Its pretty scary how some of you hang on every word from your government Vs critically observing how they've acted for the last 20 years.

Pretty crazy how your critical observation includes twitter and not observing how Iran has acted in the region since Persia! But somehow it is a wag the dog moment for you. It's also pretty crazy that you believe this action is a precursor to war. There is absolutely nothing to gain from starting a war or brief conflict with Iran. You and a few others need to actually give Commands some credit and autonomy from who you like to believe are puppet masters.

My critical observation isn't based on a tweet though. It was just a relevant and funny tweet about the situation. 

It doesn't take a genius to see America has wanted Iran out of the paint forever. You can ignore that if you wish but you're only putting the wool over your own eyes. They don't want to destroy Iran by nuking it to pieces, just destabilise it to the point where they can put a pro American government in or at least completely diminish the current one , much like they have been attempting with Venezuela.  

Attacking an oil tanker has far far more benefits to the US or Saudis than it does for Iran. In fact there are no benefits to speak of for Iran doing it.

---

As if there aren't some American factions who've been pushing for war with Iran for decades.  
If you'd like to discuss false flag potential, this scenario was proposed by Donald Rumsfeld a dozen years ago.
He wanted to put Navy Seals on a boat made to resemble an Iranian patrol boat, then attack a US destroyer to start a war.
The warmongers love to stage attacks at sea.  They are by far the easiest to fake.

I am totally unfamiliar with this claim. What's the source? Did Rumsfeld state this publicly?

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

I somewhat agree with this.

Japan is an ally. Norway is an ally. If either ask for assistance the US needs to honor the alliance. Otherwise it should be up to them to respond in whatever way they choose.

Honoring an alliance does not require that you start a war which will destabilize an entire region and bring all those economic gains to a grinding halt as "Trump's War" sends the price of gas to $5.00/gal.

I also remain very far from convinced that Iran was actually behind this.

In my response, the assumption is that Japan and/or Norway would start the war, probably after claiming Iran started it with their attack on merchant ships.

Frankly I agree that the US should stay out of wars started by allies, with Kosovo and Libya as two examples. I was opposed to US intervention in both cases.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Pretty crazy how your critical observation includes twitter and not observing how Iran has acted in the region since Persia! But somehow it is a wag the dog moment for you. It's also pretty crazy that you believe this action is a precursor to war. There is absolutely nothing to gain from starting a war or brief conflict with Iran. You and a few others need to actually give Commands some credit and autonomy from who you like to believe are puppet masters.

My critical observation isn't based on a tweet though. It was just a relevant and funny tweet about the situation. 

It doesn't take a genius to see America has wanted Iran out of the paint forever. You can ignore that if you wish but you're only putting the wool over your own eyes. They don't want to destroy Iran by nuking it to pieces, just destabilise it to the point where they can put a pro American government in or at least completely diminish the current one , much like they have been attempting with Venezuela.  

Attacking an oil tanker has far far more benefits to the US or Saudis than it does for Iran. In fact there are no benefits to speak of for Iran doing it.

You can ignore Iranian history and influence in the region, but man that's burying your head. This isn't a country that can or will change engrained government organization through war or conflict. Otherwise, it would have been done a long time ago. This is understood at the highest level, but ordinary citizens still like to throw out this ignorant possibility. Venezuela and Iran cannot be paralleled in any way. You really need more perspective. 

What does the U.S. or Saudi benefit? Look at a map and tell me who along the Gulf has the technology or reason to conduct your conspiracy? 90% are influenced/funded by Iran. The others have to spend money to keep Iranian groups from pushing through their borders to gain the remaining 10% regional influence.

Here is that "no Iranian benefit"... Did you know Iran charges a tariff for certain vessels that want to pass through the Strait? The longer they linger, the more money. Did you know Iran claims full control of the Strait? When nearly 20% of the global oil supply passes through this very Strait, I say Iran has way more to gain or lose!

---

As if there aren't some American factions who've been pushing for war with Iran for decades.  
If you'd like to discuss false flag potential, this scenario was proposed by Donald Rumsfeld a dozen years ago.
He wanted to put Navy Seals on a boat made to resemble an Iranian patrol boat, then attack a US destroyer to start a war.
The warmongers love to stage attacks at sea.  They are by far the easiest to fake.

Christ on a cracker! Yeah, Navy Seals are willingly going to attack their own branch, their own ship, their own citizens of which coordinate the very resources that are supposed to attack? SOF and the military, in general, don't operate like you think it does. You guys watch too many movies and need to stop cui bono and false flag weirdness!

---

As if there aren't some American factions who've been pushing for war with Iran for decades.  
If you'd like to discuss false flag potential, this scenario was proposed by Donald Rumsfeld a dozen years ago.
He wanted to put Navy Seals on a boat made to resemble an Iranian patrol boat, then attack a US destroyer to start a war.
The warmongers love to stage attacks at sea.  They are by far the easiest to fake.

Christ on a cracker! Yeah, Navy Seals are willingly going to attack their own branch, their own ship, their own citizens of which coordinate the very resources that are supposed to attack? SOF and the military, in general, don't operate like you think it does. You guys watch too many movies and need to stop cui bono and false flag weirdness!

I agree it's hard to believe that Navy seals would attack a US Navy ship no matter who orders them to...
However note that commercial ships were the ones actually attacked, and that they were attacked away from the crew quarters.
I have no trouble believing that at all...

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Christ on a cracker! Yeah, Navy Seals are willingly going to attack their own branch, their own ship, their own citizens of which coordinate the very resources that are supposed to attack? SOF and the military, in general, don't operate like you think it does. You guys watch too many movies and need to stop cui bono and false flag weirdness!

I agree it's hard to believe that Navy seals would attack a US Navy ship no matter who orders them to...
However note that commercial ships were the ones actually attacked, and that they were attacked away from the crew quarters.
I have no trouble believing that at all...

I think it is entirely possible that the ship hulls were pierced by small shells launched by drone.
Then US or Arab personnel went to rescue and inspect, and the footage of them doing so is now being recycled and presented to us as Iranians trying to clean their tracks.

It's ridiculous.
Iran gains nothing from disabling two oil tankers.
And if they were to do it, I don't see why they wouldn't admit to it.
If they really wanted to disrupt shipping in the strait, they would say something like, "your ships will stop being harassed once we get what we want."
They're not saying anything like that.
It wasn't them.
It could have been the Houthis, but I doubt it. Too far from their area of operation.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I agree it's hard to believe that Navy seals would attack a US Navy ship no matter who orders them to...
However note that commercial ships were the ones actually attacked, and that they were attacked away from the crew quarters.
I have no trouble believing that at all...

I think it is entirely possible that the ship hulls were pierced by small shells launched by drone.
Then US or Arab personnel went to rescue and inspect, and the footage of them doing so is now being recycled and presented to us as Iranians trying to clean their tracks.

It's ridiculous.
Iran gains nothing from disabling two oil tankers.
And if they were to do it, I don't see why they wouldn't admit to it.
If they really wanted to disrupt shipping in the strait, they would say something like, "your ships will stop being harassed once we get what we want."
They're not saying anything like that.
It wasn't them.
It could have been the Houthis, but I doubt it. Too far from their area of operation.

Couple things here:

1.) There is no missile in ours or their inventory that would cause that little damage that just so happens to be at the water line of each of the four ships.
2.) Anything fired in that region is tracked in a way that identifies the location, trajectory, plume size, and finally scrubs against a database for positive identification (slow walker or fast walker).
3.) The Iranians already claimed the Strait for themselves and claimed any ship passing through needs their permission and is subject to shipping tariffs.
4.) They have everything to gain in blocking oil, natural gas, and naphtha so that countries are forced to buy from them. Also, see tariffs.
5.) The Houthis for all intents and purposes are the Iranians!

Also, since it wasn't the Iranians, I guess they had no reason to fire on our UAV surveying the damage in International waters? Couldn't have been, the Iranians don't instigate anything!

---

We should've ended the Iran problem 40 years ago.

This is simple tribalism.  The US, UK, Saudis and Israel are Sunnis and the Iranis are Shia.

---

We should've ended the Iran problem 40 years ago.

This is simple tribalism.  The US, UK, Saudis and Israel are Sunnis and the Iranis are Shia.

There were neither when the Persians first sought world domination. Nothing has really changed.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I think it is entirely possible that the ship hulls were pierced by small shells launched by drone.
Then US or Arab personnel went to rescue and inspect, and the footage of them doing so is now being recycled and presented to us as Iranians trying to clean their tracks.

It's ridiculous.
Iran gains nothing from disabling two oil tankers.
And if they were to do it, I don't see why they wouldn't admit to it.
If they really wanted to disrupt shipping in the strait, they would say something like, "your ships will stop being harassed once we get what we want."
They're not saying anything like that.
It wasn't them.
It could have been the Houthis, but I doubt it. Too far from their area of operation.

Couple things here:

1.) There is no missile in ours or their inventory that would cause that little damage that just so happens to be at the water line of each of the four ships.
2.) Anything fired in that region is tracked in a way that identifies the location, trajectory, plume size, and finally scrubs against a database for positive identification (slow walker or fast walker).
3.) The Iranians already claimed the Strait for themselves and claimed any ship passing through needs their permission and is subject to shipping tariffs.
4.) They have everything to gain in blocking oil, natural gas, and naphtha so that countries are forced to buy from them. Also, see tariffs.
5.) The Houthis for all intents and purposes are the Iranians!

Also, since it wasn't the Iranians, I guess they had no reason to fire on our UAV surveying the damage in International waters? Couldn't have been, the Iranians don't instigate anything!

1,2) You're right, this was some kind of off-the-books weapon. Smaller than a typical weapon.
3) I only started hearing this type of claim in the context of rescuing people from the disabled ships. I have not heard Iran claiming that they are owed a tariff or something like that.
4) you're right, but, in that case they would claim the attack.
5) the houthis are supplied by the Iranians. They don't really take orders from the Iranians. your claim is analogous to the claim that Israel takes orders from us. They do not, but we do supply them.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Pretty crazy how your critical observation includes twitter and not observing how Iran has acted in the region since Persia! But somehow it is a wag the dog moment for you. It's also pretty crazy that you believe this action is a precursor to war. There is absolutely nothing to gain from starting a war or brief conflict with Iran. You and a few others need to actually give Commands some credit and autonomy from who you like to believe are puppet masters.

There is something to be gained, for someone.
The initial defeat of Iran will be relatively simple.
If they time it right, the US military can have control of the gulf coast of Iran, where most of the oil is, by Christmas. Iran is much bigger than Iraq, and more mountainous, so it's unlikely we would be able to quickly gain control of the entire country by force. but it is well within our capabilities to get the coastal lowlands. Perhaps Teheran would surrender at that point, or perhaps we would start to declare the part we control to be independent from Teheran.  Either way, the downside of the move, in terms of military glory, doesn't come for another two years at least. And Donny gets to beat the "support the troops" drum to re-election.

As Donald Rumsfeld said in 2003 about the length of the potential Iraq war (now into its 16th year):
It will take weeks, not months.

As if there aren't some American factions who've been pushing for war with Iran for decades.  
If you'd like to discuss false flag potential, this scenario was proposed by Donald Rumsfeld a dozen years ago.
He wanted to put Navy Seals on a boat made to resemble an Iranian patrol boat, then attack a US destroyer to start a war.
The warmongers love to stage attacks at sea.  They are by far the easiest to fake.

I am totally unfamiliar with this claim. What's the source? Did Rumsfeld state this publicly?

Seymour Hersh, Pulitzer Prize winner, My Lai 1970, Abu Ghraib, 2004.  You may have heard of those?  Let us know when you are caught up. 

My critical observation isn't based on a tweet though. It was just a relevant and funny tweet about the situation. 

It doesn't take a genius to see America has wanted Iran out of the paint forever. You can ignore that if you wish but you're only putting the wool over your own eyes. They don't want to destroy Iran by nuking it to pieces, just destabilise it to the point where they can put a pro American government in or at least completely diminish the current one , much like they have been attempting with Venezuela.  

Attacking an oil tanker has far far more benefits to the US or Saudis than it does for Iran. In fact there are no benefits to speak of for Iran doing it.

You can ignore Iranian history and influence in the region, but man that's burying your head. This isn't a country that can or will change engrained government organization through war or conflict. Otherwise, it would have been done a long time ago. This is understood at the highest level, but ordinary citizens still like to throw out this ignorant possibility. Venezuela and Iran cannot be paralleled in any way. You really need more perspective. 

What does the U.S. or Saudi benefit? Look at a map and tell me who along the Gulf has the technology or reason to conduct your conspiracy? 90% are influenced/funded by Iran. The others have to spend money to keep Iranian groups from pushing through their borders to gain the remaining 10% regional influence.

Here is that "no Iranian benefit"... Did you know Iran charges a tariff for certain vessels that want to pass through the Strait? The longer they linger, the more money. Did you know Iran claims full control of the Strait? When nearly 20% of the global oil supply passes through this very Strait, I say Iran has way more to gain or lose!

No benefit for the Saudis except for the vote in the US Senate on the same day as the tanker incident.  Rand Paul thought he had the votes for a ban on weapons sales to Middle Eastern sponsors of Islamic terrorism, specifically Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Qatar.  But several Senators changed their votes after news of the "attack".

Cui bono?

---

There is something to be gained, for someone.
The initial defeat of Iran will be relatively simple.
If they time it right, the US military can have control of the gulf coast of Iran, where most of the oil is, by Christmas. Iran is much bigger than Iraq, and more mountainous, so it's unlikely we would be able to quickly gain control of the entire country by force. but it is well within our capabilities to get the coastal lowlands. Perhaps Teheran would surrender at that point, or perhaps we would start to declare the part we control to be independent from Teheran.  Either way, the downside of the move, in terms of military glory, doesn't come for another two years at least. And Donny gets to beat the "support the troops" drum to re-election.

As Donald Rumsfeld said in 2003 about the length of the potential Iraq war (now into its 16th year):
It will take weeks, not months.

It did take mere weeks for u.s. armored personnel carriers to have the run of the land within Iraq's borders.
Of course that's not the same thing as winning a war.
If we were to try to hold the coast of Iran, it would be under constant threat from out-of-uniform operatives taking their orders from Tehran.
Just like the much flatter, and much small Iraq, we could dominate this area, but could we pacify it? Probably not.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

As Donald Rumsfeld said in 2003 about the length of the potential Iraq war (now into its 16th year):
It will take weeks, not months.

It did take mere weeks for u.s. armored personnel carriers to have the run of the land within Iraq's borders.
Of course that's not the same thing as winning a war.
If we were to try to hold the coast of Iran, it would be under constant threat from out-of-uniform operatives taking their orders from Tehran.
Just like the much flatter, and much small Iraq, we could dominate this area, but could we pacify it? Probably not.

It is the same thing as winning a war. Had we left Iraq after three weeks, we could claim victory. The rest came about from the misguided belief that Iraq could be tuned into a Westernized democracy.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

There is something to be gained, for someone.
The initial defeat of Iran will be relatively simple.
If they time it right, the US military can have control of the gulf coast of Iran, where most of the oil is, by Christmas. Iran is much bigger than Iraq, and more mountainous, so it's unlikely we would be able to quickly gain control of the entire country by force. but it is well within our capabilities to get the coastal lowlands. Perhaps Teheran would surrender at that point, or perhaps we would start to declare the part we control to be independent from Teheran.  Either way, the downside of the move, in terms of military glory, doesn't come for another two years at least. And Donny gets to beat the "support the troops" drum to re-election.

As Donald Rumsfeld said in 2003 about the length of the potential Iraq war (now into its 16th year):
It will take weeks, not months.

I am totally unfamiliar with this claim. What's the source? Did Rumsfeld state this publicly?

Seymour Hersh, Pulitzer Prize winner, My Lai 1970, Abu Ghraib, 2004.  You may have heard of those?  Let us know when you are caught up. 

So you're taking the word of Hersh? The Pulitzer Prize is totally political, so who cares whether or not someone won it. From your short list it seems that Hersh specializes in accusations against Republicans which makes him a partisan Democrat. And Pulitzer Prize winners are not above lying. I doubt Hersh would have been there had Rumsfeld said it, so we're talking about at least one other person capable of lying too. Was the person who supposedly heard it named, or was it an "undisclosed source?" Or did Rumsfeld say it publicly? Do you have a link about Rumsfeld's comment?

For someone who's so invested in conspiracy theories, you sure are willing to believe the accusation of partisan Democrat Hersh.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Isn't the Iraqi government mostly Shia now? We've been in Iraq for 16 years. In that time we radicalized the Sunnis, isolated the Kurds and allowed the Shias to assume power.
So let's meddle with Iran. The last time we did that (1953) we switched them from a western-style Democracy to a tyrannical theocracy.
As for turning Iraq into a westernized country, decades ago they had universities, modern hospitals and access to Uncle Sam's finest poison gasses. That's first world action.

---

Isn't the Iraqi government mostly Shia now?  We've been in Iraq for 16 years.  In that time we radicalized the Sunnis, isolated the Kurds and allowed the Shias to assume power.
So let's meddle with Iran.  The last time we did that (1953) we switched them from a western-style Democracy to a tyrannical theocracy.  
As for turning Iraq into a westernized country, decades ago they had universities, modern hospitals and access to Uncle Sam's finest poison gasses.  That's first world action.

We didn't do any of that. Iraq has always been corrupt and divided. And there are still Universities, Modern Hospitals, etc. There are also some regions that are very westernized. I've been to some pretty good clubs in the North. The United States made the mistake of thinking rival sects would come together for the betterment of their people. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink! FYI, those chemical compounds you speak of came from the other side of the pound. In any case, this is about Iran, the tankers, and the Strait.

---

It did take mere weeks for u.s. armored personnel carriers to have the run of the land within Iraq's borders.
Of course that's not the same thing as winning a war.
If we were to try to hold the coast of Iran, it would be under constant threat from out-of-uniform operatives taking their orders from Tehran.
Just like the much flatter, and much small Iraq, we could dominate this area, but could we pacify it? Probably not.

It is the same thing as winning a war. Had we left Iraq after three weeks, we could claim victory. The rest came about from the misguided belief that Iraq could be tuned into a Westernized democracy.

We won the war, we lost the nation building.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

It is the same thing as winning a war. Had we left Iraq after three weeks, we could claim victory. The rest came about from the misguided belief that Iraq could be tuned into a Westernized democracy.

We won the war, we lost the nation building.

Which, frankly, we should never engage in in the first place.  Our job isn't to build nations other than our own...but it becomes a hell of a lot easier to continue imperialism when it's disguised as "help."

The Middle East is far too unstable for us to maintain a foothold in.  That's what we use Israel as a mercenary state for, anyway.

---

We won the war, we lost the nation building.

Which, frankly, we should never engage in in the first place.  Our job isn't to build nations other than our own...but it becomes a hell of a lot easier to continue imperialism when it's disguised as "help."

The Middle East is far too unstable for us to maintain a foothold in.  That's what we use Israel as a mercenary state for, anyway.

Why not? Also, what foreign lands have we acquired through military force in the last 20, 30, 40 years+?

We aren't trying to maintain a foothold in the middle east so much as wanting to influence the region so that the trash doesn't make its way to our shores. You may also be surprised at how many nations invite and actually pay us to park in their backyard.

---