And it begins: Saudi tankers headed to the US "sabotaged & attacked".

a reply to: JAGStorm

Looking at your politics it really depend's, a popular war if enough public support has been drummed up become's a ticket to a second win even for mediocre president's but an unpopular one, were the body bag's come back and the war is seen as unethical, well Vietnam show's what that can do to a president - even though the US had more or less completely won that war in Vietnam with the commies on the ropes the incoming president called your boy's home and they were able to rebound and take there revenge on those that had sided with the US and it's allies (in all truth though I don't know which government turned out to be better for the people there themselves as the alternative was utterly corrupt and only propped up by the states - but that is regional and it's affect on the global scene were actually no were near as big as the US had feared they would be - it did not really give the soviets more control over Asia for example).

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Get some friggin U-Hauls and get your asses off of our oil. Tick-tock mofos.

^^^^ This is an example of how Americans are willing to bully people into doing exactly what we want. When in reality, we need to be more open minded and allow them to make their own choices.


They can use U-Hauls or camels to get off our oil.


Take note Augi, we're gonna learn together today.

This whole conversation is why people don't get American humor.
I spit out my coffee and am still laughing. Something about that convo and both of your avatars is
just too funny.

It seems interesting that the Saudi's said that these tankers were "sabotaged" rather than "attacked". Why use that word?

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: JAGStorm

Looking at your politics it really depend's, a popular war if enough public support has been drummed up become's a ticket to a second win even for mediocre president's but an unpopular one, were the body bag's come back and the war is seen as unethical, well Vietnam show's what that can do to a president - even though the US had more or less completely won that war in Vietnam with the commies on the ropes the incoming president called your boy's home and they were able to rebound and take there revenge on those that had sided with the US and it's allies (in all truth though I don't know which government turned out to be better for the people there themselves as the alternative was utterly corrupt and only propped up by the states - but that is regional and it's affect on the global scene were actually no were near as big as the US had feared they would be - it did not really give the soviets more control over Asia for example).

Not to sidetrack the thread but.. My dad was drafted during Vietnam. He was sent to the surrounding areas. His very
first experience out of the country (as a 19 year old farm boy), was watching the trains go by with all the coffins being sent back to the US. Just imagine that.

Tankers damaged...what's next? A bombing in Israel tied to Iran?

It's an established pattern...The Gulf of Tonkin incident comes to mind. Or perhaps 911....

a reply to: gladtobehere

If you collide with something that large, it can only be intentional.

politicly seen there's an difference between a lie and not telling the truth….a reply to: oldcarpy

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: gladtobehere

I'm going to go out on a limb and say, "There will be no war".

This is bluff and "Sturm und Drang". It's actually a better way of negotiating with elements in the Middle East than appeasement.

Iran has no respect for appeasers. They didn't under Obama.

Strength? They respect.

There will be noise. There will be bickering and shouting and threats.

But that's all it'll be.


In my opinion.

Can you elaborate on what they did for strength to be an option?

Did they bomb countries? Stole things, invaded countries? Infringe on international waters? Overthrow governments?

What crimes did they commit exactly?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
They do not have to leave, they just need to ... Umm.. comply??
South Korea, help us build our robot army!!

originally posted by: oldcarpy
It seems interesting that the Saudi's said that these tankers were "sabotaged" rather than "attacked". Why use that word?

The damage appears to be inflicted from the outside, I would call it an attack or negligence. Either way I don’t think the US is responsible.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I'm going to go out on a limb and say, "There will be no war".

I agree with you. We've seen saber rattling between Iran and the US every year or so... Nothing new.

There is something though that makes me a little concerned this go round (or the next volley of rhetoric).

Right now we have an environment for the perfect storm.

Here is a NYT op-ed written by Bolton where he says the only way to keep Iran from a nuke is to do a regime change. He's kept that position in his speeches at several conferences and gatherings. He's not my main concern though.

Netanyahu has a friend in the White House right now. 2020 is 18 months away. Bibi has understandably the most atonement about preventing a nuclear Iran. He's also been very vocal that last resort will be military strikes. Does he waste what could be his last opportunity to have America on his side going into Iran?

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Netanyahu has a friend in the White House right now. 2020 is 18 months away. Bibi has understandably the most atonement about preventing a nuclear Iran. He's also been very vocal that last resort will be military strikes. Does he waste what could be his last opportunity to have America on his side going into Iran?

well said...but the question is, what will happen if Iran gets nuked. We know the Iranian allies....will they just stand by? I don't think so....

www.middleeasteye.net...

a reply to: olaru12

well said...but the question is, what will happen if Iran gets nuked. We know the Iranian allies....will they just stand by? I don't think so....

It depends.

Putin has allowed Israeli strikes on Iranian assets in Syria. Though I have no evidence, I think Putin and Russia as a whole actually has empathy for Israel as most of the world does. If they act alone on Iran, I think Russia takes a back seat, at most providing some consulting for Iran.

But we know that's not how it will play out, our involvement will make the situation more complicated (like the article you posted states).

There is an alternative though, we for once treat Russia as an equal and their interests as valid. We let them have our place in the new "arrangement" and they can keep a cornerstone in their sphere of influence.

If Iran sent a torpedo that blew up, everyone would know they were behind it. Sending a heavy torpedo to tent or tear open a ship, that would be less noticable, by the time anyone figured out what it was, the torpedo would be sunk somewhere, hard to find. They could easily tow a big heavy log out to the path of the tankers, but that would not show damage on the back of the ship.

It could be any group, I do not think the thing they sent was even meant to explode, just travel just below the surface to hit the tankers to give a warning. Finding out who was behind it is difficult now. Whatever hit it probably kept going after it hit.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I think any open conflict with Iran will create more issues than it solves.

There's no easy "win".

a reply to: CriticalStinker

But we know that's not how it will play out, our involvement will make the situation more complicated (like the article you posted states)

I agree that Russia won't do squat, but the Chinese is another story. Diplomacy in this WH, sadly is a thing of the past.

War is good for business and trump is a businessman, remember?

a reply to: DBCowboy

There's no easy "win".

There's no win period. The beneficial thing for us (and everyone) would be to learn how to compromise and eat our pride.

We have plenty of pull in the region, we don't need to dictate what happens in Iran. If we had serious talks with Russia with the acknowledgment that they are the best suited to deescalate the situation in Iran, I think we could be surprised with the outcome.

We're overstretched as it is, and dealing with the matter in this way could also improve our relations with Russia whom I think might be one of our most valuable allies in the near future, as they have proven to be in the past.

a reply to: gladtobehere

My question would be : if the U.S.
is no longer dependent on foreign oil,
why would a Saudi Tanker be headed for
U.S. customers? After all this is stated in
the headline. Could it be for U.S. customers
abroad/allies?

I am sure one of you here have a simple explanation
for this, but I still believe it is a legitimate question.

S&F

a reply to: Wildmanimal


The world oil market is very complex, many United States refineries are set up to process light sweet crude which the Saudis have in abundance. We actually cannot process all the oil extracted here in the States and have to ship a good amount elsewhere to be refined.

a reply to: Wildmanimal

I believe we still get 10%~ of our oil mix from Saudi Arabia.

But it's not just whether we are the end consumer like you eluded. We are the worlds top refiner. So oil we may not use comes through us so we can turn the black tar into something the consumers like more