sawadeeken Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 14 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said: Targets in Iraq or Iran? To wipe out "resistance" to what ? Nuclear what? The analogy of the mosquito? Yes, a single mosquito can assuredly take down a buffalo slowly but surely by disease. A disease usually requires a vector. Who is providing and encouraging the vector for the disease of the middle east? Who is waiting by the roadside to answer the call Medic Medic ! You think that a mosquito will (assuredly) take down a buffalo?????..... I have a bridge in San Francisco called the Golden Gate Bridge I really want to sell to somebody cheap---- You just may be interested to purchase it from me.... How did you ever get a name like 'Dumbastheycome'.... I wonder.... 5555 Who mentioned Iraq????? Nuclear what? Don't you read the news about Irans claims and satalite images of Irans Nuclear achievments (and their threats)?????? I will wait for more information that will surely be coming soon about the attack on SA oilfields Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dumbastheycome Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 1 minute ago, Morch said: "Unless ALL the Iranian oilfields are destroyed then Iran is an indirect winner also." Not really following the reasoning here. Because Iran might benefit from rise in oil prices too? I'd imagine the damage done will offset that some. If I misunderstood your intention, please clarify. I don't think there's a realistic scenario in which all oilfields (either country's or the region's in general) are completely destroyed. I am willing to be wrong but I think the underlying concept of the post you replied to encompasses the very likely concept that the end game intent is to acquire the oil reserves of Iran for specific national control . In the case of the entire destruction of those reserves Iran would be winner by default due to the loss of the opposition objective. It is in that light that it may explain the reservations that Trump has been advised to heed ( and surprisingly has) in his most recent reactive commentary about the overall middle eastern chaos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CGW Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 38 minutes ago, sawadeeken said: Do you think that the USA and SA would have continued a relationship had they (US) felt there was a governmental involvement? Most definatley! not a doubt in my mind, "petro-dollars" & arms sales are a much stronger influence than conscience or right and wrong to "corporate USA". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sawadeeken Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 5 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said: I am willing to be wrong That says it all...... Thanks..... Iran would love to knock out its competition (especially the 'Hated' competition, as SA...... There is confirmed and proven connections between muslim Iran and muslin Houthais in Yemen. And it's common knowledge that Iran is currently '<deleted>' at most of the world and desperate to try to improve it's own finaces and need for 'It's' oil.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 10 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said: I am willing to be wrong but I think the underlying concept of the post you replied to encompasses the very likely concept that the end game intent is to acquire the oil reserves of Iran for specific national control . In the case of the entire destruction of those reserves Iran would be winner by default due to the loss of the opposition objective. It is in that light that it may explain the reservations that Trump has been advised to heed ( and surprisingly has) in his most recent reactive commentary about the overall middle eastern chaos. I've no idea if that what @billd766 meant, so I'll refer to your view - nonsense. Your "argument" boils down to this: even if Iran loses, it will still somehow win, because all of it's oil fields will be destroyed. At best, and if one accepted the unsupported premise of taking-their-oil, it would be less of a "win" for the other side. Iran would still have lost, plus come out of it devastated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sawadeeken Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 8 minutes ago, CGW said: Most definatley! not a doubt in my mind, "petro-dollars" & arms sales are a much stronger influence than conscience or right and wrong to "corporate USA". Is that just your personal opinion or is there facts somewhere to back that up????? And that proves that Iran wasn't connected to the attacks?????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dumbastheycome Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 8 minutes ago, sawadeeken said: You think that a mosquito will (assuredly) take down a buffalo?????..... I have a bridge in San Francisco called the Golden Gate Bridge I really want to sell to somebody cheap---- You just may be interested to purchase it from me.... How did you ever get a name like 'Dumbastheycome'.... I wonder.... 5555 Who mentioned Iraq????? Nuclear what? Don't you read the news about Irans claims and satalite images of Irans Nuclear achievments (and their threats)?????? I will wait for more information that will surely be coming soon about the attack on SA oilfields Perhaps you should slow down and re read your post? I have no interest in a bridge made of rusting iron. My member name is chosen due to alternate definitions such as yourself would not consider as legitimate outside of your personal presumptions. Ian has long made clear it's intent to develop nuclear energy production as an alternative to the finite oil reserves it would if it could sell them. Threats? I have read nothing other than a open declaration of resolve to re establish the unfettered pursuit of that objective now that the constraints of the international agreement they were and are still party to have been eroded by pressure from the departed US to said agreement. The world waits for an "announcement about the Saudi attack. Personally I doubt it will be anything other than a convenient distortion of "analysis" in obscuration of fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solinvictus Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 The same country that was involved in 9/11. Who would believe them. It seems like they along with the US & Israel are more then willing to bring in the next major war. Dam them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dumbastheycome Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 7 minutes ago, Morch said: I've no idea if that what @billd766 meant, so I'll refer to your view - nonsense. Your "argument" boils down to this: even if Iran loses, it will still somehow win, because all of it's oil fields will be destroyed. At best, and if one accepted the unsupported premise of taking-their-oil, it would be less of a "win" for the other side. Iran would still have lost, plus come out of it devastated. And who will have "won"? Except in definition by the destruction, disruption , subjugation of yet another country not compliant to the "benevolence" of military superiority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 8 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said: And who will have "won"? It's not my imaginary scenario, is it? These days, "winning"' wars is less clear cut than it used to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dumbastheycome Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 1 minute ago, Morch said: It's not my imaginary scenario, is it? These days, "winning"' wars is less clear cut than it used to be. Very true. Often the loser emerges as a very strong puppet ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sawadeeken Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 2 minutes ago, Morch said: It's not my imaginary scenario, is it? These days, "winning"' wars is less clear cut than it used to be. You are so 'correct'................ and it is a boiling kettle in the middle east now.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dumbastheycome Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 Confusion is a weak defense demonstrated by adherence to simple loyalty to a well taught doctrine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rookiescot Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 2 hours ago, bristolboy said: Not sure why being an oil exporter would give the US greater ability to cut taxes and just because taxes can be cut doesn't mean that they will be. Has that happened recently? Even when oil prices were much higher? What's more the US isn't yet a net exporter of oil. It soon is predicted to be but not yet. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/24/us-becomes-a-net-energy-exporter-in-2020-energy-dept-says.html Higher oil prices means fracking is more viable. (Personally dont agree with fracking but thats a different conversation). The US can ride out a loss of middle east oil because it has its own reserves and a friendly neighbor to the north with huge amounts of oil sands which again are attractive with a higher price. The USA could even remove sanctions from Venezuela and allow their oil to flow. My point is China will suffer from a global oil crisis far more that the US will. So if someone needs to take human casualties in the middle east then let it be China and not the United States. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 11 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said: Confusion is a weak defense demonstrated by adherence to simple loyalty to a well taught doctrine. Not much to do with "defense" or the rest of your nonsense. More about your posting style, which apparently aims to be as convulsed and unclear as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bangrak Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 Promises made by Saudi Arabia to tell the truth about something, about anything, for whom to believe, aah, when Saudis (M + F ...!) would have the right to speak for their own, without exposing themselves to dire consequences, and say what they think about the vicious feodal system enslaving them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dumbastheycome Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 5 minutes ago, Morch said: Not much to do with "defense" or the rest of your nonsense. More about your posting style, which apparently aims to be as convulsed and unclear as possible. Oh dear ! You respond so quickly to a post which I admit is not on topic in a manner that is so personalized yet not attributed directly or intended specifically to yourself ! Not at all as your post is. Should I squeal to the moderators ? There is precedent .555 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 1 minute ago, Dumbastheycome said: Oh dear ! You respond so quickly to a post which I admit is not on topic in a manner that is so personalized yet not attributed directly or intended specifically to yourself ! Not at all as your post is. Should I squeal to the moderators ? There is precedent .555 Thanks for making my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dumbastheycome Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 8 minutes ago, bangrak said: Promises made by Saudi Arabia to tell the truth about something, about anything, for whom to believe, aah, when Saudis (M + F ...!) would have the right to speak for their own, without exposing themselves to dire consequences, and say what they think about the vicious feodal system enslaving them... True! There is an aberration in the validity of reason for "alliance". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dumbastheycome Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 Just now, Morch said: Thanks for making my point. ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billd766 Posted September 20, 2019 Share Posted September 20, 2019 16 hours ago, sawadeeken said: Are you insinuating that Yemen, the Houthis. are BUYING the weapons from Iran???? as the saudi's are buying from the USA?????? How much money do you think the Houthis and Yemen's have to purchase 'High tech' stuff?????? or is it maybe donated for a good cause by Iran????? And since when do warring nations show concern for 'Innocent' civillians????? I only know of a couple countries that care........ Edited to add........ The muslims surely didn't on 9/11 on their attacks.... muslin intentionally NOT capitalized...... I have no idea how the Houthi's in Yemen get the weapons from Iran nor do I particularly care. If the Saudi's buy their weapons from the USA it still doesn't make the USA any less guilty than Iran giving the stuff away. In your last paragraph, the people who caused 9/11 in the USA were from Saudi America and not from Iran, yet the USA still supplies weaponry to the Saudi's and not to Iran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
candide Posted September 20, 2019 Share Posted September 20, 2019 9 minutes ago, billd766 said: I have no idea how the Houthi's in Yemen get the weapons from Iran nor do I particularly care. If the Saudi's buy their weapons from the USA it still doesn't make the USA any less guilty than Iran giving the stuff away. In your last paragraph, the people who caused 9/11 in the USA were from Saudi America and not from Iran, yet the USA still supplies weaponry to the Saudi's and not to Iran. You forgot to mention that S.A. transferred some of these weapons to Al Quaida in Yemen. "Saudi Arabia and its coalition partners have transferred American-made weapons to al Qaeda-linked fighters, hardline Salafi militias, and other factions waging war in Yemen, in violation of their agreements with the United States, a CNN investigation has found." https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2019/02/middleeast/yemen-lost-us-arms/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CGW Posted September 20, 2019 Share Posted September 20, 2019 14 hours ago, Rookiescot said: My point is China will suffer from a global oil crisis far more that the US will. True, also China has benefited more than anyone having had access to cheap oil. The US as you state is a net exporter, now has the largest production in the world, SA is now second, the problem with a lot of the US produced oil (Permian) is they can't refine it and need to import oil for the refining process which means they do need to import. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billd766 Posted September 20, 2019 Share Posted September 20, 2019 59 minutes ago, candide said: You forgot to mention that S.A. transferred some of these weapons to Al Quaida in Yemen. "Saudi Arabia and its coalition partners have transferred American-made weapons to al Qaeda-linked fighters, hardline Salafi militias, and other factions waging war in Yemen, in violation of their agreements with the United States, a CNN investigation has found." https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2019/02/middleeast/yemen-lost-us-arms/ Thank you for that information as I did not know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted September 20, 2019 Share Posted September 20, 2019 1 hour ago, billd766 said: I have no idea how the Houthi's in Yemen get the weapons from Iran nor do I particularly care. If the Saudi's buy their weapons from the USA it still doesn't make the USA any less guilty than Iran giving the stuff away. In your last paragraph, the people who caused 9/11 in the USA were from Saudi America and not from Iran, yet the USA still supplies weaponry to the Saudi's and not to Iran. At least on this forum, it seems more popular to raise the issue of complicity via arms supply in relation to the USA's support of Saudi Arabia - while at the same time disregarding or dismissing Iran's support of the Houthis. I suppose some shrill moral cries will ensue about it "not being the same", on the grounds that the Houthis are weaker, or something. As if Iran's (or for that matter, the USA's) policies and actions got a whole lot to do with morality and righteousness. Fair enough to comment on USA support to Saudi Arabia despite of 9/11. The "not to Iran" bit at the end, however, if way off-mark. It's not an either/or proposition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
batata Posted September 22, 2019 Share Posted September 22, 2019 On 9/18/2019 at 8:52 PM, PatOngo said: Like the concrete proof they offered that they didn't murder Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi? is this a double post because there's a guy posted same thought just before you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolboy Posted September 22, 2019 Share Posted September 22, 2019 On 9/20/2019 at 1:48 PM, Morch said: At least on this forum, it seems more popular to raise the issue of complicity via arms supply in relation to the USA's support of Saudi Arabia - while at the same time disregarding or dismissing Iran's support of the Houthis. I suppose some shrill moral cries will ensue about it "not being the same", on the grounds that the Houthis are weaker, or something. As if Iran's (or for that matter, the USA's) policies and actions got a whole lot to do with morality and righteousness. Fair enough to comment on USA support to Saudi Arabia despite of 9/11. The "not to Iran" bit at the end, however, if way off-mark. It's not an either/or proposition. How about the fact that before the Saudis invaded people actually knowledgeable about the situation said Iran had very little involvement. Once the Saudis entered in a big way, that's when Iran became heavily involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 Western JCPOA signatories don't buy into the it-wasn't-us narrative: Britain, France, Germany blame Iran for Saudi attack - statement https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-iran-europe/britain-france-germany-blame-iran-for-saudi-attack-statement-idUKKBN1W82FX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlandtday Posted September 26, 2019 Share Posted September 26, 2019 On 9/19/2019 at 3:24 PM, tlandtday said: absolute bs from Saudi Arabia... who would trust that totalitarian regime. In fact a group outside Iran claimed responsibility and <deleted> pompous Pompeo said we don't accept it and it was Iran... I guess it didn't fit the agenda. yeah like saudi arabia can be trusted... maybe they will torture another in the embassy to confess... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.