• 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!

CIA 'using Saudi base for drone strikes'

lemmiwinx said:
You can never have a truly trustworthy relationship with devout Muslims. They always carry those sharp knives - they claim it's a religious thing.
Click to expand...

Congrats on being an ignoramus and stating that Sikhs are Muslims.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
As far as shaping how we conduct our foreign policy, the claim that we are polluting the holy land isn't going to sway me much on considering an alternative. If it was some legitimate complaint about how we conduct our foreign policy (which there are many), I would be more sympathetic
Click to expand...

The only "legitimate complaint" in foreign policy is one that is made by someone with the power to cause problems for you. North Korea makes absurd demands and gets away with it because they have nuclear weapons. Cuba has entirely reasonable complaints that are completely ignored because they have no influence. Its the same way you listen to a lunatic spouting nonsense with a gun pointed at your head more than child with a good point.

The potential threat of Saudi terrorists is historically obvious. Now that doesn't mean we automatically withdrawn, but rather we must weigh the pro and cons of keeping the bases. While one may argue the need to drone someone in Yemen, that still doesn't justify the bases in Saudi Arabia given the simple alternative of using a carrier. Thus there is no particular reason to raise tensions when there is a better alternative.

For a counterpoint, lets suppose they demand we stop supporting the corrupt and dictatorial monarchy. While perhaps a reasonable request, it would endanger the oil gravy train, so the sensible response would be to tell them to get ****ed.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
Who cares. If their demands are so moronic, I fully support sticking a patriot missile up their ass

**** them
Click to expand...

Well then keep on expecting more terrorist attacks, and more recruitment.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
One of the main reasons how Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist groups gain support is through that claim, so it is pretty reasonable on the geopolitical issues.
Click to expand...

Do you know how long we've been there?
 
rathi said:
The only "legitimate complaint" in foreign policy is one that is made by someone with the power to cause problems for you. North Korea makes absurd demands and gets away with it because they have nuclear weapons. Cuba has entirely reasonable complaints that are completely ignored because they have no influence. Its the same way you listen to a lunatic spouting nonsense with a gun pointed at your head more than child with a good point.

The potential threat of Saudi terrorists is historically obvious. Now that doesn't mean we automatically withdrawn, but rather we must weigh the pro and cons of keeping the bases. While one may argue the need to drone someone in Yemen, that still doesn't justify the bases in Saudi Arabia given the simple alternative of using a carrier. Thus there is no particular reason to raise tensions when there is a better alternative.

For a counterpoint, lets suppose they demand we stop supporting the corrupt and dictatorial monarchy. While perhaps a reasonable request, it would endanger the oil gravy train, so the sensible response would be to tell them to get ****ed.
Click to expand...

These are NOT US bases.. These are Saudi bases.
 
sharon said:
These are NOT US bases.. These are Saudi bases.
Click to expand...

There is no difference between a U.S. base and a Saudi based used to launch U.S. aircraft from a political perspective. The only thing even more meaningless than arguing about fairness in foreign policy is pedantic hairsplitting.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Supposedly we pulled all military, and intelligence activity out in 2003.
Click to expand...

"As of 2011, the 64th Air Expeditionary Group is stationed in Eskan Village."
Wikipedia
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
I'm figuring we are there operating with the blessing of their govt
Click to expand...

"Opinion polls conducted by Gallup from 2006–2008, find that many in Muslim majority countries strongly object to U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia. 52% of Saudis agreed that removing military bases from Saudi Arabia would very significantly improve their opinion of United States. Also 60% of Egyptians, 39% of Jordanians, 40% of Syrians and Palestinians, 55% of Tunisians, 13% of Iranians, 29% of Turks, 40% of Lebanese, 30% of Algerians gave that opinion too.[4]

The U.S. has rejected the characterization of its presence as an "occupation", noting that the government of Saudi Arabia consented to the presence of troops. Many in the U.S., the Arab world and elsewhere saw the presence of U.S. troops as supporting the House of Saud, the rule of which is controversial."
Wikipedia
 
There is no reason that because a group despises us for an act, that it means we should not be doing said thing. The resource embargo against Japan figured prominently in both the internal calculations and the stated cassus belli of the Japanese Empire. It did not mean the United States was in the wrong. We have become so masochistic that we confuse cause for verdict. I don't particularly care that Osama Bin Laden chose to list (among his many, many grievances) the US intervention in Kuwait and stationing of troops at the request of the governments which invited us (and certainly have more legitimacy and popular support than al-Qaeda or its affiliates) which benefited the United States, our allies, and quite frankly most of the world materially and strategically. That it brought on such a reaction is not my problem, it is the problem of those who attacked us. That is why we fight them.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Supposedly we pulled all military, and intelligence activity out in 2003.
Click to expand...

We have always had a publicly stated training mission and joint intelligence command post in the Kingdom. We withdrew combat formations and 99% of all personal in 2003. What remains, remains at the invitation of the Kingdom.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
Who cares. If their demands are so moronic, I fully support sticking a patriot missile up their ass

**** them
Click to expand...

Foreign policy is a delicate manner, indeed. Our forefathers warned about entangling relationships. Regardless, as America grew, so did our interests, and as they grew, they grew outward, outward across the world. Over time, our interests eventually enveloped the span of the globe. Then, we turned to space. So as it stands in the present day, we have assets and infrastructure all-around the world. Naturally so, this is unsettling to some. If you recall in his fatwa, Osama bin Laden asserted that American presence in the most holiest sites for Arabs was a grave offense, one naturally worthy enough to him for him to attack our interests, infrastructure, and people several times, most notably, 9/11. So when you say, "Who cares," I think just about every American does.
 
Jango said:
Foreign policy is a delicate manner, indeed. Our forefathers warned about entangling relationships. Regardless, as America grew, so did our interests, and as they grew, they grew outward, outward across the world. Over time, our interests eventually enveloped the span of the globe. Then, we turned to space. So as it stands in the present day, we have assets and infrastructure all-around the world. Naturally so, this is unsettling to some. If you recall in his fatwa, Osama bin Laden asserted that American presence in the most holiest sites for Arabs was a grave offense, one naturally worthy enough to him for him to attack our interests, infrastructure, and people several times, most notably, 9/11. So when you say, "Who cares," I think just about every American does.
Click to expand...

Lol, again, why should the views and interest of aq be used to shape our foreign policy, and why on earth do you people feel it would lead to moderation from that group?

Again, **** them.
 
rathi said:
There is no difference between a U.S. base and a Saudi based used to launch U.S. aircraft from a political perspective. The only thing even more meaningless than arguing about fairness in foreign policy is pedantic hairsplitting.
Click to expand...

Rathi, you seem to be taking this tact that we should be listening to aq here, but have offered little reason why. Are you under the impression that abandoning such programs will lead to the moderation of AQ, or that such will lead the Us to be seen as less antagonistic by them?

To me, bowing to their demands here seems to come with absolutely no benefits.

Yes, there is plenty of reasons to criticize how we conduct foreign policy, but this doesn't seem like one if them
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
Slightly Conservative
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should change that, because I take it this "**** them" attitude applies to everyone. Neoconservatives are bad with foreign policy.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
Lol, again, why should the views and interest of aq be used to shape our foreign policy, and why on earth do you people feel it would lead to moderation from that group?

Again, **** them.
Click to expand...

The presence of American bases on Saudi soil improves the ability to recruit warm bodies and drum up funding. AQ has clearly demonstrated that with proper resources, they present a lethal threat to American citizens. 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.

Saying "**** them" is a whiny emotional response that does nothing to address the reality of the situation we face.
 
I believe America does a lot of very good and important things in this world and we'd be a worse place without her, however, there are times non-Americans wonder what the hell you're thinking or how tone deaf can you be. This is like poking a stick in a bear's eye - just not smart.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I believe America does a lot of very good and important things in this world and we'd be a worse place without her, however, there are times non-Americans wonder what the hell you're thinking or how tone deaf can you be. This is like poking a stick in a bear's eye - just not smart.
Click to expand...

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.

Working with soldiers of different nations during my time on active duty, most Americans tend also to exhibit a superior attitude toward the ones we are training or advising which also goes to the relationship between America and the host country.
 
Perotista said:
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.

Working with soldiers of different nations during my time on active duty, most Americans tend also to exhibit a superior attitude toward the ones we are training or advising which also goes to the relationship between America and the host country.
Click to expand...

Hi Pero - hope all is well with you - Americans are the best soldiers in the world, bar none, and a little bit of arrogance is probably a good quality in combat, but you're right when you say that sometimes too blatant a superior attitude can breed negativity and resentment, especially when you're a visitor in someone else's homeland.
 
Jango said:
Perhaps you should change that, because I take it this "**** them" attitude applies to everyone. Neoconservatives are bad with foreign policy.
Click to expand...

perhaps you should answer the rather obvious questions I asked above, as opposed to trying to make things personal.

PS Why on earth would you try to equivocate between AQ and the various other groups we interact with on foreign policy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom