• 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!

Putin Orders Massive Strike Against Saudi Arabia If West Attacks Syria.....

For Pete's sake What's the holdup? Let's get this Shock and Awe Show on the road
I wanna see my tax dollars at work Dang it!
needlessly quoted below ↓
 
Last edited:
For Pete's sake What's the holdup? Let's get this Shock and Awe Show on the road
I wanna see my tax dollars at work Dang it!
25s0nwl.jpg


What's the problem. Your tax dollars are being spent by the "banksters" and some very large corporations.
 
Not getting nearly enough bangs for the bucks
 
That doesn't mean they were. Whoever makes the claim that al-Qaeda is Saudi-sponsored has to prove it first.


Consider context. The Taliban regime was openly allied with al-Qaeda and hosted advanced level terrorist training camps within Afghanistan. Saudi Arabia did no such thing. If the United States immediately showed sympathy for Saudi Arabia, and if Bolivia was the only supporter of the terrorists at the time, then your analogy would work.

You'll get no argument from me that Saudi Wahhabist ideology doesn't spread terrorism, but I have no evidence to believe that the government has any connection with al-Qaeda.

It was never stated whether they were al Qaida or not. Only that we were attacked by Saudi Arabia.
 
Dude's seriously? It's this late in the game and you still can't tell who is the good guy and the bad guy?
That must make it tougher than hell to figger out who to root for.
*Go Team*
 
That doesn't mean they were. Whoever makes the claim that al-Qaeda is Saudi-sponsored has to prove it first.


Consider context. The Taliban regime was openly allied with al-Qaeda and hosted advanced level terrorist training camps within Afghanistan. Saudi Arabia did no such thing. If the United States immediately showed sympathy for Saudi Arabia, and if Bolivia was the only supporter of the terrorists at the time, then your analogy would work.

You'll get no argument from me that Saudi Wahhabist ideology doesn't spread terrorism, but I have no evidence to believe that the government has any connection with al-Qaeda.

The CIA has been training the al Qaida insurgents in camps in Jordan and sending them into Syria, to overthrow the syrian government.
 
Aren't you the Mabus-Nostradamus guy?
According to you, all Obama has to do is fire Sec. of Navy Ray Mabus, and all will be well.
Right?

Yes, I wish Obama could send Ray Mabus in retirement. Thanks for ringing the bell. :)
 
It was never stated whether they were al Qaida or not. Only that we were attacked by Saudi Arabia.

we were attacked principally by Saudis, so we attacked Iraq ... had Bush been president when the Japanese hit us at Pearl Harbor, we would've invaded Mexico ...
 
The Syrians attacked us? I missed that gotta link?
 
Now, probably none

Mornin CJ :2wave: .....well there still is Bahrain and Yemen. Which Yemen will let us do whatever since we let Selah go with Immunity. After all his genocidal killing of the Shia.

Btw this morning the Russians Sent a Missile Cruiser and a Sub Seeker into Club Med.....course they are saying it is nothing out of the Ordinary.
yepp.gif


Do you think those liberals and progressives can keep up with the times? :lol:
 
We've been working hard at destabilizing the ME since at LEAST the 40's.
Nobody likes the u.s. over there. They have good reasons, too.

That is precisely the opposite of reality. We have been working hard at stabilizing the ME since the 40s, and been willing to partner with some bastards to do it.
 
That is precisely the opposite of reality. We have been working hard at stabilizing the ME since the 40s, and been willing to partner with some bastards to do it.

saddam was our guy as long as he was killing iranians in the '80's. He was just as brutal, just as tyrannical and just as lethal to his own citizens as later but we didn't mind as long as he danced when we pulled the strings.

We gave him weapons, satellite intel and cia support just as fast as we could. We were still pissed off about the iran hostage situation in the late '70's and were letting iraq fight for us by proxy.

Now, the kuwait business;
Over a period of decades, and especially in recent years, Britain and the U.S. have consciously manipulated tensions in the region and have masterfully set into motion sequences of events leading to the Iraqi invasions. The purpose of these manipulations was to increase power and control over middle eastern governments and their oil resources by elite U.S. and British interests.

Prior to WWI there was no iraq/iran, etc..the area was called Persia or the Ottoman Empire.

As the victors of World War I, France and Britain dismantled the Ottoman Empire and the Arab nation for their own colonial purposes. The Iraq Petroleum Company was created in 1920 with 95% of the shares going to Britain, France, and the U.S. In order to weaken Arab nationalism, Britain blocked Iraqi access to the Persian Gulf by severing the territorial entity, "Kuwait" from the rest of Iraq in 1921 and 1922


Iraq had a historical claim to Kuwait as it used to be part of (what was now called) "iraq"




Following World War II, British rule was gradually replaced by U.S. neo-colonial domination of the Middle East. The new state of Israel became an important instrument for U.S. control of Middle Eastern oil in the post war era. With the U.S./Israeli sponsored coup of 1953 that deposed Mossadegh, the popularly elected president of Iran, and installed the Shah in his place, the U.S. became the dominant imperial power in the region.

Moving forward, the Shah of iran was a brutal, tyrannical lethal dictator who ruled with an iron fist...but we propped him up because he danced when we pulled the strings.

Eventually he was deposed by his own people and fled to the U.S. which further increased hatred of america for sheltering him...the iranians seized our embassy and held 40 or 50 hostages..etc..you know the story.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser, proposed to Saddam Hussein that he invade Iran and annex Khuzistan, thereby providing Iraq access to the Gulf through the narrow waterway, Shatt-al Arab. The U.S. hoped to use Iraq to counter the radicalism of the Khomeini regime in Iran from spreading to oppressed peoples of the Emirates and to Saudi Arabia. Saddam Hussein was guaranteed financial backing in the form of loans from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and other nations.

About half a million Iranians and Iraqis were killed in the Iran Iraq war, and unbeknownst to Hussein, the U.S. and Israel also secretly armed the Iranians so as to weaken both Iran and Iraq. President Ronald Reagan's special envoy, Donald Rumsfeld visited Saddam Hussein once in late December 1983 and again in March 1984. These visits paved the way for the normalization of relations between the U.S. and Iraq at a time when Saddam Hussein was using chemical weapons in his war against Iran. Iraq had been removed from the U.S. State Department's list of alleged sponsors of terrorism in 1982, and Iraq went on a buying spree to purchase weapons from U.S. and German companies. These weapons were used in 1988 for attacks against the Kurds.

So saddam got chemical weapons from us, used them on iran and the kurds but it was ok...he still danced when we pulled the strings.

Almost done..just a little more;

On September 18, 1990, the Iraqi Foreign Ministry published verbatim the transcripts of meetings between Saddam Hussein and high level U.S. officials. Knight-Ridder columnist James McCartney acknowledged that the transcripts were not disputed by the U.S. State Department. U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie informed Hussein that, "We have no opinion on...conflicts like your border disagreement with Kuwait." She reiterated this position several times, and added, "Secretary of State James Baker has directed our official spokesman to emphasize this instruction." A week before Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, Baker's spokesperson, Margaret Tutwiler and Assistant Secretary of State John Kelly both stated publicly that "the United States was not obligated to come to Kuwait's aid if it were attacked." (Santa Barbara News-Press September 24, 1990 cited in [1]).

So with a wink and a nod, the u.s implied that it would be none of our business if iraq reclaimed the territory that kuwait had stolen from them...essentially baiting saddam into something we knew would inflame the area...which would allow us to come in and play the "good guy".

We double crossed saddam purposely with the intention of further destabilizing the area.


Same situation with afghanistan, essentially...When they were killing russians we couldn't do enough for them..weapons, intel, cia...etc...look how well our interference there has worked out for us...


fast forward to libya, egypt, and now syria...Gee.. I wonder why they hate our guts in the ME? /sarcasm

Here's my source..and if you don't like it (and surely SOMEBODY won't) google for your own source..but the truth is large and these are the facts.

Iraq & Kuwait
 
...you're third source there now says that this is a disinformation story.

Mornin CPW. :2wave: Yeah I heard.....but how about this one?



Russia warns of Mideast suffering if U.S. strikes Syria

As U.S. ships and British warplanes neared the shores of its last remaining ally in the Middle East, Russia warned again Tuesday that any military intervention in Syria would have "catastrophic consequences" for the region.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said that launching a military strike without seeking approval from the United Nations Security Council would cause "new suffering and catastrophic consequences for other countries of the Middle East and North Africa," according to the Russian TV station RT.

Russia has vowed to veto any Security Council attempts to approve a military attack on Syria, and it is arming Syria as well, which is why the United States is considering a unilateral attack with the help of the United Kingdom and other nations.

"The Russians are extremely mad and there's sort of pre-war frenzy in Moscow," Cohen said. "I think in reality their options are limited but dangerous."

While the Russians are unlikely to oppose U.S. forces in the fields, Cohen listed other things they can do:

- The Russians could also send Assad their supersonic P800 long-range anti-ship missile, which is capable of sinking NATO ships with a single strike. U.S. officials reported that Israel attempted to destroy such missiles in Latakia during a July 5 air strike, though it was unclear if the strike was successful, according to the Guardian newspaper.

- The Russians could expand sales to Iran of weapons and nuclear technology that has both nuclear and civilian functions. Iran's nuclear program is considered a threat by Iran's rivals Israel and Gulf Arab states.

- Russian could pursue plans to deploy a large permanent naval task force and expand its number of bases in the Mediterranean.

Russia warns of Mideast suffering if U.S. strikes Syria.....snip~

From Post 132. Did they want to say this wasn't legit and or credible? :lol:

Also CPW.....care to Elaborate on what US National Security Interest Assad attacked of ours? Other than by association of Proxy, what physical security interests of ours has Assad attacked?
 
saddam was our guy as long as he was killing iranians in the '80's. He was just as brutal, just as tyrannical and just as lethal to his own citizens as later but we didn't mind as long as he danced when we pulled the strings.

Meh. Sort of. U.S. Policy towards the Iraq-Iran war was pretty well wrapped up by Kissinger: "It's too bad they both can't lose". Similar to our approach to the current conflict in Syria.

Now, the kuwait business;
Over a period of decades, and especially in recent years, Britain and the U.S. have consciously manipulated tensions in the region and have masterfully set into motion sequences of events leading to the Iraqi invasions. The purpose of these manipulations was to increase power and control over middle eastern governments and their oil resources by elite U.S. and British interests.

:yawn: standard boilerplate.

Prior to WWI there was no iraq/iran, etc..the area was called Persia or the Ottoman Empire.

Yup and then during WWI the Arabs revolted against the Ottoman Empire, and the attempt by Britain after WWI (Iran had remained neutral, although some of its' people had fought on the side of the Germans) to turn it into a semi-protectorate was first rejected by the Majles and then ended when Reza Khan took over, establishing his own dynasty.

As the victors of World War I, France and Britain dismantled the Ottoman Empire and the Arab nation for their own colonial purposes. The Iraq Petroleum Company was created in 1920 with 95% of the shares going to Britain, France, and the U.S. In order to weaken Arab nationalism, Britain blocked Iraqi access to the Persian Gulf by severing the territorial entity, "Kuwait" from the rest of Iraq in 1921 and 1922

Iraq had a historical claim to Kuwait as it used to be part of (what was now called) "iraq"

Following World War II, British rule was gradually replaced by U.S. neo-colonial domination of the Middle East. The new state of Israel became an important instrument for U.S. control of Middle Eastern oil in the post war era. With the U.S./Israeli sponsored coup of 1953 that deposed Mossadegh, the popularly elected president of Iran, and installed the Shah in his place, the U.S. became the dominant imperial power in the region.

Moving forward, the Shah of iran was a brutal, tyrannical lethal dictator who ruled with an iron fist...but we propped him up because he danced when we pulled the strings.

Eventually he was deposed by his own people and fled to the U.S. which further increased hatred of america for sheltering him...the iranians seized our embassy and held 40 or 50 hostages..etc..you know the story.

This is all more boilerplate. Nowhere do you demonstrate that U.S. policy is to destabilize the Middle East. Quite the opposite, you make an impressive case for us having a powerful incentive in stabilizing the middle east in order to guarantee access to its oil reserves.

Is trying to defend Saddam's invasion of Kuwait really what you are going to try to use to argue that the United States seeks to destabilize the Middle East?

:lol: man, that's even a dumber argument than the one I thought you were going to make.

fast forward to libya, egypt, and now syria...Gee.. I wonder why they hate our guts in the ME? /sarcasm

well, because, in our desire to stabilize the middle east we supported - implicitly or explicitly - abusive dictatorships such as the Mubaraks and Sauds of the world. That's why the U.S. has a higher favorability in Iran, where we didn't, but where their abusive dictatorship is of their own making.
 

:shrug: there really isnt' a good way to do it in anything but the longest of terms - and that method requires lots of disruption in the meantime.
 
Back
Top Bottom