America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 6 months ago by pacman357. 59 replies replies.
2 Pages<12
Should US Troops Fight to Defend Saudi Oil?
KingoftheCove Offline
#51 Posted:
Joined: 10-08-2011
Posts: 6,126
delta1 wrote:
the US inserted the Shah of Iran, in a coup d'etat in 1953, ousting a democratically elected Prime Minister...26 years later the Iranian people during the Revolution of 1979, ousted the US backed monarchy...

people everywhere just wanna be free, Lil Rascals...



yep......people often forget just how much we meddle in the affairs of others.....and have meddled in the affairs of others............for a very long time.

Now, that's not really a "bad" thing......................this sort have chit has been going on since the beginning of civilized humans.............."everyone" does it, who has the power to do it, and justifies the end results for security, religious, or socio/economic reasons.

Nowadays, it's a bit more tricky........compared to da olden days....
dstieger Offline
#52 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,887
Not certain anything above is really among the top things that might drive US action/inaction

Was a time when it seemed in US' best interest for a 'balance of power' between arabs and israelis....if even a fragile, sometimes explosive balance.

It seems now that the balance we must seek to maintain is Sunni/Shia. I believe that our foreign policy in the mideast isn't predicated on Saudi oi, nor Iranian millenials, but on making sure that everyone over there hates everyone else just enough for tensions that don't get too hot or cause any further attacks on US.

Oil is still of critical importance. Maybe not to our corner Exxon station this week, but certainly to the global economy. Despite the nationalist turns of the last few years, we are extraordinarily dependent on the global economy.

One other reason we might not want to push Iran to the cliff's edge, is that we are committed to keeping Straits of Hormuz open. That will be one of the first places that Iran goes if it feels totally boxed in....(other than strikes via proxies.) It is easy to brush off SOH as a long ways away and not terribly important at the moment -- but if we allow Iran to shut it down, it shows we've abdicated our role as maintainer of freedom of the sea. China (and others) would like nothing more. Chit's all interconnected....crazy to think that tensions with Iran could be throwing China a juicy bone...
rfenst Offline
#53 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 30,541
dstieger wrote:


One other reason we might not want to push Iran to the cliff's edge, is that we are committed to keeping Straits of Hormuz open. That will be one of the first places that Iran goes if it feels totally boxed in....(other than strikes via proxies.) It is easy to brush off SOH as a long ways away and not terribly important at the moment -- but if we allow Iran to shut it down, it shows we've abdicated our role as maintainer of freedom of the sea. China (and others) would like nothing more. Chit's all interconnected....crazy to think that tensions with Iran could be throwing China a juicy bone...

So, are you saying we should appease Iran by inaction?
teedubbya Offline
#54 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 89,050
So if we do nothing it’s appeasement? That’s not how I would frame it.

I think we should appease the saudis and do nothing if they have a measured response just like we appeased them by doing nothing for torturing and murdering a Washington Post reporter.
teedubbya Offline
#55 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 89,050
As for our economic interests it would be interesting to see if loss of oil from this situation is greater or less than the Iranian oil taken off the market by sanctions/boycott etc. it’s easy to get in to the black and white good bad based on the narrative fed to us.

I don’t know the answer but the whole area is filled with intrigue including our very own actions which at times are inconsistent given our political cycles and whims. We are a terrible partner in that regard.
dstieger Offline
#56 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,887
rfenst wrote:
So, are you saying we should appease Iran by inaction?


Nah...I am never advocating appeasement of Iran. Our interests are just too divergent right now.

I do think that it should be understood that if we kinetically hit Iran...and their response is take action to close SOH, that we should be prepared to undertake massive action to ensure safe passage and freedom of navigation
delta1 Offline
#57 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 20,672
Hormuz is a strategic choke-point for the flow of a huge amount of fossil fuels that is a major driver of the global economy... Iran is in a strategic position to control it...similar in importance to the Panama Canal...

the more the US can lead the world away from the fossil fuel driven economy, the better...

Wonder if Trump understood the gravity of withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement....
USNGunner Offline
#58 Posted:
Joined: 05-17-2019
Posts: 4,043
Whistlebritches wrote:
I would like to think so but it depends on your audience.We marched into Belgium on an exercise and nearly got raped in the streets they were so glad to see us,1986.Brought 3 boats into Pusan Korea and had rocks hurled at us,1987.Took down a dictator in Panama 1989,one side fired on us the other side fired with us.All depends on your audience


Yep. Same thing in Greece around 82. The year before they loved us, the next year, rocks and firebombs.

Panama was divided into those on the payroll/gravy train, and those that weren't. Problem was there was no way to tell.

Same problem in the gulf. Hard to tell who's who until it's too damn late. Might be better now, I don't think they're holding the intel so tight anymore.

Flip a coin.
pacman357 Offline
#59 Posted:
Joined: 02-27-2006
Posts: 42,596
The Saudis need our help fighting Iran about as much as we need their help fending off Canada. They have one of the stronger militaries in the region, and we help by selling them billions in weapons. Plus, when you offer to help a friend and the friend says, "dude, I got this", it's kind of an unwritten rule that you back off and let your friend handle the sitch. The Saudis have asked us to not take military action. If and when they need our help, they can ask. We have phones, email and everything. They know where we are located.

Besides, they're also a competitor. We now export oil. If Wendy's starts to fail, you think Burger King will bail them out with free help, no strings attached? More importantly, one of the things that has fomented anti-American sentiment in the Middle East is the presence of U.S. troops. You can make some very strong arguments that we have every right to be there, but inserting ourselves into a battle that is not our fight after the ally whose fight it does belong to asks us to kindly step back is just pouring gas on that fire (no pun intended).

This is Saudi Arabia we are talking about. Not some tiny little defenseless nation.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages<12