producing nations like Canada or Russia... No one is telling them that their oil is "international"... (Although, for some strange reason, Venezuela's oil is "international"... see a pattern here?)

[mikebike]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

Oh, so the Iranians will sort themselves out. Yeah, well - kinda not  happening, for quite a while now. Back in the real world, no one trusted Iran to comply with the agreement's terms without strict inspections in place and a stick at the ready.

Doesn't really matter if it is "happening" or not. Doesn't matter if we "trust" them. The resource is their's to do with what they wish or not. Sell it, stockpile it, give it away... it is no-one's business but the Iranian's.

 

Your take on this is the same as saying it is the Hatfield's job manipulate the McCoy's property... that philosophy goes over just as well on the international stage as it does in the neighbourhood.

[Morch]

58 minutes ago, mikebike said:

How strange then that we don't see these incidents in other oil-producing nations like Canada or Russia... No one is telling them that their oil is "international"... (Although, for some strange reason, Venezuela's oil is "international"... see a pattern here?)

 

Never said anything about telling them that their oil is "international". Global oil supply is an international concern. The oil in them tanker belonged to whomever bought it, not to Iran. Blocking the Strait of Hormuz, is an international matter, rather than "just" an Iranian one.

[Morch]

54 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Doesn't really matter if it is "happening" or not. Doesn't matter if we "trust" them. The resource is their's to do with what they wish or not. Sell it, stockpile it, give it away... it is no-one's business but the Iranian's.

 

Your take on this is the same as saying it is the Hatfield's job manipulate the McCoy's property... that philosophy goes over just as well on the international stage as it does in the neighbourhood.

 

You keep alleging things I haven't posted, and taking what I have posted out of context.

[observer90210]

A bunch of people are making good money with all these playground rants said by one party to the other....the markets as usual react like a bunch of virgin sissies at the slightest tension and that yields good bargains or profits to those who know how to surf on the wave....

[mikebike]

32 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Never said anything about telling them that their oil is "international". Global oil supply is an international concern. The oil in them tanker belonged to whomever bought it, not to Iran. Blocking the Strait of Hormuz, is an international matter, rather than "just" an Iranian one.

Well, our little thread in this discussion started with your reply to FitsSkkink's comment, "True, there is a lot wrong with Iran but the local people need to sort that out.", which was, "Who are the "local people"? And seeing as oil supply and nuclear proliferation are global concerns, how and why should it be left for "local people" to deal with?"

 

My responses have been to the initial point which was "Iran's problems are Iran's to work out". I didn't detect your conversational deviation towards a point not being discussed - who's responsibility is it to protect oil in transport...

 

Anyway... on to your new point:

"Global oil supply is an international concern" I will agree with that, with the caveat that it is only a REGIONAL concern and/or a concern to whomever bought it.

 

Who has recently blocked the Straight of Hormuz? Anyway, even if this was the case I would say it is a REGIONAL issue. The international issue at play is this: All countries need to get off their addiction to middle-east oil to protect their own sovereignty and to be able to leave that part of the world to its own devices.

[mikebike]

48 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You keep alleging things I haven't posted, and taking what I have posted out of context.

To me it seems you meander off topic frequently... and attempt to obfuscate if your points are challenged.

[Morch]

14 hours ago, mikebike said:

Well, our little thread in this discussion started with your reply to FitsSkkink's comment, "True, there is a lot wrong with Iran but the local people need to sort that out.", which was, "Who are the "local people"? And seeing as oil supply and nuclear proliferation are global concerns, how and why should it be left for "local people" to deal with?"

 

My responses have been to the initial point which was "Iran's problems are Iran's to work out". I didn't detect your conversational deviation towards a point not being discussed - who's responsibility is it to protect oil in transport...

 

Anyway... on to your new point:

"Global oil supply is an international concern" I will agree with that, with the caveat that it is only a REGIONAL concern and/or a concern to whomever bought it.

 

Who has recently blocked the Straight of Hormuz? Anyway, even if this was the case I would say it is a REGIONAL issue. The international issue at play is this: All countries need to get off their addiction to middle-east oil to protect their own sovereignty and to be able to leave that part of the world to its own devices.

 

Waffle on.

 

There was no "conversational deviation toward a point not being discussed". The original one-liner replied to was just way too simplistic. Raising relevant issue pertaining to the premise offered is legit.

 

The current Iranian regime demonstrated through action and word that it cannot be fully trusted when it comes to issues effecting international concerns (nuclear proliferation and oil supply being two obvious points). Considering the current regime isn't going anywhere and that venues for replacing or reforming it are limited, asserting that letting Iranian sort things out is not much of an option.

 

So not really a new point, so much as explaining why the original one-liner was questionable.

 

As for the rest of your post - no, it isn't a regional thing. If I remember correctly, about 20%-30% of the Worlds' gas and oil supply go through the Strait of Hormuz. Incidents related to security in the area tend to effect global oil prices. Painting the issue as bilateral or regional is off-mark, at best.  Ignoring repeated Iranian threats to block the Strait of Hormuz, or past attacks (during the Iran-Iraq War) on tankers is a choice.

[Morch]

14 hours ago, mikebike said:

To me it seems you meander off topic frequently... and attempt to obfuscate if your points are challenged.

 

Where did I "meander off topic"? Never mind the "frequently" bit - not expecting a coherent response anyway.

[Morch]

 

@FritsSikkink

 

I try to avoid addressing memes, as they are often misleading, shallow substitutes for arguments.

 

Starting with your one-liner - doesn't really relate to my post, and doesn't even relate much to the meme.

 

As for the image itself - notably it doesn't include Iranian presence in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon or Yemen. That wouldn't fit the narrative. USA bases in countries neighboring Iran may have something to do with said countries feeling Iran is a threat. Other bases in the region are not necessarily much to do with Iran, but that doesn't mean they can't be utilized to make the meme more impressive.