Wary of conflict with Iran, Trump takes go-slow approach to attack on Saudi oil

[Bluespunk]

2 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Weapons producers ?

Should have added,

 

''except for those whose greed, indifference to suffering, lack of any form of empathy or total absence of any form conscience means they are willing to profit from the misery of others.''

[usviphotography]

2 hours ago, scorecard said:

 Plus I suspect there's another point; he used big, brave and tough talk with the Nth Korean president thinking he could intimidate Nth korea, it didn't work, not at all, in fact we've now seen 3 meetings all of which seem to imply that Mr. Un stands well above trump.

 

And now in the last couple of days trump has quickly several times mentioned that he doesn't want war with Iran, seems to me that he's now totally backed away from his tough talk approach because it didn't work and nobody actually takes his tough talk seriously.

 

He's painted himself into a corner.

 

Well at least bolton has gone.

 

 

 

 Trump's North Korea talk worked perfectly. We are now talking with North Korea and relations are at an all time high. Nobody in America other than the people in charge of our Foreign Policy want war with Iran. I don't know why Trump feels the need to appease the Neocons with these type of statements, but as long as he never actually does anything with respect to Iran, he is successfully representing America's interests. 

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, CaptRon2 said:

And you just continue to rant and still not produce one credible reference. So please enlighten us, where or who is your source that President Trump would love to attack Iran? You have made a statement, you apparently have no supporting evidence that he would love to attack, and yet you continue to spread lies about something you have no knowledge about even after you have been called on it, in my opinion it is actions such as this that are causing many of the problems in the country, so how it about if you make a statement you have a reference to back it up, the facts please, just the facts, your imagination contributes nothing to the discussion.

Nice job formatting your reply, in my opinion it is a step in the right direction

Who are 'us'?

I know I don't care about your stalking here, and accusing someone else of not contributing to the discussion, even though he posted on topic, is imo hypocritical when your own contribution is limited to complaining about one poster.

[stevenl]

26 minutes ago, usviphotography said:

 Trump's North Korea talk worked perfectly. We are now talking with North Korea and relations are at an all time high. Nobody in America other than the people in charge of our Foreign Policy want war with Iran. I don't know why Trump feels the need to appease the Neocons with these type of statements, but as long as he never actually does anything with respect to Iran, he is successfully representing America's interests. 

His NK policy is not working at all. Trump thinks so as well, one of the reasons he fired Bolton.

 

But yes, he does not want war because that would ruin his re-election campaign.

[Cryingdick]

6 hours ago, Thaidream said:

Trump's nature is to attack when attacked- whether it is personal or from a country.  In addition, there are neo cons in his camp that still remember when during the Iranian Revolution- the US Embassy was invaded and diplomats help hostage. In addition, Iran has worked with  certain elements in Iraq suppkying  IADs and other instruments of death that have killed US military.

 

Trump has no love for the Iranians and could care less about the Saudis. However- Trump loves Trump and he knows going to war will not get him re- elected as the price of oil would jump drastically pushing America and the World into recession.

 

IMO- he will offer the Saudis more expensive military equipment and surveillance plus send more American military to Saudi- of course- giving the Saudis a bill in the tens of billions for the 'assistance'.  He might even authorize some joint American Saudi strikes on Yemen and  get the Israelis to drop a few bombs on Iran.

 

Trump wants that meeting with Rohani- the Iranian Presient- so he can appear as the level headed statesman and brag to his base how he avoided war; forced the Iranians to deal.

 

The truth is that all of it is just a game to Trump- who cares only about himself and the 1 percenters who donate millions to his re-election campaign/

 

 

 

That's all he needs to do. America has its own energy no need to get into a drawn out war. The USA should simply just keep squeezing and tightening sanctions. If the Saudis want to hit Iran and use their newly bought USA weapons to do so, then so be it. 

 

If this is truly traced back to Iran in an official capacity they certainly deserve every oil pipeline and refinery in their country taken out in retaliation. Let the Saudis do it or Israel for that matter.

 

What Iran was hoping is the world would crumble and buy oil from them because of a shortfall. The bad news for Iran is there is a glut now and there is no need to. I can only imagine what would happen if we banned fracking. In that case we would have to go to war over oil. 

 

If the USA continues to squeeze eventually Iran will do something way over the line and then the entire world will condemn them and bomb them into obscurity. Trump is smart to stay away from it.

 

 

[Tug]

4 hours ago, CaptRon2 said:

And you just continue to rant and still not produce one credible reference. So please enlighten us, where or who is your source that President Trump would love to attack Iran? You have made a statement, you apparently have no supporting evidence that he would love to attack, and yet you continue to spread lies about something you have no knowledge about even after you have been called on it, in my opinion it is actions such as this that are causing many of the problems in the country, so how it about if you make a statement you have a reference to back it up, the facts please, just the facts, your imagination contributes nothing to the discussion.

Nice job formatting your reply, in my opinion it is a step in the right direction

I’m not ranting I sincerely feel he would love to attack them but knows he can’t get away with it.donald loves to create division if you can’t see that oh well as far as backing statements up just listen to him if you can wade through the gibberish

[Cryingdick]

7 minutes ago, Tug said:

I’m not ranting I sincerely feel he would love to attack them but knows he can’t get away with it.donald loves to create division if you can’t see that oh well as far as backing statements up just listen to him if you can wade through the gibberish

 

You can say many things about Trump but warmonger isn't one of them. If it was Obama we would be balls deep in it already.

[Tug]

1 hour ago, Cryingdick said:

 

You can say many things about Trump but warmonger isn't one of them. If it was Obama we would be balls deep in it already.

I beg to differ if Obama or any competent potus we would not be here at all we would have been building better dialogue and starting a foundation for better relations with Iran that beeing said I am well aware that Iran is a (bad actor)

[CaptRon2]

9 hours ago, stevenl said:

Who are 'us'?

I know I don't care about your stalking here, and accusing someone else of not contributing to the discussion, even though he posted on topic, is imo hypocritical when your own contribution is limited to complaining about one poster.

Calling out an untrue statement that lacks any credible references is now considered stalking? In my opinion when one poster consistently makes untrue statements their lack of credibility should be pointed out.

Having read your post I assume that in your opinion as long as a post is on topic (unlike yours) it is acceptable even if it is untrue or do you actually believe the poster we are referring to actually has firsthand knowledge that President Trump would love to attack Iran, and it that is true what is the problem with providing a reference?

[Tug]

1 hour ago, CaptRon2 said:

Calling out an untrue statement that lacks any credible references is now considered stalking? In my opinion when one poster consistently makes untrue statements their lack of credibility should be pointed out.

Having read your post I assume that in your opinion as long as a post is on topic (unlike yours) it is acceptable even if it is untrue or do you actually believe the poster we are referring to actually has firsthand knowledge that President Trump would love to attack Iran, and it that is true what is the problem with providing a reference?

Ron it is my opinion no more no less I’m intitled to it as you are yours and do you have proof that he doesent (want)to attack Iran?

[bristolboy]

9 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

You can say many things about Trump but warmonger isn't one of them. If it was Obama we would be balls deep in it already.

Wow! An absolutely clueless statement. If it were Obama, the USA would still be a member of the agreement and none of this would be happening. Have you read the news lately? And by "lately" I mean over the past year.

[huangnon]

Another manipulated "event" to temporarily hike oil prices, and blame an 'enemy' for the deed. Look at the people behind Trump, who tell him what to say and do.

[freebyrd]

Decades back it was predicted that WWIII would start in the Middle East and would be fought over oil. Walking on egg shells for as long as it takes and 'leaving the six guns in the drawer' would be a sound approach in this situation.

[johnmcc6]

On 9/18/2019 at 10:53 AM, Tug said:

He would love to attack Iran but there is an election coming up a fine predicament you have got us into all utterly unessary he is embarrassing 

The Arabs attacking Arabs. Will never stop. Saudi Arabia has a HUGE military force, Let them fix it . After all no one attacked the U S . Trump has plenty of oil for everyone so no big impact on the U S.

[scorecard]

13 hours ago, stevenl said:

His NK policy is not working at all. Trump thinks so as well, one of the reasons he fired Bolton.

 

But yes, he does not want war because that would ruin his re-election campaign.

And because it's clear he's personally very frightened of war and frightened in terms of having to make decisions during a war.

 

He's full of arrogant bluster but not much more. 

[bristolboy]

25 minutes ago, scorecard said:

And because it's clear he's personally very frightened of war and frightened in terms of having to make decisions during a war.

 

He's full of arrogant bluster but not much more. 

As noted before, I believe he got snookered into this situation by Bolton and Pompeo who told him that either the Iranian regime would succumb to the pressure and agree to US demands or that there would be a popular revolt. Trump never believed it would come to this. Clearly, he's terrified of the consequences of a US military strike. For his reelection if nothing else. And to give him credit, he ought to be.

Edited September 19, 2019 by bristolboy

[bristolboy]

12 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

That's all he needs to do. America has its own energy no need to get into a drawn out war. The USA should simply just keep squeezing and tightening sanctions. If the Saudis want to hit Iran and use their newly bought USA weapons to do so, then so be it. 

 

While the USA's oil supply may be mostly assured, the price is not. It will certainly skyrocket in the event of a conflict between Iran and the Saudis. Not really a good thing for any economy including the USA's.

And of course, with American troops stationed in Iraq, and American ships in the Gulf, both being potential targets, it's not at all a sure thing that the US could stay out of the conflict.

[Jingthing]

"trump" owns this crisis. No reason to be optimistic about his response to it, or lack thereof.

 

Quote

 

Trump’s Incoherence on Iran Has Created a Crisis

And he has no idea how to get out of it.

 

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/09/iran-saudi-arabia-oil-missile-trump.html

 

[Morch]

12 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

That's all he needs to do. America has its own energy no need to get into a drawn out war. The USA should simply just keep squeezing and tightening sanctions. If the Saudis want to hit Iran and use their newly bought USA weapons to do so, then so be it. 

 

If this is truly traced back to Iran in an official capacity they certainly deserve every oil pipeline and refinery in their country taken out in retaliation. Let the Saudis do it or Israel for that matter.

 

What Iran was hoping is the world would crumble and buy oil from them because of a shortfall. The bad news for Iran is there is a glut now and there is no need to. I can only imagine what would happen if we banned fracking. In that case we would have to go to war over oil. 

 

If the USA continues to squeeze eventually Iran will do something way over the line and then the entire world will condemn them and bomb them into obscurity. Trump is smart to stay away from it.

 

 

 

And you somehow imagine Iran, being a major oil producer, is not well aware of global stocks etc.? Even someone not of the industry could fathom that "crumble" would not have been the result anyhow.

Edited September 19, 2019 by Morch

[Morch]

11 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

You can say many things about Trump but warmonger isn't one of them. If it was Obama we would be balls deep in it already.

 

Sure. Obama the warmonger. Far as I recall he was the one behind the agreement with Iran that spelled the opposite. For that, many Trump supporters often call him "weak" and such.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, huangnon said:

Another manipulated "event" to temporarily hike oil prices, and blame an 'enemy' for the deed. Look at the people behind Trump, who tell him what to say and do.

 

He said knowingly.

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

And you somehow imagine Iran, being a major oil producer, is not well aware of global stocks etc.? Even someone not of the industry could fathom that "crumble" would not have been the result anyhow.

Anyway, it's not a matter of there currently being excess capacity, it's what would happen to the price in the event of a conflict.

[Morch]

38 minutes ago, johnmcc6 said:

The Arabs attacking Arabs. Will never stop. Saudi Arabia has a HUGE military force, Let them fix it . After all no one attacked the U S . Trump has plenty of oil for everyone so no big impact on the U S.

 

Iranians might be a tad sensitive about being called Arabs. They aren't.

Saudi Arabia's "HUGE military force" was just shown to be a paper tiger, if the lack of results in Yemen was not enough of an indication.

Trump doesn't have "plenty of oil". USA companies might. And whether that's enough, long term, for the USA itself, and certainly the World at large, is questionable.

[billd766]

19 hours ago, riclag said:

"The truth is that all of it is just a game to Trump- who cares only about himself and the 1 percenters who donate millions to his re-election campaign/"

 

 These aren't games!  Millions of Americans like  someone watching  our back to keep us safe ! Millions of Americans feel threaten by Iran, not Mr. Trump 

Many Americans could't even find Iran on a world map. Iran doesn't really threaten the USA, although the USA threatens Iran and by extension the Gulf area.

[mikebike]

23 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't, eh? 

The conundrum of all Presidents/leaders. Are you thinking 45 deserves less scrutiny than any other POTUS?

[mikebike]

16 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Right. MbS wants to be seen as someone who can't defend his own country.

MBS would be right at home sitting back and working the puppet strings.

[bristolboy]

15 minutes ago, mikebike said:

MBS would be right at home sitting back and working the puppet strings.

Nothing in MbS' record suggests that he wants to be portrayed as anything but a strong and competent leader. Keep in mind that there are factions in the Saudi Royal Family who would like nothing better than to have him seen as weak and unable to defend SA.

[scorecard]

17 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Is there anyone, regardless of political philosophy, who thinks endless wars are a good idea?

Well said, from a Vietnam veteran who realized very quickly that the war machine is nothing less than grosely evil and has very little upside. The world desperately needs to ensure the greedy unethical barons can't make big money from war, and start a completely different approach to dialogue which is respected. 

 

Step 1 - cancel the UN which in terms of stopping / reducing war has basically achieved nothing in 100 years.

 

Also I ask 'what has the UN done to ensure every person on this planet has citizenship?

 

The answer is close to zero. Just disgusting. 

[stevenl]

4 hours ago, johnmcc6 said:

The Arabs attacking Arabs. Will never stop. Saudi Arabia has a HUGE military force, Let them fix it . After all no one attacked the U S . Trump has plenty of oil for everyone so no big impact on the U S.

Iranians are not Arabs.

[wabothai]

Of course he goes slow. He knows that the Iranians are not responsible for the attack.

His mouthpiece Pompeo was way too quick to accuse the Iranians.

Besides if the Iranians wanted to attack the Aramco field there would have been nothing left.

It has been said that the damage is going to repaired by the end of the month.

I believe (still) that the Yemenize are responsible which makes complete sense.

It also makes complete sense that the Arabs themselves did it (total failure of air defense systems delivered by the US, is hard to believe). Of course he goes slow, he found himself in deep waters and does not know how to swim.

Just my 5 cents.