Don't know about you guys, but I filled up both tanks yesterday.

(09-16-2019 08:19 AM)VA49er Wrote:  Don't know about you guys, but I filled up both tanks yesterday.

I topped off last night although I think this will be temporary.

(09-16-2019 08:23 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 08:19 AM)VA49er Wrote:  Don't know about you guys, but I filled up both tanks yesterday.

I topped off last night although I think this will be temporary.

Hopefully, unless a renewed risk premium is built in to oil prices due to this.

Buddy of mine that owns a business that supplies fuel was watching last night and urged people to fill up this morning... I didn't.. I have more than half a tank and won't use it all this week.

(09-16-2019 07:32 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  So am I hearing we are perfectly fine with China going scorched Earth in Iran and taking it over? Is it better to have China running a country in the ME?

Are we “fine” with it? No. Is it something I want to send American treasure to stop? Not really. We don’t need ME oil. Doubt England does either. My initial reaction is to let those condescending Know-it-all’s in Germany and France deal with it on their own. The only reason I’m remotely interested is that it might present an opportunity to take out Iran’s nuke program once and for all.

Our price will rise because oil is a relatively fungible item worldwide. But we should not have shortages and gas lines form this.

(09-16-2019 07:43 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 07:41 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Good, we're all in agreement. I'm looking forward to seeing folks criticize Trump if he doesn't sit this one out.

We've had no issue criticizing the man on certain points... Maybe not all of us at one time, but we've all said something..

When's the last time a lib has criticized a dem politician?

You do. You're a lot more reasonable than others - I think after I posted that vaping ban thread, you and GTS were the only folks critical of Trump after he talked about banning it. I kept waiting for Shere Khan to call Trump stupid since he insinuated I was dumb for calling for a ban to begin with. But nope, he was silent.

I criticize Democrats on occasion - maybe not enough for the others here but I do. Hopefully I can prove that after we win back the White House in 2020.

(09-16-2019 08:38 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 07:32 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  So am I hearing we are perfectly fine with China going scorched Earth in Iran and taking it over? Is it better to have China running a country in the ME?

Are we “fine” with it? No. Is it something I want to send American treasure to stop? Not really. We don’t need ME oil. Doubt England does either. My initial reaction is to let those condescending Know-it-all’s in Germany and France deal with it on their own. The only reason I’m remotely interested is that it might present an opportunity to take out Iran’s nuke program once and for all.

The problem I have is, the country(ies) that ARE dependent upon ME oil don't do things the way we do. IMHO they will say eff it, let's just go in there, demolish the place and take it over. I don't see that as a plus for the West.

(09-16-2019 09:40 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Hopefully I can prove that after we win back the White House in 2020.

I hope and pray that you don't get that chance.

Is it our fight, no. Are we interested in the outcome, absolutely.

A couple of things have to be determined.

First, Iran has their proxies launching the attack, but we have to know if Iran is acting out of desperation due to sanctions or if they themselves are a proxy. They have close relationships with several countries that are in opposition to the US either economically or militarily. Afghanistan, China, Russia, NK, Pakistan, Syria, the Palestinian state, Venezuela, etc. Relationships fluctuate over the years, but generally do not align with US partnerships or interests. Who gains the most from a weakened SA? Who gains the most from disruption in oil supply? There are tons of ways to look at this. China could be looking for an excuse to secure their oil supply in the ME either through 'policing' of the oil routes, or more direct control/influence over Tehran. Russia could simply be positioning their 'chess pieces', keeping US forces spread out and mired in another ME conflict.
If Iran is acting on their own, it is most likely out of desperation and could be a miscalculation. SA is capable of responding on their own. Israel would certainly like to see a weakened Iran and it would be interesting to see how the relatively quiet expansion of SA-Israeli relations would look is SA and Israeli interests further aligned. In this case I would see the US sitting back, closely observing and possibly offering strategic assistance, but still no need for troops.

Secondly, we need to determine if this is an ongoing threat or something that can be defended in the future. Can Israel's "Iron Dome" provide a reliable defense against future drone attacks? Can Iran sustain their proxies for extended periods of time, or is this coming to a head? Either way more sanctions probably aren't the answer. Would China shoulder the responsibility in a diplomatic way since they are probably most threatened by the potential disruption of oil supply? Can we trust them to do so?

Way too many variables at this point to have any clear picture of what's going on. Right now just need to sit back and observe closely.

Crude oil is up 11 percent today (over $61 a barrel). And gasoline futures are up 9 pct. But both of those are within expectations based on what happened over the weekend. We filled up all our cars this morning but just because they were due - not for any other reasons. It won't surprise me if gas goes up another 30 cents a gallon before the end of the month. Hopefully no more than that though.

(09-15-2019 10:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Here is the elephant in the room. We don't depend on Saudi--or Mideast--oil. NAFTA is basically oil self-sufficient, and the US by itself is close, thanks to fracking. Some Saudi oil may make its way here, but that's just in the normal flow of commerce.

This has always been my support for 'drill baby drill'. The ability to distance ourselves from such a threat.

(09-16-2019 07:41 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Good, we're all in agreement. I'm looking forward to seeing folks criticize Trump if he doesn't sit this one out.

This has been what Trump has been talking about since before the election. If he doesn't do so, Republicans will lose the next few elections. That said, I suspect there will be some who would define 'sitting it out' as literally doing nothing, because they know that to literally do nothing to attempt to avoid nuclear war is impossible... AND there are some who would describe using cruise missiles as nothing because it didn't involve boots.

We can't engage in this conflict. We can assist others in doing so, but we can't be the leader here... not even remotely close. Peace keepers, diplomacy, humanitarian we can lead.

Trump says he's going to let the Saudi's tell him what he should do.

So why was Bolton fired.

When the Iranians attack the Saudis, US petrochemical producers win. So let them.
When the Saudis attack the Iranians, US petrochemical producers win. So let them.

I think we still should secure shipping with our assets..but..nothing beyond that unless attacked. IMO... Iran is not going to engage our Navy. They are selling woof tickets. Maybe we can leverage helping the Chinese keep the oil flowing when we sit down at trade talks?

(09-16-2019 07:07 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  When the Iranians attack the Saudis, US petrochemical producers win. So let them.
When the Saudis attack the Iranians, US petrochemical producers win. So let them.

No argument here....I just don't like the Iranians bowflexing in the gulf with their Navy. Im fine with us continuing to insure safe shipping traffic.

I have a different question about the incident. What is Russia's take on it? (China is cautioning against retaliation).

Is there any chance Russia gave Iran its blessing to attack the Saudi sites? Russia may stand to gain some too with its growing oil independence. I find it hard to believe Iran is willing to take on every country in the world - unless they've got some big power behind them (and that's obviously not the U.S.).

(09-16-2019 08:38 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 07:32 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  So am I hearing we are perfectly fine with China going scorched Earth in Iran and taking it over? Is it better to have China running a country in the ME?

Are we “fine” with it? No. Is it something I want to send American treasure to stop? Not really. We don’t need ME oil. Doubt England does either. My initial reaction is to let those condescending Know-it-all’s in Germany and France deal with it on their own. The only reason I’m remotely interested is that it might present an opportunity to take out Iran’s nuke program once and for all.

"The only reason I’m remotely interested is that it might present an opportunity to take out Iran’s nuke program once and for all."

...and that's the one and only reason Trump is waiting for the opportunity to launch some well aimed missiles into Iran. Exactly, like I said a long while ago. Iran is stupid that they're actually poking the mightiest military in the world. They would lose "yugely".

If it comes down to the US doing nothing I'll be okay with it as long as China does their own dirty work. As for China taking over Iran it'll be over Russias' dead body. If anyone thinks Russia would stand still and allow China to rule that part of the world with its oil and strategic location they're nuts.

So far the only response I've seen from China is one of caution.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi...SKBN1W10LI

“Pondering who is to blame in the absence of a conclusive investigation I think is in itself not very responsible. China’s position is that we oppose any moves that expand or intensify conflict,” Hua (their foreign ministry spokesperson) told a daily news briefing.

“We call on relevant parties avoid taking actions that bring about an escalation in regional tensions. We hope all sides can restrain themselves and can jointly safeguard the peace and stability of the Middle East.”