its all about 2020.
Trump's last throw of the dice to prevent being arrested when Bernie is sworn in.
Trump's last throw of the dice to prevent being arrested when Bernie is sworn in.
Iran v US confrontation
- Thread starter 4bars
- Start date
That may be true but the point I was trying to make, badly no doubt, was that if oil cannot be freely traded and the price rises it will be the poorer nations of the world that suffer the most. I wasn't commenting on who is responsible for the attacks, I would just say we need a lot more information before jumping to any conclusions on that score, at the moment people are choosing the alleged facts that fit in with their own theories and ignoring those that don't.
I'm with you on the attacks. Given that its Trump and Bolton, it would take overwhelming and transparent evidence to get the public on board, which would even then still be very difficult given how the country is tribally divided at the moment.
We're voting for the least evil
What alternative are you proposing ?
Guillotines for those who abuse their positions of power. But I suppose we've become too civilized for that.
Sometimes i wonder. Does simply buying crude oil for a tiny higher prices makes more sense than spending trillions of dollars for wars?
I doubt it's about oil, oil is just the side bonus. I guess it's about weapon contracts for the hawks alites
It's scary that no one in the whole pentagon whistleblowing on this scandal. If the video is fake there's bound to be hundreds of people that knew it was an inside job. The balls on trump to fabricate this kind of hoax in the 21st century
Ultimately it's about power, where certain types of US leaders take the position that they can achieve some sort of moral or political gain by wielding American power on the global stage, often without a long term plan to deal with the inevitable knock on effects of interventionism.
The profit from the war went to the oil companies and to the major oil-producing countries who saw an increase in prices(and also weapon companies of course). Entities who got contracts in Iraqi oilfields after Saddam was removed. Private companies which provided contractors for military work or supplemental work and were notoriously corrupt.
That's a byproduct of war not the intended purpose of it. In Iraq, there are Russian and Chinese companies doing business in the south, Turkish and Balkan based companies doing business in the north and there were thousands of people from south asian, african, and south american countries working throughout the country.
Tehran has held firm in its tussles with Trump
Iran’s leaders have shown their intent to defend their interests by damaging those of their foes
For much of this year, two beliefs have held firm in the halls of power in Iran: US attempts to strangle its economy cannot be tolerated and Donald Trump has no intention of going to war.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/15/tehran-has-held-firm-in-its-tussles-with-trump
Iran’s leaders have shown their intent to defend their interests by damaging those of their foes
For much of this year, two beliefs have held firm in the halls of power in Iran: US attempts to strangle its economy cannot be tolerated and Donald Trump has no intention of going to war.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/15/tehran-has-held-firm-in-its-tussles-with-trump
He's probably right if he thinks Trump has no appetite for a full on war, but he would definitely not think twice about lobbing missiles and/or a brief bombing campaign to send a message. The Iranians would therefore need be careful not to play into a scenario where Trump has to save face after something they have done.
Early war contracting went heavily to Haliburton and they were notoriously corrupt and notoriously close to the administration.
Recently there was a report than Californian producers of pistachios were among the lobbyists for the destruction of the Iran deal, since it would reduce their competition. So things that look like byproducts might be important in the buildup.
Is there actual news on the Iran navy assisting with a rescue?
Saw it mentioned a few pages ago. The CBSnews tweet posted on the page 16 did not mention Iran's navy assisting, which if true it appears the news 1) is setting the tone for creating the "other", or 2) does not know.
Saw it mentioned a few pages ago. The CBSnews tweet posted on the page 16 did not mention Iran's navy assisting, which if true it appears the news 1) is setting the tone for creating the "other", or 2) does not know.
I don't doubt that there are various groups who may lobby for their own interests. The Halliburton angle is however overplayed as a device to vilify the war, which could easily be vilified for any number of other more legitimate reasons. The basic reality of invading a country is that it requires a massive amount of logistical and administrative support, which given how dramatically the size of the US military has been reduced since the end of the cold war, means that most of the basic support mechanisms like housing, food, transportation etc have to be outsourced to vendors. It's a massive pyramid scheme where US companies themselves outsource to regional vendors (Turkey etc), who in turn outsource to even smaller companies in places like India, Bangladesh etc. Ultimately, the US taxpayer isn't just paying for US troops, they wind up enriching companies on a massive transnational scale.
Nobody, not even the Iranians, is saying the video is fake.
This from a journalist generally very supportive of the Iranian agenda in the region:
So Bret Stephens is going to be on the front line if there is an offensive?
Or is he willing to have others do the fighting and dying for him?
Or is he willing to have others do the fighting and dying for him?
If these “attacks” on oil tankers weren’t US oil tankers then why is the US even considering war with Iran?
Oil is not a sidebar to this, but at the same time its role can be misunderstood. Access to oil has been central to the ability to project power of nations for the past hundred years or so. As such, it is not just seen in terms of a commodity (and thus $$$) but a matter of national security. This has informed both the grander schemes of geopolitics and military action, as famously seen not just recently but also in WWII.
So when viewing this, you have to center your mental map not on Tehran or DC or dollar signs, but on the Strait of Hormuz.
It’s been part of our foreign policy since at least the 1970s to protect the Strait of Hormuz.
Bingo
Because ensuring the steady and secure supply of Gulf oil to the world’s market is the number one American priority in the Middle East.
Thanks both of you. So, not looking too good then.
So why would the Iranians do this to the tankers if they knew it was likely to provoke a military response from the US? I’m wondering if they are “following orders” so to speak from elsewhere.
Are we sure the Iranians did it?
(Genuine question- I’ve been fishing and playing golf the last 2 days)
Spot on. The US' involvement in the middle east isn't to invade and plunder for resources but rather to ensure stable transit of oil without geopolitical disruptions, which ironically also happens to be an immediate byproduct of interventionism.
I think he's just asking why the Iranians would hypothetically do this.
It hasn’t (yet) provoked a military response. And it probably won’t.
The Iranians believe the Americans have basically already declared war against them through sanctions. They have limited means by which to strike back without provoking all out war. They have a history of targeting tankers in the Gulf, a history of ballsy provocations of their own, and have threatened to disrupt the export of Gulf oil just two months ago.
The evidence, whether real or manufactured, is looking like the Iranians were responsible. But it would need proving that it was Iranians in the boat, they were there after the explosions took place, they removed a mine (not something else) from the side of the vessel, and that they planted the mines initially.
In that case, it doesn’t make much sense to me for them to do that.
That said, I could be dead wrong and they might just be that crazy/ballsy (as @2cents puts it)
If we are left with false flag vs. Iran as our two options, I think the majority or plurality of the population will side with the “it was Iran” version of events.
Well this is the Trump administration so anything could happen. It’s difficult to believe and trust them when lying and manipulation is how they operate.
Not if this thread is anything to go by.
Don’t underestimate the American population’s desire for a Muslim boogieman.
Remember, we were convinced for a time that Vietnamese rice farmers were a national security threat.
It's not so unbelievable that they would've done something like this when you consider Trump tightening the noose on them economically since he came to power, as well as the fact that the US is actively patrolling the Arabian Gulf not too far from Iranian territory. Also, you have to bear in mind that the Iranians were actively involved in fighting the US in Iraq after the Iraq war started (by way of EFPs and the Quds force training their own stooge militia groups like Asa'ib al-Haq and others), so it wouldn't be a stretch to believe they might try something similar at sea.
Now I could see them sending a proxy to do their dirty business for them in the Strait. Good point.
Under a normal government I would agree with you but with the Trumpster in charge I would expect most folk’s thoughts to automatically click into false flag mode. It seems to do this by default.
I really hope so.
Full disclosure: my gut feeling on the public’s reaction might be skewed by living in Trumpland