• 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!

Trump Reveals That Saudi Arabia Tells Him What To Do

PoS said:
Really? So why dont you tell us exactly what he said then, in your own words, Mr. Kissinger. :roll:
Click to expand...

Why would I need to tell you what he said in my own words when you can see for yourself what he said in his?
 
lwf said:
And they seem hell bent on doing so.
Click to expand...

I'll tell you who's hell bent on doing something: SA would love nothing more than to get us into a war with Iran.
 
I say we just attack Saudis while their weak, take over their oil and we can protect our own damn oil instead of someone's oil we are paying for.

I believe in the business world they call it a hostile takeover...
 
Cardinal said:
Why would I need to tell you what he said in my own words when you can see for yourself what he said in his?
Click to expand...

His tweet says he is waiting to hear from SA as to what they believe, so exactly how was I changing what he said in any way? Your partisanship fails, as usual.

digitusmedius said:
It's pretty clear for anyone who doesn't have blinders on: he's going to rely on SA's determination of who bombed the oil fields to then tell him what he shoud do. Do you have another interpretation that would indicate that you're not a Trumphumper as you claim?
Click to expand...

That's not how Im reading it. He says he is waiting for their information on it.
 
Grand Mal said:
Pretty dishonest on your part, snipping the context from my post and then saying there was none. I told you in that post you censored who his audience is.
Your desperation is showing.
Click to expand...

Oh...I'm sorry. I considered the rest of your post to be irrelevant. Here's what I snipped:

Grand Mal said:
The Twitterverse.
Why does he need an audience for this kind of thing anyway? Do you think Tweeting this stuff shows transparency or something?
I bet there's discussion ongoing about how to limit the President's access to sensitive information. Damn. It's just ridiculous. I can't think of any equivalently childish behaviour by a President.
Click to expand...

If your contention is that his intended audience is "The Twitterverse", I dismissed that as a naively simplified answer. In my opinion, he has a number of very specific targets for that tweet...and the "Twitterverse" (whatever that is) isn't one of them. But then, unlike you and others, I don't just take a snippet and try to make hay out of it. I take everything he said...I consider all of it...to form my opinion.

Tell you what...I'll present his entire tweet. You can read it if you like and give me your opinion about who his intended audience might be.

Based on the attack on Saudi Arabia, which may have an impact on oil prices, I have authorized the release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, if needed, in a to-be-determined amount....

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 15, 2019

….sufficient to keep the markets well-supplied. I have also informed all appropriate agencies to expedite approvals of the oil pipelines currently in the permitting process in Texas and various other States.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 15, 2019

Saudi Arabia oil supply was attacked. There is reason to believe that we know the culprit, are locked and loaded depending on verification, but are waiting to hear from the Kingdom as to who they believe was the cause of this attack, and under what terms we would proceed!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 15, 2019​
 
digitusmedius said:
Here's another little bit of "trivia" about SA. It has never formally recognized the legitimacy of the government of Israel or its right to exist despite having cooperated with Israel on the basis of the old "enemy of my enemy is my friend" paradigm. Given an opportunity for success, SA would happily participation in the destruction of Israel. Oh, and a reminder: 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals as was ObL and SA is still a rich source of recruits to radical islamic terrorist cells.
Click to expand...

Good points. Also there's a number of 'Islamic charities' in Saudi Arabia that are just funders of terrorism.
They've got a certain reputation involving journalists and bone saws too.
 
PoS said:
His tweet says he is waiting to hear from SA as to what they believe, so exactly how was I changing what he said in any way? Your partisanship fails, as usual.
Click to expand...

No, that's not what his tweet says. That's the point. Funny how you attack my "partisanship" when you're the one literally changing his words into a new and different thing.
 
Moon said:
Serious question - the attack was on a Saudi facility in Saudi Arabia, so what should the US do unilaterally?
Click to expand...

Nothing. It's not our war. Saudi Arabia is run by a dictator. It's not our job to prop him up.
 
digitusmedius said:
View attachment 67263898

So, MBS gets to decide the "terms" under which Trump will take or not take action? Just one more example of how this ****bag as made this country a vassal-state for foreign dictators and potentates.
Click to expand...

Funny how every once in awhile Trump slips up and says something true......
 
Cardinal said:
No, that's not what his tweet says. That's the point. Funny how you attack my "partisanship" when you're the one literally changing his words into a new and different thing.
Click to expand...

Riight, you keep claiming he says something different but dont spell it out. Its clear youre just partisan and totally biased. Textbook TDS.
 
PoS said:
Riight, you keep claiming he says something different but dont spell it out. Its clear youre just partisan and totally biased. Textbook TDS.
Click to expand...

You are aware, are you not, that his exact words are public record? You literally just have to go to the OP to see what he said.
 
Cardinal said:
You are aware, are you not, that his exact words are public record? You literally just have to go to the OP to see what he said.
Click to expand...

Again you keep failing in your claim that I have changed the meaning of his words. State what changes I made. :waiting:
 
Mycroft said:
Oh...I'm sorry. I considered the rest of your post to be irrelevant. Here's what I snipped:



If your contention is that his intended audience is "The Twitterverse", I dismissed that as a naively simplified answer. In my opinion, he has a number of very specific targets for that tweet...and the "Twitterverse" (whatever that is) isn't one of them. But then, unlike you and others, I don't just take a snippet and try to make hay out of it. I take everything he said...I consider all of it...to form my opinion.

Tell you what...I'll present his entire tweet. You can read it if you like and give me your opinion about who his intended audience might be.

Based on the attack on Saudi Arabia, which may have an impact on oil prices, I have authorized the release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, if needed, in a to-be-determined amount....

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 15, 2019

….sufficient to keep the markets well-supplied. I have also informed all appropriate agencies to expedite approvals of the oil pipelines currently in the permitting process in Texas and various other States.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 15, 2019

Saudi Arabia oil supply was attacked. There is reason to believe that we know the culprit, are locked and loaded depending on verification, but are waiting to hear from the Kingdom as to who they believe was the cause of this attack, and under what terms we would proceed!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 15, 2019​
Click to expand...

Here's my opinion. Trumps 'intended audience' is exactly what I told you it is- the Twitterverse. His supporters, his critics and politics junkies. There's no legitimate diplomatic reason for what Trump tweets, he's just playing to an audience.
No other leader in the world would do this kind of thing. None of any consequence anyway. Unless you're willing to say that Trumps twitterdiction is him breaking new ground, him leading the pack in a new diplomatic technique you'll have to admit he's never left his trash-TV roots behind. It's always ratings week in Trumpville.
 
PoS said:
Again you keep failing in your claim that I have changed the meaning of his words. State what changes I made. :waiting:
Click to expand...

Take his tweet and paste it in a text file (or here, I'm not picky). Then, next to that, put your summary of his words right next to it. Are they the same words?
 
Cardinal said:
Take his tweet and paste it in a text file (or here, I'm not picky). Then, next to that, put your summary of his words right next to it. Are they the same words?
Click to expand...

No, you do it. You made the claim, so walk the walk.
 
Mycroft said:
Spoken like a person who has no idea about Trump. Your TDS-inspired bias blinds you to reality.
Click to expand...

Spoken like a true Trumphumper. BTW, here's what your Dear Leader has said at least twice as have several of his toadies about about meeting with Iranian's "without preconditions" and which, of course, he now denies ever having said: Here Are All The Times Trump Said He’d Meet With Iran Without Preconditions

What is it about his lying that Trumphumpers find so appealing?
 
JasperL said:
But the question is why should we launch attacks on their behalf. They have lots of U.S. bombers and fighter jets that we supplied them, and they're in an ongoing war with the Houthis. Seems like something SA could do on their own without involving U.S. assets.
Click to expand...

Sure, so why the objections to what Trump said, that we would wouldn't act without their input? He isn't saying we will, only that we're ready. For what we pay into our armed forces, they better be ready!

Beyond that, it's pretty clear they haven't handled it very well thus far, and there are U.S. interests involved, so the chances are we're going to act on it to some extent, even if only in a supporting role.


digitusmedius said:
It should be an alarm bell by now for anyone who's conscious that our history of self-serving alliances with some of the worst regimes in history lead us into horrible military misadventures and yet we never seem to stop coming up with excuses for doing it again.
Click to expand...

You're not wrong, but you can't unring that bell.

We've profited mightily from this arrangement for longer than you and I have been alive. What sort of lesson would it be to run out on them now? Why would anyone ever want to be under our umbrella after we abandoned a major ally (and #1 arms customer?)
 
PoS said:
No, you do it. You made the claim, so walk the walk.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what your stupid game is, but okay.

"Saudi Arabia oil supply was attacked. There is reason to believe that we know the culprit, are locked and loaded depending on verification, but are waiting to hear from the Kingdom as to who they believe was the cause of this attack, and under what terms we would proceed!"

Your version of what he said:

"I think what Trump is saying is that SA needs to prove that Iran did it before Trump decides to do anything."

Hey, lookit that. Not the same words. At all!
 
roughdraft274 said:
Can't wait to see if his supporters go with the "he's so stupid that he didn't actually mean what he said" defense or the "but Hillary had a private server" defense.
Click to expand...



Or, "He was just joking". Ha, ha, ha.
 
Grand Mal said:
Here's my opinion. Trumps 'intended audience' is exactly what I told you it is- the Twitterverse. His supporters, his critics and politics junkies. There's no legitimate diplomatic reason for what Trump tweets, he's just playing to an audience.
No other leader in the world would do this kind of thing. None of any consequence anyway. Unless you're willing to say that Trumps twitterdiction is him breaking new ground, him leading the pack in a new diplomatic technique you'll have to admit he's never left his trash-TV roots behind. It's always ratings week in Trumpville.
Click to expand...

You don't think other countries use Twitter? You don't think Wall Street investors use Twitter? If so, I would disagree with you.

In any case, Trump's use of Twitter isn't breaking new ground. A lot of political leaders in the US and around the world are using Twitter to present their positions and opinions to the world. They use Facebook, too.
 
Cardinal said:
I have no idea what your stupid game is, but okay.

"Saudi Arabia oil supply was attacked. There is reason to believe that we know the culprit, are locked and loaded depending on verification, but are waiting to hear from the Kingdom as to who they believe was the cause of this attack, and under what terms we would proceed!"

Your version of what he said:

"I think what Trump is saying is that SA needs to prove that Iran did it before Trump decides to do anything."

Hey, lookit that. Not the same words. At all!
Click to expand...

Its an interpretation, and you cant say its wrong because he mentions "verification" and he is waiting to hear on the SA as to the cause of the attack.

So what do you think verification means? It's another word for "proof," thats what.

My point stands.

Game, set, and match.
 
GDViking said:
I say we just attack Saudis while their weak, take over their oil and we can protect our own damn oil instead of someone's oil we are paying for.

I believe in the business world they call it a hostile takeover...
Click to expand...



We don't need to. We have both the reserves and the production capability to last while converting to renewables. The US has been the #1 producer of oil since the end of the Obama admin during when shale oil came into town. That's another funny thing. Obama Republican opponents condemned him for being against oil, yet oil production went way up during Obama over Bush2. Meanwhile, cowardly Democrat politicians said nothing. What a bunch of ******s.
 
GDViking said:
I say we just attack Saudis while their weak, take over their oil and we can protect our own damn oil instead of someone's oil we are paying for.

I believe in the business world they call it a hostile takeover...
Click to expand...



That's running government like a business. Ever hear that one before?
 
WillyPete said:
Sure, so why the objections to what Trump said, that we would wouldn't act without their input? He isn't saying we will, only that we're ready. For what we pay into our armed forces, they better be ready!

Beyond that, it's pretty clear they haven't handled it very well thus far, and there are U.S. interests involved, so the chances are we're going to act on it to some extent, even if only in a supporting role.




You're not wrong, but you can't unring that bell.

We've profited mightily from this arrangement for longer than you and I have been alive. What sort of lesson would it be to run out on them now? Why would anyone ever want to be under our umbrella after we abandoned a major ally (and #1 arms customer?)
Click to expand...

You and I may disagree on just what kind or how much "profit" we've gained. If you're referring to the financial gains of an alliance with a regime like SA i'm not at all convinced that those are not outweighed by both the financial and human costs that accrue as a result of propping up and protecting that kind of relationship (and others like it over our history). And there's the ongoing and continuing damage that does to an entire country's ideals and self-image even if many people choose to pretend otherwise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom