7 hours ago, webfact said:

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Thursday blamed Iran

Within a week the US (meaning Pompeo/Boltin and not necessarily US intelligence agencies) went from "probability" that it is was Iran to "certainty" it was Iran - with no evidence in either statement. This is a Drum War Beat.

53 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

He said knowingly.

How much can one flog the WMD thing? Guess forever.

 

So, in your informed opinion, the Iranian regime has acted and commented in an absolutely rational and level-headed manner in all instances involving this conflict? Or, further, does Iran's various actions and policies reflect a unified point of view as to dealing with the situation? No similar tactics ever taken by Iran?

 

It's all very well to suspect the current USA administration's statements. Perhaps this is better done by avoiding, rather than emulating, the style and level of reasoning offered by Trump's administration itself.

I can flog the WMD thing for the rest of my life, with great justification. It has cost over 4,000 American Iives, 600,000 Iraqi lives, has decimated an ancient culture and accomplished little to nothing. In addition to adding how many trillions to the deficit? Cheney was a dark force and he probably stole billions to boot. 

 

Iran is a danger no doubt. But so is Blindfold Bolton and the current foreign policy of the US. Their aims and ideas are anything but noble. 

7 hours ago, webfact said:

Tehran has denied involvement.

That's no good Iran only the US can do that and get away with it.

That should make the struggling frackers back in 'Merica happy 'eh?

God bless John McCain and rest his soul.  Cue the BB. 
"Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran!"

Long WTI and Brent baby!

I believe it is entirely possible that this was self inflicted for a myriad of reasons..

Baloney. They were obviously trying to lure the US into war.

9 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

Baloney. They were obviously trying to lure the US into war.

 

Isn't it vice versa, obviously? Or are the aircraft carriers from another planet?

Edited May 31, 20197 yr by puck2

2 hours ago, Tagged said:

It is a dead debate, if you do not realize there is more than one player with interests onboard, and not only one evil, and one good. It is just not like that. It is the US interest, there is conflicts in the middle east, South America, keep the oil from flowing to russia and China and their allies. It is all about your and my wealth. We will always fight for the right to have controll, and it can turn around next decade, and we have to deal with Russia and China as the Emperior, I hope not. 

 

 

It is also in Russia as it is in Usa interest, that Europe is destabilized. So we are fighting two evils at the moment, but China opens their arms, as Iran welcome us. Think about it. One wrong move, and the tables turns. 

 

 

 

What "debate"? You made a bogus comment and it was pointed out. There wasn't anything whatsoever said about "only one side", even. No idea where you got the notion that's something I subscribe to. The rest of your rant is all over the place, not sure what your point was, or indeed, if there was one.

2 hours ago, Tagged said:

Total power against humanitarian chatastrophe as In Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Venezuela, to mention some few. Blockades give reasons to fight even harder. 

 

Only Trumps ego started this last conflict with Iran, nobody else. 

 

The take on Iran organising terror, when Saudi bombing children with American bombs in Libya, and Is is armed with leftovers from Iraq? 

 

Get a grip

 

What does your reply have to do with my post?

Was "Get a grip" a note to yourself?

Edited May 31, 20197 yr by Morch

2 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

I can flog the WMD thing for the rest of my life, with great justification. It has cost over 4,000 American Iives, 600,000 Iraqi lives, has decimated an ancient culture and accomplished little to nothing. In addition to adding how many trillions to the deficit? Cheney was a dark force and he probably stole billions to boot. 

 

Iran is a danger no doubt. But so is Blindfold Bolton and the current foreign policy of the US. Their aims and ideas are anything but noble. 

 

You obviously can. I'm questioning whether it is wise to apply it as a default mode.

Don't think there was anything said about Trump's policy vs. Iran being great, or Bolton not being what he always was - a warmonger. The point made was that resorting to the same level and style on offer by the Trump administration is, IMO, not only a wrong way to address their faults, but actually promotes some of what's worse about this presidency.

 

Nothing said about "noble". This is a foreign policy issue, noble rarely comes into it. And that's not limited to the USA.

2 hours ago, Tagged said:

It is also in Russia as it is in Usa interest, that Europe is destabilized.

Definitely not in Russia´s interest. Only the USA are interested. Espacially regarding relations with Germany (George Friedman/STRATFOR speech). In this context Ukraine also comes to mind (Victoria Nuland "**ck the EU").

IMO there is no good or evil side in wargames. It is only evil

10 hours ago, webfact said:

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Thursday blamed Iran for attacks on oil tankers in the Gulf, saying it was an effort by Tehran to raise the global price of oil.

Paranoia will destroy ya

1 hour ago, puck2 said:

 

Isn't it vice versa, obviously? Or are the aircraft carriers from another planet?

I was being facetious.

What confuses me a little is why the Iranians would want to raise the price of oil? As they are sanctioned by the USA against selling their oil at any price they gain nothing from mining those tankers.

 

Who gains? 

 

The USA, Saudi Arabia, several more countries in the Arab Gulf.

 

Who loses?

 

The rest of the world.

 

Who cares?

 

The USA, Saudi Arabia, several more countries in the Arab Gulf don't care in the slightest.

19 minutes ago, billd766 said:

What confuses me a little is why the Iranians would want to raise the price of oil? As they are sanctioned by the USA against selling their oil at any price they gain nothing from mining those tankers.

 

Who gains? 

 

The USA, Saudi Arabia, several more countries in the Arab Gulf.

 

Who loses?

 

The rest of the world.

 

Who cares?

 

The USA, Saudi Arabia, several more countries in the Arab Gulf don't care in the slightest.

 

The "raise the price of oil" explanation is indeed daft, regardless of whether the attack was carried out by Iran or otherwise. And add Russia to the list of countries potentially benefiting, without even being suspect for once. Could be wrong, but don't think that there was much of an effect on oil prices? If so, how does the "rest of the world" lose?

 

Iran carrying out such an attack seems counter-productive, irrational, and actually helping Trump & Co.'s narrative. This view is fine, if one sees the Iranian regime as one that never miscalculates, or one which upholds a coherent policy with regard to the conflict with the USA and regional rivals. It's easy pointing out the Western warmongers - much more accessible, and following the line of reasoning is easier. 

 

I wouldn't put it past the USA (or more likely, Gulf allies) to try and pull something like that. Not enough to immediately dismiss the possibility Iran's behind it, though.

 

Would be interesting to see if Bolton will actually present evidence, and if it will be solid enough to support claims made.

Choke off the supply of oil from the Middle East, and the US is in deep doo-doo. The shale oil wells in America are a Red Queen's race - they deplete far faster than conventional oil wells. The end result if oil from the ME was restricted would be to reveal the shale oil emperor has no clothes. Not surprising the US is responding, whichever way one wants to think of the morality.

An offensive post has been reported and removed. 

Possible that the Saudis are responsible for the damaged ships, done in exchange for Trump ignoring the killing of a Saudi journalist living in the U.S. and writing for the Washington Post. (Trump gave Putin a pass on the killing of journalists.) The damaged ships just so happened to take place the day after the arrival of a U.S. task force sent by Trump. That makes Trump look good but would be an impossibly ignorant time for such action by Iran. And not one ship sunk? That means Trump doesn't want a war yet, but wants distraction from impeachment talk.

Edited May 31, 20197 yr by Mac98
Add clarification.

18 hours ago, Morch said:

<------->

Would be interesting to see if Bolton will actually present evidence, and if it will be solid enough to support claims made.

 

Bolton and Trump are very, very experienced in fake news !

I'm curious, too.

1 hour ago, puck2 said:

 

Bolton and Trump are very, very experienced in fake news !

I'm curious, too.

 

Nah, you're not. You're one of them folks who've already made up their minds regardless of anything.

Weapons of mass destruction all over again ????

18 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Nah, you're not. You're one of them folks who've already made up their minds regardless of anything.

 

God knows all, .......@Morch knows all better !

On 5/30/2019 at 4:01 PM, Tagged said:

Who is pushing the Oilprices up you say? 

 

This is a very bad organized chess game, where we know the end result. 

 

 

 

 

 

These countries have about 10-20 years to get every drop of oil out of the ground for the highest price possible. After that they become irrelevant and unsustainable economically unless they radically change their economies. A lot of turmoil ahead IMO but oil's still going to go down. It's not over yet, but you can see it from here.

10 hours ago, puck2 said:

 

God knows all, .......@Morch knows all better !

 

Your posts are public. Your views as well. Nothing mysterious there.

8 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

These countries have about 10-20 years to get every drop of oil out of the ground for the highest price possible. After that they become irrelevant and unsustainable economically unless they radically change their economies. A lot of turmoil ahead IMO but oil's still going to go down. It's not over yet, but you can see it from here.

 

I think I've heard that one quite a few times in the past. Doesn't seem like a whole lot changed, though. 10-20 years sounds like wishful thinking, and anyway it won't happen overnight even then. Human history seems to be about depleting resources before moving on to others.

 

Either way, in the here and now, oil is still very much a thing.

 

 

21 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I think I've heard that one quite a few times in the past. Doesn't seem like a whole lot changed, though. 10-20 years sounds like wishful thinking, and anyway it won't happen overnight even then. Human history seems to be about depleting resources before moving on to others.

 

Either way, in the here and now, oil is still very much a thing.

 

 

And sold to cheap! Whay to cheep

What bullshit!

Iran has oil sanctions, so, they can't sell much of the stuff. Why would they help the Saudis, Emirates and the USA by trying to increase the price of oil?

45 minutes ago, Joe Mcseismic said:

What bullshit!

Iran has oil sanctions, so, they can't sell much of the stuff. Why would they help the Saudis, Emirates and the USA by trying to increase the price of oil?

Well, in April they were selling 2.6 million barrels a day. So a spike would bring them a sizable increase in revenue. I'm not at all saying that the Iranians did it. Just that if they did and it caused the prices to spike, they could realize a substantial increase in income.

Morch, thank you very much for your „amiable“ comments.

 

You have more in common with Trump than you guess. General Bla-Bla without concrete facts. Your comments - #53, # 55 for example – improve this.

 

You try to tell the people what they have to/should think and … you don't realize this. If it doesn't work or you don't agree, your usual reaction: personal attacks, in nearly the same manner as the orange faced Master in your home country.

 

And I know in advance you will have the „last word“. This time I'll not answer any more.

 

Morch said - # 46. last paragraph

 

Quote

Would be interesting to see if Bolton will actually present evidence, and if it will be solid enough to support claims made

 

Puck2 answered - #50

Quote

Bolton and Trump are very, very experienced in fake news !
I'm curious, too.

 

Morch answered - # 51

Nah, you're not. You're one of them folks who've already made up their minds regardless of anything.

 

Mr. Morch, I'm still curious, believe it or not. I miss Bolton's answer (which must be checked if true – as usual!)

 

Edited June 3, 20197 yr by puck2