The Iran Event

[Geoff Weeks]

1 hour ago, tjc transport said:

i bet if all truck drivers sat home for a month or two and no diesel got sold the price would go down REAL FAST.

It would do little to the price and would crash the economy. 

During Covid, there was a world wide slow down in demand and the price dropped, beacuse there was no place that was using it at the old rate.

 Today, there is world wide demand, and that is what sets the price. If we cut demand here, it would just be sold to the highest bidder on the open market, which is, in other words, market price.  We would hurt ourselves and the overseas buyers would see the benefit.

The "downside" of free market economies.

[kscarbel2]

Wall Street's most powerful banker, JP Morgan's Jamie Dimon, back's the Trump Administration's military campaign against Iran, even as the conflict sends oil prices skyrocketing. 

Jamie said Tuesday that finishing the job in Iran mattered more than the stock market turmoil it has caused, arguing the volatility reflects uncertainty rather than a verdict on the war itself. 

'It's much more important that this be successfully completed than what the market does.' 

He says eliminating Iran's leadership is essential to neutralizing a threat that has festered for decades. 

'I mean, I hear some people say, "you know, Iran wasn't an imminent threat." A threat means I'm threatening you. I might do something bad. These people have doing something bad for 47 years. They've been killing people. They've been killing Americans. They funded that terrible Hamas thing ... Americans were killed on October 7 ... they've had proxy wars.'

'Further market turmoil should be expected. The global economy unpredictable. The market will be concerned until it's over.'

[Geoff Weeks]

sooo, where does that put North Korea, Russia, China......

All are nuclear and have ballistic missile systems, and would seam a greater "threat" if using the above criteria.  

[kscarbel2]

33 minutes ago, Geoff Weeks said:

sooo, where does that put North Korea, Russia, China......

All are nuclear and have ballistic missile systems, and would seam a greater "threat" if using the above criteria.  

China is a tough all-around competitor that keeps us on our toes. Russia is calculating, but not a threat to the US. The DPRK is a nuisance, but so is Somalia.

But Iran, they committed an act of war when they invaded the US embassy in Tehran in 1979 and kidnapped 66 Americans, holding most hostages for two years. This criminal act represented a massive humiliation (loss of face) for the US. The corrective action happening now is long overdue payback. The US is finishing what Iran started in 1979.

No American president, Republican nor Democrat, from Reagan to Biden, had the guts (apparently) to confront "Death to America" Iran, until DJT. He had Iran pegged back in the 1980s. Obama and Biden gave them cash.

[mowerman]

theres a lot of countrys out there i do not trust at all and would step all over us,at the drop of a hat,,,,,and touché to this administration for thier fine efforts,,,i cant see them sending that rocket up,in the middle of this,,but its certainly not my call..bob

[mrsmackpaul]

2 hours ago, kscarbel2 said:

But Iran, they committed an act of war when they invaded the US embassy in Tehran in 1979 

So if Australia wasn't happy with something the U.S. was doing and through the U.S. out of the U.S. embassy's in Australia that is a act of war ???

And then that gives the U.S. the right to invade and bomb Australia ?

From Google "Establishing an embassy requires consent from both governments. If diplomatic relations are severed, embassies are closed."

If Australia removed it's consent to any country having a embassy in Australia it doesn't automatically mean we have declared war on that country

I guess it's a bit like if you have guest's over to your house and a guest drinks to much and starts making a dick of them selves and you ask them to leave and they refuse to leave, you grab them by the scruff of their neck and physically remove them from you home, that doesn't give them the right to come back around give you a beating and take over your house

And then tell everyone that they are the victim here 

 

Paul 

 

 

 

 

[kscarbel2]

2 hours ago, mrsmackpaul said:

So if Australia wasn't happy with something the U.S. was doing and through the U.S. out of the U.S. embassy's in Australia that is a act of war ???

And then that gives the U.S. the right to invade and bomb Australia ?

From Google "Establishing an embassy requires consent from both governments. If diplomatic relations are severed, embassies are closed."

If Australia removed it's consent to any country having a embassy in Australia it doesn't automatically mean we have declared war on that country

I guess it's a bit like if you have guest's over to your house and a guest drinks to much and starts making a dick of them selves and you ask them to leave and they refuse to leave, you grab them by the scruff of their neck and physically remove them from you home, that doesn't give them the right to come back around give you a beating and take over your house

And then tell everyone that they are the victim here 

Paul 

Embassy property is considered inviolable (the host country can't enter without permission). It's protected by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

Iran did not enter the US embassy grounds in 1979 and throw out the American staff.

The American staff was not professionally ordered to leave Iran (expelled) and given any time to do so.

Rather, Iran threatened the embassy and staff with harm, and then took the staff hostage for two years.

[mrsmackpaul]

43 minutes ago, kscarbel2 said:

Embassy property is considered inviolable (the host country can't enter without permission). It's protected by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

I don't think this is exactly correct, the country the embassy and the embassy still belong to the host country

As long as things remain amicable between the host and guest things are fine

It's when things don't remain amicable is when it all gets a bit difficult 

When cultures collide as it often does, different standards and expectations are challenged 

If the host wants the guest to leave and they don't, things get even worse

When the guest is forcibly removed, it's  really going pare shaped

To be very clear, I am not defending any country here or blaming any country

Things could of possibly should of been done a lot different in 1979

But we can't change the past

And I feel the Middle East has been a mess by Western World standards since the beginning of time

 

Paul

[Vladislav]

Speaking the US ambassy event in 1979 what was the reason for Iranians to take hostage of the American diplomates? I haven't investigated the matter well enough yet but wasn't that something money related?

[Vladislav]

And how about this? Sounds almost fatal. https://m.economictimes.com/news/new-updates/nuclear-attack-on-iran-un-diplomat-resigns-saying-giving-up-my-career-to-leak-possible-nuke-missile-strike-plan/articleshow/129891916.cms

[kscarbel2]

42 minutes ago, mrsmackpaul said:

I don't think this is exactly correct, the country the embassy and the embassy still belong to the host country

As long as things remain amicable between the host and guest things are fine

It's when things don't remain amicable is when it all gets a bit difficult 

When cultures collide as it often does, different standards and expectations are challenged 

If the host wants the guest to leave and they don't, things get even worse

When the guest is forcibly removed, it's  really going pare shaped

To be very clear, I am not defending any country here or blaming any country

Things could of possibly should of been done a lot different in 1979

But we can't change the past

And I feel the Middle East has been a mess by Western World standards since the beginning of time

Paul

You're right Paul, the land belongs to the host country. Forgive me.

But under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the embassy is considered inviolable......i.e. the host country can't enter without permission).

When they burned the US flag, that meant war to me. Now President Trump is issuing payback.

.

 

[Geoff Weeks]

The above (NBC) clip is how I remember it also. It wasn't a government that invaded the embassy compound, rather the government failed to come to the aid of the of the embassy and disperse the rioters, which they should have done by international convention. If they wanted them out, they should have provided safe passage.

Too many want to forget the history where the US and UK overthrew a democratically elected ruler, and installed the Shah, which started the whole thing. It likely could have been avoided if we hadn't done that, or didn't shield the corrupt Shah, when he was deposed.   

Edited 1 hour ago by Geoff Weeks
clairfy which link I was referring to.