5 Iran tankers sailing to Venezuela amid US pressure tactics

Why?? Technically "squatters" everywhere would be considered "indigenous".

 

My post proves your statement true.

 

Poppycock.

The CIA clearly used their mind control ray machine on Maduro and forced him to take control of the oil production facilities and run them into the ground.

 

You speak for what you imagine you know. What I know is this -- and unlike you, I can back up my version with facts which occurred and don't need to rely on any fantasies either:

14 May 2020
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...el-shipment-to-venezuela-source-idUSKBN22Q2RI
Exclusive: U.S. weighs measures in response to Iran fuel shipment to Venezuela - source

20 May 2020
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-seeks-ways-to-halt-irans-oil-sales-to-venezuela-11589985467
U.S. Seeks Ways to Halt Iran’s Oil Sales to Venezuela
Iran furthers recent efforts to gain a foothold in Latin America despite U.S. pressure

20 May 2020
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-iran-inch-toward-showdown-over-gas-tankers-to-venezuela-2020-5
The US and Iran are inching toward another showdown, this time much closer to the US

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ker-us-trump-maduro-syria-assad-a9531671.html
Iranian oil tankers reach Venezuela in defiance of US

27 May 2020
I post the video, instead of US propaganda reports, since even in Spanish, it is clear who Maduro is thanking.

 

Sure ...
only it was really hypocritical in many things and unfortunately it still is today!
On the one hand you dance around in the back gardens and front gardens of the others and expect that they will accept that and you won't find anything strange about it ... because, as I was told here, you are the great USA and you are allowed to. But if these others do that with you, then you get hypocritical!
And from a current perspective, you are already dancing Putin's roses in the front yard ... e.g. in Georgia and Ukraine. Sorry, this is not your area and you have no business there!

Then it is hypocritical for the United States to present itself as the best and greatest democracy on the planet, the freest country in the world, where everyone else should act as a model. Then why do you support so many bastards of regimes around the world ... and also help to suppress the population if they want to take you as an example and want to have the same in their country as you, eh?

 

I only wait on the issue when Iranian tankers drive to Cuba ... or Chinese do so as an alternative ... and what happens then.
Should be interesting if the USA then behaves like an old colonial lord somehow we had that under Kennedy before, eh?
Yes ... I know: These evil Russians have evil missiles stationed in Cuba that could do pretty much anything except for Alaska in the United States. Was it the evil impudence of the Russians to do something like that ... just ... you Americans had previously done the same with your missiles in Turkey and years later it came out that you secretly agreed that after the Russian missiles had left from Cuba, the US missles in Turkey were also withdrawn.

 

Too many nations in this world, even China and Russia, have often tolerated US bullying instead of standing up to it. At some point, the Europeans (who, I am sorry to say, force appeasement on everyone else to hide their own appeasement of American bullying), the Russians (who seem to crave western acceptance more than anything else), and even the Chinese (who so worried about how the US can hurt their mercantile business, they sometimes forget how much they can do in return to hurt the US back) simply coddle and tolerate behavior from the US/Israel that none of them should. Not in the 21st century after all that one would hope people have learned from history.

 

The United States is the best and greatest democracy on the planet.

Which means we get to do what we want with lesser countries.

 

Why do you believe the US would not have acted, had the Iranian tankers going to Venezuela been deemed a marginal or better threat to US security?

 

I believe those tankers sailing to Venezuela were no threat to US security at all. They were, however, a major threat to the US ability to be a bully by just running its mouth without any good cause or ground.

Lets be clear: I have no problems with, nor does even Iran have a problem with, the US defending itself against genuine threats to its security. And everyone in the world realizes that if faced by a real threat to its actual security, the US has the means to destroy that threat.

The problem Iran has is with the US being a bully, abusing notions of security and stretching them as far and wide as suits its illegitimate purposes, and trying to meddle in issues that are none of its legitimate business. In those circumstances, Iran's stance is that when principle is at stake, considering that we are all (bullies and bullied alike) mortals that will one go away anyway, the way you react to a bully is to say: NO YOU DON'T. You stand up to the bully, point your finger towards his eyes and your fist at its mouth. A bully without a just cause to motivate him, only trying to be a bully, will usually blink and run away.

 

Why?

 

Because of what happens when you don't stand up to bullies and let them bully you around.

 

What's the worst that can happen?

 

I don't need to know the 'worst that can happen': to me, even less than the worst could and would be quite hellish indeed (both in the material and spiritual sense). In fact, what has happened already is pretty bad as it is. And America being an unabashed bully is mostly a new thing, so we aren't even close to knowing the worst yet! Certainly, that posture of being simply a bully wasn't the one the US liked to advertise when it was competing with the Soviets for the hearts and minds of people and nations around the world.

 

Really ? We been the world leader in supporting terrorists and abuse of human rights for the last couple of decades - had our hand in the drug business as well ... When do we get Sanctions put on the USA ?

Time to wake up and smell the flatus.

 

Not true at all. But then again you get your "history" from bad Tom Cruise movies as you've admitted

 

You got up the courage for another beat down you going to run away at the end like always ?

who has supported more terror than the US since Rotten Ronnie - been responsible for more crimes against humanity ?

 

Reagan never supported terrorists. Though I suppose you label anti communist insurgents in central America as "terrorists".

 

Of course Reagan supported terrorists - training many of the groups in terror tactics at the school of the America's.

Then you try to apply happy labels to death squads who committed massive humanitarian atrocities - but we already had this discussion.

You were OK with these "anti commie insurgents" dragging children over barbed wire fences "till the flesh hung from their bones" - in front of their parents because . and I quote "They were our bad guys"

Now you are claiming these were not acts of terror by the "Dayton Definition".

What is this terror definition that does not include such atrocities ... does your definition only apply to "Muslim"s ?

What a joke -- as usual.

 

That's a good question. I don't pretend to have an exact answer. But we can be fairly certain that the Arab majority living in Palestine when it was invaded by Zionist terrorists were the rightful inhabitants of the land.

 

You keep dodging the fact that most of the world's oil production is under the control of state-owned oil companies. Venezuela is hardly unique in that regard. So your theory that Venezuela's economic issues must stem from nationalization of their oil supply doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

 

While most of the tankers have already docked and have begun unloading their fuel, the US is claiming that at least one of them (or maybe two) have been redirected from Venezuela based on pressure applied on Liberia (the place where one of the tankers is registered to). We need more facts to unfold to differentiate facts from propaganda, but regardless, the US is trying to use its 'economic and diplomatic clout' to scare away those who are always ready to be scared away from doing their job and living up to their legal commitments.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/us-disrupts-iranian-fuel-deliveries-venezuela-official-says

 

I should point out, incidentally, that before these reports in FOX and some other media, the headlines from wire services showed the 4th Iranian tanker had already arrived in Venezuela waters as well.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...uelan-port-us-slams-distraction-idUSKBN2342ZT
Fourth Iranian tanker docks at Venezuelan port, U.S. slams 'distraction'

 

they are threatening the petrodollar, America's economic security is the same as its national security.

obama would be the kind of president to violate international law, President Trump will allow this.

 

You are so deluded in so many ways, it is not even funny. And I don't really have the patience to go through all that I would need to go through to set you straight. But I will give you some short-hand to help you along:

International Law = the norms and practices reflecting the dominant world order represented by the "North Atlantic Alliance", i.e. US+its European powers and their sidekicks and vassals. In the US, the Democratic party is now the main center for still giving lip service to 'international law'.

World Economic System = a system that arose from a time when the US+ friends were the dominant economic powers in the world, with the US Dollar serving as the main reserve currency for world central banks and the currency for international trade. The global economic system is most closely, and its interests, are more associated with the Europeans and their partners in the Democratic party.

Project for a New American Century/NEOCONS = a project that saw the fall of the Soviet Union as freeing the US from abiding from old constraints -- constraints that were status quo in nature and didn't fit their plans for expansion and hegemony, in particular the expansion of their colonial outpost called Israel. For these folks, "international law'", EU, China, Russia, Iran et al, were all various shades of impediments to their designs and plans. Their base of power is the Republican party in the US in alliance with Israel.

MAGA Crowd == a splinter group arising from the PNAC crowd, who wanted to bring Russia as partner in a crusade against Islam and Iran, doing what the PNAC crowd wanted but with new alliances for this purpose. The mainstream neocons were unhappy with the idea of giving up their big bogeyman that is one of the main justifications for their military budgets and such and split with this group on the questions relating to Russia. But otherwise, they both are on the same PNAC script.

Non-Interventionist = a small coterie of Republican (and left of center Democrats) who are being played by the MAGA crowd and the necons while imagining they have any influence over what the US is doing!