14 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Targets in Iraq  or Iran? To  wipe out  "resistance" to what ? Nuclear what?

The  analogy of the  mosquito?  Yes, a single   mosquito  can assuredly  take down  a buffalo slowly  but surely  by disease. A disease usually  requires a  vector. Who is providing and encouraging the  vector for the disease of the middle east? Who is waiting by the roadside  to  answer the  call Medic  Medic  !

You think that a mosquito will (assuredly) take down a buffalo?????..... I have a bridge in San Francisco called the Golden Gate Bridge I really want to sell to somebody cheap---- You just may be interested to purchase it from me....

How did you ever get a name like 'Dumbastheycome'.... I wonder.... 5555

Who mentioned Iraq?????

Nuclear what? Don't you read the news about Irans claims and satalite images of Irans Nuclear achievments (and their threats)??????

I will wait for more information that will surely be coming soon about the attack on SA oilfields

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

"Unless ALL the Iranian oilfields are destroyed then Iran is an indirect winner also."

 

Not really following the reasoning here. Because Iran might benefit from rise in oil prices too? I'd imagine the damage done will offset that some. If I misunderstood your intention, please clarify.

 

I don't think there's a realistic scenario in which all oilfields (either country's or the region's in general) are completely destroyed.

I am willing to be wrong  but I think the underlying concept of the post  you replied to encompasses the very likely  concept that the end  game  intent is to  acquire the oil reserves  of Iran  for specific  national control . In the  case of the  entire destruction of those  reserves Iran  would  be  winner  by default due to the loss of the opposition objective. It is  in that  light that it may explain the  reservations that Trump  has been advised  to heed ( and surprisingly has) in his most recent reactive commentary about the  overall  middle eastern chaos.

38 minutes ago, sawadeeken said:

Do you think that the USA and SA would have continued a relationship had they (US) felt there was a governmental involvement?

Most definatley! not a doubt in my mind, "petro-dollars" & arms sales are a much stronger influence than conscience or right and wrong to "corporate USA".

5 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

I am willing to be wrong 

That says it all...... Thanks.....

Iran would love to knock out its competition (especially the 'Hated' competition, as SA......

There is confirmed and proven connections between muslim Iran and muslin Houthais in Yemen.

And it's common knowledge that Iran is currently '<deleted>' at most of the world and desperate to try to improve it's own finaces and need for 'It's' oil....

10 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

I am willing to be wrong  but I think the underlying concept of the post  you replied to encompasses the very likely  concept that the end  game  intent is to  acquire the oil reserves  of Iran  for specific  national control . In the  case of the  entire destruction of those  reserves Iran  would  be  winner  by default due to the loss of the opposition objective. It is  in that  light that it may explain the  reservations that Trump  has been advised  to heed ( and surprisingly has) in his most recent reactive commentary about the  overall  middle eastern chaos.

 

I've no idea if that what @billd766 meant, so I'll refer to your view - nonsense.

 

Your "argument" boils down to this: even if Iran loses, it will still somehow win, because all of it's oil fields will be destroyed. At best, and if one accepted the unsupported premise of taking-their-oil, it would be less of a "win" for the other side. Iran would still have lost, plus come out of it devastated.

8 minutes ago, CGW said:

Most definatley! not a doubt in my mind, "petro-dollars" & arms sales are a much stronger influence than conscience or right and wrong to "corporate USA".

Is that just your personal opinion or is there facts somewhere to back that up?????

And that proves that Iran wasn't connected to the attacks??????

8 minutes ago, sawadeeken said:

You think that a mosquito will (assuredly) take down a buffalo?????..... I have a bridge in San Francisco called the Golden Gate Bridge I really want to sell to somebody cheap---- You just may be interested to purchase it from me....

How did you ever get a name like 'Dumbastheycome'.... I wonder.... 5555

Who mentioned Iraq?????

Nuclear what? Don't you read the news about Irans claims and satalite images of Irans Nuclear achievments (and their threats)??????

I will wait for more information that will surely be coming soon about the attack on SA oilfields

Perhaps  you  should  slow down and  re read  your post?  I have no interest in  a bridge made of  rusting  iron.

My member  name is  chosen due to alternate definitions such as yourself  would not consider as legitimate outside of your personal presumptions.

Ian has long made clear it's  intent to  develop nuclear energy  production as an alternative to  the  finite  oil reserves  it  would if it could  sell them. Threats? I have  read  nothing other than a open declaration of  resolve to  re establish  the unfettered pursuit of that objective now that the constraints of the international  agreement they  were and are still party to  have  been  eroded  by  pressure from  the  departed US to said agreement.

The world  waits  for an "announcement  about the  Saudi attack. Personally I doubt it will be anything  other than a convenient distortion  of  "analysis" in obscuration of  fact.

 

The same country that was involved in 9/11. Who would believe them. It seems like they along with the US & Israel are more then willing to bring in the next major war. Dam them!

7 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I've no idea if that what @billd766 meant, so I'll refer to your view - nonsense.

 

Your "argument" boils down to this: even if Iran loses, it will still somehow win, because all of it's oil fields will be destroyed. At best, and if one accepted the unsupported premise of taking-their-oil, it would be less of a "win" for the other side. Iran would still have lost, plus come out of it devastated.

A_{nd  who will  have "won"?}

_{Except in  definition by the   destruction, disruption , subjugation of  yet another country  not compliant to the  "benevolence" of  military  superiority}.

Edited September 19, 20196 yr by Dumbastheycome

8 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

A_{nd  who will  have "won"?}

 

It's not my imaginary scenario, is it?

These days, "winning"' wars is less clear cut than it used to be.

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

It's not my imaginary scenario, is it?

These days, "winning"' wars is less clear cut than it used to be.

Very true. Often the loser emerges as  a  very strong  puppet !

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

It's not my imaginary scenario, is it?

These days, "winning"' wars is less clear cut than it used to be.

You are so 'correct'................ and it is a boiling kettle in the middle east now..........

Confusion  is  a weak defense demonstrated  by  adherence to  simple loyalty to a well taught doctrine.

 

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Not sure why being an oil exporter would give the US greater ability to cut taxes and just because taxes can be cut doesn't mean that they will be. Has that happened recently? Even when oil prices were much higher? What's more the US isn't yet a net exporter of oil. It soon is predicted to be but not yet.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/24/us-becomes-a-net-energy-exporter-in-2020-energy-dept-says.html

Higher oil prices means fracking is more viable. (Personally dont agree with fracking but thats a different conversation).

The US can ride out a loss of middle east oil because it has its own reserves and a friendly neighbor to the north with huge amounts of oil sands which again are attractive with a higher price.

The USA could even remove sanctions from Venezuela and allow their oil to flow.

My point is China will suffer from a global oil crisis far more that the US will.

So if someone needs to take human casualties in the middle east then let it be China and not the United States.  

11 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Confusion  is  a weak defense demonstrated  by  adherence to  simple loyalty to a well taught doctrine.

 

 

Not much to do with "defense" or the rest of your nonsense. More about your posting style, which apparently aims to be as convulsed and unclear as possible.

Promises made by Saudi Arabia to tell the truth about something, about anything, for whom to believe, aah, when Saudis (M + F ...!) would have the right to speak for their own, without exposing themselves to dire consequences, and say what they think about the vicious feodal system enslaving them...

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Not much to do with "defense" or the rest of your nonsense. More about your posting style, which apparently aims to be as convulsed and unclear as possible.

Oh  dear !  You  respond so quickly  to a post  which I  admit is  not on topic in a manner that is  so personalized yet  not  attributed  directly or  intended specifically to yourself  !

Not at all  as  your post is. Should  I  squeal to the  moderators ? There is precedent .555

 

1 minute ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Oh  dear !  You  respond so quickly  to a post  which I  admit is  not on topic in a manner that is  so personalized yet  not  attributed  directly or  intended specifically to yourself  !

Not at all  as  your post is. Should  I  squeal to the  moderators ? There is precedent .555

 

 

Thanks for making my point.

8 minutes ago, bangrak said:

Promises made by Saudi Arabia to tell the truth about something, about anything, for whom to believe, aah, when Saudis (M + F ...!) would have the right to speak for their own, without exposing themselves to dire consequences, and say what they think about the vicious feodal system enslaving them...

True! There is an aberration  in the  validity  of  reason for "alliance".

Just now, Morch said:

 

Thanks for making my point.

????

16 hours ago, sawadeeken said:

Are you insinuating that Yemen, the Houthis. are BUYING the weapons from Iran???? as the saudi's are buying from the USA?????? How much money do you think the Houthis and Yemen's have to purchase 'High tech' stuff?????? or is it maybe donated for a good cause by Iran?????

And since when do warring nations show concern for 'Innocent' civillians????? I only know of a couple countries that care........

Edited to add........ The muslims surely didn't on 9/11 on their attacks....  muslin intentionally NOT capitalized......

I have no idea how the Houthi's in Yemen get the weapons from Iran nor do I particularly care.

 

If the Saudi's buy their weapons from the USA it still doesn't make the USA any less guilty than Iran giving the stuff away.

 

In your last paragraph, the people who caused 9/11 in the USA were from Saudi America and not from Iran, yet the USA still supplies weaponry to the Saudi's and not to Iran.

9 minutes ago, billd766 said:

I have no idea how the Houthi's in Yemen get the weapons from Iran nor do I particularly care.

 

If the Saudi's buy their weapons from the USA it still doesn't make the USA any less guilty than Iran giving the stuff away.

 

In your last paragraph, the people who caused 9/11 in the USA were from Saudi America and not from Iran, yet the USA still supplies weaponry to the Saudi's and not to Iran.

You forgot to mention that S.A. transferred some of these weapons to Al Quaida in Yemen.

"Saudi Arabia and its coalition partners have transferred American-made weapons to al Qaeda-linked fighters, hardline Salafi militias, and other factions waging war in Yemen, in violation of their agreements with the United States, a CNN investigation has found."

https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2019/02/middleeast/yemen-lost-us-arms/

14 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

My point is China will suffer from a global oil crisis far more that the US will.

True, also China has benefited more than anyone having had access to cheap oil.

The US as you state is a net exporter, now has the largest production in the world, SA is now second, the problem with a lot of the US produced oil (Permian) is they can't refine it and need to import oil for the refining process which means they do need to import.

59 minutes ago, candide said:

You forgot to mention that S.A. transferred some of these weapons to Al Quaida in Yemen.

"Saudi Arabia and its coalition partners have transferred American-made weapons to al Qaeda-linked fighters, hardline Salafi militias, and other factions waging war in Yemen, in violation of their agreements with the United States, a CNN investigation has found."

https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2019/02/middleeast/yemen-lost-us-arms/

Thank you for that information as I did not know that.

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

I have no idea how the Houthi's in Yemen get the weapons from Iran nor do I particularly care.

 

If the Saudi's buy their weapons from the USA it still doesn't make the USA any less guilty than Iran giving the stuff away.

 

In your last paragraph, the people who caused 9/11 in the USA were from Saudi America and not from Iran, yet the USA still supplies weaponry to the Saudi's and not to Iran.

 

At least on this forum, it seems more popular to raise the issue of complicity via arms supply in relation to the USA's support of Saudi Arabia - while at the same time disregarding or dismissing Iran's support of the Houthis.

 

I suppose some shrill moral cries will ensue about it "not being the same", on the grounds that the Houthis are weaker, or something. As if Iran's (or for that matter, the USA's) policies and actions got a whole lot to do with morality and righteousness.

 

Fair enough to comment on USA support to Saudi Arabia despite of 9/11. The "not to Iran" bit at the end, however, if way off-mark. It's not an either/or proposition.

 

 

On 9/18/2019 at 8:52 PM, PatOngo said:

Like the concrete proof they offered that they didn't murder Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi?

is this a double post because there's a guy posted same thought just before you

On 9/20/2019 at 1:48 PM, Morch said:

 

At least on this forum, it seems more popular to raise the issue of complicity via arms supply in relation to the USA's support of Saudi Arabia - while at the same time disregarding or dismissing Iran's support of the Houthis.

 

I suppose some shrill moral cries will ensue about it "not being the same", on the grounds that the Houthis are weaker, or something. As if Iran's (or for that matter, the USA's) policies and actions got a whole lot to do with morality and righteousness.

 

Fair enough to comment on USA support to Saudi Arabia despite of 9/11. The "not to Iran" bit at the end, however, if way off-mark. It's not an either/or proposition.

 

 

How about the fact that before the Saudis invaded people actually knowledgeable about the situation said Iran had very little involvement. Once the Saudis entered in a big way, that's when Iran became heavily involved.

Western JCPOA signatories don't buy into the it-wasn't-us narrative:

 

Britain, France, Germany blame Iran for Saudi attack - statement

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-iran-europe/britain-france-germany-blame-iran-for-saudi-attack-statement-idUKKBN1W82FX

 

On 9/19/2019 at 3:24 PM, tlandtday said:

absolute bs from Saudi Arabia... who would trust that totalitarian regime.  In fact a group outside Iran claimed responsibility and <deleted> pompous Pompeo said we don't accept it and it was Iran... I guess it didn't fit the agenda.

yeah like saudi arabia can be trusted... maybe they will torture another in the embassy to confess...