Aramco facilities on fire in Saudi Arabia

[Black Red Devil]

20 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

She has a point.

Tulsi Gabbard continues attack on Trump, says tweet is a 'huge disgrace' that makes US sound like 'servants of Saudi Kingdom'

 

As the saying goes, 'money talks and .......'

[Space Commander Travis]

1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

I think a nuclear exchange with Russia would be a global catastrophe. Iran could be neutralised without going anywhere CLOSE to THAT. Simply attacking Iran's coastal oil facilities and ports would surely be sufficient ? (along with Islamic Guard barracks and airfields). 

Do you envisage, then, that Iran's totalitarian theocracy would collapse the moment the first missile struck home, and that the Revolutionary Guard Corps would simply fold just like that? And if it did, the remainder of the armed forces would be so happy to be rid of the yoke of totalitarian theocracy that they'd happily surrender and let the United States impose a puppet leader (Which was just what they'd got rid of in 1979)? They wouldn't even try to retaliate after their country was attacked? 

[RoofGardener]

2 hours ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

Do you envisage, then, that Iran's totalitarian theocracy would collapse the moment the first missile struck home, and that the Revolutionary Guard Corps would simply fold just like that? And if it did, the remainder of the armed forces would be so happy to be rid of the yoke of totalitarian theocracy that they'd happily surrender and let the United States impose a puppet leader (Which was just what they'd got rid of in 1979)? They wouldn't even try to retaliate after their country was attacked? 

Pretty much, yes. 

The Iranian financial system is close to collapse anyway. The removal of their oil revenues would in all likelyhood push it over the edge. Wages and Pensions couldn't be paid. Including wages to the armed forces. 

People would riot and turn against their government. The possibility of a military coup is entirely real. 

[Space Commander Travis]

Well, you're sanguine. 

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

6 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

The bottom line, despite all your distractions, is that Israel has NOT attacked Iran. 

Why should they when they have ordered the US to do it for them?

Edited September 22, 2019 by Earl.Of.Trumps

[Setton]

6 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Oh really ? I think the occupants of the Twin Towers might disagree ? 

The bottom line, despite all your distractions, is that Israel has NOT attacked Iran. 

NEXT !

You actually think the 9/11 attackers were Iraqi militia groups..?

If Israel hasn't attacked Iran, then Iranian proxies have never attacked the US. 

Honestly, you're just embarrassing yourself here. 

[RoofGardener]

35 minutes ago, Setton said:

You actually think the 9/11 attackers were Iraqi militia groups..?

If Israel hasn't attacked Iran, then Iranian proxies have never attacked the US. 

Honestly, you're just embarrassing yourself here. 

Actually, you are the one embarrassing yourself. 

Israel has acted to attack Iranian militias and military equipment convoys in Syria. The militias - and the equipment - was being marshaled within strike range of the borders with Israel. They obviously weren't there for crowd control or to support Assad's army against the rebels; their only purpose would have been to attack Israel. Do you have ANY doubts about this ? 

Attacking Iranian militia in Syria - within missile range of Israel - is NOT an attack against Iran. Your comment about Iranian proxies attacking the US is just misleading verbiage. 

Why are you so keen to support Iran when it is obvious that it is escalating the instability in the region in order to threaten Israel ? 

Edited September 22, 2019 by RoofGardener

[RoofGardener]

37 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Why should they when they have ordered the US to do it for them?

So you admit that they have not attacked Iran ? Excellent. Thank you. 

[Farmer77]

57 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

So you admit that they have not attacked Iran ? Excellent. Thank you. 

What kind of 1984 doublespeak bull**** is this ? Man you are a broken individual. You admitted that they attacked Iran just one post above. You simply believe they were justified in doing so and are using pedantism to try and make a point.

 

 

Edited September 22, 2019 by Farmer77

[RoofGardener]

3 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

What kind of 1984 doublespeak bull**** is this ? Man you are a broken individual. You admitted that they attacked Iran just one post above. You simply believe they were justified in doing so and are using pedantism to try and make a point.

You appear to be deranged ? Where did I say that Israel HAD attacked Iran ? 

[Space Commander Travis]

1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

Actually, you are the one embarrassing yourself. 

Israel has acted to attack Iranian militias and military equipment convoys in Syria. The militias - and the equipment - was being marshaled within strike range of the borders with Israel. They obviously weren't there for crowd control or to support Assad's army against the rebels; their only purpose would have been to attack Israel. Do you have ANY doubts about this ? 

Attacking Iranian militia in Syria - within missile range of Israel - is NOT an attack against Iran. Your comment about Iranian proxies attacking the US is just misleading verbiage. 

Why are you so keen to support Iran when it is obvious that it is escalating the instability in the region in order to threaten Israel ? 

this is classic paranoia. 

[Space Commander Travis]

4 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

You appear to be deranged ?  

well, you've finally said it yourself. 

[RoofGardener]

13 minutes ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

this is classic paranoia. 

No it is NOT !

Anyway, who's accusing me of Paranoia ? 

You've all been talking about me behind my back, haven't you ? 

AAAAAAAAAAARGH... you're all out to get me. 

< hides in Polytunnel and barricades the entrance with potted chilli plants > 

Get BACK all of you. I have a demister spray, and I'm NOT afraid to use it !!!!!

[Setton]

1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

Actually, you are the one embarrassing yourself. 

Israel has acted to attack Iranian militias and military equipment convoys in Syria. The militias - and the equipment - was being marshaled within strike range of the borders with Israel. They obviously weren't there for crowd control or to support Assad's army against the rebels; their only purpose would have been to attack Israel. Do you have ANY doubts about this ? 

Attacking Iranian militia in Syria - within missile range of Israel - is NOT an attack against Iran. Your comment about Iranian proxies attacking the US is just misleading verbiage. 

Why are you so keen to support Iran when it is obvious that it is escalating the instability in the region in order to threaten Israel ? 

I am not supporting Iran. I am opposing those, on any side, desperate to push for another war. 

I suggest you look up what the special groups are before you come back to this thread. You are completely lacking any contextual knowledge. 

P. S. Israel has also struck several Iranian targets in Iraq, including nowhere near Israel. Please, go and do some research. 

[+and-then]

8 hours ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

Do you envisage, then, that Iran's totalitarian theocracy would collapse the moment the first missile struck home, and that the Revolutionary Guard Corps would simply fold just like that? And if it did, the remainder of the armed forces would be so happy to be rid of the yoke of totalitarian theocracy that they'd happily surrender and let the United States impose a puppet leader (Which was just what they'd got rid of in 1979)? They wouldn't even try to retaliate after their country was attacked? 

Not at all.  It would lead, inevitably, to a wider conflict that no one could accurately predict.  War has always been that way.  What I'm saying is that there are times when it is necessary.  Unchallenged, Iran will build a nuclear arsenal.  You seem to have accepted that potential as no great threat or you truly are unwilling to trust the evidence that has been presented.  It's worth reminding yourself that your firm belief in a thing does not give it validity in all situations.  

I would expect their military to fight fiercely and with great creativity.  Asymmetry is an art they seem to have spent a lot of time developing.  The basic premise that I have predicated all my stances on - and which has been ignored repeatedly in this discussion - is that once your goal is limited to specific outcomes which do not include attempting to force regime change or to actually take control on their territory, the whole likelihood of victory improves dramatically.

Americans don't hate or fear Iranian civilians.  The great majority of those civilians under 40 express a love of western culture and no particular hatred or even dislike for Americans.  Killing a lot of civilians with stupid mistakes or due to the regime intentionally placing them in areas where sensitive nuke sites exist would damage that benefit but unless we took steps to put them in the dark and cause hunger, I doubt that a brief application of force to disrupt a couple of specific military industries would cause any huge percentage of them to begin lusting for American blood. 

The bottom line, as this old guy sees it, is that allowing that regime to possess nuclear weapons is a future we cannot tolerate.  They have proven their disregard for international standards of behavior, time and again.  Hostage taking, using proxies to instigate wars so as to give them strategic beachheads in territory outside their borders, and proclaiming publicly and very clearly their goal to remove a member state of the UN has caused their troubles, not American or Israeli aggression that has come out of blue to harass an innocent, peaceful government.

 

[+joc]

I've always been amazed that no one would ever attack Iran.  Not Reagan..not Bush...not Clinton..not Bush...not Obama...Even after we had destroyed Sadaam ...with 150,000 troops and all of W's rhetoric ....Bush doctrine...  

I'll be impressed with Trump if he does.  It's almost like they want to so bad and then...something mysterious stops them....

I think that 'mysterious something' might be a call from the Kremlin saying something like...Don't! Unless you are ready to fight an all out war with Russia!

[+and-then]

17 hours ago, crookedspiral said:

''The information has been passed along to the Saudis and the U.S., according to people briefed on the warnings''

We are supposed to believe these ''people''?

 

 

This is what we call propaganda.  

Believe as you like, everyone else has to do the same.  Some people are calling Trump a warmonger, others a weak, political hack that puts his reelection ahead of America's national security.  His instincts have been damned good so far and his record of coming out on top of those who have perpetually plotted to take him out proves it.  I think he will resist going to war until Americans are actually killed in theater.  After that happens, what you believe is immaterial.  The lightning will fall and the storm will begin.  Just hope you don't get caught up in it as well.  It has the potential to be quite a gale.

 

Edited September 22, 2019 by and then

[RoofGardener]

3 hours ago, Setton said:

I am not supporting Iran. I am opposing those, on any side, desperate to push for another war. 

I suggest you look up what the special groups are before you come back to this thread. You are completely lacking any contextual knowledge. 

P. S. Israel has also struck several Iranian targets in Iraq, including nowhere near Israel. Please, go and do some research. 

Well GOSH.. have you considered that Iran is inviting war due to its policies ? 

I would suggest that I have a FAR greater "contextual knowledge" than YOU have, though I'm happy to debate that. 

In regards Iraq... they where IRANIAN forces within Iraq. Remind me again.. what right does Iran have to insert military forces into Iraq ? 

Do you enjoy supporting the bad guys ?  

[Space Commander Travis]

17 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Well GOSH.. have you considered that Iran is inviting war due to its policies ? 

I would suggest that I have a FAR greater "contextual knowledge" than YOU have, though I'm happy to debate that. 

In regards Iraq... they where IRANIAN forces within Iraq. Remind me again.. what right does Iran have to insert military forces into Iraq ? 

Do you enjoy supporting the bad guys ?  

do you enjoy supporting ISIS and Al Qaeda in its various manifestations? That's what your support of attempts to destabilize Syria and turn it into another failed country like Libya amounts to. Were you proud of the "intervention" there as well? I'm sure you must have been.

I know neocons are famous for being idiots, but the whole Syria fiasco has taken it to whole new levels,  

[Space Commander Travis]

And meanwhile, more idiotic propaganda, this time from the Wall Street Journal: (you have to subscribe to read, but it's been kindly summarised here) 

Yemeni Rebels Warn Iran Plans Another Strike Soon
The information has been passed along to the Saudis and the U.S., according to people briefed on the warnings

>BEIRUT — Houthi militants in Yemen have warned foreign diplomats that Iran is preparing a follow-up strike to the missile and drone attack that crippled Saudi Arabia’s oil industry a week ago, people familiar with the matter said.

Leaders of the group said they were raising the alarm about the possible new attack after they were pressed by Iran to play a role in it, these people said.<

So according to this latest produce from the Ministry of Propaganda that Doesn't Matter if it Makes no Sense, since all we have to do is squawk the trigger word Iran!, and the gullible will go "horror! Iran!!", the Houthis themselves are blowing the whistle on their biggest supporters because they're so horrified and appalled at what they're planning to do? Even to the most undiscriminating among you, you must surely pause to wonder how daft that sounds.  

[Space Commander Travis]

1 hour ago, and then said:

  It's worth reminding yourself that your firm belief in a thing does not give it validity in all situations.  

It's worth reminding yourself that your firm belief in a thing doesn't make it true, however much you may want it to be, such as your insistence that Iran will at some indeterminate point in the future construct Nukes, because that's what Bibi Netanyahu keeps insisting. You realise, I suppose, that this desire to overthrow a country on the basis that they might one day obtain some dastardly super-weapon is exactly the kind of thinking that they used to justify the Iraq fun? 

Quote

you truly are unwilling to trust the evidence that has been presented.  

Well done, you've got it!  

Edited September 22, 2019 by Dumbledore the Awesome

[RoofGardener]

40 minutes ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

do you enjoy supporting ISIS and Al Qaeda in its various manifestations? That's what your support of attempts to destabilize Syria and turn it into another failed country like Libya amounts to. Were you proud of the "intervention" there as well? I'm sure you must have been.

I know neocons are famous for being idiots, but the whole Syria fiasco has taken it to whole new levels,  

HUH ? I'm talking about Iran, not Syria ? 

In what way does having brigades of Iranian missile forces close to the border with Israel help 'stabalise' Syria ? I mean... really ? 

 

[+and-then]

50 minutes ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

Well done, you've got it!

Enjoy the outrage, baby.  Apparently you DO believe you could never be wrong.  The thing about considering yourself a final arbiter for justice in the world is that your efforts don't matter.  Nor do mine.  

[+and-then]

27 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

HUH ? I'm talking about Iran, not Syria ? 

In what way does having brigades of Iranian missile forces close to the border with Israel help 'stabalise' Syria ? I mean... really ? 

 

'tis a special world he lives in.  It's populated with contrarian critters and runs off outrage.  It's a caricature of a crabby old man in the guise of a young man.

[Setton]

1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

Well GOSH.. have you considered that Iran is inviting war due to its policies ? 

Yes, which is why I'm not supporting them. Just as I'm not supporting the US or Israel here. 

But, as I said earlier, I have less sympathy for those who fired the first shots - the US and Israel. 

Whatever and then is suffering from seems to be contagious - not supporting Israel is not the same as supporting Iran. 

Quote

I would suggest that I have a FAR greater "contextual knowledge" than YOU have, though I'm happy to debate that. 

You thought the special groups carried out 9/11. End of debate. 

Quote

In regards Iraq... they where IRANIAN forces within Iraq. Remind me again.. what right does Iran have to insert military forces into Iraq ? 

Well let's see:

1. The IRGC elements are there, at the request of the Iraqi government to provide training to the militias that make up the PMF. Much as the US, UK and the rest of the coalition is there by invitation. 

2. The PMF is part of the Iraqi state. While they may also serve Iranian interests, the Iraqi people, through their democracy (which you so fiercely defend in Brexit threads), have chosen to make them part of the state. 

3. As part of the Iraqi state, I'd say they have a good reason to be in Iraq, no? Arguably better than the coalition does. 

Quote

Do you enjoy supporting the bad guys ?  

Again, not supporting the US or Israel does not mean I support their enemies. 

I support the UK and the security of our nation. That is not served by the US dragging us into another war based on guesswork and lies to protect their pet project. 

Edited September 22, 2019 by Setton