On 6/15/2019 at 5:20 PM, Longcut said:

On 6/15/2019 at 4:42 PM, Naam said:

nope! Robby's explanation and assumption pertaining to Venezuela is correct. moreover, he did not refer to WTI but to shale.

There is no way of determining when or if shale oil will run out. Since "fracking" wells are commonly drilled and then capped until prices rise. Also, horizontal drilling is a common practice. I don't believe you can make that determination especially in the Bakkens oil fields. If you do know this, then you must be a very wealthy person or a fool for not acting on it.

nobody said anything about shale running out, capped wells or horizontal drilling. my comment agreed with Robby who pointed out that light shale requires an addition of heavy crude for multiple usage. does that make me a very wealthy person or a fool?

Funny they have it on vdo. Maybe Fox where there accidently for an interview with the villains.

 

Wouldn't surprice me at all that SA, USA or both planned something like that to accuse Iran.

3 minutes ago, Foexie said:

 

Wouldn't surprice me at all that SA, USA or both planned something like that to accuse Iran.

 

I thin you've cracked it wide open Holmes.

18 hours ago, rabas said:

 

Would you while being held by Irani?

 

 

Have they said anything different now that Iran has returned them after rescuing them in the first place?

3 hours ago, bristolboy said:

It was Iraq that launched the war on tankers. And of course, if you're transporting oil, or for that matter, anything of value from the enemy, then you are involved. The proceeds from that petroleum were fuel for the Iraqi war machine. Don't enter a theater of war and expect to emerge unscathed. 

 

Yes, but this topic is about Iran. I don't know that the they-started-it amounts for much of an argument in this context. As for the "of course" - spin it all you like, still unacceptable. And "of course", Iran wouldn't have accepted this argument with regard to its own exports.

Post from an unapproved source has been removed.  

 

4 hours ago, bristolboy said:

I have yet to see any reference to bullets as being what damaged the ship. The owner said his crew saw something flying towards the ship. They'd have to have remarkable eyesight to see bullets. The news reports I have read refer to a "projectile" or "projectiles.". 

 

Quote

The ship operator said “flying objects” that may have been bullets were the cause of damage to the vessel, rather than mines used by Iranian forces, as the US has suggested. 

 

Appears in the Independent article linked on the the post I was replying to. I agree that it sounds odd - which was my point. Any other nitpicking issues you need addressed?

 

 

50 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Yes, but this topic is about Iran. I don't know that the they-started-it amounts for much of an argument in this context. As for the "of course" - spin it all you like, still unacceptable. And "of course", Iran wouldn't have accepted this argument with regard to its own exports.

"Iran wouldn't have accepted this argument with regard to its own exports." What are you on about? That wasn't a debate. That was a war. A real old fashioned war. Nothing ambiguous about it. I don't know why you even invoked Iran's attacks on tankers in that war in the first place. A very very different situation. But since you did invoke it, try to keep in mind that it was Iraq under Saddam Hussein that launched the war with an attack on Iran.

None of the tankers were sunk. Amateurs at work. ISIS fanatics remnants in my eyes wanting to create international havoc.

16 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

"Iran wouldn't have accepted this argument with regard to its own exports." What are you on about? That wasn't a debate. That was a war. A real old fashioned war. Nothing ambiguous about it. I don't know why you even invoked Iran's attacks on tankers in that war in the first place. A very very different situation. But since you did invoke it, try to keep in mind that it was Iraq under Saddam Hussein that launched the war with an attack on Iran.

 

The usual petty games. Oh well. One of your arguments was that a third party shipping oil is at risk because it aides one side and therefore. I don't think Iran would have accepted such reasoning with regard to its own exports - not then, nor now. There wasn't anything said about a "debate".

 

If you think Iran's past actions bear no relevance, that's your own choice. Me, I think that the willingness to attack such tankers is rather relevant, even if you somehow wish to claim that it's acceptable. Here's a clue - it isn't. I don't think that there's a provision allowing such attacks, but then I'm not the one often going on about war crimes etc. Toss in the repeated threats of blocking the Strait of Hormuz, for good measure.

 

And once more, they-started-it isn't much of an argument. I'm not offering that Iraq's actions were alright. They weren't. But this topic is about Iran. And attacks on tankers.

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

And once more, they-started-it isn't much of an argument. I'm not offering that Iraq's actions were alright. They weren't. But this topic is about Iran. And attacks on tankers.

It's actually a great argument when it comes war. Especially a war where your survival is threatened by an aggressor.

7 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

It's actually a great argument when it comes war. Especially a war where your survival is threatened by an aggressor.

 

If you say so. But then I doubt it got much to do with my post or the topic. Spin it on and on - Iran got a history of attacking tankers. Of threats to block the Strait of Hormuz.

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

If you say so. But then I doubt it got much to do with my post or the topic. Spin it on and on - Iran got a history of attacking tankers. Of threats to block the Strait of Hormuz.

Well, it doesn't have a history of turning the other cheek when it comes to warfare. Which, according to your lights, was a viable option for Iran.

10 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Well, it doesn't have a history of turning the other cheek when it comes to warfare. Which, according to your lights, was a viable option for Iran.

 

The first part got nothing to do with anything.

The second part is always a viable choice, regardless of my "lights". Doesn't mean it's likely to be the path taken.

 

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The second part is always a viable choice, regardless of my "lights". Doesn't mean it's likely to be the path taken.

 

Always a viable choice? In a war? Really? It is to laugh.

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

Always a viable choice? In a war? Really? It is to laugh.

 

Always twisting words, more like. Not was I posted, not what I meant. Carry on.

Off topic deflection posts of a but but but US-Iraq/WMD nature and the replies have been removed. 

 

Some more pointless back and forth bickering posts have been removed. 

The USA has planned to start a war with Iran long time ago, listen to a 4 star general:

 

 

 

@FritsSikkink

 

As far as I'm aware, Clark's story was never verified. It is notable, though, that despite being supposedly aware of such things, he still advertised conflicting versions as to his views regarding authorization of the war etc. But hey....this topic doesn't seem to require much by way of fact in order to post, so why not.

 

 

Meme troll post removed.