Saudi oil fields on fire, but who did it?

[Bilge_Rat]

well, anyone who thinks Iran should be rewarded for its naked aggression by going back to the sweetheart 2015 nuclear deal is as naive as Neville Chamberlain at Munich in 1938.

Yes, the U.S. has to respond, but it has to be the right response.

Just blindly carrying out military strikes just plays into Iran's hands.

Iran attacking saudi Arabia is a major escalation.

Why would they do it? Iran seems to be goading the U.S. into a military response. It strikes me that the situation in Iran must be getting desparate and either the regime is losing control of certain factions or wants to provoke a war to shore up its internal support.

What the U.S. should be doing is following the Bush sr. model from 1990 and trying to build an international coalition with a common plan of action.

If the regime in Tehran is tottering, now is the time to ratchet up sanctions even more.

[Mr Quatro]

There is a story in the Old Testament of the Holy Bible about a city that was besieged by it's enemies and the city was running out of food and water when an old woman came to the gate and yelled at the captain of the army against them, "What is it that you want"?

The captain said the head of your leader .. She said, "You shall have it by morning" She threw the head over the gate the next morning and the army left off destroying the village.

The people of Iran are tired of the 10% of Iran telling them what to do They could stop all of this by throwing someone's head over the wall.

President Trump's hands are tied without Congressional approval which would take weeks in this country, but what a great opportunity we are wasting not to try and put together a way to take out Iran's nuclear ambitions, long range missile programs, navy, air force by surrounding them and threatening just that till they give in or start a war first.

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

well, anyone who thinks Iran should be rewarded for its naked aggression by going back to the sweetheart 2015 nuclear deal is as naive as Neville Chamberlain at Munich in 1938.

Yes, the U.S. has to respond, but it has to be the right response.

Just blindly carrying out military strikes just plays into Iran's hands.

Iran attacking saudi Arabia is a major escalation.

Why would they do it? Iran seems to be goading the U.S. into a military response. It strikes me that the situation in Iran must be getting desparate and either the regime is losing control of certain factions or wants to provoke a war to shore up its internal support.

What the U.S. should be doing is following the Bush sr. model from 1990 and trying to build an international coalition with a common plan of action.

If the regime in Tehran is tottering, now is the time to ratchet up sanctions even more.

They have been firing ballistic missiles into KSA for years now and sunk one of their amphibious transport ships with an anti ship missile. You really should be aware of the context of this long proxy war.
As such I do not see why you view this as an actual escalation apart from the possible effect of being (mis)informed by US media.

In terms of why this has happened - US torpedoed yet another key arms control deal over dubious allegations of non compliance, possibly to support their KSA allies in this proxy war.

And US feels good about it.

Below, coverage of the patriot site radar and apparent direction the attack came from.

KSA was probably preparing against the ballistic missile threat from Yemen.

[mapuc]

I personally hope there are not going to be any war
I hope sanctions will be more than enough.

Markus

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

They have been firing ballistic missiles into KSA for years now and sunk one of their amphibious transport ships with an anti ship missile. You really should be aware of the context of this long proxy war.
As such I do not see why you view this as an actual escalation apart from the possible effect of being (mis)informed by US media.

Really? How often has someone knocked out 50% of their oil production? Is that a routine occurrence?

[Catfish]

re Ikalugin the patriot system probably would not have had a chance against low-flying missiles even if they would have covered the other sectors as well. I doubt that the russian system would have been more successful against extremely low-flying, terrain-following objects?

[Mr Quatro]

Come on man (ikalugin)
You are the only news agency reporting this theory

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by Catfish

re Ikalugin the patriot system probably would not have had a chance against low-flying missiles even if they would have covered the other sectors as well. I doubt that the russian system would have been more successful against extremely low-flying, terrain-following objects?

We repell such attacks on our airbase in Latakia regularly, there are things you can do. But yes, it is not a trivial thing to do.

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

Really? How often has someone knocked out 50% of their oil production? Is that a routine occurrence?

No, in essense what is new is the result of the attack, not the nature or the scale.

[Mr Quatro]

In just three more days the general assembly of the U.N. Will meet to discuss the SA/Iran/Houthi Rebel attacks on SA oil field.

Already Iran and Yemen are crying peace, peace we want peace and to get away with our devastatingly deal at the same time.

So everyone stand down till the U.N. decides what to do in New York on Tuesday

[Skybird]

The UN should be packed in small boxes and sold in pharmacies as emetics. Its a highly potent agent.