Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

The Screws are tightening on Iran


and-then

Recommended Posts

Learn a little of our America...   Trump, Clinton,,,   none of them are the ultimate say so in all decisions ME policy.  "other people" are.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, marsman said:

Where does the US rank in oil production?
The United States is now the largest global crude oil producer. Note: Production for the United States and Russia includes crude oil and condensate. The total for Saudi Arabia includes only crude oil; EIA estimates that crude oil and condensate production in Saudi Arabia averaged 10.5 million b/d in August 2018.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=37053

 

Truly great news for the oil industry where the contributions come from.. Not so great for the price of gasoline or home heating oil for the poor schmucks who bear the final cost of those prices.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, OverSword said:

You're high.  Hillary Clinton was the one who said we will attack Iran once she's president.

So right you are.  There were those who held their noses and voted for Trump because they thought he was less dangerous.  "At least he is not Hillary."  Now, joy of joys the only part of Hillary we may get is her war.  

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

So right you are.  There were those who held their noses and voted for Trump because they thought he was less dangerous.  "At least he is not Hillary."  Now, joy of joys the only part of Hillary we may get is her war.  

I don't think so.  Not unless Iran starts it.  Otherwise we just wait for a new government to rise to power.  Something that may well have happened by now had it not been for Obama's misguided treaty.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

I don't think so.  Not unless Iran starts it.

Hmmmm,,  not sure the US won't do something that makes it LOOK like Iran started it. We've done that before, it's called "false flag".  See Vietnam,  "USS Maddox"

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Truly great news for the oil industry where the contributions come from.. Not so great for the price of gasoline or home heating oil for the poor schmucks who bear the final cost of those prices.

From what I have been reading and from one of Trump's tweets it will be great news for Saudi Arabia.  Trump is pushing those who had contracts with Iran and Venezuela to switch to them.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/22/2019 at 7:09 PM, and then said:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-administration-set-to-end-sanction-exemptions-for-nations-importing-iranian-oil-report 

Good news!  The economic pressure on the mullahs is overdue.  It's the only thing that might cause a change in their behavior at this point.  The 150 billion that Obama injected into their coffers has to be running low by now and this should cause some real pain to their plans.  

The US has been trying to pick a war with Iran for half a century and more.  Ever since their oil became a threat to the Saudi's and the petrodollar. They even gave chemical weapons to Saddam during the Iran-Iraq conflict because they were about to invade Iraq at Basra.  Those same chemical weapons Saddam used to murder thousands of Kurds and the ones Bush went after in 2003.  The US has been interfering in Iranian politics since the 1950's and people wonder why they hate your country and your foreign policy makers.  You might think Israel is in danger of an Iranian attack but history in the region suggests otherwise and above all, guess who are the (only) ones with the nukes?

Edited by Black Red Devil
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Black Red Devil said:

The US has been trying to pick a war with Iran for half a century and more.  Ever since their oil became a threat to the Saudi's and the petrodollar. They even gave chemical weapons to Saddam during the Iran-Iraq conflict because they were about to invade Iraq at Basra.  Those same chemical weapons Saddam used to murder thousands of Kurds and the ones Bush went after in 2003.  The US has interfered in Iranian politics since the 1950's and people wonder why they hate your country and your foreign policy makers.  You might think Israel is in danger of an Iranian attack but history in the region suggests otherwise and above all, guess who are the (only) ones with the nukes?

Yes, I'm sure the poor wee lambs are misunderstood and ill treated by we warmongers in the U.S.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, and then said:

Yes, I'm sure the poor wee lambs are misunderstood and ill treated by we warmongers in the U.S.  

Can't deny the fact the only ones beating war drums are the US and its sidekick.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  Eeeeh I'll pipe in, the Trumpet had plenty of opportunity in various places.   Even if he doesn't start an action or whatever it will be named, as they do that you know, he won't receive a nobel peace prize, which by the way probably says something about the people handing those out.

Edited by MWoo7
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, MWoo7 said:

  Eeeeh I'll pipe in, the Trumpet had plenty of opportunity in various places.   Even if he doesn't start an action or whatever it will be named, as they do that you know, he won't receive a nobel peace prize, which by the way probably says something about the people handing those out.

Trump blew his trumpet while he trampled through the trough in trembling troublesome terrain.

I feel so poetic today I'm in love with myself. :P

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

eeh it was my pipe wording that tiggered it :P Yes you are a poet , some don't even know it !

Have a good one I've a kitchen to burn down laterzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Edited by MWoo7
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/22/2019 at 5:24 AM, Vlad the Mighty said:

Yup, you, and the Emperor Donald,w ill get your long awaited war very very soon!
 

How many do you think will die as a result this time?   I bet you can't wait! ^_^ 

 

There will be no war with Iran.  Not if it requires the U.S. to strike them.  Israel may drop a load on them if they feel the need but I doubt they'd take that route unless they're sure Iran is on the cusp of testing a nuke.  Either way, all the Mullahs need to do is refrain from the bellicose rhetoric and their aggression in Syria and they're snug as a bug.  It's really up to them, innit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/22/2019 at 5:34 AM, Vlad the Mighty said:

I rather fear than an overwhelming surge of sympathy and support for the Beloved Land would not be the result, and may in fact have just the reverse effect. Just something to perhaps bear in mind.

That goes without saying, doesn't it?  I really don't recall the last outpouring of goodwill that came their way.  That's the thing about being hated nearly universally... it's a LOT easier to just say SCREW THE WORLD, if someone rises to kill us, we will kill them FIRST.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

Can't deny the fact the only ones beating war drums are the US and its sidekick.

That might be a response to Iranian rhetoric AND their moves to build bases for offensive weaponry on Syrian soil.  I'm sure that's not sufficient cause for you but Israel sees it a bit differently.  Hence, the increasing numbers of Iranian body bags traveling East.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, and then said:

That might be a response to Iranian rhetoric AND their moves to build bases for offensive weaponry on Syrian soil.  I'm sure that's not sufficient cause for you but Israel sees it a bit differently.  Hence, the increasing numbers of Iranian body bags traveling East.  

 

why should it be of any interest to the US?

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, and then said:

That might be a response to Iranian rhetoric AND their moves to build bases for offensive weaponry on Syrian soil.  I'm sure that's not sufficient cause for you but Israel sees it a bit differently.  Hence, the increasing numbers of Iranian body bags traveling East.  

Don't know, 80 million against 8 million (Jews)!  Of course Israel can rely on nukes nobody ever objected to them possessing while everyone has a hissy fit (rightly so) as soon as others start enriching uranium.  Then again, we don't want those mad Mullahs possessing any do we?  A different kettle of fish with nukes in the hands of a civilised democracy such as Israel but then you have me worried when you suggest all these Iranian body bags. 

I hope you're suggesting this would occur via a one against one conventional warfare which nevertheless I highly doubt considering the overwhelming military power difference.  Surely you're not talking about Israel using nukes because, after all, the world did entrust that little democracy to hold onto them because they are a civilised nation, unlike the mad Mullahs. Then again, if you're relying on the US to come to its aid, Iran has Russia.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, and then said:

That might be a response to Iranian rhetoric AND their moves to build bases for offensive weaponry on Syrian soil.  I'm sure that's not sufficient cause for you but Israel sees it a bit differently.  Hence, the increasing numbers of Iranian body bags traveling East.  

i would think that most countries in the region would also see the Iranian threat moving to the Eastern Mediterranean as destabilising. Russia and Iran are going someplace that they just don't have a reason to be there. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

Don't know, 80 million against 8 million (Jews)!  Of course Israel can rely on nukes nobody ever objected to them possessing while everyone has a hissy fit (rightly so) as soon as others start enriching uranium.  Then again, we don't want those mad Mullahs possessing any do we?  A different kettle of fish with nukes in the hands of a civilised democracy such as Israel but then you have me worried when you suggest all these Iranian body bags. 

I hope you're suggesting this would occur via a one against one conventional warfare which nevertheless I highly doubt considering the overwhelming military power difference.  Surely you're not talking about Israel using nukes because, after all, the world did entrust that little democracy to hold onto them because they are a civilised nation, unlike the mad Mullahs. Then again, if you're relying on the US to come to its aid, Iran has Russia.

numbers are all relative in modern warfare. technology and training is the big multiplier these days. i think 'and then' is looking at the Middle Eastern geostrategic concerns through the prism of his religion. still it is a valid point he makes. i wouldn't like to know that Iran has the bomb or Saudi Arabia nor Turkey.    

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

Don't know, 80 million against 8 million (Jews)!  Of course Israel can rely on nukes nobody ever objected to them possessing while everyone has a hissy fit (rightly so) as soon as others start enriching uranium

The Jews have always been massively outnumbered by those who despise them.  The difference today is that they'll never have to burn alone, again.  Unless you think they owe some duty to surrender themselves to an enemy that desires the annihilation of their children without a fight?

12 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

but then you have me worried when you suggest all these Iranian body bags. 

I was speaking of Iranian dead that are currently being dispatched home from Syrian bases they have built to store and even manufacture missiles.  Israel is regularly bombing them these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

numbers are all relative in modern warfare. technology and training is the big multiplier these days. i think 'and then' is looking at the Middle Eastern geostrategic concerns through the prism of his religion. still it is a valid point he makes. i wouldn't like to know that Iran has the bomb or Saudi Arabia nor Turkey.    

There isn't much difference between the two nations militarily but Iran can draw on the possibility of enrolling army reserves from a population 10 times larger.  I don't want anyone with nukes , the main point I was making is that andthen regularly quotes the total destruction of anyone, but specifically Iran in many cases, in a war against Israel and the only way I can see that happening is via nuclear strikes.  The hypocrisy on his behalf, which I'm calling him out on, is that in his mind it's not OK for the mad Mullahs to have nukes but the 'safe and sound' nation of Israel can have them safely tucked away until they need to use them to repel its enemies. How safe and sound is that?

 

Edited by Black Red Devil
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, and then said:

The Jews have always been massively outnumbered by those who despise them.  The difference today is that they'll never have to burn alone, again.  Unless you think they owe some duty to surrender themselves to an enemy that desires the annihilation of their children without a fight?

I was speaking of Iranian dead that are currently being dispatched home from Syrian bases they have built to store and even manufacture missiles.  Israel is regularly bombing them these days.

It's only you talking but I'm pretty sure Netanyahu and his right wing Zionist cronies aren't too far away from that idea.  Which begs the question, why is the world allowing a warmongering little nation like Israel to possess nukes?  Israel regularly has gone outside its borders to bomb and invade its neighbors.  If Russia did the same with all the surrounding NATO bases located in neighboring countries we'd be fighting World War 10 by now.

The bottom line is that the Zionists were initially given opportunities in peaceful locations but wanted to force themselves in the middle of a hostile neighborhood. They survived retaliatory impacts at the start thanks to the military assistance from western nations but are now playing the bullies and becoming more greedy.  Israel should not be allowed to have nukes because with Zionists in power they will devastate the region.

Edited by Black Red Devil
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

There isn't much difference between the two nations militarily but Iran can draw on the possibility of enrolling army reserves from a population 10 times larger.  I don't want anyone with nukes , the main point I was making is that andthen regularly quotes the total destruction of anyone, but specifically Iran in many cases, in a war against Israel and the only way I can see that happening is via nuclear strikes.  The hypocrisy on his behalf, which I'm calling him out on, is that in his mind it's not OK for the mad Mullahs to have nukes but the 'safe and sound' nation of Israel can have them safely tucked away until they need to use them to repel its enemies. How safe and sound is that?

 

not very safe and sound and so your point is well received. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

is that in his mind it's not OK for the mad Mullahs to have nukes but the 'safe and sound' nation of Israel can have them safely tucked away until they need to use them to repel its enemies. How safe and sound is that?

Can you not see the obverse of your argument?  Seriously.  Iran is the one making the bellicose statements on a regular basis and Iran is the one who is building up a powerful offensive force on Israel's border.  Taken together, what do suppose Israel should take away from that behavior?  You do not think it rational that they'd worry about such rhetoric coinciding with the growth of enemy forces on their border?  You are absolutely correct in your analysis of the relative pool of manpower that each nation could bring to bear.  The ONLY defense Israel would have if Iran launched the war of aggression that they appear to be preparing for would be the threat of a nuclear strike.  Is it your premise that Israel would be at fault for striking against an existential threat?  As to the idea of "safe and sound" Israel has had the bomb for about 50+ years and has overtly threatened exactly NO ONE.  Tell me that you don't think Israel should accept their own annihilation before they'd use nukes.  Just say it.  Israel would be justified in nuking an enemy that attacks them with the intent of annihilating them.  If you can't agree with that premise then I think it's safe to say that you believe they have no right to exist anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

Israel should not be allowed to have nukes because with Zionists in power they will devastate the region.

You have zero evidence to back this claim of Israel being the aggressor that would use nukes except in a last ditch effort to save their nation.  They've threatened no one with those bombs and could easily have captured and kept large tracts of surrounding nations if that had been their goal.  You unjustly accuse them of exactly the plans and schemes that their enemies want to perpetrate against them.  As for "not allowing" them to have nukes, that ship sailed about 50 years ago and the world has no say in the matter.  I'll say it again for those who might actually be unbiased about the situation in the M.E. - all Iran has to do to be safe from a nuclear strike by Israel is to refrain from assaulting them.  Why is that so difficult to understand?  Put another way, what damned right does Iran have to threaten Israel with annihilation just for being in the region and being Jews?  This is what you seem to be supporting.  Do you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.