Houthis attack oil refinery in Saudi Arabia, biggest oil refinery in the world, with drones - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15034172
annatar1914 wrote:The Market Economy with it's waste, greed, and inefficiency, distorts the appearance of what we really have and what we don't, whereas the discipline and rationing of Socialism will extend the life of the oil fields we will have left.

The market economy is thousands upon thousands of years old. It may even predate humanity. Its possible that even Neanderthal bands engaged in some sort of trade. I went to East Berlin before the wall came down. I went to Yugoslavia before the war. I saw the ugly corrupt, inefficient reality, not the fantasy of western lefties.
#15034175
Rich wrote:The market economy is thousands upon thousands of years old. It may even predate humanity. Its possible that even Neanderthal bands engaged in some sort of trade. I went to East Berlin before the wall came down. I went to Yugoslavia before the war. I saw the ugly corrupt, inefficient reality, not the fantasy of western lefties.


Yeah, I saw the reality too, and it wasn't quite what you say, but that's your narrative as the resident Crypto-Fascist preaching the destruction of all Monotheistic religions among other things, yes? I haven't met anyone from Eastern Europe/Former Soviet Union that doesn't miss having paid for Education, Full Employment, paid for Healthcare, paid utilities, and much more besides.

And Capitalism? It's less than 200 years old. What came before is what you'd like to see again; Feudalism and before that, Slavery based economies. Trade is a function of all economics, in Socialism you have trade as well, but rationalized and humanized.
#15034178
annatar1914 wrote:I don't know how many times I or someone else has to tell you, but if someone is not planning on having public ownership of the means of economic production in a society, they're not Socialists, they're something else.

Well, I don't want to live in either one.

annatar1914 wrote:Venezuela is NOT a Socialist country.

Venezuela is a failed country regardless of what you wish to call it.

annatar1914 wrote:Cuba is under embargo by the United States, but is Socialist, and still surviving despite the embargo.

The United States does not have a total embargo on Cuba and it has been eased a lot since the Cuban missile crisis.

annatar1914 wrote:North Korea is neither Communist nor Socialist, it is ''Juche'' in political Ideology;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juche

And it's been that way since the 1960's. Even so, it's a country like this in daily life;



I still don't want to live there.

annatar1914 wrote:Again, in a Socialist country, you ''pay your bills'' by working, and the utilities are paid for the individual. How is that not better?

I don't like so much government control of my life.

annatar1914 wrote:Can you rationally explain why it is ''decent and better''? I don't believe that you can.

I actually said "decent and fair", but I also believe it is better because I believe it is only fair for everyone to pay for what they use. You seem to have the idea that Socialism is some type of utopia. I don't.

annatar1914 wrote:Capitalism isn't Christian.

It is to me. Jesus referred to it's ideas in some of his parables.

annatar1914 wrote:I'll remember you said that next time you're praising Israel for shooting unarmed kids from a distance with sniper rifles.

I never praise Israel for shooting kids close up or from a distance.

annatar1914 wrote:And of course, you couldn't care less about the Saudi genocide of Yemenis in Yemen...''Muslims killing Muslims'', right? :roll:

Right. It does not concern me at this time. I have too many other things that concern me to worry about Muslims killing Muslims.
HalleluYah
#15034186
This thread has been hijacked by a bot and a bunch of folks who want to filibuster the debate.

This topic is not trivial and deserves real scrutiny and debate.

To return to topic:

http://ontargetwithlarrysparano.com/wp/ ... di-arabia/

I can absolutely believe this was a false flag contrived by the USA, designed to turn public opinion against Iran. And Iran has flatly denied this.

Of course, I'm not 100% sure that it was a false flag.

There's no proof and it remains my own 'conspiritard' theory.

All I can say is that invading Iran will be an utter catastrophe if the US presses ahead with its plans. With any luck, Rump will turn his 2 yr old attention span away from Iran and fire Mike Pompous, and alter his entire foreign policy for no reason other than a whim.
#15034200
JohnRawls wrote:Okay, but coal, oil and gas is used because it is more efficient. It produces more common good than the alternatives and that is why we use them instead of renewables mostly. It is not just a question of profits.


No. Fossil fuels are actually less efficient. We use them instead of renewables because we figured out that tech first, and we probably did so because fossil fuel use is more accessible for military technology.

Renewables work in certain places sure but its unreasonable to expect them to work everywhere if you don't have sun or wind etc. Its like a Texan or Californian whining at a German why don't you use more solar? Well, there is not that much sun in Germany compared to Texas or California.


Nuclear works everywhere.
#15034201
I don't think Iran did it, and even if it motivated a proxy force carry out the attack, it won't be possible to prove a line of command. But even if the Iranians had carried it out directly, they would be justified because they are under attack by the US and Saudi Arabia. To cripple SA's oil infrastructure is a suitable response to the US attempt of crippling Iran's economy.

Anyways, the Houthis probably have more than enough motive to carry out any attack on the Saudis they can.
#15034204
Presvias wrote:This thread has been hijacked by a bot and a bunch of folks who want to filibuster the debate.

This topic is not trivial and deserves real scrutiny and debate.

To return to topic:

http://ontargetwithlarrysparano.com/wp/ ... di-arabia/

I can absolutely believe this was a false flag contrived by the USA, designed to turn public opinion against Iran. And Iran has flatly denied this.

Of course, I'm not 100% sure that it was a false flag.

There's no proof and it remains my own 'conspiritard' theory.

All I can say is that invading Iran will be an utter catastrophe if the US presses ahead with its plans. With any luck, Rump will turn his 2 yr old attention span away from Iran and fire Mike Pompous, and alter his entire foreign policy for no reason other than a whim.


False flag? Its a shitty false flag because it just knocked 50% of Saudi Arabia oil production of the map. This is not good for US or SA so its not a false flag. (Higher oil prices is bad for US growth until US can both export and produce for itself at least) Now, was Yemen really behind this? Its possible but unlikely. The tanker situation was highly likely not Iran but this might be Iran if there are any concrete evidence to show the drone flight paths.

The one that benefit the most from this are the Russians actually. They are probably going to substitute the SA oil in the short term. Especially for Europe and China to a degree. Higher oil prices are also helpful.
#15034214
Rancid wrote:I wonder what's really going on here. :eek:

A war between Iran and Saudi Arabia is going on here.

Atlantis wrote:But even if the Iranians had carried it out directly

I'd bet my chips on this one. If they carried it out from somewhere in Qatar 150 km away from the target, then they could have done it within three hours, or even less perhaps. One-hour flight to the site, one hour for carrying out the attack itself, then one-hour flight returning to base, I guess.
Last edited by Beren on 16 Sep 2019 15:32, edited 1 time in total.
#15034223
Beren wrote:I'd bet my chips on this one. If they carried it out from somewhere in Qatar 150 km away from the target, then they could have done it within three hours, or even less perhaps. One-hour flight to the site, one hour for carrying out the attack itself, then one-hour flight returning to base, I guess.

I see the logic in this scenario but unless that theory is backed up with satellite/radar data, It is not to be assumed correct. Qatar is already in big trouble with SA and UAE and others and allowing the Iranians to bomb SA from their territory seems utterly reckless.

In my opinion retaliation against Iran seems inevitable. And we will see where that leads to.
#15034225
Ter wrote:I see the logic in this scenario but unless that theory is backed up with satellite/radar data, It is not to be assumed correct. Qatar is already in big trouble with SA and UAE and others and allowing the Iranians to bomb SA from their territory seems utterly reckless.

In my opinion it's definitely more logical than assuming the attack came from Yemen, which is more than 800 km from Abqaiq Plants. They should have targeted something closer to there then. Qatar, on the other hand, would make a perfect launch site for such an attack.

The Guardian's map is also very telling.

The Guardian wrote:Image

:lol:
#15034249
Rancid wrote:Exactly, because they didn't buy the right weapons. Clealy. they need to buy more.

$$$$$

They don't have the right weapons and they can't use them. Pumping out and selling lots of oil and wasting $$$$$ is their only art, but they can't handle the situation in Yemen and they would never be on a par with Iran in a war.
#15034276
Beren wrote:I'd bet my chips on this one. If they carried it out from somewhere in Qatar 150 km away from the target, then they could have done it within three hours, or even less perhaps. One-hour flight to the site, one hour for carrying out the attack itself, then one-hour flight returning to base, I guess.


I don't see why Qatar would take that risk. The drones (or missiles?) could just as easily have been launched from a ship.

The US claims that satellite data of the site shows that the attacks came from the North-West, in other words from Iraq or Iran. I don't know how they can see that from satellite data since they don't have the flight-path.

Previous Houthi drone attack caused far less damage. So there is speculation that cruise missiles were used:

MEET THE QUDS 1
#15034286
It is hard to believe that the Yemeni rebel group that claimed responsibility for the attacks is technically sophisticated enough to fly an unmanned drone that could reach Saudi Arabia. The drone came from the direction of Iran or Iraq and not from Yemen. Iran maintains advanced missile and drone programs as part of its national defense strategy. President Donald Trump says it's "looking like" Iran was responsible for the attacks on key oil installations in Saudi Arabia, but he says he doesn't want war. The U.S. is not looking at retaliatory options until he has "definitive proof" that Iran was responsible.

The Next UK PM everybody...

Breakup of United Kingdom is long overdue. Soviet […]

EU-BREXIT

This is a dumb comparison because a change of the[…]

It's my firm belief that going green is no longer[…]

It's really hard, @Pants-of-dog to call someone […]