What's the Endgame Here?

[SERWIN + 749]

Just now, Zhong Lu said:

Again, how much money are you willing to pony up for this war? 

You lost me on this one....

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

1 minute ago, SERWIN said:

so a couple of million collateral deaths won't mean a whole lot. Unfortunately so

Do you honestly think that Trump will push the button and have 2 million civilian deaths on his watch?

Why do Americans think that Iranian lives are worth less than American ones? ie "collateral deaths"

[Zhong Lu + 845]

Wars cost money.  You obviously want war with Iran.  How much are YOU willing to pay for this war?

Edited January 7, 2020 by Zhong Lu

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

Just now, Zhong Lu said:

Wars cost money.  You obviously want war with Iran.  How much are YOU willing to pay for this war?

Which is why I said Xi Jinping will be pissing his pants laughing right now!

[SERWIN + 749]

4 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Why do Americans think that Iranian lives are worth less than American ones? ie "collateral deaths"

Why do Iranians think American lives are worth less? Two side to every story, and the one that wins gets to write the history

[Zhong Lu + 845]

But exactly how does anyone "win" this war? Have we won in Afghanistan yet? 

Edited January 7, 2020 by Zhong Lu

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

19 minutes ago, SERWIN said:

Why do Iranians think American lives are worth less? Two side to every story, and the one that wins gets to write the history

I haven't seen any Iranian saying to nuke America and kill 2 million civilians!!

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

9 minutes ago, Zhong Lu said:

But exactly how does anyone "win" this war? Have we won in Afghanistan yet? 

Precisely my point Zhong Lu!!

There will be no "winner" in this apart from Xi

[SERWIN + 749]

And Iran picked this fight, now we will all see how far they are willing to take it. They got their nose bloodied and are whining like the little bitches they are. They got their ass kicked and now you feel like it is our fault? They attacked an embassy, they attacked a US base and killed a US civilian, and we are the bad guys for driving this back down their throats? Remember, we did nothing when they knocked down a drone...

[SERWIN + 749]

40 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Do you honestly think that Trump will push the button and have 2 million civilian deaths on his watch?

Why do Americans think that Iranian lives are worth less than American ones? ie "collateral deaths"

Personally, I would hope not. I personally would like to see all these weapons of mass destruction dismantled, but in the political climate now that will never happen. And how many of us want to see a bunch of radicals get a nuclear device in their hands. Who wants to see Paris explode in a mushroom cloud? Or Washington, or London, or Moscow? That is exactly what they would do with one.... Y'all do realize that any of you that don't follow their insanity, I mean ideology, is an enemy of theirs. They may smile to your face today but it is only a matter of time before they are sticking a knife in your back...

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 1/5/2020 at 10:58 PM, Zhong Lu said:

Again: what's the endgame? Bush invaded Iraq because "allowing Hussein to continue existing" is not a good idea for Western interests.  Etc. etc. We all saw how that turned out.  

Peace in the Middle East would be my end goal. Peace means cooperation, not domination. Iran (government) seems to want to dominate its own people as does Turkey, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and all the Middle East countries aside from Israel. 

[BigJets + 87]

22 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Which is why I said Xi Jinping will be pissing his pants laughing right now!

Pissing his pants laughing that he has to buy more expensive oil now from USA backed suppliers.  No muscles to flex.  No way to stop big daddy Trump.  Can’t even sail a “fleet” out of the South “China” sea.  Hahahaha

after XI pays more; prices drop, Bc trump releases more oil into the market.  Gives Iraq or Iran a waiver. Hahaha

poor China - “global power” so close, yet so far away.  Can’t even sail past japan or the Philippines 😪 Totally dependent on USA for everything.  

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

4 minutes ago, SERWIN said:

Personally, I would hope not. I personally would like to see all these weapons of mass destruction dismantled, but in the political climate now that will never happen. And how many of us want to see a bunch of radicals get a nuclear device in their hands. Who wants to see Paris explode in a mushroom cloud? Or Washington, or London, or Moscow? That is exactly what they would do with one.... Y'all do realize that any of you that don't follow their insanity, I mean ideology, is an enemy of theirs. They may smile to your face today but it is only a matter of time before they are sticking a knife in your back...

Thank God for that!

Look I agree the initial agression was Iranian but surely there was an alternative to sending in the missiles?

You may be right with Iran that you just cant trust a word they say, and they may only understand brute force. However we just dont know their nuclear capabilities at present and it is a scary thought that they could launch an attack of the kind you suggest.

The history books show us that an escalation in hostilities such as we are witnessing rarely proves beneficial to the world at large.

4 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Peace in the Middle East would be my end goal. Peace means cooperation, not domination. Iran (government) seems to want to dominate its own people as does Turkey, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and all the Middle East countries aside from Israel. 

Agree totally with this Ron.

I would add that if there was no oil in this region then I am pretty sure N.America + Europe would all leave them to fight amongst themselves and not care who was in control of the region.

 

[SERWIN + 749]

Just now, Rob Plant said:

Thank God for that!

Look I agree the initial agression was Iranian but surely there was an alternative to sending in the missiles?

You may be right with Iran that you just cant trust a word they say, and they may only understand brute force. However we just dont know their nuclear capabilities at present and it is a scary thought that they could launch an attack of the kind you suggest.

 

So how many times do you let the bully hit you, each time escalating the attack, before you stand up and knock some teeth out? I personally think the first time's a mistake but the second time is your fault..... They may have done this to also find out what the capabilities of our military are, sort of a ping to see what we would do. Unfortunately they have picked one of the biggest kids on the block to push around, the consequences are going to leave a mark. My grandfather used to say, "Don't want no shit, don't give no shit". The pure logic is there.

And I would definitely rather see that area turned into a great parking lot of glass than see millions killed because we did not unite as a world and MAKE SURE they could NOT produce a nuke. The lesser of two evils? I am being a realist here. What would you rather see? And if they nuked a city in the US, you can be certain there would be no oil coming from that part of the ME for a long, long time. They wouldn't be able to even go there for a long time without radiation suits on. The many people are being held hostage by the few radicals, and it is about time they got rid of them and got on with a peaceful life. And with that statement, you can understand why Americans are so vehement about our gun rights not being taken away. It will start a civil war in this country, we do NOT want to be like the average citizen in Iran right now. Unable to speak their minds, unable to defend their families from a terrorist controlling government. We will fight to make sure it does not happen here.

[Bob D + 562]

1 hour ago, Zhong Lu said:

America bombed an Iranian general.  If Iran bombed an American general because said general was "developing plans to attack Iran", would you consider that to be an act of war? 

I'll play your thought experiment Zhong.

America bombed an Iranian General ... fact.

But for your comment to be equivalent to the facts, the American general would have to be in another country (Iraq) planning and executing an attack on the Iranian embassy.  If that happened it would absolutely be an act of war.  Did you think logically it would not be an act of war??

And BTW, we didn't kill him because he was "developing plans to attack", he(Iran) planned THE attack.  Iran planned and executed the attack on the US embassy in Iraq.  An attack on an embassy is an act of war, especially if the embassy is not even in the attackers home country.  

So if you catch an American General planning and executing an attack on any embassy ... I'll support the notion that it's an act of war!

 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 1/5/2020 at 8:47 PM, Marcin said:

If it is not rhetoric question I would give the answer:

PART 1 of answer:

US 2018 hydrocarbons consumption was: oil 919.7 + natural gas 702.6 = 1622 million tons

US hydrocarbon reserves:

Crude oil (most of this shale oil):

for 11 years of 2018 output (6 years of 2018 consumption if output only includes crude oil not much less required NGLs, or 8 years of 2018 consumption with NGLs). Output is mainly of sweat crude not good for some US refineries, and less required for refining sector around the world. In 2018 US still imported  about 450 million tons of crude oil to balance these unmatched output and demand ( and exported less required fractions). US net imports in 2018 were 250 million tons of crude oil (if we say NGLs are oil, they are not), or about 350 million tons of crude oil (if we stay with definition of crude oil).

Natural gas (most of this shale gas):

For 14 years of output and in 2017&2018 for the first time also consumption. Earlier US was net importer of natural gas.

 

Nature of shale oil and shale gas extraction is volatile with fast rates of depletion of wells.

No matter what we would think about discoveries in shale extraction, US needs and will need much more in the future of the Foreign, imported crude oil and natural gas. BINGO !

( I do not want to predict if in 5 or 10 or 15  years shale output will decrease to 80% or 30% of current levels. The thing is modern country, the strongest in the world, and  the most hungry of hydrocarbons on this planet, cannot risk lack of hydrocarbons)

END of PART 1 of answer

 

 

One of the reasons to shift trucking to natural gas. Also, consider not exporting oil. 

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

One of the reasons to shift trucking to natural gas. Also, consider not exporting oil. 

Ron do you dream of natural gas?

[Guest]

2 hours ago, SERWIN said:

Remember, we did nothing when they knocked down a drone...

Until the last second, if I remember right mate. Your military as always was more than happy to attack over it. It was Trump in fairness that said No. 

And if an Iranian drone was flying by your coast line what would the reaction be? Probably the same as they did yes? 

1 hour ago, SERWIN said:

My grandfather used to say, "Don't want no shit, don't give no shit". The pure logic is there.

I like him already.

Edited January 7, 2020 by Guest

[SERWIN + 749]

53 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

Until the last second, if I remember right mate. Your military as always was more than happy to attack over it. It was Trump in fairness that said No. 

And if an Iranian drone was flying by your coast line what would the reaction be? Probably the same as they did yes? 

I like him already.

My grandfather was a police officer, on the DPS in Texas for many years and then retired from there and worked in a plastic plant in Deer Park TX doing quality control for raw plastic pellets for injection molding machines. He was one of those stony, poker faced guys. We got along great...

[SERWIN + 749]

And if that drone was in our airspace, yes I would absolutely shoot it down. If it wasn't, let it fly, let it fly. let it fly.....

[Guest]

But you admit certain folks in the military and VERY close to Trump couldn't wait to attack over it yes? 

[PE Scott + 563]

53 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

Your military as always was more than happy to attack over it. It was Trump in fairness that said No. 

Honestly, this was the part that surprised me. In the instance of that drone that was shot down and of the attack on saudi infrastructure, we did nothing. Clearly, we sent a message that we wouldn't escalate things to war over some damaged property, or even have much of a response besides moving some troops around. At the time, I thought it showed restraint by President Trump and represented a different directions in terms of our foreign relations in the ME. Then, Iran poked again by allegedly orchestrating and attack on sovereign U.S. interest and by killing an American.

Which makes me wonder, should we have made a more direct response to Iran's previous pokes? If we had, would that have changed their willingness to escalate things to killing people? Perhaps it was a mistake not to respond sooner. 

I'm guessing the killing of an american citizen was the proverbial straw. If Iran had continued without causing physical harm to anyone....I bet it would have been tolerated with out much response by the U.S.

Was a missile strike the best method? I just don't know. I imagine only a few people are privy to enough information to make a judgement call there. 

Long term will it matter? I'm thinking, no. Based on Iranian aggression to this point, U.S. sanctions, radical leadership, etc......I think it was inevitable there was an altercation. I really don't think this will get inflated into as big of a deal as people think it is. I don't see a WW3 resulting from this. 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, PE Scott said:

Clearly, we sent a message that we wouldn't escalate things to war over some damaged property, or even have much of a response besides moving some troops around. At the time, I thought it showed restraint by President Trump and represented a different directions in terms of our foreign relations in the ME.

Agreed. 

9 minutes ago, PE Scott said:

If Iran had continued without causing physical harm to anyone....I bet it would have been tolerated with out much response by the U.S.

Exactly and I'd also add if this embassy incident was by pretty much any other country, the reaction would not have been anything like what it was, and people wouldn't be raging it's an act of war anywhere near as much.

9 minutes ago, PE Scott said:

Was a missile strike the best method? I just don't know. I imagine only a few people are privy to enough information to make a judgement call there. 

True, though if everyone else is gonna make out they know the full intelligence and detail like Trump and certain military guys do, then we can too surely lol?

9 minutes ago, PE Scott said:

I really don't think this will get inflated into as big of a deal as people think it is. I don't see a WW3 resulting from this. 

I'm sure the USA said and thought that every time they went to the ME. How's that panned out? 

 

Edited January 7, 2020 by Guest

[SERWIN + 749]

3 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

I haven't seen any Iranian saying to nuke America and kill 2 million civilians!!

That would be a funny statement, considering they do not have one yet. And do you really think they don't want to? If they had one they would definitely use it...

[Guest]

Maybe they will ... I'd be careful what you wish for.