• 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!

Iran

Glowpun

Glowpun

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2012
Messages
2,236
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
When the Saudi oil fields were hit, it did not take long for Pompeo to implicate Iran for the attacks and called it "an act of war." The Iranians later responded by stating any military action against them will lead to all out war.

You will note that Trump has said nothing about the matter the last three days. Did the Iranians call the bluff and Trump seems to have blinked by saying nothing?

The Saudis had expected the US to have responded militarily, but they are now livid that Trump and Pompeo have gone into inaction. With the US having taken no action, will the Iranians now feel emboldened?
 
Glowpun said:
When the Saudi oil fields were hit, it did not take long for Pompeo to implicate Iran for the attacks and called it "an act of war." The Iranians later responded by stating any military action against them will lead to all out war.

You will note that Trump has said nothing about the matter the last three days. Did the Iranians call the bluff and Trump seems to have blinked by saying nothing?

The Saudis had expected the US to have responded militarily, but they are now livid that Trump and Pompeo have gone into inaction. With the US having taken no action, will the Iranians now feel emboldened?
Click to expand...

No idea, best guess would have them trying to mull the information out behind closed doors. Because if this was anything that Trump could openly talk about, he'd be doing so for about a full day on twitter already..
 
Glowpun said:
When the Saudi oil fields were hit, it did not take long for Pompeo to implicate Iran for the attacks and called it "an act of war." The Iranians later responded by stating any military action against them will lead to all out war.

You will note that Trump has said nothing about the matter the last three days. Did the Iranians call the bluff and Trump seems to have blinked by saying nothing?

The Saudis had expected the US to have responded militarily, but they are now livid that Trump and Pompeo have gone into inaction. With the US having taken no action, will the Iranians now feel emboldened?
Click to expand...

I live in Saudi, can you please cite to back up your statement that the Saudi's are livid over US inaction?
 
Glowpun said:
When the Saudi oil fields were hit, it did not take long for Pompeo to implicate Iran for the attacks and called it "an act of war." The Iranians later responded by stating any military action against them will lead to all out war.

You will note that Trump has said nothing about the matter the last three days. Did the Iranians call the bluff and Trump seems to have blinked by saying nothing?

The Saudis had expected the US to have responded militarily, but they are now livid that Trump and Pompeo have gone into inaction. With the US having taken no action, will the Iranians now feel emboldened?
Click to expand...

I wonder how much this is Trump and how much this is other people trying to push Trump into a war he can't back out of.
 
yankintx said:
I live in Saudi, can you please cite to back up your statement that the Saudi's are livid over US inaction?
Click to expand...

The "Saudis" would be the govt people, not the ordinary people.
 
Let the Saudis retaliate. We don't need to fight their wars for them.
 
Frigidweirdo said:
The "Saudis" would be the govt people, not the ordinary people.
Click to expand...

I only asked for a cite, the OP has made a claim, so there must be a source document.
 
We will have to wait and see what Sean Hannity says we should do.
 
Glowpun said:
When the Saudi oil fields were hit, it did not take long for Pompeo to implicate Iran for the attacks and called it "an act of war." The Iranians later responded by stating any military action against them will lead to all out war.

You will note that Trump has said nothing about the matter the last three days. Did the Iranians call the bluff and Trump seems to have blinked by saying nothing?

The Saudis had expected the US to have responded militarily, but they are now livid that Trump and Pompeo have gone into inaction. With the US having taken no action, will the Iranians now feel emboldened?
Click to expand...

What on earth makes you thing the Saudis had expected the US to have responded militarily? Do you have a quote to that effect from someone in the Saudi government?
 
GreatNews2night said:
Let the Saudis retaliate. We don't need to fight their wars for them.
Click to expand...

That is the basis of an interesting debate. Why not put a blank where you typed Saudis. Let the rest of the world fight their wars for themselves. No fighting over Poland or Germany. No fleet in the Pacific. Cut defense spending by hundreds of billions.
 
yankintx said:
I only asked for a cite, the OP has made a claim, so there must be a source document.
Click to expand...

You want a cite for something that wasn't said? Er.....

How about you cite the winners of the 1862 Superbowl while we're at it.
 
yankintx said:
On a side note, those ordinary Saudis know Trump is full of BS.
Click to expand...

Well, ironically I was talking with an Algerian who lives in Saudi Arabia only the other day. God, I hate talking politics with people like that, so full of **** it's incredible.

When I made a comment and I was able to back it up with evidence, I was continually told I was wrong. When I told them to look at the link, they refused.

I would have no doubt that most Saudis are full of brainwashed ****. Want to see Israel destroyed, think all Arabs are great, think their own govt is wonderful and the like.
 
washunut said:
That is the basis of an interesting debate. Why not put a blank where you typed Saudis. Let the rest of the world fight their wars for themselves. No fighting over Poland or Germany. No fleet in the Pacific. Cut defense spending by hundreds of billions.
Click to expand...

Lol yeah, let’s abandon our allies and friends and allow brutal dictators to do whatever they want, all over the globe. Brilliant thinking :roll:

And unless you are advocating ditching Hawaii, we’d still need a pacific fleet.
 
washunut said:
That is the basis of an interesting debate. Why not put a blank where you typed Saudis. Let the rest of the world fight their wars for themselves. No fighting over Poland or Germany. No fleet in the Pacific. Cut defense spending by hundreds of billions.
Click to expand...

Maybe not. Withdrawing from NATO and from the Pacific agreements is the same as opening the doors to a world dominated by Russia and China. I'm not sure if we'd like that world, or if our economy would thrive in that world. The Middle East on the other hand is such a quagmire that whatever we do, conflict between multiple players will always exist there. The more self-sufficient in energy we are, the less we should be entangled in the Middle East, and we have made many strides in terms of natural gas and domestic oil production. Yes, sure, conflict in the Middle East will increase oil prices and will jeopardize the world economy. I just think that whatever we do, the problem will persist. We are NOT a stabilizing force in the region; we are more like a destabilizing force, while in Europe and the Pacific we are a stabilizing force. So, I see a difference. Do you?

I'm not sure if isolationism is the answer. People complain that we are the police of the world, but the dollar as international currency and our own economy largely depend on the fact that we are so influential. Withdrawing from the world will also paradoxically weaken our country. Sure, we'll be very well-defended if we focus the power of our military exclusively on the defense of the homeland. But if we get too isolationist, our economy will suffer, too. For one thing, most likely we'd see the dollar being dropped as the preferred international currency, which would have catastrophic effects for us.

People say, but we'd spend these dollars at home. But how are our dollars generated? From exports, from trade agreements, from positive commercial balances, from the prosperity at home that certain contracts with other countries can produce. Turn the back to the world and we'll actually see our prosperity go down.
 
GreatNews2night said:
Maybe not. Withdrawing from NATO and from the Pacific agreements is the same as opening the doors to a world dominated by Russia and China. I'm not sure if we'd like that world, or if our economy would thrive in that world. The Middle East on the other hand is such a quagmire that whatever we do, conflict between multiple players will always exist there. The more self-sufficient in energy we are, the less we should be entangled in the Middle East, and we have made many strides in terms of natural gas and domestic oil production. Yes, sure, conflict in the Middle East will increase oil prices and will jeopardize the world economy. I just think that whatever we do, the problem will persist. We are NOT a stabilizing force in the region; we are more like a destabilizing force, while in Europe and the Pacific we are a stabilizing force. So, I see a difference. Do you?

I'm not sure if isolationism is the answer. People complain that we are the police of the world, but the dollar as international currency and our own economy largely depend on the fact that we are so influential. Withdrawing from the world will also paradoxically weaken our country. Sure, we'll be very well-defended if we focus the power of our military exclusively on the defense of the homeland. But if we get too isolationist, our economy will suffer, too. For one thing, most likely we'd see the dollar being dropped as the preferred international currency, which would have catastrophic effects for us.

People say, but we'd spend these dollars at home. But how are our dollars generated? From exports, from trade agreements, from positive commercial balances, from the prosperity at home that certain contracts with other countries can produce. Turn the back to the world and we'll actually see our prosperity go down.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of the above,with the exception of the Middle East. I say this for a couple of reasons. First when talking about attacks on the oil supplies this impact prices globally. Although we are closer to producing enough for our needs, oil if fungible. Thus we need to look at global supplies. That is why the price of oil went up quickly when it was thought that Saudi oil would be off the markets for months and then quickly down when we found that was not the case.

Approximately 20% of the world's oil comes out of the gulf. A major shut down of that oil, would cause a global recession/depression and prices of oil to skyrocket. So I would say it is much more important to insure the flow of oil than say a Russian takeover of Poland. BTW I doubt that Russia could in fact successfully invade Poland today.We may not like the leaders in Saudi,but the fact is the world needs their oil. Hopefully there will come a time when renewables create enough of our energy needs that won't be the case.
 
Frigidweirdo said:
Well, ironically I was talking with an Algerian who lives in Saudi Arabia only the other day. God, I hate talking politics with people like that, so full of **** it's incredible.

When I made a comment and I was able to back it up with evidence, I was continually told I was wrong. When I told them to look at the link, they refused.

I would have no doubt that most Saudis are full of brainwashed ****. Want to see Israel destroyed, think all Arabs are great, think their own govt is wonderful and the like.
Click to expand...

don't recall them being very fond of the shia
 
justabubba said:
don't recall them being very fond of the shia
Click to expand...

Oh, they're not when they're talking about internal politics, but when they talk about Jews, they love all Muslims.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom