Tankers Attacked In Gulf: Price of Oil Up

#77
#77
1972 Grad said:
No, he is an Obama nutsack swinger. You are the AOC teat sucking progressive libtard.
Click to expand...

I recall you saying that yesterday, it whiffed then too. This isn't the first time you've tried to re-tread posts, hopefully targeting me will get you noticed.
 
#81
#81
Stew Cook said:
Who wants oil prices higher, what enemies does Iran have in the middle east?
Click to expand...

It benefits the Iranians to have elevated prices at this time. With additional sanctions on the horizon, they can export now at a higher price per barrel rather than later. Just a theory though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#82
#82
Septic said:
I recall you saying that yesterday, it whiffed then too. This isn't the first time you've tried to re-tread posts, hopefully targeting me will get you noticed.
Click to expand...

WOW. This is beginning to shed more light on the recent BS around here.
 
#83
#83
ETV said:
It benefits the Iranians to have elevated prices at this time. With additional sanctions on the horizon, they can export now at a higher price per barrel rather than later. Just a theory though.
Click to expand...

It's possible.. but firing on Japanese bound oil while Japan's Prime Minister was in Iran.. That's some Game of Thrones type sh|t.
 
#89
#89
davethevol said:
Maybe Iran did this, but it seems like they would understand they will be destroyed if this escalates which makes me think they aren’t behind this.
Click to expand...
You are giving Iranians too much credit in regards to their intelligence.
 
#93
#93
Septic said:
Big ups to you for that but most people don't count the figures to the right of the decimal point.
Click to expand...
That's to the left, but it could go away just as quick. I know that. I think that I lost that much at the end of last year.
 
#94
#94
Stew Cook said:
It's possible.. but firing on Japanese bound oil while Japan's Prime Minister was in Iran.. That's some Game of Thrones type sh|t.
Click to expand...
One of the vessels involved was identified as the MT Front Altair, a Marshall Islands-flagged but Norwegian-owned crude oil tanker carrying naphtha, a petrochemical product, to Japan.

The other vessel, the Panama-flagged, Japanese-owned Kokuka Courageous, reportedly carrying methanol, sustained damage on its hull starboard side.
 
#95
#95
37L1 said:
One of the vessels involved was identified as the MT Front Altair, a Marshall Islands-flagged but Norwegian-owned crude oil tanker carrying naphtha, a petrochemical product, to Japan.

The other vessel, the Panama-flagged, Japanese-owned Kokuka Courageous, reportedly carrying methanol, sustained damage on its hull starboard side.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that, I'd heard a brief description this morning. And I got it very wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 37L1
#100
#100
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
View attachment 208803
Click to expand...

To clarify Clark's comments above, here is another quote from that interview back in 2007. Clark was not openly advocating for an invasion of Iran at the time.

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, starting with Iraq, then Syria and Lebanon, then Libya, then Somalia and Sudan, and back to Iran. So when you look at Iran, you say, “Is it a replay?” It’s not exactly a replay. But here’s the truth: that Iran, from the beginning, has seen that the presence of the United States in Iraq was a threat — a blessing, because we took out Saddam Hussein and the Baathists. They couldn’t handle them. We took care of it for them. But also a threat, because they knew that they were next on the hit list. And so, of course, they got engaged. They lost a million people during the war with Iraq, and they’ve got a long and unprotectable, unsecurable border. So it was in their vital interest to be deeply involved inside Iraq. They tolerated our attacks on the Baathists. They were happy we captured Saddam Hussein.
But they’re building up their own network of influence, and to cement it, they occasionally give some military assistance and training and advice, either directly or indirectly, to both the insurgents and to the militias. And in that sense, it’s not exactly parallel, because there has been, I believe, continuous Iranian engagement, some of it legitimate, some of it illegitimate. I mean, you can hardly fault Iran because they’re offering to do eye operations for Iraqis who need medical attention. That’s not an offense that you can go to war over, perhaps. But it is an effort to gain influence.
And the administration has stubbornly refused to talk with Iran about their perception, in part because they don’t want to pay the price with their domestic — our US domestic political base, the rightwing base, but also because they don’t want to legitimate a government that they’ve been trying to overthrow. If you were Iran, you’d probably believe that you were mostly already at war with the United States anyway, since we’ve asserted that their government needs regime change, and we’ve asked congress to appropriate $75 million to do it, and we are supporting terrorist groups, apparently, who are infiltrating and blowing up things inside Iraq — Iran. And if we’re not doing it, let’s put it this way: we’re probably cognizant of it and encouraging it. So it’s not surprising that we’re moving to a point of confrontation and crisis with Iran.
My point on this is not that the Iranians are good guys — they’re not — but that you shouldn’t use force, except as a last, last, last resort. There is a military option, but it’s a bad one.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top