.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

21 minutes ago, shadowkin said:

Ran away again. If you can't stand the heat...

Nah, you are like a gentle rain on the backside of a mountain.

I take on almost this whole forum all the time.  It would be more boring without me.

Edited July 25, 2019 by Enthalpic

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

31 minutes ago, shadowkin said:

As I said the graph for Indonesia looked fishy.

Sure, but if you look closely Indonesia was civilian only casualties.  Whatever, it's not my graph so I don't take it personally.

Nobody knows the true numbers due to the chaos of war.

Edited July 25, 2019 by Enthalpic

[JR EWING + 123]

On ‎7‎/‎23‎/‎2019 at 11:34 PM, Falcon said:

Speaking at the "Young Republicans" meeting the President said US receives very little oil from the region and ".  . we dont really need it"

U.S. spends over $100 Billion year Policing Mideast shipping lanes for OPEC, ASIA AND EUROPE'S BENEFIT.

That $100 Billion a year would build a lot of roads, bridges, schools and power plants in the United States.  This is the second time in last two months Trump has made mention of this unfair burden.

US President Trump and Sec of State Pompeo have tried to get just a little cooperation from our "fair weather friends"  for Project Sentinel.  Hope President Trump learns from this lesson.

Just another example of our "allies" shirking their responsibility.  Trump working hard to free the Middle East of nukes and finds little to no support. You would expect this behavior from the likes of Russia, China or "The Squad"  . . . .  but when fellow NATO members like Germany (Merkel) and France (Macron) won't pay their full NATO commitments and openly trade with Iran it has to be disappointing.  

Remember when all the European Banks were failing during the Obama Administration ? Back then Obama and Timmy Geithner had US  fund the World Bank close to a $Trillion dollars (that's Trillion with a "T") and they approved the use of the World Bank funds to bail out Europe.  The World Bank Funds are supposed to help third world and emerging market countries develop projects . . . . Not Bail Out EUROPES Industrialized Countries.  For example World Bank supposed to provide up front capital so the Congo could ship coffee bean harvests.

Timmy Geithner was asked if the European countries would pay the funds back ?  . . . . . . .   Timmy said, " of course they will. They have in the past".

They have in the past. What is he talking about ?

 Have they paid the World Bank Funds Back ? ? ? Nope.

There are givers and takers. As another post mentioned, France's DeGaulle once said, " We don't have friends we have interests ". Sorry they feel that way.

The sooner the US gets out of there the better, and remember no one put a gun to their head to go in there. lastly the reason they are there is SFA to do with policing and more to do an aggressive stance to IRAN, who as it happens has beaches on the shores of the straits.

And the can get out of the SCS also, projecting their bad influence where it doesn't belong.

 

[JR EWING + 123]

On ‎7‎/‎24‎/‎2019 at 3:26 AM, Enthalpic said:

Absolutely not; the Soviet Union did far far more. You guys entered late after profiteering.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Berlin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

But yeah you guys dropped the A-bombs on an already failing Japan.

 

couldn't agree more with the statement on profiteering

[JR EWING + 123]

On ‎7‎/‎24‎/‎2019 at 3:36 AM, Falcon said:

Iran wants a fight with anyone.  Brits shouldn't take the bait.  Let the ship sit in an Iranian port for a few months.  Things getting desperate in Iran. Let Iran have their Temper Tantrum. Doesn't bring in any oil revenue. 

Whatever England wants to do, US will support them. 

If Europe, including France and Germany strongly supported England, Iran might rethink this.

Nobody wants s serious conflict or war. Too much to lose. 

Some want a war if the US is the one that Fights for it, Pays for it and Sacrifices Lives for it.  But That Ain't Gonna Happen Anymore.  At least not under President Trump.

Iran losing $130 Million day, almost a $ Billion a week.  For what ?

if the US doesn't want a fight what are they doing in the ring. personally I believe the US is there to provoke a war that takes out oil facilities in the UAE and SA, for the benefit of US LTO

[JR EWING + 123]

20 hours ago, NickW said:

Isn't that chart as much an indicator of how bad USSR battle tactics were?

did they all die in battle? hardly. the weather and starvation killed many of those, but if it wasn't for the diversion that the Russians provided I doubt the UK could have lasted much longer under the German onslaught, although its safe to say the channel protected the UK from early demolition

[JR EWING + 123]

17 hours ago, NickW said:

Excellent point

Also the USSR also didn't fight the Japanese and didn't have to take on the Germany and Italian Navy's - which the British were dealing with virtually single handedly.

The Germans invaded western Europe in tanks filled with Soviet petrol / diesel

what soviet?

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, JR EWING said:

what soviet?

Pre June 1941 the Soviet Union were a major supplier of Oil to Nazi Germany

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, JR EWING said:

did they all die in battle? hardly. the weather and starvation killed many of those, but if it wasn't for the diversion that the Russians provided I doubt the UK could have lasted much longer under the German onslaught, although its safe to say the channel protected the UK from early demolition

As Germany would have quite happily made peace with the UK (Hitler saw us as fellow 'Ayrans') that potential demolition could have been avoided leaving the Germans with a completely free hand in the east.

Furthermore Germany would then have access to resources from around the world as they wouldn't be subject to the British Naval Blockade.

You could turn this argument on its head and say the UK's continued resistance to Germany saved Russia from annihilation by denying the Germans access to enough oil, rubber and strategic metals.

[JR EWING + 123]

as I understand the banks in the US had bets both ways too, selling oil is not illegal. the Azeri fields were supplying a lot of oil to Germany, I doubt they needed permission for that. Is it not also true that the German push to take over and control those same oil fields led them to the gates of Stalingrad and ultimately the destruction of the German effort in the east and not before it had significantly weakened the western front also with drain on resources

the siege of Stalingrad killed nearly 2 million people, almost half were Russian. please refresh my memory, how many Americans died in WW2?

 

[NickW + 2,714]

8 minutes ago, JR EWING said:

as I understand the banks in the US had bets both ways too, selling oil is not illegal. the Azeri fields were supplying a lot of oil to Germany, I doubt they needed permission for that. Is it not also true that the German push to take over and control those same oil fields led them to the gates of Stalingrad and ultimately the destruction of the German effort in the east and not before it had significantly weakened the western front also with drain on resources

the siege of Stalingrad killed nearly 2 million people, almost half were Russian. please refresh my memory, how many Americans died in WW2?

 

Perhaps American Generals / politicians weren't as stupid as Russian Generals / politicians and would not have fed their troops into a meat grinder simply because it was named after the states leader.

[JR EWING + 123]

52 minutes ago, NickW said:

Perhaps American Generals / politicians weren't as stupid as Russian Generals / politicians and would not have fed their troops into a meat grinder simply because it was named after the states leader.

and you think the reason that Stalingrad was a meat grinder was because that the Russians decided to save it because it was named after their leader of the day, enough said!!!!.

Considering that the other half of the casualty toll was made up of Germans, Hungarians and Romanians and a few more to boot its hard to fathom the rational of the response you made. 

Wars were bloody back then, of course you Americans wouldn't know that with the penchant for coming in late when the hard work is done to claim victory from the victors who shed their blood. How admirable. 

 

[NickW + 2,714]

39 minutes ago, JR EWING said:

and you think the reason that Stalingrad was a meat grinder was because that the Russians decided to save it because it was named after their leader of the day, enough said!!!!.

Considering that the other half of the casualty toll was made up of Germans, Hungarians and Romanians and a few more to boot its hard to fathom the rational of the response you made. 

Wars were bloody back then, of course you Americans wouldn't know that with the penchant for coming in late when the hard work is done to claim victory from the victors who shed their blood. How admirable. 

 

1. I'm dual British -Australian not American. We were fighting the Nazis while the USSR were still pally with them supplying them with oil, wheat and other strategic materials

2. You appear to have turned this into a zero sum game. Defeating the Nazi's (and Japan) was a group effort as pointed out by Enthalpic.

3. Neither the USA or UK had the land armies to take on Germany directly in a continental war - had they done they would have lost. They used their available strengths to fight the Axis where they could most effectively.

Examples include:

Britain using its Naval power to blockade Germany - Italy to reduce their supply of strategic materials (which the USSR were supplying to Germany until the 21st June 1941)

Attacking the Axis soft under belly - The Italian Empire which helped drawn off most of the Italian Army, Air Force and support from Germany

Britain and Canada used its industrial capacity to provide the USSR with materials throughout the war

The USA used its Naval capacity (which was far stronger than either its Army or airforce) to contain Japan and handed over 100's of  vessels to the UK to help enforce the blockade and protect convoys to the USSR.

The USA harnessed its enormous industrial capacity to supply the USSR (as pointed out by Wastral)  and the UK and equip its own forces.

The UK and the USA used its large bomber forces to decimate Germany. Think this had no impact on the Eastern front? Without the bombing campaigns the Germany Army would have had 4x as many fighters and high velocity artillery (anti tank guns) available irrespective of what the bombing did to German industrial capacity.

 

Also up to half a million of those red army casualties were in the war with Finland which the USSR started by invading the Country in 1939. Finland was of no threat and would have stayed neutral. While Finland accepted help from Germany it was a co belligerent rather than an ally - it certainly didn't share Germany's racial policies.

Edited July 25, 2019 by NickW

[NickW + 2,714]

37 minutes ago, JR EWING said:

and you think the reason that Stalingrad was a meat grinder was because that the Russians decided to save it because it was named after their leader of the day, enough said!!!!.

Considering that the other half of the casualty toll was made up of Germans, Hungarians and Romanians and a few more to boot its hard to fathom the rational of the response you made. 

Wars were bloody back then, of course you Americans wouldn't know that with the penchant for coming in late when the hard work is done to claim victory from the victors who shed their blood. How admirable. 

 

Stalin early in the war was notorious for his stand firm approach which completely ignored the traditional Russian defence tactic of retreat into the interior. Classic example was Kiev - how many prisoners did the Germans take - half a million plus?

 

41 minutes ago, JR EWING said:

and you think the reason that Stalingrad was a meat grinder was because that the Russians decided to save it because it was named after their leader of the day, enough said!!!!.

Considering that the other half of the casualty toll was made up of Germans, Hungarians and Romanians and a few more to boot its hard to fathom the rational of the response you made. 

Wars were bloody back then, of course you Americans wouldn't know that with the penchant for coming in late when the hard work is done to claim victory from the victors who shed their blood. How admirable. 

 

World War 2 started on the 1st September 1939. The British and Australians were at war with Nazi Germany from that date.

The USSR in contrast didn't joint he war until the 21st June 1941 probably because prior to that it was busy invading Poland, Finland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia and Besserabia (part of Romania) which also drove some of those countries into league with the Germans.

[JR EWING + 123]

Question stands. How many anericans died. Since 1945 how many wars has the good ole usa started. How many have they won. Not fit to capable of starting a war with someone they havent weakened with sanctions for years. Afraid of Iran. They shoot down us kit apparently in international air space but nothing. Impotence. World is sniggering at ya all.

[NickW + 2,714]

17 minutes ago, JR EWING said:

Question stands. How many anericans died. Since 1945 how many wars has the good ole usa started. How many have they won. Not fit to capable of starting a war with someone they havent weakened with sanctions for years. Afraid of Iran. They shoot down us kit apparently in international air space but nothing. Impotence. World is sniggering at ya all.

Without questioning the bravery of individual soldiers very high Battle casualties often just indicates poor tactical decisions by military officers. Britain and France have their own in this category - notably General Haig and Foch.

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

Bloomberg) -- Saudi Aramco expects to complete the expansion of an oil pipeline that runs east-west across the country by September, according to a person familiar with the matter, increasing the amount the kingdom can ship from the Red Sea and avoiding the increasingly tense Strait of Hormuz.

The link currently operates well below capacity, but the long-planned expansion will give Saudi Arabia the option to ship more oil from the Red Sea rather than the Persian Gulf, bypassing Hormuz. About a fifth or the world’s oil production passes through the narrow seaway, but its vulnerability has been brought into focus in recent months as tensions between and the U.S. and Iran escalated.

The state oil company will finish the project by September, increasing the line’s capacity to carry crude oil from 5 million to 7 million barrels a day, according to person familiar with the situation, who asked not to be identified because the plan isn’t public yet. Aramco officials didn’t immediately comment. Aramco exported 6.84 million barrels a day in June, the vast bulk of it via Hormuz, according to Bloomberg tanker tracking data.

Aramco operates the pipeline below capacity because the largest Saudi oil fields are closer to the Persian Gulf and the majority of exports head east to customers in Asia rather than west to Europe and the U.S.

The plan to complete the expansion by September was first reported by Energy Intelligence.

Although recent attacks on tankers near Hormuz have highlighted the risks of exporting from the Persian Gulf, the East-West pipeline was targeted in May in drone attacks. Saudi Arabia blamed the bombing on Iran-backed Yemeni rebels.

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

Saudis To Oil Buyers: Protect Your Oil Tankers In Strait Of Hormuz

 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/saudis-oil-buyers-protect-oil-170000042.html

Khalid al-Falih also told Reuters that importers should, as a first immediate step, secure shipments through the strategic waterway at the mouth of Gulf, after attacks on oil tankers in the area and the seizure of a British-flagged ship by Iran.

Falih said the international community should take swift action to protect oil supplies and secure the Strait, through which about a fifth of the world’s oil passes.

Oil importers “have to do what they have to do to protect their own energy shipments because Saudi Arabia cannot take that on its own,” he said in an interview during a visit to India.

The United States, which has imposed economic sanctions on Iran to halt its exports of oil, is trying to rally support for a global coalition to secure Gulf waters. Britain has called for a European-led naval mission to protect shipping.

“India also needs to do its part in securing free navigation of sea links transporting energy to the rest of the world,” Falih said after meeting Indian Oil Minister Dharmendra Pradhan.

India has deployed two warships in the Strait.

Saudi Arabia already exports some of its oil through the Red Sea using a 1200-km (750-mile) pipeline that runs from the east of the kingdom, where much of its oil production is based, to the Red Sea port city of Yanbu in the west.

 

Saudi Arabia aimed to maximize exports through the 5 million barrels per day (bpd) east-west pipeline if required, he said.

“We are hoping to increase it to 7 (million bpd),” Falih said, although he said expanding capacity of the east-west pipeline, called Petroline, would take two years.

Routing oil supplies away from the Strait is more difficult for countries like Kuwait and Iraq, whose only coastline is on the Gulf, or the United Arab Emirates and Iran, which have major oil export terminals on the Gulf.

But exporters are looking at alternatives, such as Iraq which plans to export more oil to Turkey’s port of Ceyhan and to build new pipelines to ports in Syria, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia.

In his talks in India, Falih said Saudi Arabia was prepared to supply additional oil to India.

He also said state-run Saudi Aramco’s talks about buying a minority stake in the refining assets of India’s Reliance Industries had not stalled, after sources told Reuters this week they had hit a roadblock.

On Saudi plans to list Aramco, Falih said the kingdom was “absolutely ready” for launching an initial public offering, adding that the share sale was “possible” next year depending on global economic and financial conditions.

The minister said global oil demand was reasonably healthy but was lower than estimates had put it at the start of 2019.

 

The International Energy Agency is revising down its 2019 global oil demand growth forecast to 1.1 million bpd and may cut it again if the global economy slows further amid a U.S.-China trade spat.

“I am not concerned at all,” Falih said, adding that the U.S.-China trade row was not “impacting demand to a measurable degree” as Asia oil demand was healthy.

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

U.S. Military 'Will Be Available' to Escort Commercial Ships Passing Iran

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/us-military-will-be-available-escort-commercial-ships-passing-iran-69037