• 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!

Will we defend Saudi Arabia?

I never denied that.

However, there is a big difference between having troops on bases, and having bases ourselves.

We have troops on bases in countries all over the world, it is not the same as we ourselves have bases there however.

Agreed.
 
If we weren't hypocritical, we wouldn't help them one bit. The Saudi regime is awful, and we should not consider them an ally.
USA describes Assad as a terrible dictator (which is mainly correct), but at the same time sees Saudi Arabia as an ally - and SA is not better (perhaps worse) than Assad's regime. Shame on you Obama, Bush, Clinton.......
 
I disagree with the last statement. It's not that the US can't do anything, or that there is nothing to do. It's just the US chooses not to do anything. If you ask me I think Obama refuses to get along with Putin because he doesn't want Putin to build his country's economy. If the US would stop being so dam nationalist all the time, and let other countries be great without giving them **** then we'd be in a better place with a lot more friends.
 
While I don't Agree with communism. I will say this, we cannot make every other country be a democracy. We also shouldn't turn the cold shoulder to a countries leader just because of there religion or political stance. Why won't anyone even consider the idea of working with Putin and Assad. Putin is right the only way to get rid of ISIS is to help Assad restore order to Syria, but that will never happen because we Americans are so dam nationalist and proud that we wont even consider the possibility of helping another country outside of another capitalist democracy, doing it in the hopes of helping build another capitalist democracy or to just do it to make a buck. I think Putin is my favorite Leader of today because he's the only leader that is willing to work with anyone who seeks the same goal regardless of there history or political stance.
 
Yes of course we will defend Saudi Arabia, along and in conjunction with the rest of the GCC, against a hypothetical outside threat. The only plausible one at present would be from Iran and that is quite remote. However the threat of peripheral conflict in the form of low intensity engagements, proxy conflict, and the like is quite high (even ongoing) which is why we remain as involved as we are and why those countries are so concerned.
 
It is only a matter of time before this country is attacked because they are flooding the market with cheap oil, should we, will we stand behind this complicated and odd ally. I think this is the real reason for the Russians invasion of Syria, and their recent relations with Iran, what should we do, if anything?

"It is only a matter of time before this country [Saudi Arabia] is attacked ..." -- The Saudi's are shielded by their desert barriers. And they spend a fair amount of their oil revenues on military materiel (with an e not an a). None of their 4 neighbors has armies big enough to attack them. And their neighbors' neighbors would need to cross many miles of desert to reach them as well.

"... because they are flooding the market with cheap oil ... " -- Nobody would ever complain about cheap oil. The world loves cheap oil. Cheap oil just makes oil even cheaper.

"... should we, will we stand behind this complicated and odd ally ..." -- so far the USA has always protected the world's oil supply. That's what got Saddam killed by the Bush Dynasty.

"... I think this is the real reason for the Russians' invasion of Syria ..." -- 'Invasion' is it now ?? Aren't you being a bit too melodramatic here ??

"... and their recent relations with Iran ... ." -- I don't know what Putin gets out of befriending Iran. I suspect that Putin sees a benefit to coordinating his hegemony of the Middle East together with Assad in Syria. Both Syria and Iran will be good customers for Russian tanks and Russian planes. It's just good business for Putin.
 
Yes of course we will defend Saudi Arabia, along and in conjunction with the rest of the GCC, against a hypothetical outside threat. The only plausible one at present would be from Iran and that is quite remote. However the threat of peripheral conflict in the form of low intensity engagements, proxy conflict, and the like is quite high (even ongoing) which is why we remain as involved as we are and why those countries are so concerned.

Exactly.
 
While I don't Agree with communism. I will say this, we cannot make every other country be a democracy. We also shouldn't turn the cold shoulder to a countries leader just because of there religion or political stance. Why won't anyone even consider the idea of working with Putin and Assad. Putin is right the only way to get rid of ISIS is to help Assad restore order to Syria, but that will never happen because we Americans are so dam nationalist and proud that we wont even consider the possibility of helping another country outside of another capitalist democracy, doing it in the hopes of helping build another capitalist democracy or to just do it to make a buck. I think Putin is my favorite Leader of today because he's the only leader that is willing to work with anyone who seeks the same goal regardless of there history or political stance.

Russia is no longer Communist. Only China and North Korea have planned Communist economies.

Russia is a capitalistic oligarchy. Putin is the oligarch. He reports to those people who put him into power during the end of the Yeltsin days.
 
Russia is no longer Communist. Only China and North Korea have planned Communist economies.

Russia is a capitalistic oligarchy. Putin is the oligarch. He reports to those people who put him into power during the end of the Yeltsin days.

Much like the democrats in the USSA want. They want only one authoritarian decision make.
 
It is unlikely that Saudi Arabia will be attacked by any other nation anytime soon, but that does not entirely mean they are out of danger from various fundamentalist / terrorist groups.

Also, the Russians did not "invade" Syria. They are there at al-Assad's request to handle all of his enemies that have splintered the nation into a long term multiple way civil war taking many lives and displacing even more. The nation is in ruins and it will take plenty of support to help whoever ultimately wins that conflict.

Yes, you could argue that Russia's own economic model was harmed by oil price declines. But, it would be foolish for Russia to try to enter into a war in the Middle East large enough to impact the price of oil globally. It would mean more than Saudi Arabia, who has enough relations with other nations besides just the US.

At this stage there is nothing for the US to do now that we have caused enough problems from Libya, to Egypt, to Iraq, to Afghanistan.

Everybody loves cheap oil.

For the producers, just pump more and sell it.
 
Much like the democrats in the USSA want. They want only one authoritarian decision make.

I would actually compare the Russians more closely to the GOP than to the DEMs.

Not sure what makes you think the GOP favors democratic republicanism more than the DEMs do.

Both major political parties in the USA are oligarchies.

The GOP favors military spending, oil drilling, tax cuts for the rich, oil pipelines from Canada to the Gulf, cutting social security, cutting medicare, and cutting ACA, and deportation of Mexicans.

The DEMs favor social spending, infrastructure spending, conservation, CO2 reduction, tax cuts for the poor, tax hikes for the rich, no oil pipelines, and supports social security, medicare, and ACA, and fastrack to citizenship for Mexicans.

If you put all those together into one then you would probably have something akin to the Russians.

But not yet.
 
I agree, we certainly should not take on the Saudi's militarily, but we should denounce their government. They support Wahabism all over the world.
wahhbism isn't necessarily jihad. Neither is salafism.
 
I agree, we certainly should not take on the Saudi's militarily, but we should denounce their government. They support Wahabism all over the world.

I think that denouncing the House of Saud might be a little dangerous. But nudging them towards a less autocratic monarchy would make a lot of sense. Dr Rice did that quite well, when she was working for GWB.
 
Israel has no nukes cause none have been tested from them yet.

Israel is estimated to have about 200 nuclear weapons. It is believed, but never conclusively proved, that Israel and South Africa tested a weapon in the Indian Ocean in 1979.

At any rate, if a nuclear bomb had not been tested, would you still be willing to stand under ground zero when it went off, or would you make the assumption that, well, odds are it will probably explode?
 
Will we defend Saudi Arabia?

Sudi Arabia should invest its oil money in stabilizing the region. we should invest our revenue in replacing oil.
 
Gee while some claim it is Saudis that have flooded the market with cheap oil have they forgotten what the U.S. has been producing as of late on private lands along with Canada?
It is my understanding the Saudis have been doing it to put the U.S. and Canada out of business because of so many regulations those in the U.S. and Canada have to follow makes it a whole lot more expensive to produce 1 barrel of oil. Many of those regulations come from the Church of the Environmentalists who fill the pews from those in the current administration.

The Saudis seem to better handle captured terrorists. Guess they are planning on beheading 50 of them real soon. Here in the states, we capture them and send them to GITMO and the president on a Friday here and there when not many are watching releases 5 or so prisoners here and there. These prisoners should have met a firing squad years ago.
Saudi Arabia said planning to execute over 50 people | The Times of Israel
While the rest of the western world is taking countless Syrian refugees they can't afford with their high unemployment rates and over-bloated government budgets which can't even fulfill the promises to their own people, yet not one country that borders the Persian Gulf including Saudi Arabia has not offered to take one Syrian refugee. WTH?

The Saudis don't seem to need any help because the West and all their global warming agenda and bleeding hearts at the risk of their own sovereignty are self destructing.
 
Gee while some claim it is Saudis that have flooded the market with cheap oil have they forgotten what the U.S. has been producing as of late on private lands along with Canada?
It is my understanding the Saudis have been doing it to put the U.S. and Canada out of business because of so many regulations those in the U.S. and Canada have to follow makes it a whole lot more expensive to produce 1 barrel of oil. Many of those regulations come from the Church of the Environmentalists who fill the pews from those in the current administration.

The Saudis seem to better handle captured terrorists. Guess they are planning on beheading 50 of them real soon. Here in the states, we capture them and send them to GITMO and the president on a Friday here and there when not many are watching releases 5 or so prisoners here and there. These prisoners should have met a firing squad years ago.
Saudi Arabia said planning to execute over 50 people | The Times of Israel
While the rest of the western world is taking countless Syrian refugees they can't afford with their high unemployment rates and over-bloated government budgets which can't even fulfill the promises to their own people, yet not one country that borders the Persian Gulf including Saudi Arabia has not offered to take one Syrian refugee. WTH?

The Saudis don't seem to need any help because the West and all their global warming agenda and bleeding hearts at the risk of their own sovereignty are self destructing.

Saudis are selling cheap oil, and it has nothing to do with environmental regulations. It has to do with a misguided notion of capturing market share, by driving fracters out of business. Saudis have misjudged many economic and political trends over recent years, not surprising for a nation that attempts to maintain a medieval social paradigm. They are also misjudging the effects of global warming, and the consequent rise of alternative energy. This is a sad part of the world.

Most western countries can, absolutely, taken Syrian refugees. The neigbouring Arab states have taken vast amounts, well beyond their capacities. America is the outlier here (again).

If you would like to attend Saudi beheadings, you will also witness the death of those accused of blasphemy, and sorcery. Not your usual liberal democratic corrections methods.
 
Saudis are selling cheap oil, and it has nothing to do with environmental regulations. It has to do with a misguided notion of capturing market share, by driving fracters out of business. Saudis have misjudged many economic and political trends over recent years, not surprising for a nation that attempts to maintain a medieval social paradigm. They are also misjudging the effects of global warming, and the consequent rise of alternative energy. This is a sad part of the world.

Most western countries can, absolutely, taken Syrian refugees. The neigbouring Arab states have taken vast amounts, well beyond their capacities. America is the outlier here (again).

If you would like to attend Saudi beheadings, you will also witness the death of those accused of blasphemy, and sorcery. Not your usual liberal democratic corrections methods.

Well I disagree. For a couple of years recently the U.S. was producing substantial amounts of oil on private lands. Canada too had beefed up its output. And just months later Saudis started producing massive amounts. Do you have any idea how much more it costs to produce oil in the U.S. versus Saudi Arabia? A whole bunch. They can sell it on the cheap and still make a profit. In the U.S. no because of regulations related to the green thing. This administration has just about decimated the coal industry here in the states and they are doing the same with oil. A whole bunch of new regulations just hit the fan from this administration and we have no way of gauging the results yet. I have stock in NRP a coal industry. Before Obama it was worth 28.00 a share and paid great dividends. Today it is worth less than 2.00 a share. Shall I go on?
 
Well I disagree. For a couple of years recently the U.S. was producing substantial amounts of oil on private lands. Canada too had beefed up its output. And just months later Saudis started producing massive amounts. Do you have any idea how much more it costs to produce oil in the U.S. versus Saudi Arabia? A whole bunch. They can sell it on the cheap and still make a profit. In the U.S. no because of regulations related to the green thing. This administration has just about decimated the coal industry here in the states and they are doing the same with oil. A whole bunch of new regulations just hit the fan from this administration and we have no way of gauging the results yet. I have stock in NRP a coal industry. Before Obama it was worth 28.00 a share and paid great dividends. Today it is worth less than 2.00 a share. Shall I go on?

No, you shouldn't, because it is all BS. The US has produced oil by fracking- a new technological process that promises greater returns, albeit for a shorter timespan. Canada is producing oil from the Alberta tar sands because there is a large amount there, and it has the potential for money, although it is harder to recover, as are other sources in the world today. Saudi produces oil relatively cheaply because of geological reasons. It is there in more concentrated, and more easily accessed areas. The environment has zip to do with it. Many countries have forbidden fracking due to environmental concerns. Not the US. The Alberta tar sands are some of the most environmentally problematic sources of energy in the world today. They are developed voraciously- and promoted by government. Saudi today is in a price war with the other main producers, in an attempt to drive new developers into the ground. They can do this in the short term, but many in the field have noted that this is impossible in the long term. It's just there political ploy, and not a well thought out one.
 
No, you shouldn't, because it is all BS. The US has produced oil by fracking- a new technological process that promises greater returns, albeit for a shorter timespan. Canada is producing oil from the Alberta tar sands because there is a large amount there, and it has the potential for money, although it is harder to recover, as are other sources in the world today. Saudi produces oil relatively cheaply because of geological reasons. It is there in more concentrated, and more easily accessed areas. The environment has zip to do with it. Many countries have forbidden fracking due to environmental concerns. Not the US. The Alberta tar sands are some of the most environmentally problematic sources of energy in the world today. They are developed voraciously- and promoted by government. Saudi today is in a price war with the other main producers, in an attempt to drive new developers into the ground. They can do this in the short term, but many in the field have noted that this is impossible in the long term. It's just there political ploy, and not a well thought out one.
Nah, we have great reservoirs of oil on public lands, the same lands Obama keeps buying up and not allowing drilling. Our country aided South American countries in searching for offshore drilling while basically shutting it down in this country. You know we could be totally independent of any outside oil if we had the right leadership. With our natural gas we could pretty much take care of the EU with exports. The cleanest burning fuel with all their green policies it would meet the test while putting lots of folks in the U.S. to work with good paying jobs. Not too long ago I went to a website showing all the natural gas being burned off on oil fields up in Alaska because this administration will not allow exports of natural gas nor further access to these sites. It is is a shame to see such an asset go up in flames daily because of assholes who have a problem with fossil fuel.
 
Back
Top Bottom