• 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 Yemen violence could threaten global security

jmotivator said:
Because yeah, when the British citizen in Syria decapitates a US citizen we should really bomb the UK. :roll:
Click to expand...

I wouldn't allow that British citizen back into Britain or the US, would you?
 
grip said:
I wouldn't allow that British citizen back into Britain or the US, would you?
Click to expand...

You've missed my point. Saying that we should bomb Saudi Arabia for the actions of some of its citizens is like blaming the UK for ISIS. Hell, as many as 400 UK citizens are currently fighting for ISIS... time to declare war on the UK?
 
grip said:
And the oil money is what's been funding the terrorists. The Saudi's have been playing duplicitous games with us and the world. Their princes are secretly a bunch of spoiled fundies, who wanted to play power politics on a global scale, but now it's backfiring.
Click to expand...

The Saudi royal family is more moderate and cosmopolitan than large segments of its population. Your characterization is a simplistic stereotype.
 
grip said:
Then if it's that simple, then why didn't we look harder at Saudi Arabia the birth place of AQ? We should've dug up the roots before trying to burn the branches.
Click to expand...

We looked very hard at Saudi Arabia. There was a major security campaign that resulted in hundreds of militants being killed, captured, or driven from the country. You are just saying things that aren't true.
 
I wonder if you have even the slightest clue as to the delicate tight rope the Saudi government walks.
 
jmotivator said:
You've missed my point. Saying that we should bomb Saudi Arabia for the actions of some of its citizens is like blaming the UK for ISIS. Hell, as many as 400 UK citizens are currently fighting for ISIS... time to declare war on the UK?
Click to expand...

Ridiculous suggestions that I never made or implied. I said nothing about bombing Saudi Arabia, that's your answer to everything. Holding them responsible for sanctioning and funding terror groups is another story, and one we didn't want to confront.



Sherman123 said:
The Saudi royal family is more moderate and cosmopolitan than large segments of its population. Your characterization is a simplistic stereotype.
Click to expand...

More pandering to oil wealth and monopolies.


Sherman123 said:
We looked very hard at Saudi Arabia. There was a major security campaign that resulted in hundreds of militants being killed, captured, or driven from the country. You are just saying things that aren't true.
Click to expand...

We over looked the source, because it didn't agree with our policies and economics, now it's too late. But hey, more of the same is working out well, huh?
 
grip said:
If some corporations can make a lot of profit on newer green technology, then others will follow suit but it won't happen over night. There's too much infrastructure to change with airplanes, automobiles, manufacturing plants, filling stations, oil rigs, shipping, etc. We just have to survive the transition period, and keep our economy and markets stable long enough for something new.
Click to expand...

I believe if we'd stared in earnest on 9/2/01 we'd be siting pretty right now, the deficit wouldn't be as high, Isis would not have existed, Al Qeada would still be dealt with and Arlington Cemetary would be less populated.
 
Smeagol said:
I believe if we'd stared in earnest on 9/2/01 we'd be siting pretty right now, the deficit wouldn't be as high, Isis would not have existed, Al Qeada would still be dealt with and Arlington Cemetary would be less populated.
Click to expand...

None of these apologists want to hear the real causes and mistakes. And because of that they'll continue to attack the wrong sources, the wrong ways. They''ll never get it right with their hands over their eyes.
 
Saudi Arabia warns Yemen violence could threaten global security
Click to expand...

well, then, i suppose Saudi Arabia might want to do something about that after it finishes dealing with IS. perhaps, just perhaps, some of the nations in the region should get together and come up with a plan.
 
grip said:
Saudi Arabia has got to be one of the sorriest nations, for their leaders being involved, in the world. Since the 1950's, we've been supporting them and buying their oil, making them one of the richest countries per capita on the globe, and they contribute little to nothing in fighting the extremism in their region. If nothing else, they've actually supported some of it with covert funds, and only get involved in anything that directly affects them.

Now that Yemen, their back door neighbor is being destabilized, they cry again for help but use none of their massive wealth, military or support to fund and fight themselves. What a bunch of dummies we are for not forcing them to take more action, but we're too busy being their protector, since they controlled so much of our energy needs.
Click to expand...

I'm not a Saudi apologizes...but there's two major points....

They are a dictatorship in a very troubled region. They are already on shaky ground by supporting the US in a lot of ways. They are doing everything they can to hold on to power and supporting the US can only go so far before they piss off their own population. Their money given to fundamentalist groups is straight up bribery. They are obviously not a fundamentalist monarchy they are a monarchy governed by self-preservation and making money.

Second major point, there's no doubt we prefer a Saudi Monarchy in their current form over them being replaced. Saudi Arabia is where the Muslim religion started and is a very holy land for them. There's no doubt that a removal of the Monarchy would result in Saudi being the natural home of a new caliphate...backed by some of the largest oil reserves in the world.

So, I think it's easy to criticize them but the Monarchy there is balancing themselves are a razor's edge and the US has every reason to want the Monarchy to succeed.

If anything, this shows how our continued dependence of fossil fuels has some really bad consequences.
 
iliveonramen said:
I'm not a Saudi apologizes...but there's two major points....

They are a dictatorship in a very troubled region. They are already on shaky ground by supporting the US in a lot of ways. They are doing everything they can to hold on to power and supporting the US can only go so far before they piss off their own population. Their money given to fundamentalist groups is straight up bribery. They are obviously not a fundamentalist monarchy they are a monarchy governed by self-preservation and making money.

Second major point, there's no doubt we prefer a Saudi Monarchy in their current form over them being replaced. Saudi Arabia is where the Muslim religion started and is a very holy land for them. There's no doubt that a removal of the Monarchy would result in Saudi being the natural home of a new caliphate...backed by some of the largest oil reserves in the world.

So, I think it's easy to criticize them but the Monarchy there is balancing themselves are a razor's edge and the US has every reason to want the Monarchy to succeed.

If anything, this shows how our continued dependence of fossil fuels has some really bad consequences.
Click to expand...

I thought we were against dictatorships, or is that only when it's convenient and fits our goals?

To the underlined comments, you're not apologizing?

How about we kick their head chopping asses and take their oil?
 
grip said:
I thought we were against dictatorships, or is that only when it's convenient and fits our goals?
Click to expand...

Well, I normally would say yes but the Iraq thing opened my eyes. That region of the world is too full of religious nut cases.

How about we kick their head chopping asses and take their oil?
Click to expand...
Sure, if we want to commit 100's of thousands of troops for decades.
 
iliveonramen said:
Sure, if we want to commit 100's of thousands of troops for decades.
Click to expand...

I bet the King and his rotten son's would run if we even remotely began to apply pressure. But it won't happen, and why nobody ever heard about their meddling, because >>

Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, one of the richest men in the world and a prominent shareholder in several major Western corporations, has a $300 million stake in Twitter, the increasingly influential microblogging service.

He is the second largest shareholder after the Murdoch family in Fox News-owner News Corp., and also owns substantial stakes in Time Warner, Citigroup, General Motors and Apple.

Influence, they has it. And that's only one prince.
 
grip said:
I bet the King and his rotten son's would run if we even remotely began to apply pressure. But it won't happen, and why nobody ever heard about their meddling, because >>

Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, one of the richest men in the world and a prominent shareholder in several major Western corporations, has a $300 million stake in Twitter, the increasingly influential microblogging service.

He is the second largest shareholder after the Murdoch family in Fox News-owner News Corp., and also owns substantial stakes in Time Warner, Citigroup, General Motors and Apple.

Influence, they has it. And that's only one prince.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm sure they have a lot of influence in the US. There's no doubt money buys influence, there's also some really good self-preservation reasons for the Saudi's to behave the way they do and why we treat them the way we do.
 
grip said:
The hijackers in the September 11 attacks were 19 men supposedly affiliated with al-Qaeda, and 15 of the 19 were citizens of Saudi Arabia. The others were from the United Arab Emirates (2), Egypt and Lebanon. But who do we attack, Afghanistan and Iraq, when the Saudi's clearly have a problem that we're not acknowledging with terrorism and recruiting.

Something is screwy with those statistics and outcomes.
Click to expand...

I don't think there's any way to know for sure what the nationalities of all the people involved in 9/11 were. It seems to me you're ignoring the ability of the jihadists to fake passports and other identification. There were a couple Al Qaeda cells in Spain that were dedicated to doing that.
 
iliveonramen said:
I'm not a Saudi apologizes...but there's two major points....

They are a dictatorship in a very troubled region. They are already on shaky ground by supporting the US in a lot of ways. They are doing everything they can to hold on to power and supporting the US can only go so far before they piss off their own population. Their money given to fundamentalist groups is straight up bribery. They are obviously not a fundamentalist monarchy they are a monarchy governed by self-preservation and making money.

Second major point, there's no doubt we prefer a Saudi Monarchy in their current form over them being replaced. Saudi Arabia is where the Muslim religion started and is a very holy land for them. There's no doubt that a removal of the Monarchy would result in Saudi being the natural home of a new caliphate...backed by some of the largest oil reserves in the world.

So, I think it's easy to criticize them but the Monarchy there is balancing themselves are a razor's edge and the US has every reason to want the Monarchy to succeed.

If anything, this shows how our continued dependence of fossil fuels has some really bad consequences.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of that.
 
matchlight said:
I don't think there's any way to know for sure what the nationalities of all the people involved in 9/11 were. It seems to me you're ignoring the ability of the jihadists to fake passports and other identification. There were a couple Al Qaeda cells in Spain that were dedicated to doing that.
Click to expand...


Gov't documents (below) show a scene that differs from your evaluation. They knew things that we did NOT.

WASHINGTON, March 26 - The episode has been retold so many times in the last three and a half years that it has become the stuff of political legend: in the frenzied days after Sept. 11, 2001, when some flights were still grounded, dozens of well-connected Saudis, including relatives of Osama bin Laden, managed to leave the United States on specially chartered flights.

Now, newly released government records show previously undisclosed flights from Las Vegas and elsewhere and point to a more active role by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in aiding some of the Saudis in their departure.

The F.B.I. gave personal airport escorts to two prominent Saudi families who fled the United States, and several other Saudis were allowed to leave the country without first being interviewed, the documents show.

New Details on F.B.I. Aid for Saudis After 9/11
Click to expand...
 
grip said:
Gov't documents (below) show a scene that differs from your evaluation. They knew things that we did NOT.
Click to expand...

I don't see what anything that may have been done to help Saudis leave the U.S. after 9/11 has to do with establishing that most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi citizens. It's been suggested that the Bush administration suspected that part of Al Qaeda's strategy was to make Saudi Arabia appear to be responsible for the attacks. If so, I think that suspicion was reasonable, considering that it was known that one of Osama bin Laden's goals was to undermine the Saudi government by stopping the U.S. from supporting or cooperating with it. It seemed to gall him to see an American presence on the same peninsula where Mecca and Medina are located.
 
grip said:
I thought we were against dictatorships, or is that only when it's convenient and fits our goals?

To the underlined comments, you're not apologizing?

How about we kick their head chopping asses and take their oil?
Click to expand...
Who would you rather see in charge in Saudi...the current monarchy, the fundamentalists they work exhaustively to keep in check, the bedouins? What is your plan to modify an entire peoples social structure and philosophy?

Ever been there?
 
grip said:
None of these apologists want to hear the real causes and mistakes. And because of that they'll continue to attack the wrong sources, the wrong ways. They''ll never get it right with their hands over their eyes.
Click to expand...

Lets keep the lights on in case they blink.
 
Sherman123 said:
The Saudi royal family is more moderate and cosmopolitan than large segments of its population. Your characterization is a simplistic stereotype.
Click to expand...

I agree. Even though there is much to be said about how the House of Saud's Wahhabism has influenced al-Qaeda, the government of Saudi Arabia views political Islam as a threat to its regional influence - their designation of the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization speaks to this fact. If there's an Arab country that we should go after for funding and supporting extremism, it's Qatar.
 
So John McCain will be calling for US troops to invade Yemen next. Awesome. :roll:
 
VanceMack said:
Who would you rather see in charge in Saudi...the current monarchy, the fundamentalists they work exhaustively to keep in check, the bedouins? What is your plan to modify an entire peoples social structure and philosophy?

Ever been there?
Click to expand...

Why is everything always one extreme or the other? You offer two polar opposites eliminating all the rational choices in between, which has become the typical response of our gov't.

I don't need to travel the world to have a political opinion. And I surely wouldn't go to that region.



Smeagol said:
Lets keep the lights on in case they blink.
Click to expand...

That's all I try to do, is keep a light on areas of neglect and privileged position. The real trouble is usually not what we hear of as the causes, but a PR job by the powers to be.

They say, the 2008 Recession was caused by the banks and they shouldn't be too big to fail. Now, the top 5 are larger than ever and definitely too large to fail, so the question begs, why the cover-ups? A very wise person once told me, follow the money for the root of problems.


SheWolf said:
So John McCain will be calling for US troops to invade Yemen next. Awesome. :roll:
Click to expand...

McCain is a war monger and damaged goods from his prisoner of war experience. Helix put it in a proper context, that we should apply pressure for an alliance from the oil rich nations in the area that have a larger stake in the outcome than even us.
 
grip said:
Ridiculous suggestions that I never made or implied. I said nothing about bombing Saudi Arabia, that's your answer to everything. Holding them responsible for sanctioning and funding terror groups is another story, and one we didn't want to confront.





More pandering to oil wealth and monopolies.




We over looked the source, because it didn't agree with our policies and economics, now it's too late. But hey, more of the same is working out well, huh?
Click to expand...

What? You didn't even respond. This clearly isn't a subject that you have great familiarity with.
 
Sherman123 said:
What? You didn't even respond. This clearly isn't a subject that you have great familiarity with.
Click to expand...

Getting lost in the details and missing the point is clearly what you're doing. Want to talk about how we've been supporting the Saudi regime since the 50's and helped them institute Wahhabism is something I've read all about, but don't care to go into detail. Trying to debate the reasoning for their disputes and internal conflicts is meaningless.

Keep it short and simple about how we've been playing one religion, sect and region against the other, to keep things in check for energy resources.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom