Iran says it will destroy any aggressor

[xylophone]

57 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

 

If the United States is only interested in it’s oil supply, why didn’t it just take the Saudi oil back in the ‘30s, why did they build the industry for them?

Why didn’t they take Iraq’s oil?

Why not just take everyone’s oil? Particularly eighty years ago when they were all living in tents and cooking over camel-sh*t fires?
 

 

The words do not portray the actuality of the situation unfortunately.

 

To "take" as you put it, everyone's oil would mean invading the territory/country, subduing the population and almost ruling it along with all of the logistical problems that this produces – – strictly a no-go and logistically damn near impossible.

 

Notwithstanding the world reaction to a major power deciding to invade and take over the fuel supplies of a smaller country, "the why can't we" type mentality, with this would be an absolute no-no. And if you consider that the US did not prevail in Vietnam, then imagine what difficulties they would face in other countries, just the same as Russia did in Afghanistan years ago.

 

What they decided to do, along with the UK, was to offer these countries expertise in getting the oil out of the ground and processing it, and names that spring to mind would be, "Bunker Hunt", "Aramco", BP, Shell and a few others whom I can't recall right now.

 

They were joint-venture type operations (I know I worked on a couple) but the stipulation was always that the country/company with the knowledge would train the locals to take over the facility/operation at a later date.

 

Countries like the US, the UK, Italy and France took part in these joint-venture operations, and helped, but as regards taking over the country and the oil supplies, definitely not possible.
 

[RideJocky]

You must be joking, right?
 
The real goal - as Greg Muttitt documented in his book Fuel on the Fire citing declassified Foreign Office files from 2003 onwards - was stabilising global energy supplies as a whole by ensuring the free flow of Iraqi oil to world markets - benefits to US and UK companies constituted an important but secondary goal:
"The most important strategic interest lay in expanding global energy supplies, through foreign investment, in some of the world's largest oil reserves – in particular Iraq. This meshed neatly with the secondary aim of securing contracts for their companies. Note that the strategy documents released here tend to refer to 'British and global energy supplies.' British energy security is to be obtained by there being ample global supplies – it is not about the specific flow."
 
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/20/iraq-war-oil-resources-energy-peak-scarcity-economy
 
The top five source countries of U.S. petroleum imports in 2017 were Canada (40%), Saudi Arabia (9%), Mexico (7%), Venezuela (7%), and Iraq (6%).
 
https://www.thoughtco.com/oil-drive-us-invasion-of-iraq-3968261

You must be joking, right?

[RideJocky]

The words do not portray the actuality of the situation unfortunately.

 

To "take" as you put it, everyone's oil would mean invading the territory/country, subduing the population and almost ruling it along with all of the logistical problems that this produces – – strictly a no-go and logistically damn near impossible.

 

Notwithstanding the world reaction to a major power deciding to invade and take over the fuel supplies of a smaller country, "the why can't we" type mentality, with this would be an absolute no-no. And if you consider that the US did not prevail in Vietnam, then imagine what difficulties they would face in other countries, just the same as Russia did in Afghanistan years ago.

 

What they decided to do, along with the UK, was to offer these countries expertise in getting the oil out of the ground and processing it, and names that spring to mind would be, "Bunker Hunt", "Aramco", BP, Shell and a few others whom I can't recall right now.

 

They were joint-venture type operations (I know I worked on a couple) but the stipulation was always that the country/company with the knowledge would train the locals to take over the facility/operation at a later date.

 

Countries like the US, the UK, Italy and France took part in these joint-venture operations, and helped, but as regards taking over the country and the oil supplies, definitely not possible.

 

 

Clearly (or otherwise) you see a lot of things differently than I.

[Cryingdick]

5 hours ago, Thaidream said:

Do you really think that Iran has no cruise missles or intercontinental missles and even in the event of a 12 hour window of Iranian destruction- they will launch on the Saudi Oil fields and make them inoperable for 6 months or more; they will launch on Tel Aviv and Jerusalem as well as  the US Base in Quatar- damaging scores of US aircraft.  At the same time- they will  close down the Straits of Hormuz blocking oil shipments.  A huge amount of US military will need to deploy to the Middle East and invade Iran- The cost in lives will be huge and the monetary cost will be trillions.

 

The Iranians will still be able to conduct terrorist raids possibly in Europe and the USA directly taking the war right to the American heartland.

 

The World economy will go into recession and some countries will have to be supplied by the US strategic oil stockpile which will almost deplete it.

 

Iran isnot Iraq- they have much more sophisticed weapons now than when they fought Iraq.  There are no American Generals pushing for an attack on Iran as they know it won't be over in 12 hours- that would just be the beginning. 

 

If they do that to Israel they are going to get a nuclear present. Iran may do some damage but if they go too far they will cease to exist. People compare it to Iraq but it is much different. Iraq was regime change and trying to build a nation. Iran is a simple FUBAR job. 

[kevin612]

No match to the usa

[billd766]

2 hours ago, sunnyboy2018 said:

The purpose is not to conquer the enemy but to give them decades of chaos and despair. The Yanks managed to destabilise South and Central America but its military adventures have been largely unsuccessful. Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan. As for Iran: Nuke em till they glow in the dark and their deserts turn to sheet glass.

Well said.

 

A typical brain dead keyboard warrior with no idea of the consequences.

 

The problem with nuclear radiation is that it is impossible to confine it to a small area. If you nuke Iran then the fallout, depending on the wind direction at the time you could hit Iran, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, UAE, Oman and possibly Egypt and Israel.

 

Knowing that Iran has no nuclear weapons what do you think the world would do? Certainly they would take action against the countries who set off the weapons and the only 2 in the region with nuclear weapons are the USA and Israel.

[Nyezhov]

4 minutes ago, billd766 said:

Certainly they would take action against the countries who set off the weapons and the only 2 in the region with nuclear weapons are the USA and Israel.

What are they gonna do about it? Talk sternly? ????

[Morch]

Just now, Nyezhov said:

What are they gonna do about it? Talk sternly? ????

 

In the case of Israel, certainly more than that.

 

With the USA - effectively less that could be done, but diplomatic and trade relations will almost surely be effected.

 

And, I kinda doubt going down that road reflects what the USA public wants. A president ordering such an attack will be lucky to stand elections again, even.

 

[fordguy61mi]

Aaaaand Iran’s a sand box.