Tankers Attacked In Gulf: Price of Oil Up

#501
#501
NorthDallas40 said:
I really hope you get paid by the gallon of water carried for Russia, China, and Iran.
Click to expand...
Its not carrying water. It's just being able to use common sense and not buying into the narrative that comes out of people that usually have to fabricate reasons to go to war.
 
#502
#502
#506
#506
Rasputin_Vol said:
Its not carrying water. It's just being able to use common sense and not buying into the narrative that comes out of people that usually have to fabricate reasons to go to war.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t talking to you in this particular case but it seems I’ve struck a nerve?

Also your demands on what video should have been released and when are just silly. Stop acting like the Iraqi disinformation minister and then claiming common sense. Nobody wants to go to war with Iran over this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83
#512
#512
Got to remember that Iran isnt some single entity. Their old guard troops and leadership, forget their name, have acted act on their own before without state approval. Plenty of internal conflicts there.

Not saying this is a reason to sabre rattle, just pointing out it does make some sense for this to go on while "peace" talks are going on. The military doesnt want peace, just like ours doesnt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#517
#517
lawgator1 said:
He just sent 1,000 more troops over there in response.

Bolton? Trying to look tough for reelection announcement?

Maybe they just didn't tell him for fear he'd call Vlad and give him their flight info.
Click to expand...
There is a disconnect there. We are deploying over 1,000 troops in response to a minor incident? That makes no sense and it's also not the way Secretary of State Mike Pompeo described those attacks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lawgator1
#518
#518
Stew Cook said:
Wasn't the whole premise for withdrawing from the agreement that they were already doing this?
Click to expand...
The premise was that it's a bad agreement. Or Obama.
LouderVol said:
Not really conflicting. Two separate issues. Your ability to do damage isnt tied to the ability to maintain an actual war with a super power
Click to expand...
They both relate to the strength of the Iranian government.
 
#521
#521
Velo Vol said:
The premise was that it's a bad agreement. Or Obama.

They both relate to the strength of the Iranian government.
Click to expand...
Not really. 9/11 doesnt take that much relative strength to pull off.

Even surprise attacks on our military could do lots of damage without being long term threats.

I would also put our recent track record of military actions up against the belief we would have it easy with Iran. Afghanistan is a cluster, Vietnam bled us for way too long.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and NorthDallas40
#523
#523
NorthDallas40 said:
I really hope you get paid by the gallon of water carried for Russia, China, and Iran.
Click to expand...

This shouldn’t be hard to discern. It’s the same old re-run time and time again. This country has made a habit of going to war over false pretenses...Iraq and Afghanistan being the most recent. The thing is, we aren’t fighting these wars out of the interest of the US...yet on behalf of Israel. When people start to understand that this country’s politics, media, military and financial system(Federal Reserve) are all controlled or exploited by Israel, for the benefit of Israel, not the US, then you will have become enlightened...

It’s understandable that people cheerlead every move of our dysfunctional foreign policy...because we are all indoctrinated from an early age to not question the intentions of our government, military, etc...and especially for people who’ve served..

This isn’t about good vs bad. This is about resources and control. Countries like Venezuela, Iran, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Russia will always be deemed the boogeyman with dictators, because they all have resources that US/Israeli team wants. It’s not hard math...
 
#525
#525
NorthDallas40 said:
It is very minor with regards to us. And he should be down playing it.

The troop request supposedly came from CENTCOM and was for defensive use in base/force protection. We shall see.
Click to expand...

Yep, the press do get pretty liberal with the term "troops". The quantity alone should have been a big hint as to "support" vs "troops".
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: CABVOL, 82_VOL_83 and NorthDallas40
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top