Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 59 of 59

Thread: CIA 'using Saudi base for drone strikes'

  1. #51
    King Conspiratard
    Dr. Chuckles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-14 @ 03:04 PM
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    12,895

    Re: CIA 'using Saudi base for drone strikes'

    Quote Originally Posted by rathi View Post
    The presence of American bases on Saudi soil improves the ability to recruit warm bodies and drum up funding.
    Really, to what degree and based on what?


    Quote Originally Posted by rathi View Post
    has clearly demonstrated that with proper resources, they present a lethal threat to American citizens.
    Their limited ability to attack the US doesn't necessitate that we allow them to shape our foreign policy. We clearly have other options

    Quote Originally Posted by rathi View Post
    Ergo, keeping bases in Saudi Arabia is cost paid in blood. It makes no sense whatsoever to gamble with American lives when drone strikes can easily be launched from a carrier.
    Isn't that a massive amount of resources to dedicate to the operation, when we can just use assets in SA? I'm not military, so maybe I am missing the obvious here

    Quote Originally Posted by rathi View Post
    Saying "**** them" is a whiny emotional response that does nothing to address the reality of the situation we face.
    No, it's directly expressing my opinion about allowing such groups to shape our foreign policy. Because I really don't care what they thing, see no reason to change that, and would rather see them feel a need to challenge the US military and die

  2. #52
    King Conspiratard
    Dr. Chuckles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-14 @ 03:04 PM
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    12,895

    Re: CIA 'using Saudi base for drone strikes'

    Quote Originally Posted by Perotista View Post
    I agree John, I think the worst thing about America is where ever she goes she tries to force her type of government, moralistic point of view, even to change the culture and traditions of the nation or countries we are trying to help. I have seen that way too many times.
    So the assertion here is AQ speaks for the Saudi Arabian people?

  3. #53
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Michigan
    Last Seen
    01-28-15 @ 06:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    5,587
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: CIA 'using Saudi base for drone strikes'

    I don't think we should have molded a foreign policy around the wishes of just Osama bin Laden, but there is clear evidence that his distaste for American presence in Saudi Arabia was enough for the most spectacular terrorist attack of all-time, among several others. Surely, this belief is held amongst other Arabs too. So, after 9/11 happened, one should re-examine the worthiness of having a base in Saudi Arabia, correct? I would analyze that base(s). Might as well reflect upon our relationship with Israel while I'm at it too, since that was another major bin Laden/Arab reason for hating America. IIRC, both reasons were present in the '93 WTC bombers rationale as well. So at the very least, our entangling relationship with Saudi Arabia and Israel has cost America dearly on more than one occasion, with Arabs, including Osama bin Laden. No?

    But that's right. **** them. Who cares what Arabs think.

  4. #54
    King Conspiratard
    Dr. Chuckles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-14 @ 03:04 PM
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    12,895

    Re: CIA 'using Saudi base for drone strikes'

    Quote Originally Posted by Jango View Post
    I don't think we should have molded a foreign policy around the wishes of just Osama bin Laden, but there is clear evidence that his distaste for American presence in Saudi Arabia was enough for the most spectacular terrorist attack of all-time, among several others.
    so you're asserting AQ would moderate if we removed our troops from the region? Why didn't we see these effects in 2003, and how does that reconcile with thevartious AQ opperations that have nothing to do with that point of interest?




    Quote Originally Posted by Jango View Post
    So, after 9/11 happened, one should re-examine the worthiness of having a base in Saudi Arabia, correct? I would analyze that base(s).
    we did.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jango View Post
    Might as well reflect upon our relationship with Israel while I'm at it too, since that was another major bin Laden/Arab reason for hating America.
    While I'm highly critical of our current relationship with Israel, i'm sure my views on the topic are not compatible with AQ's and highly doubt yours are either



    Quote Originally Posted by Jango View Post
    But that's right. **** them. Who cares what Arabs think.
    1) you're, again, equivocating the demands of AQ and the Arab world. Despite the Arab world have very real issues with fundamentalism and extremism, AQ isn't very highly regarded in the region

    2) Yes, **** the extremists who have demands that are completely unreasonable, outside their sphere of legitimate control, and that we have no pressing need to cater to.

  5. #55
    Count Smackula
    rathi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    10-31-15 @ 10:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,890

    Re: CIA 'using Saudi base for drone strikes'

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Chuckles View Post
    Really, to what degree and based on what?
    Consider the nationality of most of the 9/11 Hijackers. Its quite clear that a large number of Saudis oppose any U.S. military presence in the region and a subset of that will actually do something about it.

    Their limited ability to attack the US doesn't necessitate that we allow them to shape our foreign policy. We clearly have other options
    Of course their limited ability to attack the U.S. shapes our foreign policy. Bin Laden is directly responsible for our 10 year stint in Afghanistan.

    Isn't that a massive amount of resources to dedicate to the operation, when we can just use assets in SA? I'm not military, so maybe I am missing the obvious here
    We don't have any other priority tasks for our carriers and we should have one in the region anyways. It is probably not a bad idea regardless considering that the bases in Saudi Arabia are much more vulnerable to attack.

    No, it's directly expressing my opinion about allowing such groups to shape our foreign policy. Because I really don't care what they thing, see no reason to change that, and would rather see them feel a need to challenge the US military and die
    Your whole argument is based on petty desire to say "Al Qaeda can't tell me what to do ". The correct argument is "what are we sacrificing in response to Al Qaeda's actions"? If it was something valuable like our oil deals or civil liberties, then its not worth it. There simply isn't enough importance in the bases to justify even a potential attack.

  6. #56
    King Conspiratard
    Dr. Chuckles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-14 @ 03:04 PM
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    12,895

    Re: CIA 'using Saudi base for drone strikes'

    Quote Originally Posted by rathi View Post
    Consider the nationality of most of the 9/11 Hijackers. Its quite clear that a large number of Saudis oppose any U.S. military presence in the region and a subset of that will actually do something about it.
    This doesn't follow at all. A group being dominated by a certain population doesn't denote that population predominately holding such views. Take for instance the KKK not representing the views of most White Americans. Also, general displeasure, if it does exist (which wouldn't surprise me), doesn't amount to opposition on the same level of importance as AQ



    Quote Originally Posted by rathi View Post
    Of course their limited ability to attack the U.S. shapes our foreign policy. Bin Laden is directly responsible for our 10 year stint in Afghanistan.
    It was rather clear my post concerned the demands of AQ directly dictating the wheres and whens of US foreign policy. This is drastically different to basing things like troop movements to counter their interests and activities



    Quote Originally Posted by rathi View Post
    We don't have any other priority tasks for our carriers and we should have one in the region anyways. It is probably not a bad idea regardless considering that the bases in Saudi Arabia are much more vulnerable to attack.
    again, I'm going to question the basis you are making this argument on. It seems rather pointless to tie that amount of assets into what seems a periphery concern of our operations in the region



    Quote Originally Posted by rathi View Post
    Your whole argument is based on petty desire to say "Al Qaeda can't tell me what to do ".
    No, it's based on the fact that there is seemingly no reason to listen to them ...


    Quote Originally Posted by rathi View Post
    The correct argument is "what are we sacrificing in response to Al Qaeda's actions"?
    We covered that above. You seem to think dedicating a carrier and it's support ships to the operation is preferable to operating a small group of assets out of SA.


    Quote Originally Posted by rathi View Post
    If it was something valuable like our oil deals or civil liberties, then its not worth it. There simply isn't enough importance in the bases to justify even a potential attack.
    If you go back and read the OP, the objection to the program was based on AQ's displeasure with a US troop presence in SA, not possible collateral damage further fueling an insurgency. Again, as I said at the beginning, there are plenty of reasonable points to challenge US foreign policy on. Not adhering to the religiously radical demands of AQ isn't one of them

  7. #57
    Sage
    Perotista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,916
    Blog Entries
    24

    Re: CIA 'using Saudi base for drone strikes'

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Chuckles View Post
    So the assertion here is AQ speaks for the Saudi Arabian people?
    I haven't the faintest idea how you ever came up with something like that.
    This Reform Party member thinks it is high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first and their political party further down the line. But for way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

  8. #58
    Count Smackula
    rathi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    10-31-15 @ 10:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,890

    Re: CIA 'using Saudi base for drone strikes'

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Chuckles View Post
    This doesn't follow at all. A group being dominated by a certain population doesn't denote that population predominately holding such views. Take for instance the KKK not representing the views of most White Americans. Also, general displeasure, if it does exist (which wouldn't surprise me), doesn't amount to opposition on the same level of importance as AQ
    It doesn't matter is the view is predominant or not in Saudi Arabia. What is clear is that you can use the justification of American bases in Saudi Arabia to recruit enough people and resources to perform significant attacks.

    It was rather clear my post concerned the demands of AQ directly dictating the wheres and whens of US foreign policy. This is drastically different to basing things like troop movements to counter their interests and activities
    The distinction is meaningless other than soothing the ego. You wish to avoid being viewed as "weak" for "giving in to AQ demands", which is understandable given the massive insecurity of American foreign policy. The truth is we have let terrorism utterly reshape our foreign policy, civil liberties and airline travel for the worse. The only question is whether you think its better to accept the reality of situation or act like a wannabe tough guy.

    again, I'm going to question the basis you are making this argument on. It seems rather pointless to tie that amount of assets into what seems a periphery concern of our operations in the region
    We have 11 carrier battlegroups, sparing one to perform drone strikes is an entirely reasonable use of resources.

    No, it's based on the fact that there is seemingly no reason to listen to them ...
    When somebody has both the ability and the willingness cause, you either to listen to them or face the consequences. Now maybe its worth accepting the consequences, but you can only decide that after carefully considering them.

    We covered that above. You seem to think dedicating a carrier and it's support ships to the operation is preferable to operating a small group of assets out of SA.
    It avoids the highly problematic political consequences. Aside from the "Holy Ground" issue, the drone strikes are massively unpopular and cause dissent against the Saudi government. Jeopardizing the stability of a major oil supplier is not something to be done lightly.

    If you go back and read the OP, the objection to the program was based on AQ's displeasure with a US troop presence in SA, not possible collateral damage further fueling an insurgency. Again, as I said at the beginning, there are plenty of reasonable points to challenge US foreign policy on. Not adhering to the religiously radical demands of AQ isn't one of them
    Like I said, reason has nothing to do with foreign policy. North Korea gets lot of money for making utterly insane demands simply because they are serious threat.

  9. #59
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Michigan
    Last Seen
    01-28-15 @ 06:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    5,587
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: CIA 'using Saudi base for drone strikes'

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Chuckles View Post
    so you're asserting AQ would moderate if we removed our troops from the region? Why didn't we see these effects in 2003, and how does that reconcile with thevartious AQ opperations that have nothing to do with that point of interest?
    I don't know if I'd go as far to say that they'd (al-Qaeda, specifically) would moderate towards the US mainland, but it's certainly possible that a concession could have yielded positive results in that perspective. I cannot say exactly how bin Laden would interpret a US withdrawal from Saudi Arabia. I suspect though, that he'd take it as a victory. Might say that the US is retreating. Something to that extent. Depends on the date.
    The War on Terrorism was well and away raging by 2003, so maybe bin Laden had more important things to think about? The Middle East was engulfed in War. I would believe, though, that Muslims in general would rejoice if the United States made certain concessions in foreign policy decisions. The alternative, is mad, upset Muslims that do stupid, moronic things. Right? Look at your hands, do the weighing out motion. That's what our foreign policy is like. On one hand, it is good for us, but, on the other hand, it is bad for someone else, somewhere in the world. That obviously and naturally upsets people. What really upsets people is when the offense revolves around religion. Knowledge of this anger would have pre-dated bin Laden's '96 fatwa.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Chuckles View Post
    we did.
    After 9/11? When? During Bush's administration?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Chuckles View Post
    While I'm highly critical of our current relationship with Israel, i'm sure my views on the topic are not compatible with AQ's and highly doubt yours are either
    No, I don't wish for the destruction of Israel, and I don't hate Jews. I dislike the situation between the Jews and the Palestinians very much though. I too, am critical of our relationship with Israel. The totality of our relationship bares crucial examination, in my opinion. It is complexing though, given World War II.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Chuckles View Post
    1) you're, again, equivocating the demands of AQ and the Arab world. Despite the Arab world have very real issues with fundamentalism and extremism, AQ isn't very highly regarded in the region
    I'm just of the opinion that having lily-pads in Saudi Arabia is bad for business. I guess when I know that terrorists like bin Laden have attacked our country because we've had bases in Saudi Arabia, it doesn't make me want to keep the bases in Saudi Arabia. 9/11 was beyond creative words that can encapsulate the horror, tragedy and terror. And among the chieftain reasons, was because we had bases in Saudi Arabia. I suppose that if our country, and some of my fellow compatriots want to hold on, and continue to wave an American flag in Saudi Arabia... I guess that's their prerogative.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Chuckles View Post
    2) Yes, **** the extremists who have demands that are completely unreasonable, outside their sphere of legitimate control, and that we have no pressing need to cater to.
    I dunno. I suspect that if we didn't have such an awesome military, and WMD to protect us, that more of us would have a deeper appreciation for things that a larger percentage of the world holds dear in their hearts. I suppose that I just have humility and that I put myself in other people's shoes more often, man. I could hardly imagine a foreign country invading us, telling us what to do, etc. But, we've got a long track record in doing just that and expecting people to simply tolerate it. So I am bound to be more open-minded about our military engagements. I certainly can see the benefits that it brings my country, but I have enough of a heart to recognize the pains it causes others.

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •