 Editor in Chief Bill   | 02 Dec 2019 5:11 p.m. PST |
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 |
| Lion in the Stars | 02 Dec 2019 7:06 p.m. PST |
See also what happened in the 1980s with the "Tanker War". Not really news. |
Thresher01  | 02 Dec 2019 10:20 p.m. PST |
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. |
| Bigby Wolf | 03 Dec 2019 3:15 p.m. PST |
Was there ever any "proof" provided about Iran's "apparent" Saudi tanker attacks a few months ago? No? Didn't think so … |
| USAFpilot | 03 Dec 2019 3:24 p.m. PST |
"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? |
| Bigby Wolf | 03 Dec 2019 3:56 p.m. PST |
Aww … c'mon USAFpilot! You know Saddam had all those "mobile nuke/WMD" labs! The Germans said so! They even had drawings of them … |
Uparmored  | 04 Dec 2019 1:40 a.m. PST |
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. |
| Thresher01 | 04 Dec 2019 3:25 a.m. PST |
"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. |
| USAFpilot | 04 Dec 2019 7:46 a.m. PST |
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. |
| USAFpilot | 04 Dec 2019 7:53 a.m. PST |
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. |
| Bigby Wolf | 04 Dec 2019 11:42 a.m. PST |
Well, I'm willing to stand corrected and admit to being a gullible fool. |
| 28mm Fanatik | 04 Dec 2019 8:20 p.m. PST |
You don't have to watch 'Vice' to know that GWII was Cheney's baby to enrich his company Halliburton in the rebuilding afterwards. |
| USAFpilot | 04 Dec 2019 8:49 p.m. PST |
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. |
 ochoin | 04 Dec 2019 11:01 p.m. PST |
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. |
| Steve Wilcox | 05 Dec 2019 2:53 a.m. PST |
Not being mathematically illiterate, I can only award you the 100%…. On a friendly pedantic note, innumerate is the word for that. :) |
| ochoin | 05 Dec 2019 4:15 a.m. PST |
|
| Lion in the Stars | 07 Dec 2019 1:00 p.m. PST |
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. |
