.

[Falcon + 222]

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

Over in China, Britain went to war to force the import of opium it collected on the Afghan Frontier, to sell to the Chinese and enslave them.  That particular humiliation is still felt by the Chinese today.  Not very nice, all things considered. 

How ironic . . . British imported opium into China to enslave them  . .  . . . Now China exports fentanyl into the US .

Over the years  China brought peasant teenage girls from the hinterlands to the factories in the east by the trainload. They worked six days a week, 10 hours a day for two years for a wage of $15 to $20 a week.  Then they were returned home.  Slave labor.

 

Edited June 21, 2019 by Falcon

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

Not really.  Britain ran everything in the Colonies on the cheap.  Take for example India.  Britain constructed the railroads totally on the cheap, primarily as a means to move their occupying troops around.  IT did nothing for the betterment of the natives, who were referenced as "wogs."  The Army refused to allow any native person, no matter of what rank, to enter an Officers Club, and the idea that a Wog would date a "white woman" was beyond their comprehension.  

Over in China, Britain went to war to force the import of opium it collected on the Afghan Frontier, to sell to the Chinese and enslave them.  That particular humiliation is still felt by the Chinese today.  Not very nice, all things considered. 

Australia became a dumping ground for Britain's criminals and other undesirables.  Surplus Irish were deported to Canada and the USA.  Hard to argue that the British were such a benevolent lot. 

Unlike the Dutch who were paragons of virtue in their colonies😛

[NickW + 2,714]

2 hours ago, SERWIN said:

   The Iranians seem to have forgotten about one pure and simple fact. They were at war on and off(mostly on) with Iraq for what, 30 years? Neither side could gain enough of an advantage to win and be done with it. When the US and Allies went into Iraq, it took what, 3 days to absolutely devastate the Iraqi army and chase them all the way back home. The only mistake then was stopping at the border. What do the Iranians think is going to be so different with this scenario? Do they really believe they can take on a superpower and actually win? Or even hold us off for more than say, 30 minutes? So I ask you, are you ready to watch the action on CNN for a couple of days and see the utter annihilation of the Iranian army? That's what will end up happening if this continues to escalate, we will bring all the forces into Iraq and roll over the border for a Sunday drive in the country. Then the rest of the whiners in the world will be making that special sound they are so good at making and we will have to listen to the complaints. Like it or not, the Iranians are fanatical enough to use a nuke if they can make one.

   Do the whiners understand that the fanatics are commanded by Allah to destroy anyone that is not practicing their religion? They don't care if you are on their side or not right now, if you are not following Allah, you are an enemy. It will only be a matter of time until they turn their eyes on you and your personal jihad will commence. Iran having nukes would be devastating to the world at large. Granted they would probably only get one shot and the game would be over from the retaliation that would happen almost immediately, but they would be sure to get some really good shots in before the end game, like planting nukes in various cities around the world and setting them all off at once....

News Flash - *****Fact intervention**********

Iran - Iraq War was 1980 - 1988

Iraq invaded Iran

Despite extensive use of chemical weapons by Iraq, Iran never retaliated with Chemical Weapons

----------------------------

Iran has similar topography as Afghanistan except it has a population of 85 million and is extremely well armed. 

I'm sure if the US sent the Army in it would win a conventional battle. However another thing is for sure - large numbers of Americans will coming home in a box. 

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

1 hour ago, James Regan said:

We should also consider the law systems put in place and sanitation the school system and let’s not forget the commonwealth. I don’t know of any other colonial power that left a lasting footprint of mostly positive infrastructure. Yes a lot of bad calls but the end game was always to deliver the country back in good shape. 

Hong Kong 🇭🇰 as we speak is proof of a colonial success!

What did the Romans ever do for us??? 😂 

Dont forget Singapore

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

4 hours ago, NickW said:

News Flash - *****Fact intervention**********

Iran - Iraq War was 1980 - 1988

Iraq invaded Iran

Despite extensive use of chemical weapons by Iraq, Iran never retaliated with Chemical Weapons

----------------------------

Iran has similar topography as Afghanistan except it has a population of 85 million and is extremely well armed. 

I'm sure if the US sent the Army in it would win a conventional battle. However another thing is for sure - large numbers of Americans will coming home in a box. 

You underestimate how overwhelmingly effective US armor and fire support have become.  The US only takes casualties when we feel like being nice. 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

President Trump Cancels Disproportionate Counter-Attack on Iran

Lots of differing opinion on the decision by POTUS to cancel a retaliatory strike against Iran.  Some praise and some criticize.   Here’s President Trump’s reason for cancelling the strike against Iran:

As it relates to the Trump doctrine, Conservative Tree House would note any current ally of the U.S; and/or any entity engaged with significant economic interests attached to the U.S; including any EU entity who might have previously been skirting the sanctions against Iran (think Turkey); would now be very cautious about appearing on President Trump and Secretary Mnuchin’s proverbial radar.

 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

5 hours ago, NickW said:

I'm sure if the US sent the Army in it would win a conventional battle. However another thing is for sure - large numbers of Americans will coming home in a box.

No chance.  

Americans no longer do "territory."  The doctrine is to hammer the opponent [the "enemy"] into oblivion. Air power (and naval power including naval air power) is used for that.  Iranians cannot even hide deep inside mountains, in tunnels.  The US has these bunker-buster conventional bombs,and small battlefield nuclear weapons that would pulverize those installations.  There is no place to hide, no place to run.  If your opponent is the USA, you have two choices:  surrender, or die.

[Guillaume Albasini + 851]

Obviously some are unable to draw lessons from past experiences.

 

Overwhelming military power is one thing. Winning a war is another.

You can be victorious on the battlefield, you will not be victorious in the war, unless you have a viable political solution, one which will be supported by the local people.

When you topple a bad regime, you sometimes risk replacing it with a worse one.

It takes only a few days for the US to invade a country, but it takes many years to get out.

[NickW + 2,714]

7 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

You underestimate how overwhelmingly effective US armor and fire support have become.  The US only takes casualties when we feel like being nice. 

So you now openly view the Geneva convention as an optional extra? 

I also understand that Russia and China produce some highly effective anti tank weapons which I suspect they will be happy to supply to Iran. 

 

Edited June 22, 2019 by NickW

[NickW + 2,714]

6 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

No chance.  

Americans no longer do "territory."  The doctrine is to hammer the opponent [the "enemy"] into oblivion. Air power (and naval power including naval air power) is used for that.  Iranians cannot even hide deep inside mountains, in tunnels.  The US has these bunker-buster conventional bombs,and small battlefield nuclear weapons that would pulverize those installations.  There is no place to hide, no place to run.  If your opponent is the USA, you have two choices:  surrender, or die.

I did set that scenario in the context of 'if the US sent the Army in'

The Russians have been convertly supplying Iran with S400 missile systems. If the above happens a lot of US pilots will be coming home in boxes. .

I can't see the Iranians surrendering to your choice option - in that regard you completely fail to understand the psyche of the people of that region. Remember what happened to the Russians in Afghanistan. 

[NickW + 2,714]

2 hours ago, Guillaume Albasini said:

Obviously some are unable to draw lessons from past experiences.

 

Overwhelming military power is one thing. Winning a war is another.

You can be victorious on the battlefield, you will not be victorious in the war, unless you have a viable political solution, one which will be supported by the local people.

When you topple a bad regime, you sometimes risk replacing it with a worse one.

It takes only a few days for the US to invade a country, but it takes many years to get out.

From what I gather that lunatic Bolton favours the Peoples Muhajadeen of Iran. These Socialist cultists are worst than the Mullahs!

[NickW + 2,714]

7 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

President Trump Cancels Disproportionate Counter-Attack on Iran

Lots of differing opinion on the decision by POTUS to cancel a retaliatory strike against Iran.  Some praise and some criticize.   Here’s President Trump’s reason for cancelling the strike against Iran:

As it relates to the Trump doctrine, Conservative Tree House would note any current ally of the U.S; and/or any entity engaged with significant economic interests attached to the U.S; including any EU entity who might have previously been skirting the sanctions against Iran (think Turkey); would now be very cautious about appearing on President Trump and Secretary Mnuchin’s proverbial radar.

 

I note that many Americans view that money as their money. It was Iranian money and assets frozen in 1979 as the USA didn't like the Regime change. The money was then agreed to be paid back but placed in an escrow account and from 1981 to 2016 the USA has come up with one excuse after another to not hand it back. 

From the above Trump appears to be less trigger happy than his hardliners on the board. 

[JR EWING + 123]

What do you all think Iran will do if attacked by the US? Iran will take a hammering but so will the world economy.

Here is my opinion for what its worth, Iran will target shipping in the Gulf and no oil will move for a period of time, it will target the massive complexes in SA and possibly the UAE also that deliver 10MBOD to the export market. Not sure you all noticed what is happening in the PES refinery in Penn right now, but it ain't going to take much for the Iranians to bring the world into recession with $150 or $200 oil. The real question is whether you think Iran will stand idly by while US attacks them?

All I can read here is the might of the US military. It wont take more than a few hundred hits in the H/C facilities to ensure that production is crippled for months or years. How many medium range missiles do they have? Have they mastered guidance systems? Can they deliver them? obviously yes, as that's one of the bones of contention.

[JR EWING + 123]

Further to the above, the vast majority of countries in the world see the US as the aggressor, who broke an agreement reached while the Iranian side was found to be keeping to their side of the bargain. they don't all overtly say this but its what they are thinking. In fact Mogherini's side kick stated it last week in an interview. Now, I wonder who will the world blame for the impending recession. The US has been acting as the aggressor in any locations around the world since the fall of the Soviet Union.  

[Falcon + 222]

41 minutes ago, JR EWING said:

What do you all think Iran will do if attacked by the US? Iran will take a hammering but so will the world economy.

Here is my opinion for what its worth, Iran will target shipping in the Gulf and no oil will move for a period of time, it will target the massive complexes in SA and possibly the UAE also that deliver 10MBOD to the export market. Not sure you all noticed what is happening in the PES refinery in Penn right now, but it ain't going to take much for the Iranians to bring the world into recession with $150 or $200 oil. The real question is whether you think Iran will stand idly by while US attacks them?

All I can read here is the might of the US military. It wont take more than a few hundred hits in the H/C facilities to ensure that production is crippled for months or years. How many medium range missiles do they have? Have they mastered guidance systems? Can they deliver them? obviously yes, as that's one of the bones of contention.

If Iran is trying to hold world economy hostage with conventional weaponry . . . .  what do you think they'll do if they get nukes  ? ? ? 

Trump is killing their economy.  It's working.  Don't stop till it's destroyed.

The other side of that is . . . .  US is backing a wounded animal into a corner.  When does Iran go from wounding a tanker to sinking one.

Are the Mullahs crazy enough to do that ?  Yup.

I think world wakes up before gets to that point. Yesterday Russia said it would help Iran sell it's oil.  Nice of them, but whose going to buy it. China has stopped buying Iranian oil. If no trade deal with Trump they will likely start buying again. 

U.S. Shale producers would love $150 to $200 oil.

Edited June 22, 2019 by Falcon

[JR EWING + 123]

The US is threatening too many countries for me to write in here. Iran will be no more a threat than the only country thats used them to flatten 2 cities killing 100,s of thousands of civilians.  And to release a document a few days ago was threatening in itself. US loves causing chaos. Its good for the complex and much of it is done to enrich individuals and take out competitiin. Lets not forget the US sowed the seeds of iran today in the 50,s. That led to the revolution and the take over of the mullahs. Looking through the smallest window you will always see the least part.

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

4 hours ago, NickW said:

So you now openly view the Geneva convention as an optional extra? 

I also understand that Russia and China produce some highly effective anti tank weapons which I suspect they will be happy to supply to Iran.

You have a gift for putting words in other people's mouths.  I do not appreciate the insinuation. 

@Tom Kirkman, are there any forum rules against intentionally misinterpreting other people's statements in an attempt to slander them? 

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

4 hours ago, NickW said:

I did set that scenario in the context of 'if the US sent the Army in'

The Russians have been convertly supplying Iran with S400 missile systems. If the above happens a lot of US pilots will be coming home in boxes. .

I can't see the Iranians surrendering to your choice option - in that regard you completely fail to understand the psyche of the people of that region. Remember what happened to the Russians in Afghanistan. 

Are you familiar with the Wild Weasels?  The US has been countering Anti-air missiles since the Vietnam War.  It's a certainty that weapons & tactics have been developed to counter Russia's latest SAMs. 

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

17 minutes ago, JR EWING said:

The US is threatening too many countries for me to write in here. Iran will be no more a threat than the only country thats used them to flatten 2 cities killing 100,s of thousands of civilians.  And to release a document a few days ago was threatening in itself. US loves causing chaos. Its good for the complex and much of it is done to enrich individuals and take out competitiin. Lets not forget the US sowed the seeds of iran today in the 50,s. That led to the revolution and the take over of the mullahs. Looking through the smallest window you will always see the least part.

Point of clarification: the death & destruction caused by the two atomic bombs was completely dwarfed by the destruction caused by firebombing, both in Japan and Germany.  The US has been far more deadly than people imagine. 

On the other hand, when an entire population is mobilized for war, the line between civilian and combatant is blurred.  This was the case during WWII.  It was esp. true of WWII Japan, who planned to arm civilians with spears and send them into battle in waves. 

Likewise, when your enemy uses civilians as human shields, operates out of religious structures (mosques), and uses ambulances to transport weapons, the lines get blurred.  One is left with a choice: cross some lines, or lose. 

For all the death and destruction it's caused, the US has been surprisingly benign.  Our enemies make the rules; we just play the game. 

[James Regan + 1,776]

15 minutes ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

Point of clarification: the death & destruction caused by the two atomic bombs was completely dwarfed by the destruction caused by firebombing, both in Japan and Germany.  The US has been far more deadly than people imagine. 

On the other hand, when an entire population is mobilized for war, the line between civilian and combatant is blurred.  This was the case during WWII.  It was esp. true of WWII Japan, who planned to arm civilians with spears and send them into battle in waves. 

Likewise, when your enemy uses civilians as human shields, operates out of religious structures (mosques), and uses ambulances to transport weapons, the lines get blurred.  One is left with a choice: cross some lines, or lose. 

For all the death and destruction it's caused, the US has been surprisingly benign.  Our enemies make the rules; we just play the game. 

Obviously we cant be so naive to think that the US and UK never played the rules entirely correctly, we just had agencies that were developed to work behind the scenes. However when the lines get blurred in the front rows of the theater war and so blatantly it’s inevitable that any reaction against these blurred targets will always be claimed as crimes against the civilians by those blurring the lines and colateral damage by those inflicting.

War is not pretty and seems ironic that it has rules, given that the intention is to kill your opponent and destroy a country.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

On 6/21/2019 at 10:09 AM, Jan van Eck said:

Not really.  Carter brokered the Camp David Accords, which had Egypt recognize Israel and sever the link between Egypt and Syria (the old United Arab Republic stuff) and start down the road to something starting to resemble "peace."  He did a lot of work on that, and I would say succeeded where others either failed or just shrugged. 

And got our one and only Arab friend in the region assassinated, quite publicly, by his own officers. If you don't think that didn't send a message to every other leader in the region, you need to put down the pipe.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

20 hours ago, NickW said:

News Flash - *****Fact intervention**********

Iran - Iraq War was 1980 - 1988

Iraq invaded Iran

Despite extensive use of chemical weapons by Iraq, Iran never retaliated with Chemical Weapons

----------------------------

Iran has similar topography as Afghanistan except it has a population of 85 million and is extremely well armed. 

I'm sure if the US sent the Army in it would win a conventional battle. However another thing is for sure - large numbers of Americans will coming home in a box. 

Iraq could not succeed in getting air superiority.  The high ground is everything and there's no higher ground than space. We've never even loosened the gloves in Afghanistan. My nephew was stationed there and the rules of engagement he was under were obscene. Soldiers literally never allowed to fire until fired upon, watching the enemy taking their time setting up mortar emplacements and praying like hell the first rounds didn't just kill them before they got to fight back. This of course was under the Obama administration, no friends to soldiers anywhere. 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

On 6/21/2019 at 7:26 AM, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

I admit I'm fuzzy on the details of the petrodollar, but I gather that:
1)  Oil is traded in dollars, largely because the US controls the global financial transaction infrastructure.
2)  People who buy products from the US pay in US Dollars.
Please correct me if that's too simplistic. 

Why are petrodollars important?
The point of the petrodollar was to reduce inflation.  There are three ways to reduce inflation:
1)  Have more dollars in circulation (petrodollar accomplished this)
2)  Grow your economy (More tax revenue and more dollars in circulation)
3)  Reduce government expenses

Domestic oil grows the economy.  We're producing the oil and we're growing our petrochemical industry. 

Domestic oil reduces government spending.  IIRC, the US spends $90 billion/year ensuring Middle Eastern oil flows.  Far more if you include the trillions we've spent on Middle Eastern wars.  That expense will disappear.  As an added bonus, China will be forced to either police Middle Eastern sea lanes or rely on US/Russian oil.  Either way, the US gains leverage over them, which reduces defense expenditures. 

Why will people buy petrodollars in the future? 
The petrodollar inflation tax is essentially protection money.  If the world stops paying that tax, we have less reason to defend them. 
- My guess is that we'll withdraw from the Middle East because the world won't need their oil, and any strategic value they add isn't worth the cost.  As an added bonus, they'll have less money to export violence. 
- SE Asia will continue buying petrodollars for fear of China.  They need us to survive. 
- South America and Africa will continue to not matter.  Both are corrupt, incompetent messes that will struggle to compete in an age of high technology. 
- Europe, Australia, and their colonies will continue business as usual. 

Next, there's the rise of natural gas, which the US will export.  Much of the world - esp. Europe - is switching from oil to NG.  In some cases, it's also transitioning from coal/nuclear to NG.  These countries will replace some of their Middle Eastern oil with US NG.  Thus, the US will reap profits from exports in addition to enjoying petrodollars.  Win-win. 

There's other stuff on the horizon, but I'm not sure how much it's worth relative to oil/gas:
- Thanks to SpaceX, the US is cornering the rapidly growing space launch market.  It's interesting to see how quickly and completely SpaceX stole market share from China, Russia, and Europe.  With the cost of launches falling, the value of this industry will explode. 
- SpaceX is deploying fast satellite-based internet.  Essentially, the US will be "exporting" internet services globally. 
- The US is a leader in the growing aerospace and tech industries.
- If it decided to, the US could be a global leader in nuclear power.  I would bet that small, modular reactors become successful and that the US is successful in this market, but we'll have to wait and see.  We seem to be suppressing those in favor of natural gas. 

Are petrodollars worth the cost?
The US spends a lot of money policing sea lanes, dealing with obnoxious nations, and importing products from around the world.  None of this is necessary.  Between the US and Canada, the US has plenty of natural resources.  Latin America provides an endless source of cheap labor.  The US could do as Switzerland has done for centuries: mind its own business. 

Thanks to automation, the US can produce domestically nearly as cheaply as it can import.  As wages rise in SE Asia, the US will become the lowest-cost producer of most products.  Between that and domestic natural resources, the sea lanes are unnecessary. 

There's effectively zero chance of a foreign nation invading the US - esp. since it dominates the air and space.  The US could abandon bases around the world and withdraw fleets.  Allies would pick up the tab for their own defense, which would keep the US defense industry strong.  This is what's happening in Saudi Arabia right now: they fight the wars, and the US profits.  Win-win. 

The massive debt will be handled through a combination of economic growth, mild inflation, and lower government spending. 
-  Growing economy: oil, gas, petrochemical, manufacturing, advanced tech, etc. 
-  Lower spending:  In a world where Europe defends itself, the Middle East is too destitute to cause trouble, and SE Asia contributes meaningfully to its own defense, the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps could all shrink.  Social Security, medicare, medicaid, veterans benefits, and welfare will be completely shafted by chronically understated inflation.  So will government employees.  If Trump gets reelected, the purge of government employees will continue. 
- Mild Inflation: inflation will continue, slowly rendering debts irrelevant. 

I'm not convinced about More currency resulting in Less inflation. In fact I think you'll find exactly the opposite in every economics textbook. 

Ignoring things to buy WITH currency, consider currency itself the commodity. High supply of currency will equate to low demand and vice versa. We're printing currency like crazy and need that massive demand to sop some of it up, hence supporting its value. Otherwise, massive inflation. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

7 hours ago, JR EWING said:

The US has been acting as the aggressor in any locations around the world since the fall of the Soviet Union.  

Tell that to the Ukrainians and see what the reaction is. 

[James Regan + 1,776]

2 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

And got our one and only Arab friend in the region assassinated, quite publicly, by his own officers. If you don't think that didn't send a message to every other leader in the region, you need to put down the pipe.

Are we talking about Khashoggi as there is more to him than meets the eye like his uncle being one of the worlds most notorious arms dealer. 🤔

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Khashoggi