• 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 says Saudi King wouldn't last 'two weeks' without US support

PoS

PoS

Minister of Love
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
33,887
Reaction score
26,601
Location
Oceania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/03/politics/trump-saudi-king-intl/index.html

US President Donald Trump told supporters Tuesday that Saudi Arabia and its King would not last "two weeks" in power without American military support and appeared to call on the country to pay more for its own defense.

"And how about our military deals where we protect rich nations that we don't get reimbursed. How about that stuff? That's changing too folks," Trump told a campaign rally in Southaven, Mississippi, on Tuesday.



"We protect Saudi Arabia. Would you say they're rich? And I love the King ... King Salman but I said 'King, we're protecting you. You might not be there for two weeks without us. You have to pay for your military,'" Trump said.
Click to expand...

Im with Trump on this one. We need to withdraw and stop supporting these Wahhabist extremists there.
 
We don't get to praise Trump much, but at least he's antagonizing the right people for once. Saudi Arabia is one of the absolute worst human rights abusers in the world and their #1 export after oil is radical islamic extremism. These people are not our friends.
 
I believe even Egypt would invade them if the house of Saud collapsed. We know isreal would.
 
longview said:
I would be a bit concerned about what would fill the void.
Click to expand...

What, you don't think a multi-party parliamentary system would arise?
 
Grand Mal said:
What, you don't think a multi-party parliamentary system would arise?
Click to expand...
It is the BIG we have no idea that is concerning.
I think it has a greater chance of being worse than now than better, but I could be wrong.
 
longview said:
I would be a bit concerned about what would fill the void.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but it should be noted that much of the Islamic extremism in that area are a direct result of the house of Saud and their promotion of a very intolerant brand of Islam, so if it gets worse then they have brought it unto themselves.
 
PoS said:
Perhaps, but it should be noted that much of the Islamic extremism in that area are a direct result of the house of Saud and their promotion of a very intolerant brand of Islam, so if it gets worse then they have brought it unto themselves.
Click to expand...

I agree with your assessment of the Saudi's support for Islamic extremism but I'd rather try to alter their behavior than replace them. Trump needs to make them see that it's in their best interest to support a more moderate form of Islam.
 
Without American support... just extend the war in Yemen... along with Iran's empire. Besides the King is all "cashed up" from his "sheikh down" he gave South Africa $10billion investment for their energy sector that's falling apart, sure he can pay for his own war instead of handing money out to the "****holes" lol ... sorry I love that word as much as I hate it... I was born in a ****hole country, I'm claiming it :lol:
 
PoS said:
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/03/politics/trump-saudi-king-intl/index.html



Im with Trump on this one. We need to withdraw and stop supporting these Wahhabist extremists there.
Click to expand...

From what I saw it wasn't a case of Trump wanting to withdraw support for the feudal monarchy that rules KSA but a case of wanting them to pay more for the security it provides them. Geopolitically Saudi is and always has been seen since the post war period as a vital world resource centre and as such control over it will always be a key US aim........... until the oil runs out that is.

Same thing with his wanting payment from NATO members without ever wishing to leave the organisation itself
 
Trump is correct that they would not last 2 weeks, they have been fighting in yemen since 2015 and have met zero of their goals, but managed to lose a crapton of tanks, armored trucks, personel, and even some aircraft, while their ally has lost many of the same and has also lost navy ships. If saudi arabia could not defeat rebels using antique soviet gear plus whatever reverse engineered russian gear iran smuggled in by using the most expensive gear on earth, they really stand no chance against iran, or shia militias, or even any other arab govt who may with to control the muslim holyland.
 
oneworld2 said:
From what I saw it wasn't a case of Trump wanting to withdraw support for the feudal monarchy that rules KSA but a case of wanting them to pay more for the security it provides them. Geopolitically Saudi is and always has been seen since the post war period as a vital world resource centre and as such control over it will always be a key US aim........... until the oil runs out that is.

Same thing with his wanting payment from NATO members without ever wishing to leave the organisation itself
Click to expand...

Except the US imports a minimal amount of oil from Saudi. Less than 10% and shrinking. Most of your imports come from Canada and that's shrinking, too. In fact, Obama lifted the moratorium and you now export oil.
And its not a matter of 'payments' from NATO countries, it's a matter of them spending more on their own military.
 
Grand Mal said:
Except the US imports a minimal amount of oil from Saudi. Less than 10% and shrinking. Most of your imports come from Canada and that's shrinking, too. In fact, Obama lifted the moratorium and you now export oil.
And its not a matter of 'payments' from NATO countries, it's a matter of them spending more on their own military.
Click to expand...

I am aware that the US imports only a small amount of oil from KSA but that doesn't mean the value of influence/control over such a crucial worldwide resource has escaped its attention. China , an economic rival , has relied heavily on oil exports from Saudi in the recent past now changing slightly in favour of Russian oil. The EU , also and economic rival to the US , has and still does rely heavily on oil exports from KSA.

Control of this region with regards to its oil wealth is a powerful tool for any with aims of global domination and the US has tapped this since the end of WW2
 
oneworld2 said:
I am aware that the US imports only a small amount of oil from KSA but that doesn't mean the value of influence/control over such a crucial worldwide resource has escaped its attention. China , an economic rival , has relied heavily on oil exports from Saudi in the recent past now changing slightly in favour of Russian oil. The EU , also and economic rival to the US , has and still does rely heavily on oil exports from KSA.

Control of this region with regards to its oil wealth is a powerful tool for any with aims of global domination and the US has tapped this since the end of WW2
Click to expand...

China has used more russian and saudi oil, but china has been fairly neutral on their sources, china gets oil from iran and saudi, both mortal enemies, as well as russia and any other country that sells to them. The chinese refuse to get their oil from one source, to prevent any disagreements from being used as economic blackmail, as they currently are if they got into a pissing match with saudi or iran or russia or venezuala, they have other sources unless they got into a pissing match with all of them at the same time.


Control of the region has to do with 2 principles, one saudi being a major exporter means they can control the market to a heavy extent, and any control over saudi grants them defacto influence on the global market. The second is that if all out war happened etween america and nato vs russia plus whoever, russia has enough domestic oil to run everything, while america and nato would run out in anything more than a short term fight. America also has many wells capped for this reason and uses the other peoples oil principle, meaning use other countries oil so if it came down to it you have enough reserve wells to run an army.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
We don't get to praise Trump much, but at least he's antagonizing the right people for once. Saudi Arabia is one of the absolute worst human rights abusers in the world and their #1 export after oil is radical islamic extremism. These people are not our friends.
Click to expand...

Half the Middle East aren't our friends.
 
Neither Trump nor his yokels have the first clue as to what could be done to replace the House of Saud, nor a clue as to how to handle the inevitable aftermath SHOULD the House of Saud ever collapse.

The reason such truths have never been peddled for public consumption before is sort of like the Ghostbusters theory of containment.



Trump is the city inspector who is demanding that the containment grid get shut down.
 
beerftw said:
China has used more russian and saudi oil, but china has been fairly neutral on their sources, china gets oil from iran and saudi, both mortal enemies, as well as russia and any other country that sells to them. The chinese refuse to get their oil from one source, to prevent any disagreements from being used as economic blackmail, as they currently are if they got into a pissing match with saudi or iran or russia or venezuala, they have other sources unless they got into a pissing match with all of them at the same time.


Control of the region has to do with 2 principles, one saudi being a major exporter means they can control the market to a heavy extent, and any control over saudi grants them defacto influence on the global market. The second is that if all out war happened etween america and nato vs russia plus whoever, russia has enough domestic oil to run everything, while america and nato would run out in anything more than a short term fight. America also has many wells capped for this reason and uses the other peoples oil principle, meaning use other countries oil so if it came down to it you have enough reserve wells to run an army.
Click to expand...

Yep control over/influence in oil rich parts of the world has it's huge strategic implications for those involved in the great game of geopolitics/global hegemony

The war mongering with Russia is alarming in the extreme but surprisingly is cheered on/encouraged by quite a few here.................... maybe they have built themselves a bunker at the bottom of their garden and think the 40 litres of water and two tubs of jam butties are enough to see them through the worst of the post nuclear Armageddon's first few weeks. Lemmings spring to mind
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom