B-52 bombers to be part of U.S. forces sent to Middle East over Iran concerns

[rabas]

37 minutes ago, oilinki said:

Generally Russia and China would fight against USA if it comes to that.

 

For Iran, it depends. If Russia sends troops to protect Iran, then it could become quite bad situation. 

The ME conflict has always been Russia vs the West. West wants stable oil supply and price to bring about prosperity, Russia needs instability and high oil prices to sell more of its own oil to maintain its failed economy. Thus 60+ years of instability mostly at the hands of Russia/Iran.

 

China is very dependent on stable oil imports thus they are in the Western camp on this. They will never help Russia to raise the price of oil. It would be like a great fire breathing dragon taking a deep breath.... 

Edited May 9, 2019 by rabas

[mauGR1]

If wars were to be abolished, americans would starve.

[Morch]

10 minutes ago, Assurancetourix said:

Exactly and USA has no glorious past since 1776 ...

 

They want to dominate the world and that unfortunately goes through endless wars they lose each time.
If the one they are preparing against Iran takes place, it will be their next defeat and who will pull the chestnuts from the fire?
China and Russia

 

That's cute, but the original reference and the one which you responded to was to Iran. If you wish to deflect, go right ahead, though.

 

The US is, and has been for a while now, the mightiest global force. Posters may certainly resent that, but that doesn't really carry much weight when it comes to how things are.

 

The US doesn't actually "lose each time", nor is it clear how victory is determined or defined. Different cases, different benchmarks.

 

I fail to see how Russia and China "pulling the chestnuts from the fire" relates to the rest of the post.

[Assurancetourix]

1 minute ago, transam said:

USA could finish any war in an instant if it had the mind to, ask Japan

In fact all the countries possessing the nuclear weapon ..
but none is crazy enough except the American "go-to-war" to use this weapon of mass destruction.

[geoffbezoz]

1 minute ago, Assurancetourix said:

In fact all the countries possessing the nuclear weapon ..
but none is crazy enough except the American "go-to-war" to use this weapon of mass destruction.

And knowing that many countries have the delivery means to hit the USA easily, don't think even Trump would start something he knows would end badly for him.

[transam]

2 minutes ago, Assurancetourix said:

In fact all the countries possessing the nuclear weapon ..
but none is crazy enough except the American "go-to-war" to use this weapon of mass destruction.

How do you know that...?

[Assurancetourix]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

That's cute

One could indeed laugh about it if it was not a next war totally useless;
like all wars in fact.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, Assurancetourix said:

In fact all the countries possessing the nuclear weapon ..
but none is crazy enough except the American "go-to-war" to use this weapon of mass destruction.

 

Even if this was correct, how would it relate to the OP? Was there any concrete threat by the US of using nuclear arms in this context?

[Assurancetourix]

This is an assumption that could be unfortunately realistic

[Morch]

1 minute ago, Assurancetourix said:

This is an assumption that could be unfortunately realistic

 

No, it isn't. The US was involved in plenty of military engagements over the years. Nuclear arms where not used since 1945. No particular reason to a possible confrontation in Iran would follow a different path.

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and the off topic replies have been removed.