Orange Duce

[OCanada]

Saudi royal family money funded 9/11. Saudi Royal money also funds the Muslim schools globally that teach jihad

[OCanada]

Let’s not forget Trump backed out of a deal he could have made. Nor that the Republican Congress undercut previous deals.

Trump lies. Fox News repeats and amplifies, it becomes a self reenforcing cycle except fo the MSM that sometimes lays it bare among other actors

[old salt]

Saudi royal family money funded 9/11. Saudi Royal money also funds the Muslim schools globally that teach jihad

The Saudi royal family is huge. Smaller (& less wealthy) now, since MBS culled the herd at the Ritz Carlton.

afan -- yes, I approve this deal. It will allow the Saudis & UAE to prosecute their war in Yemen more effectively, with less collateral damage.
They will pursue that war with, or without our support, using their existing aircraft & dumb bombs.

Paveway kits convert dumb bombs to laser guided precision munitions.
An aircraft or ground spotter illuminates the target with a laser designator & a smaller bomb can be used.

Capable Air Forces in our Gulf allies means fewer USAF deployments to deter Iran.

[OCanada]

Size of family doesn’t really matter. Money flows do.

And we know the murderous capabilities of the family. They are currently preparing to execute a boy for crimes he committed when he was 10 years old

[MDlaxfan76]

but, but...Iran.

[foreverlax]

Was any Saudi military equipment or technology used on 9-11 ?
The terrorists purchased their flight training in the USA.

What are you saying here?

[old salt]

Was any Saudi military equipment or technology used on 9-11 ?
The terrorists purchased their flight training in the USA.

What are you saying here?

Pointing out what a stretch it is to tie arms sales to SA (now) to 9-11.

One of OBL's major beefs, was USAF squadrons based in SA, flying missions against Iraq, to enforce no fly zones for a decade.

Now, were selling arms to SA so we don't have to be there, defending them & deterring Iran.

The Saudi "10 year old" was arrested 5 years ago when he was 13.
How did Obama let that happen ?

[a fan]

Pointing out what a stretch it is to tie arms sales to SA (now) to 9-11.

Strawman! (see how easy it is to guess what a guy means, and get it wrong?)

That's not what I meant. What I meant was: Saudi Arabia is filled with religious nutjobs (hence the 9/11 reminder). And we're giving them arms. Just like we did in Afghanistan. Just like we did with Saddam. And there are many more examples.

And how many times have these same "friends" either used these weapons and training either against us.....or to further interests that are contrary to our own?

And yet we do it again, and again, and again. You're acting like we're "supposed" to have a quarrel with Yemen, "therefore" we should give weapons to the Saudis.

In addition: Pottery Barn. We're on the hook for what happens to the Yemeni people now, aren't we?

[old salt]

Pointing out what a stretch it is to tie arms sales to SA (now) to 9-11.

Strawman! (see how easy it is to guess what a guy means, and get it wrong?)

That's not what I meant. What I meant was: Saudi Arabia is filled with religious nutjobs (hence the 9/11 reminder). And we're giving them arms. Just like we did in Afghanistan. Just like we did with Saddam. And there are many more examples.

And how many times have these same "friends" either used these weapons and training either against us.....or to further interests that are contrary to our own?

And yet we do it again, and again, and again. You're acting like we're "supposed" to have a quarrel with Yemen, "therefore" we should give weapons to the Saudis.

In addition: Pottery Barn. We're on the hook for what happens to the Yemeni people now, aren't we?

Relax. The Saudi F-15s don't have the range to strike the US. The Houthi rebels in Yemen are Iranian proxies firing Iranian missiles into SA (& within range of our forces in Qatar & Bahrain). The Saudis have a right to defend their territory. We're selling them arms, not giving them.
We're not on the hook for Yemen unless we invade & occupy.

Again & again & again ? Who ? The Iranian's haven't used their old US made stuff against us.
They can't get the engines & spare parts to keep them operational.
Saddam didn't have any US stuff to use against us. It was Russian, French, British & German stuff.

You may have noticed that the Israelis & Sunni Arabs have quietly become allies in the face of threats to the region from Iran.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Pointing out what a stretch it is to tie arms sales to SA (now) to 9-11.

Strawman! (see how easy it is to guess what a guy means, and get it wrong?)

That's not what I meant. What I meant was: Saudi Arabia is filled with religious nutjobs (hence the 9/11 reminder). And we're giving them arms. Just like we did in Afghanistan. Just like we did with Saddam. And there are many more examples.

And how many times have these same "friends" either used these weapons and training either against us.....or to further interests that are contrary to our own?

And yet we do it again, and again, and again. You're acting like we're "supposed" to have a quarrel with Yemen, "therefore" we should give weapons to the Saudis.

In addition: Pottery Barn. We're on the hook for what happens to the Yemeni people now, aren't we?

Relax. The Saudi F-15s don't have the range to strike the US. The Houthi rebels in Yemen are Iranian proxies firing Iranian missiles into SA (& within range of our forces in Qatar & Bahrain). The Saudis have a right to defend their territory. We're selling them arms, not giving them.
We're not on the hook for Yemen unless we invade & occupy.

Again & again & again ? Who ? The Iranian's haven't used their old US made stuff against us.
They can't get the engines & spare parts to keep them operational.
Saddam didn't have any US stuff to use against us. It was Russian, French, British & German stuff.

You may have noticed that the Israelis & Sunni Arabs have quietly become allies in the face of threats to the region from Iran.

The Saudi’s just came here and learned how to fly our planes and not land and then used our our planes to kill our people. You can cheer for supporting them.

[a fan]

Relax. The Saudi F-15s don't have the range to strike the US.

I'm sure Reagan and Rumsfeld thought the same thing when the backed Saddam.

Whoops.

The Houthi rebels in Yemen are Iranian proxies firing Iranian missiles into SA (& within range of our forces in Qatar & Bahrain). The Saudis have a right to defend their territory.

Yup. This has----what to with America, again? Nothing. It has nothing to do with America. And yet here we are again, getting in the middle of things. Using this mindset, how many times have we made thing worse again? I've lost count.

We're not on the hook for Yemen unless we invade & occupy.

We're on the hook for the behavior of those we back militarily. See: Saddam, as a reminder.

Again & again & again ?

Backing Saddam. Backing what would become Al-Q against the Russians in Afghanistan. Backing Pahlavi in Iran. It happens so freaking often that they have a freaking term for it in intel: "blowback". "Whoops. Now what? " "Whoops we didn't think they're be consequences to backing a power hungry leader in the Middle East".

And lastly on the "again and again and again": why do you think Iran is such a threat? Oh, that's right. We thought it would be a brilliant move to wipe out one of the two major powers in the region, and took out Saddam for Iran, declaring Iran the winner. Consequences? What consequences? We're 'murica, remember? Worry about what happens next some other time, right?

And now you're acting like I'm insane for pointing out that we're the brilliant architects of the current mess, and maybe would ought to consider---consider----stop doing the same thing, expecting different results.

You may have noticed that the Israelis & Sunni Arabs have quietly become allies in the face of threats to the region from Iran.

Sure have. What could possibly go wrong there?

[old salt]

Your simplistic what if's & if only's are fantasies, which ignore what the rest of the world does.

The Shah was one of our Cold War allies, blocking the USSR & their Arab allies from controlling the global oil supply.
So after the Shah fell, we should have just watched while Revolutionary Iran defeated & occupied Iraq ?
Or having saved Saddam, we should have then detached & watched him annex Kuwait, then defeat & annex Saudi Arabia & the Gulf States, then resume his war with Iran, unsettling & jeopardizing the global oil supply.

Like it or not, we inherited the duties of global cop after WW-II.
After the Cold War, our power increased, but so did our responsibilities.
You can't deny that keeping Persian Gulf oil flowing was critical, & still is.
Otherwise, there wouldn't always be a coalition of allies willing to join us whenever regional stability is threatened.

You think you can remove one critical variable in a complex formula & the results won't be worse.
We've been the force that has kept the oil flowing & maintained what stability there has been.
Without our involvement in the region, Israel would have been wiped out or they'd have used their nucs to survive.
...& the gas lines would not have ended in the '70's.
I'm sick of the Middle East too, but somebody's gotta do it.
The Saudis are gonna buy their arms from someone. This way, we still have some influence.

[OCanada]

The USA created the Iran problem when the CIA overthrew the freely elected President. Saddam never had the muscle to defeat Iran on its own.

The good news is oil’s influence is going to decline.

Peace would have a far better chance if SA were neutered. Personally a would prefer to have zero ties to SA. A country that funds terrorism and will kill a kid for crimes committed when he was 10. But we should have military and political control ofvtgisexweapons not enabling SA

Trump’s calculus is venality and self aggrandizement and investors.

[OCanada]

Trump from the Russian POV.


Russia’s state TV has described Trump as a self-proclaimed master of the deal, with no deals. “You will laugh, but Trump doesn’t have a single ratified deal under his belt. He's only destroying existing deals & agreements,” says top Kremlin propagandist Dmitry Kiselyov.

Further what he has accomplished fits well with Russia’s strategic goals.


Sent from my iPhone

[foreverlax]

Your simplistic what if's & if only's are fantasies, which ignore what the rest of the world does.

The Shah was one of our Cold War allies, blocking the USSR & their Arab allies from controlling the global oil supply.
So after the Shah fell, we should have just watched while Revolutionary Iran defeated & occupied Iraq ?
Or having saved Saddam, we should have then detached & watched him annex Kuwait, then defeat & annex Saudi Arabia & the Gulf States, then resume his war with Iran, unsettling & jeopardizing the global oil supply.

Like it or not, we inherited the duties of global cop after WW-II.
After the Cold War, our power increased, but so did our responsibilities.
You can't deny that keeping Persian Gulf oil flowing was critical, & still is.
Otherwise, there wouldn't always be a coalition of allies willing to join us whenever regional stability is threatened.

You think you can remove one critical variable in a complex formula & the results won't be worse.
We've been the force that has kept the oil flowing & maintained what stability there has been.
Without our involvement in the region, Israel would have been wiped out or they'd have used their nucs to survive.
...& the gas lines would not have ended in the '70's.
I'm sick of the Middle East too, but somebody's gotta do it.
The Saudis are gonna buy their arms from someone. This way, we still have some influence.

Influence? Good one...we let SA do what they want as long as those in charge make more money.

[OCanada]

The demonizing of Iran by making them bigger than they are is amazing.

Saddam was never going to create the imaginary empire being hypothesized. He was basically secular and the leader of a badly split country. The rest of the Middle East hated him. Iraq wa defanged back in the late 1990s. But we had to lie our way into a war and then screw up the occupation creating a huge mess. Is Iraq producing more or less oil since our invasion?

This is starting to read like theckind of thing that got us into Vietnam. Dominoes

Israel has built up a nice nuclear deterrent since the French began helping them back in the 1950s.

SA as a picked upon country trying to ward off countries like Yemen mid a picture that doesn’t white work.

[foreverlax]

The Dealer in Chief -

from 06/11/16 - today

-Trade deficit has increased by 16%

-Trade deficit with China has increased by 13%

-Personal debt has increased by 8%

-Debt per citizen increased 12%

-Debt per tax payer increased 7%

[old salt]

Saddam was never going to create the imaginary empire being hypothesized. He was basically secular and the leader of a badly split country. The rest of the Middle East hated him. Iraq wa defanged back in the late 1990s. But we had to lie our way into a war and then bag up the occupation creating a huge mess. Is Iraq producing more or less oil since our invasion?

You have a very selective memory re Saddam. You grossly understate his ambitions for regional hegemony & the respect & support he was accorded throughout the Arab world. Recall his image in western media, @ 1990 -- by fighting off the Persians for a bloody decade, he was the Lion of Arabia. A Soviet ally & admirer of Stalin, he had visions of uniting the Arab Gulf states under his rule, as his role model Stalin had consolidated his rule of the Soviet continental empire & sphere of influence. As the US debated responding to his annexation of Kuwait, recall the trepidation about talking on his battle hardened 3rd largest army in the world, equipped with the latest in Russian & French weaponry.

This is the most objective short history of Saddam I could find. I recommend we use it as the basis for our discussion.
https://www.fpri.org/article/2007/02/sa ... in-tigris/

As I've stated to afan many times -- imho, our decision to build the Gulf War Coalition & to mount Desert Shield/Storm in '91, was the hinge point of our involvement in the ME. Before then, we were content to keep the oil flowing by playing off Iraq vs Iran. It required only that we maintain a small naval presence inside the Gulf. Saddam's annexation of Kuwait changed all that. The Coalition & Desert Shield/Storm were rightfully hailed as monumental diplomatic & military accomplishments. But they turned out to be relatively short term successes, bringing decades of costly unintended consequences, requiring our continued involvement, making disengagement impossible.

Were you with the majority of America & the civilized world who supported & cheered our success in Desert Storm, or were you among the few dissenters, like Jim Webb, Pat Buchanan, Zbig Brez or Evans & Novak, who warned against the long term consequences of finally putting US boots on Arab soil ? Were you content to let Saddam retain & absorb Kuwait as a province of Iraq, ...as Putin intends to do by annexing & retaining Crimea as part of Russia ?

[OCanada]

You grossly exaggerate the difference between ambition and ability to achieve. As Lawrence learned the Arab world is not always what it appears to be.

Personally I was opposed to both Afghanistan and Iraq and pretty much in the ballpark with the consequences.

We had OBL trapped and Bush let him go. We should have taken him and called it a day.

Good thing Iraq paid for the war and Congress raised taxes rather than borrow the money. Some other universe I guess

[old salt]

The question was not about Afghanistan (2001) or Iraq (2003)

Did you oppose the Coalition & Desert Shield/Storm in 1991 ?

9/11 & the Afghanistan & Iraq wars flowed from then.

Had OBL trapped & let him go ? Don't buy the Tora Bora BS. He was gone before we could have gotten down into the caves.

You're not interested in a serious discussion. Just mouthing worn out political talking points.