"Steep Price to Protect Ships in Strait Of Hormuz" Topic

The Navy pays a steep price keeping an aircraft carrier with escorts on station to deter attacks on oil tanker traffic operating in and around the Persian Gulf as part of the United States' "maximum pressure" campaign against Iran, according to a new report. The ongoing carrier operations in the region are not only pricey for the U.S. Navy but also creates the potential to disrupt energy markets if a confrontation escalates…

link

See also what happened in the 1980s with the "Tanker War".

Not really news.

All the more reason that Iran should be dealt with quickly and efficiently, since this silliness has been ongoing for far too long – 40 years, and counting, if not more, including the OPEC embargoes as well.

Fortunately, the USA is no longer reliant on Middle East oil for energy self-sufficiency.

Was there ever any "proof" provided about Iran's "apparent" Saudi tanker attacks a few months ago? No?

Didn't think so …

"Proof" has nothing to do with it. Heck, the US invaded Iraq just because the politicians at the time wanted to. They made up the proof. Did anyone really believe that Iraq had nukes?

Aww … c'mon USAFpilot! You know Saddam had all those "mobile nuke/WMD" labs! The Germans said so! They even had drawings of them …

They never said there were nukes. Just WMD. And most of that was smuggled across the border into Syria before GIs and Marines arrived. Still plenty was found. No made up proof necessary, it was all legit intelligence.

"Was there ever any "proof" provided about Iran's "apparent" Saudi tanker attacks a few months ago? No?

Didn't think so …".

Yea, don't believe the reports the IRGC did it, and the video footage shown from a drone flying around, showing the attacks. Not to mention the intel which Qatar (?) didn't share with others that they knew of the impending attacks beforehand.

Yep, lots of WMDs in Iraq, including much of it used on Saddam's own citizens. Stories of no WMDs posted in the news were just wrong, and purposeful misinformation to keep bad guys in the region from seeking them out, it was later determined.

Ballistic missiles and radioactive materials also make for a very nasty combination, commonly referred to as a dirty bomb. They can even make those from common items apparently, like smoke detectors, IIRC.

They never said there were nukes. Just WMD. And most of that was smuggled across the border into Syria before GIs and Marines arrived. Still plenty was found. No made up proof necessary, it was all legit intelligence.

They intentionally conflated the terms WMD with nukes. Yes, Iraq had WMD in the form of chemical weapons but not nukes. Secretary of State Powell, acting on behest of the President and the intel community sold a story to the UN on live TV of Iraqi nuclear weapon development. It was the low point of what otherwise was an honorable career. The intel community got it wrong and continues to be used as a political tool. Iraq was invaded because the neocons in the administration wanted Saddam gone.

They said "WMD" over and over again, but they clearly implied nukes. The main stream media is just as guilty in how they wound up the public of the possibility that Iraq had nukes and that Iraq had supported Osama in his 9/11 attack. There was no link between Iraq and 9/11 and they did not posses nukes. It was a sales job on the public by the neocons with a complicit intel community and a ratings starved main stream media. The entire episode was disgusting.

Well, I'm willing to stand corrected and admit to being a gullible fool.

You don't have to watch 'Vice' to know that GWII was Cheney's baby to enrich his company Halliburton in the rebuilding afterwards.

GWII was Cheney's baby to enrich his company Halliburton

I'm not that cynical to believe that. I think Cheney and others actually believed that they were going to liberate Iraq like Allied troops liberating France in WWII. I think they had no idea what they were getting into; no understanding of the ethnic and religious complexities in the region. In short, they were more incompetent than diabolical. Powell had the best understanding of the situation when he told Bush, if we break it, we own it. But he was too weak to stand up to Bush. He should have resigned on the spot.

USAFpilot: is it possible to be more than 100% correct?

Not being mathematically illiterate, I can only award you the 100%…..and a gold star on your forehead.

Great series of posts.

Not being mathematically illiterate, I can only award you the 100%….

On a friendly pedantic note, innumerate is the word for that. :)

Touche, Steve!

Did anyone really believe that Iraq had nukes?

Nukes?

No.

Bio and enough Chem to damn near kill the troops who found the bunkers they'd been stored in?

Yes.

Lots of Iraqis were happy for the US to provide their freedom back in '03. After that it was up to them and they dropped the ball. It's not America's fault that Iraqis didn't use their freedom to make a better future. Trump understands that and will hopefully be out soon to let em be in their self made shithole…remember, no American serviceman was responsible for all the blood letting after the invasion, that was the locals.

I just completely don't understand how anyone can say that the US or Bush is responsible for the situation in Iraq now. The Iraqis have had 17 years to sort it out with too much American help.

So what if Iraq had chemical/biological weapons in 2003? So have a lot of countries to this day. Iraq's ability to initiate any kind of offensive action in 2003 was non existent. The country was torn apart, dysfunctional and not even in control of its entire territory due to the Kurds forming a pseudo-state. The Iraqi military was a shadow of what it was in 1991.

I think invading Iraq was really about tidying up a loose end and US political prestige (ie stomping a bug that refused to bow down). The same could be said about 1999 Kosovo campaign where the US ended up bombing civilian infrastructure in Serbia and ended up causing more Albanian terrorist activity in Macedonia and Serbia proper.

I also think Bush Jnr had a personal stake in it as Iraqi intelligence had tried to assassinate his dad in 1993.

I am not singling out the US. All big powers act this way. International politics is about perception and countries will do incredibly stupid things to maintain their sense of "honour".

Most wars start this way – countries can't back down because there is too much prestige to be lost from backing off.

They had WMD, constantly defied no fly zones. That and Iraq had a retirement home of terrorists in downtown Baghdad.

Invading Iraq had a lot of upside.

Ghaddafi gave up his WMD program and became friendly withe West, scared of getting taken down next.

the US gave the region a chance to be great but they dropped the ball, and Obama screwed Libya by supporting those that took out Ghaddafi.

Can't blame the US for handing people freedom. Can blame Arab people for being stupid.

Uparmoured, by your definition Syria, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia should've been wiped off the map big time.

The Yanks had no real reason to enter Iraq. And it was completely without strategic insight into the growing Shia-Sunni conflict, Iranian and Arab ambitions and how it would affect the region.

Basically US policy has been more and more confused and directionless since Clinton decided to turn the US into the world's police man, albeit a corrupt one that only expected some parties to obey the law whilst others like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and Israel were above the law.

Indeed the US now engages in juvenile tit-for-tat skirmishes with Iran whilst China annexed the whole South China Sea without the US doing anything about it. I don't think I've ever heard of a major maritime power gifting a whole sea and key trade route to a growing rival without a fight.

And the issues in Yemen, Libya and Syria are the result of poor American policy as well.

The biggest problem in the ME is the US gave up the initiative in the Middle East and has allowed a vacuum to form with Iran, Saudi Arabia,Russia, Turkey, Qatar and UAE all jostling for power.

Can't blame the US for handing people freedom. Can blame Arab people for being stupid.

This comment is an example of: ethnocentrism, racism, despicable insults, ignorance, fallacy, hypocrisy and childish propaganda. You know nothing about other cultures and civilizations. The typical ignorance and prejudices shown by many Western people. It is the result of lack of critical thinking, the result of intellectual laziness (lack of formation and study), and the consequence of nationalist "education" and propaganda.

I repeat:

Immense immoral atrocities have been caused by those US invasions and bombings. A disaster, a mess, committed in the name of the most immoral economic and strategic interests, typical of a hegemonic colonialist power.

Your country, the US, and the other puppets did not bring freedom. It is a childish fairy tale. Your country, the US, and the other puppets carried out a criminal invasion in the name of the worst economic and strategic interests.