• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Saudi Arabia warns U.S. that policy on Syria, Iran straining decades-old [W:70]

Exactly, Bush spent $3T to give Iran hegemony over the region by decapitating the Iraqi state. Thanks Bush; Iran would have done it for free.

Continue to spiral wildly off course, I love it.
 
No, not even in a decade will the US be completely independent of foreign oil. You really haven't looked into the question at all yet. Fracking has so far been a miniscule contribution to the 20 million barrels of oil your country consumes every day. Do you have any idea whatsoever how much of that is domestic oil? Do you have any idea how much comes from Canada?

Become informed and I will continue to discuss the issue with you.

As to Saudi supply, I will add that it's indeterminate at the moment. There are very valid suspicions that Saudi doesn't have the reserves they have claimed but we still don't know exactly what they have in the ground.

Focus: I didn't say we'd be independent; I said we'd be producing more than them, which is true. That means lower prices worldwide, especially as natural gas supplants oil as the major energy source. And that will leave the Saudi kleptocracy in a bad position. Something we should encourage. The Saudi government is an enemy to democracy and secular society.
 
Last edited:
Right! Saudi oil will continue to be pumped out of the ground as long as it exists in the ground. The US has so far shown no decline in it's dependence on it. The facts on the ground always trump the facts in people's minds and Americans' delusions of grandeur that they will be oil independent on outside sources. Fracking considered!

Oil will become increasingly irrelevant as industry shifts to natural gas, whose supply, due to frackng is exploding to an extent that the US will likely have enough cheap natural gas to last a century.

The consequences will be disastrous for the Saudis, and they know it. So expect them to become an even more disruptive force in the Middle East in order to drive up oil prices. We should oppose them any way possible. They are not and never were our ally.
 
Oil will become increasingly irrelevant as industry shifts to natural gas, whose supply, due to frackng is exploding to an extent that the US will likely have enough cheap natural gas to last a century.

The consequences will be disastrous for the Saudis, and they know it. So expect them to become an even more disruptive force in the Middle East in order to drive up oil prices. We should oppose them any way possible. They are not and never were our ally.

That may be true for the power industry, but the automotive industry natural gas is still less viable except for local use.
 
This just more proof that we don't need to stick our dick in the hole called the middle east.
 
Oil will become increasingly irrelevant as industry shifts to natural gas, whose supply, due to frackng is exploding to an extent that the US will likely have enough cheap natural gas to last a century.

The consequences will be disastrous for the Saudis, and they know it. So expect them to become an even more disruptive force in the Middle East in order to drive up oil prices. We should oppose them any way possible. They are not and never were our ally.

Sorry, a little off topic, but you're OK with fracking?
 
That may be true for the power industry, but the automotive industry natural gas is still less viable except for local use.

Since we can generate electricity cheaply with natural gas, and since automobiles will be increasingly electric in the next decade, this isn't a compelling argument at all.

The Saudis see the writing on the wall. They know their oil monopoly only has a decade or two left. So expect them to thrash about in their death throes. It is an eternal shame to the democratic traditions of the US that we ever supported that loathsome monarchy.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, a little off topic, but you're OK with fracking?

Regulated fracking, yep. We need rules to prevent leaking at the ground level where the intrusions into water supplies are occurring, and we need to know exactly what chemicals the industry is using, so they can be tested and regulated.

That may add some minimal extra cost to the process, but not enough to prevent fracking from providing us with a potential century of cheap energy -- and cheap energy is the engine of huge economic growth. We're sitting on a gold mine, if we just go forward in a prudent safe way.
 
Regulated fracking, yep. We need rules to prevent leaking at the ground level where the intrusions into water supplies are occurring, and we need to know exactly what chemicals the industry is using, so they can be tested and regulated.

That may add some minimal extra cost to the process, but not enough to prevent fracking from providing us with a potential century of cheap energy -- and cheap energy is the engine of huge economic growth. We're sitting on a gold mine, if we just go forward in a prudent safe way.

I can agree with that.
 
Focus: I didn't say we'd be independent; I said we'd be producing more than them, which is true. That means lower prices worldwide, especially as natural gas supplants oil as the major energy source. And that will leave the Saudi kleptocracy in a bad position. Something we should encourage. The Saudi government is an enemy to democracy and secular society.

To be honest the Saudi royals might be bad, but what they are keeping out is even worse. You dont want make the same mistake as the US did in Iraq do you now..
 
You've made it clear that your own display is showing that because of your hate for Obama you are condemning him for what is obviously taking the high road with Iran and Syria. He's prevented war so far at least.

That's what the GOP wanted isn't it or is that what they didn't want or is that what they wanted?

And not only that, because of your Obama hate you would gleefully be on the side of the Saudis in their blackmail attempts against the US! Do you really think grownups take you seriously?

Every time you make a post, I'm less certain you will graduate 8th grade next June. Wipe your nose and run on back to class.
 
To be honest the Saudi royals might be bad, but what they are keeping out is even worse. You dont want make the same mistake as the US did in Iraq do you now..

Which mistake is that?
 
Which mistake is that?

Yea.. which ones... lets see.

Letting extremists into power in Iraq and letting Iran gain more power in the region for starters
 
Yea.. which ones... lets see.

Letting extremists into power in Iraq and letting Iran gain more power in the region for starters

Extremist Shia's into power in Iraq thus gaining more power to Iran in the region. But what are the Saudi's holding and are thus the better of two evils with that?

Sunni's are the majority in Saudi Arabia (if not 100%). So what are they within Saudi Arabia that say if you were to remove (technically impossible for they are 100%) you would have to deal with far worse people such as the Shia were in Iraq?

What is the analogy of not making the mistake in Saudi Arabia just as it was in Iraq?
 
Oil will become increasingly irrelevant as industry shifts to natural gas, whose supply, due to frackng is exploding to an extent that the US will likely have enough cheap natural gas to last a century.

The consequences will be disastrous for the Saudis, and they know it. So expect them to become an even more disruptive force in the Middle East in order to drive up oil prices. We should oppose them any way possible. They are not and never were our ally.

wow.gif
Say it isn't so! Stop the Presses and Set the Breaking News. Someone be quicks like and contact Fox news and NBC. We Just got the Heart of the left agreeing with those on the Right......and over the Saudis too.
geez.gif


That's the first time I ever heard you admit to doing what is Right.

You did Get it Right.....they should be opposed and in All ways Possible. Let them start to experience some of that Systematic genocide and watch how fast they change their Chirpping and whining and getting up on that World Stage.
 
Last edited:
Extremist Shia's into power in Iraq thus gaining more power to Iran in the region. But what are the Saudi's holding and are thus the better of two evils with that?

Sunni's are the majority in Saudi Arabia (if not 100%).

Majority yes, 100% no. Guess where the Shia live in Saudi Arabia?.... let me give you a hint.. there be oil under their feet.

So what are they within Saudi Arabia that say if you were to remove (technically impossible for they are 100%) you would have to deal with far worse people such as the Shia were in Iraq?

The religious types in Saudi Arabia are bad.. really bad, and could make the Iranian mullahs look like boy scouts. The only thing keeping them in check is the Saudi Royal family, and the only thing that keeps them from declaring a holy war against Shia, Christians and Jews is.. the Saudi Royal family.

What is the analogy of not making the mistake in Saudi Arabia just as it was in Iraq?

The mistake in Iraq was to remove Saddam, who was keeping both religions in check.. yes he was a bastard and mass murderer, but in the end I would rather have him around than a massive religious war in the region that will spread across the planet. The mistake of removing the Saudi Royals is letting the crazy nutso religious branch of Sunni Islam go amok as a state, like what the Shia have done in Iran.

This all boils down to the internal divisions in Islam, pure and simple. The west has a choice.. choose a side, or butt out and let the pieces fall where they may. I doubt that we will butt out..

So the question boils down to.. who do you trust more, the Sunni's who gave us Bin Laden or the Shia who gave us the Mullahs in Tehran? Hard choice..
 

They must laugh at the clowns that represent America these days. We might as well be running Stuart Smalley or Boy George out to the Middle East.

More Obama administration incompetence on full display again. I think he is the first American president to find a way to get everybody else in the world mad at us. Most manage just to get a few.

One of the reasons the Sauds are so pissed at us is because we've backed down from our threats to bomb Syria, where Saudi Arabia is funding insurgents to overthrow Assad and remove Iran's ally in the region.

A move which Republicans opposed. I'm not saying we should have bombed Syria to keep the Saudis happy, far from it, but its impossible keep everyone happy in foreign relations so posting a link about another nation being upset about a decision we made in our own interests is hardly saying a President, any President, is incompetent thats just reality.
 
Majority yes, 100% no. Guess where the Shia live in Saudi Arabia?.... let me give you a hint.. there be oil under their feet.

The religious types in Saudi Arabia are bad.. really bad, and could make the Iranian mullahs look like boy scouts. The only thing keeping them in check is the Saudi Royal family, and the only thing that keeps them from declaring a holy war against Shia, Christians and Jews is.. the Saudi Royal family.

The mistake in Iraq was to remove Saddam, who was keeping both religions in check.. yes he was a bastard and mass murderer, but in the end I would rather have him around than a massive religious war in the region that will spread across the planet. The mistake of removing the Saudi Royals is letting the crazy nutso religious branch of Sunni Islam go amok as a state, like what the Shia have done in Iran.

This all boils down to the internal divisions in Islam, pure and simple. The west has a choice.. choose a side, or butt out and let the pieces fall where they may. I doubt that we will butt out..

So the question boils down to.. who do you trust more, the Sunni's who gave us Bin Laden or the Shia who gave us the Mullahs in Tehran? Hard choice..

Thanks for clarifying your analogy. I get you now and agree for the most part.

Still, Saddam had to go! Nothing gives a man the right to treat other people the way he did. Even if he did oppress the Shia religious in Iraq. You could venture (if you have such a thick skin) in Youtube and see what he did to his captives.

As for the decision between the two, perhaps names could help. You have: a) Sunni's, and b) Shiite's ;)
 
Moderator's Warning:
Be careful not to attack other posters.
 

The nation that had the most 9/11 terrorists is trying to threaten us? They do realize our government is in love with the idea of an infinity war in the region....Obama will happily bomb them with his drones too.
 
One of the reasons the Sauds are so pissed at us is because we've backed down from our threats to bomb Syria, where Saudi Arabia is funding insurgents to overthrow Assad and remove Iran's ally in the region.

A move which Republicans opposed. I'm not saying we should have bombed Syria to keep the Saudis happy, far from it, but its impossible keep everyone happy in foreign relations so posting a link about another nation being upset about a decision we made in our own interests is hardly saying a President, any President, is incompetent thats just reality.

Well if that was the only reason, Id agree with you had Obama not told the world he was going to attack them to begin with. When Obama and Kerry hit the stage saying they were going to attack Syria, other countries expect and plan on that happening. Plus the fact that Obama has promised to arm the rebels before mostly backtracking on that as well. The Saudi's lost credibility with the rebels because every time the wind changed directions, Obama went with it. And all that happened after Obama turn his back on an American and Saudi ally, Mubarak. Plus the situation Obama has placed them in due to his incompetence on Iraq and Iran.

Nothing has been thought out by this incompetent administration.
 
Well if that was the only reason, Id agree with you had Obama not told the world he was going to attack them to begin with. When Obama and Kerry hit the stage saying they were going to attack Syria, other countries expect and plan on that happening. Plus the fact that Obama has promised to arm the rebels before mostly backtracking on that as well. The Saudi's lost credibility with the rebels because every time the wind changed directions, Obama went with it. And all that happened after Obama turn his back on an American and Saudi ally, Mubarak. Plus the situation Obama has placed them in due to his incompetence on Iraq and Iran.

Nothing has been thought out by this incompetent administration.

Didn't he mention something about governing from one crisis to another? :lol:
 
Didn't he mention something about governing from one crisis to another? :lol:

Yes he did.

But like everything else with him, rules, law, advice...apply to other people.
 
Thanks for clarifying your analogy. I get you now and agree for the most part.

Still, Saddam had to go! Nothing gives a man the right to treat other people the way he did. Even if he did oppress the Shia religious in Iraq. You could venture (if you have such a thick skin) in Youtube and see what he did to his captives.

As for the decision between the two, perhaps names could help. You have: a) Sunni's, and b) Shiite's ;)

I dont disagree with you per say, but it is like choosing between being able to kill Hitler in 1932 and avoid the holocaust but then let an even worse moron rise and kill 3 times the amount of people. Not an easy call by any means, and my personal opinion was that it was wrong to remove Saddam as long as you did not have a credible way of dealing with the aftermath.. and dont tell me that the aftermath could not have been predicted.....
 
Back
Top Bottom