Threatening Petroeuro?

[Oliver]

OK, tomorrow if I find the time.

Your "

" says you're online.
Do you have the time to rephrase your question?

Oliver, you have no grounds whatsoever to lash out at others like that. Wer im Glashaus sitzt... you know what I mean.

I simply try to stay on focus and I also like to have a "flow in thinking" unless someone points out an error within the discussion.

Now throwing "Conspiray Theorist" into a discussion without pointing out errors, isn't very polite, is it? So yes, it annoys me and it's nothing but disturbing, don't you agree?

Concerning "Glashaus": I know that I'm sitting in a "Glashouse" since I don't fully understand world-economical Issues very much. But this is what this thread is meant for: Getting a better comprehension. Maybe without too much distraction - which, by the way, is indeed a major problem in here.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Of course I agree with that.

It is not really " of course ", as many people here are questioning your opinion on this very matter.
The point is that, you seem to condone too many things on the Saddam + OBL side, which is wrong, as wrong as condoning things on the Bush' s side

 

[Oliver]

It is not really " of course ", as many people here are questioning your opinion on this very matter.
The point is that, you seem to condone too many things on the Saddam + OBL side, which is wrong, as wrong as condoning things on the Bush' s side

You might miss the fact that Saddam is dead. There isn't really much to condone on behalf a dead person. So are you asking why I'm not more upset about Saddam's criminal behavior - even if he's dead?

 

[Matteo Martini]

You might miss the fact that Saddam is dead. There isn't really much to condone on behalf a dead person. So are you asking why I'm not more upset about Saddam's criminal behavior - even if he's dead?

Oliver, Oliver..
Saddam did not die long ago..
Did you really condemned his behaviour while he was alive?
Also, there is a thread where you define ( incredibly ) OBL as a fighter for freedom, or something like that..

 

[Oliver]

Oliver, Oliver..
Saddam did not die long ago..
Did you really condemned his behaviour while he was alive?
Also, there is a thread where you define ( incredibly ) OBL as a fighter for freedom, or something like that..

Okay, I see this is a more complex Issue and you seem to have a lot of questions regarding that.

You may understand that I like to stay on topic regarding this issue and I also got a "Spamming-Warning" from Darat to shift to issues that had been discussed in others of my threads, too.

So may I ask you to "bump" the thread in which I said things you didn't agree with? Maybe you can start an own thread about your questions, too - but you might ask an Admin first if this may be considered as "spamming", too.

Thank you for your understanding.

 

[Pardalis]

Edited and Deleted.

Why bother?

You got that right.

 

[Oliver]

You got that right.

List of stupid remarks:

3744
.
.
.
.
+1

 

[Pardalis]

I have a long way to go to reach your 7,269 record.

 

[Oliver]

I have a long way to go to reach your 7,269 record.

I don't do childish remarks like the ones I usually see being posted by you.
And your remark, oh wonder, once again has nothing to do with the topic itself, "Troll".

 

[Pardalis]

Did you say something? I put you back on ignore. Life is so much nicer.

 

[Oliver]

Did you say something? I put you back on ignore. Life is so much nicer.

That's why I like you. You are like the child I hope to get one day.

 

[Katana]

Don't make me post a mod box, you two.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I'm sorry, but no - I don't see the similarities or what you're saying here.

If, as you said, the flow of oil is a concern for America - how could you say that Iran is no concern concerning their oil? This sounds pretty contradicting, doesn't it?

No, for about the ninth time, it isn't the volume of oil Iran produces, it is the stability of the Persian Gulf region that Iran has a potential influence on, since shipping is the cheapest way to get oil to market, that is an American security concern.

It isn't about Iran's oil, and it was never about Iraq's oil, per se, the American (and for that matter Chinese) strategic security concern is about all Persian Gulf oil and its flow into the international markets.

Iran's location on the Straights of Hormuz is a location security issue, not an oil pump security issue.

DR

 

[Oliver]

No, for about the ninth time, it isn't the volume of oil Iran produces, it is the stability of the Persian Gulf region that Iran has a potential influence on, since shipping is the cheapest way to get oil to market, that is an American security concern.

It isn't about Iran's oil, and it was never about Iraq's oil, per se, the American (and for that matter Chinese) strategic security concern is about all Persian Gulf oil and its flow into the international markets.

Iran's location on the Straights of Hormuz is a location security issue, not an oil pump security issue.

DR

I'm not sure if I understand - while I understand a thinkable "Persian Gulf Threat". Nobody in the recent past did threaten the Oil-Exports via the Persian Gulf - neither Iran nor Iraq. They could or could have (Iraq), that's for sure. But why is this a threat unless Iran, and I honestly doubt they would do this - out of their own national security interests, actually blocks any export?

 

[Oliver]

The "but they could"-Threat?

 

[WildCat]

Nobody in the recent past did threaten the Oil-Exports via the Persian Gulf - neither Iran nor Iraq.

Actually, both Iran and Iraq did just that.

In the "war of the tankers", each side attacked oil tankers and merchant ships in the Gulf in a bid to deprive the other of trade.


In fact, the tanker war served to internationalise the conflict.

After repeated Iranian attacks on its vessels, Kuwait appealed to outside powers for protection - and both the United States and the Soviet Union stepped in.
This helped turn the tide against Iran.

And Iran, you may recall, is still run by many of the same mullahs who held power in 1988.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I'm not sure if I understand - while I understand a thinkable "Persian Gulf Threat". Nobody in the recent past did threaten the Oil-Exports via the Persian Gulf - neither Iran nor Iraq. They could or could have (Iraq), that's for sure. But why is this a threat unless Iran, and I honestly doubt they would do this - out of their own national security interests, actually blocks any export?

Read up on the Iran Iraq war of 1980-1988. Please.

If they are blocking the exports of their enemies or their rivals in the oil business, such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, by cutting off access to market, they also put a pinch on any economy dependent on Mid East oil for fuel needs -- Japan, China, the US somewhat, various European nations -- and cause shortages and spot market spikes on the global oil market.

Taking such action is of course a risk, as there would be a global reaction. It is not a tactic to undertake lightly if you are in Teheran.

DR

 

[Oliver]

Actually, both Iran and Iraq did just that.

And Iran, you may recall, is still run by many of the same mullahs who held power in 1988.

Read up on the Iran Iraq war of 1980-1988. Please.

If they are blocking the exports of their enemies or their rivals in the oil business, such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, by cutting off access to market, they also put a pinch on any economy dependent on Mid East oil for fuel needs -- Japan, China, the US somewhat, various European nations -- and cause shortages and spot market spikes on the global oil market.

Taking such action is of course a risk, as there would be a global reaction. It is not a tactic to undertake lightly if you are in Teheran.

DR

Wait a second and give me a break.

I know about the conflict and the "war of the tankers" - but with "recent History" I have no Idea what this has to do with the invasion of Iraq or the conflict with Iran.

Darth, as far I understood him, says that both current conflicts are based on a theoretical threat that one of those countries may block the Oil-Flow???

Did I get this the right way?
Did Iran say they will block the Persian Gulf?
And aren't they free to say "We don't want to export to US&Friends anymore" anyway?

 

[Matteo Martini]

Okay, I see this is a more complex Issue and you seem to have a lot of questions regarding that.

You may understand that I like to stay on topic regarding this issue and I also got a "Spamming-Warning" from Darat to shift to issues that had been discussed in others of my threads, too.

So may I ask you to "bump" the thread in which I said things you didn't agree with? Maybe you can start an own thread about your questions, too - but you might ask an Admin first if this may be considered as "spamming", too.

Thank you for your understanding.

No, no..
I think you perfectly understood my simple point.
That is enough, for me.
Remember that Bush being bad, does not mean OBL being good.
This is is obvious., but, maybe, it is not obvious for you..

 

[Oliver]

No, no..
I think you perfectly understood my simple point.
That is enough, for me.
Remember that Bush being bad, does not mean OBL being good.
This is is obvious., but, maybe, it is not obvious for you..

I understand your point. What does this have to do with this thread?
And yes, I will be glad to answer your questions. Just ask me in a thread about this particular topic or start a new thread if this is conform to the board-rules.

You do understand that I'm willing to answer you, don't you?