(06-15-2019, 09:15 AM)mikesez Wrote:

(06-15-2019, 08:49 AM)B2hibry Wrote: 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.

(06-15-2019, 09:43 AM)MalabarJag Wrote:

(06-15-2019, 07:02 AM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: 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. 

(06-15-2019, 10:17 AM)B2hibry Wrote:

(06-15-2019, 09:28 AM)JackCity Wrote: 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?

---