Cocked and Loaded on Behalf of the Saudis

[laughing dog]

Neither is war.

Depends on the war. Delaying an inevitable war can make it worse, which is the point of my WWII comparison.

The situations are not remotely comparable. We have no compelling national interest to protect the Saudis. They are not a vital ally.

 

[Derec]

The situations are not remotely comparable. We have no compelling national interest to protect the Saudis. They are not a vital ally.

Protecting 10% of world oil production is a vital interest. As is preventing the weird beards to exert an even stronger control of the region than they already do. Kind of like it was a bad idea to let Nazi Germany exert control over Eastern Europe.

 

[laughing dog]

The situations are not remotely comparable. We have no compelling national interest to protect the Saudis. They are not a vital ally.

Protecting 10% of world oil production is a vital interest.

Let the world protect its vital interest. It is not in our vital interest to expose ourselves to these dangers for no observable reward.

[
As is preventing the weird beards to exert an even stronger control of the region than they already do. Kind of like it was a bad idea to let Nazi Germany exert control over Eastern Europe.

The difference is the choice is between the Saudis or Iran. Neither is desirable. Iran is not trying to conquer nor control Saudi Arabia. And, we don't live in that region. Nor is this any evidence whatsoever that we have a clue on what to do. We certainly do not share a coherent world view with either regime. Sorry, but the situations are not remotely comparable.

 

[bilby]

Now do the USA, and then try to tell me with a straight face that Iran is the biggest threat to world peace.

US doesn't support terrorism. We do not attack our neighbors. For example, US is not bombing Mexican oil facilities, nor are controlling Canadian government through armed militias. We do not support terrorist groups in e.g. Uruguay who shoot rockets into Paraguay and vow to "rip their hearts out from their bodies". Our leader (who is by the way not an unelected cleric) does not say that Paraguay should be wiped off the map.

That's a very large number of words, not one of which addresses the question to which it purports to be a response. And the addition of a nice picture depicting an irrelevant and routine empty threat doesn't help. Arguments by pictorial means are the hallmark of the ignorant appeal to emotion.

I know you have a massive hatred for Iran. That's not at issue. The question is, can you, when considering all of the international military actions of both Iran and The USA in the last century, with a straight face continue to claim that Iran is the greatest threat to world peace?

I am currently assuming that your disinclination to answer is a strong indication that the answer is 'no', but that you are too gutless to admit that your hyperbole was unjustified.

 

[Derec]

Let the world protect its vital interest.

The difference is the choice is between the Saudis or Iran.

Not really. Iranians don't just hate Saudi Arabia. They hate United States (Iranian proxy Hezbollah was scouting for terror targets in the US!), Israel, and any Middle Eastern country not run by their proxies.

 

[Derec]

know you have a massive hatred for Iran.

Not Iran per se, just their theocratic regime. It is an evil regime just like the Soviet Regime was evil and the Nazi regime in Germany was evil.

That's not at issue. The question is, can you, when considering all of the international military actions of both Iran and The USA in the last century, with a straight face continue to claim that Iran is the greatest threat to world peace?

Yes, I can. You seem to have a massive hatred for the United States? Why?

 

[ZiprHead]

Now do the USA, and then try to tell me with a straight face that Iran is the biggest threat to world peace.

US doesn't support terrorism. We do not attack our neighbors. For example, US is not bombing Mexican oil facilities, nor are controlling Canadian government through armed militias. We do not support terrorist groups in e.g. Uruguay who shoot rockets into Paraguay and vow to "rip their hearts out from their bodies". Our leader (who is by the way not an unelected cleric) does not say that Paraguay should be wiped off the map.

View attachment 23906

That's Israels problem.

 

[ZiprHead]

The situations are not remotely comparable. We have no compelling national interest to protect the Saudis. They are not a vital ally.

Protecting 10% of world oil production is a vital interest. As is preventing the weird beards to exert an even stronger control of the region than they already do. Kind of like it was a bad idea to let Nazi Germany exert control over Eastern Europe.

Which weird beards are you referring to, The Iranian ones or the Saudi ones?

 

[ZiprHead]

View attachment 23908

Derec has gone complete neocon.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

[graph of exports of natural gas]

Oh wait. You're wrong again.

No, I am not! That chart shows exports of NATURAL GAS, not of CRUDE OIL. Note that the quantities are given in terms of cubic feet, not barrels. So not only do you not understand the difference between production and exports, you also do not understand the difference between oil and natural gas. Yes, US has recently become a net exporter of natural gas thanks to the (villainized by Dems) shale revolution/fracking, but I never claimed otherwise, since we were talking about oil.

The graph you posted can be found here. Pay attention to the caption.
 United States energy independence

A graph of oil exports would be, for example:
View attachment 23871
From here.
As you can see, net imports decreased as US domestic production increased (something most Democratic candidates want to put an end to by banning fracking and drilling on federal lands), but net imports are still very much positive.

I.e.:
United States is a net oil importer!!!
View attachment 23872

Not if the US retains a large portion of its production. Note that production far outstrips imports or exports.

Try again.

What amount of production is retained has absolutely no bearing on imports vs exports.

 

[Elixir]

Derec doesn't understand that he's not the solution, but rather the problem. And unfortunately he has a lot of company.

Appeasement is definitely not a solution.
View attachment 23905

Neither is war.

I dunno. It works for a while - with Nazis at least. If you kill enough of them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Let the world protect its vital interest. It is not in our vital interest to expose ourselves to these dangers for no observable reward.

[
As is preventing the weird beards to exert an even stronger control of the region than they already do. Kind of like it was a bad idea to let Nazi Germany exert control over Eastern Europe.

The difference is the choice is between the Saudis or Iran. Neither is desirable. Iran is not trying to conquer nor control Saudi Arabia. And, we don't live in that region. Nor is this any evidence whatsoever that we have a clue on what to do. We certainly do not share a coherent world view with either regime. Sorry, but the situations are not remotely comparable.

Your myopia isn't a rebuttal. Iran wants to bring their flavor of Islam to the Muslim world.

Iran winning would make the oil shock of 1973 look like a picnic.

(Not to say a KSA win would be a good thing, either.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Now do the USA, and then try to tell me with a straight face that Iran is the biggest threat to world peace.

US doesn't support terrorism. We do not attack our neighbors. For example, US is not bombing Mexican oil facilities, nor are controlling Canadian government through armed militias. We do not support terrorist groups in e.g. Uruguay who shoot rockets into Paraguay and vow to "rip their hearts out from their bodies". Our leader (who is by the way not an unelected cleric) does not say that Paraguay should be wiped off the map.

View attachment 23906

That's Israels problem.

So long as it stays a low level war. If it gets hot enough welcome to oil shock #3. Hopefully not with mushroom clouds.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Let the world protect its vital interest. It is not in our vital interest to expose ourselves to these dangers for no observable reward.

[
As is preventing the weird beards to exert an even stronger control of the region than they already do. Kind of like it was a bad idea to let Nazi Germany exert control over Eastern Europe.

The difference is the choice is between the Saudis or Iran. Neither is desirable. Iran is not trying to conquer nor control Saudi Arabia. And, we don't live in that region. Nor is this any evidence whatsoever that we have a clue on what to do. We certainly do not share a coherent world view with either regime. Sorry, but the situations are not remotely comparable.

Your myopia isn't a rebuttal. Iran wants to bring their flavor of Islam to the Muslim world.

Iran winning would make the oil shock of 1973 look like a picnic.

(Not to say a KSA win would be a good thing, either.)

What about the Wahhabism out of Saudi Arabia? Is that the gentle radicalism? What about Iran isn’t nearly as radical as their religious dictatorship?

And things were relaxing a bit with the nuclear agreement. Saudi Arabia hated the idea of the US trying to make amends with Iran. They got the guy they wanted in the US to rip that to shreds.

 

[laughing dog]

Your myopia isn't a rebuttal.

Your paranoia is not a rebuttal.

Iran wants to bring their flavor of Islam to the Muslim world.

Which is not the same thing as trying to conquer or control the Muslim world. And, of course, the Saudis want to do exactly the same thing. There is no reason for any Western country to expose itself and its citizens to the attendant dangers associated with taking sides here.

Iran winning would make the oil shock of 1973 look like a picnic.

Paranoiac bs. You have no clue what it would like.

 

[Patooka]

Anyone else remember how the US placing troops in Saudi Arabia in 1991 was the best recruitment tool for Islamic fundamentalists until Abu Ghraib came along?

Don't worry, US intervention will be different this time. I promise.

 

[ZiprHead]

Anyone else remember how the US placing troops in Saudi Arabia in 1991 was the best recruitment tool for Islamic fundamentalists until Abu Ghraib came along?

Don't worry, US intervention will be different this time. I promise.

I was going to point out the same issue.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[Derec]

Must be those "over the horizon" binoculars I keep hearing about? Or maybe the meme is full of shit.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The good news. Apparently Trump was all talk and he went off half cocked about the US military being at the call of Sauds.

The bad news, well that is apparent in what I say above.

Must be those "over the horizon" binoculars I keep hearing about? Or maybe the meme is full of shit.

Poor Derec.