• 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!

I Gotta Go With The Democrats On This One.

RetiredUSN

RetiredUSN

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
38,048
Reaction score
22,546
Location
Norfolk Virginia area.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Trump sending troops to Saudi Arabia for money?

Is there a immediate threat going on in this backwards and savage empire that warrants Trump adding troops? Trump said that he wasn't interested in making new wars, and ending prolonged wars. But he is going to send troops to SA? To what end?

And then Trump demanding money in exchange?

Trump's curious defense for deploying more troops to Saudi Arabia | MSNBC

WTF Donnie?
 
RetiredUSN said:
Trump sending troops to Saudi Arabia for money?
Is there a immediate threat going on in this backwards and savage empire that warrants Trump adding troops? Trump said that he wasn't interested in making new wars, and ending prolonged wars. But he is going to send troops to SA? To what end?
And then Trump demanding money in exchange?
Trump's curious defense for deploying more troops to Saudi Arabia | MSNBC
WTF Donnie?
Click to expand...

There seem to be a number of fundamental concepts about America, democracy, and the rule of law that just don't click for Donnie.

He just doesn't get why this is a big deal.
"Aren't those troops America's property to be exported at a profit?"
 
Simon W. Moon said:
There seem to be a number of fundamental concepts about America, democracy, and the rule of law that just don't click for Donnie.

He just doesn't get why this is a big deal.
"Aren't those troops America's property to be exported at a profit?"
Click to expand...

You might as well add most of trump's supporters, things don't seem to click with most of them either.

Get your money for nothing and your troops for free.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Trump sending troops to Saudi Arabia for money?

Is there a immediate threat going on in this backwards and savage empire that warrants Trump adding troops? Trump said that he wasn't interested in making new wars, and ending prolonged wars. But he is going to send troops to SA? To what end?

And then Trump demanding money in exchange?

Trump's curious defense for deploying more troops to Saudi Arabia | MSNBC

WTF Donnie?
Click to expand...

I suppose there are all sorts of ways "remainers" could use to justify this move, and why complain about another country covering the costs of stationing troops in their nation? But I'd much rather prefer a phased complete withdrawal out of the Middle East entirely.

The Saudis aren't really our friends. They are governed by absolute monarchists, who simply want more American troops to present the image of our support so as to bolster their own control of an increasingly restless population.

We don't need their oil anymore, so IMO there is no need to pursue their faux friendship anymore.

As a short-term shift out of Syria and hopefully Iraq I can accept it. NOT as a long term replacement policy.
 
Pimping out our troops as mercenaries is just wrong. Their objective is to defend this country, not whoever the highest bidder is.
 
Captain Adverse said:
I suppose there are all sorts of ways "remainers" could use to justify this move, and why complain about another country covering the costs of stationing troops in their nation? But I'd much rather prefer a phased complete withdrawal out of the Middle East entirely.

The Saudis aren't really our friends. They are governed by absolute monarchists, who simply want more American troops to present the image of our support so as to bolster their own control of an increasingly restless population.

We don't need their oil anymore, so IMO there is no need to pursue their faux friendship anymore.

As a short-term shift out of Syria and hopefully Iraq I can accept it. NOT as a long term replacement policy.
Click to expand...

Are you willing to say you were wrong then about Trumps decision to allow Turkey to slaughter the Kurds because "we were getting the hell out of the ME?" and admit that had nothing to do with it?

Especially when he also says stuff like this:



gone fishin' said:
Pimping out our troops as mercenaries is just wrong. Their objective is to defend this country, not whoever the highest bidder is.
Click to expand...

Oh my sweet child.
 
I do not mind being in the minority on this.

I should preface this by saying I am no supporter of Trump or Republicans these days, usually take a cynical attitude about our activities across the greater Middle East region of the world, and generally am harsh on the idea of the US being the de facto world's police department.

That said, I am taken aback by a President asking for another nation who benefits from our military activity anyway to pick up some of the check.

Where I am stuck on all this is Trump is now the 5th President... in a row... to drop a bomb on Iraq for whatever reason and the 7th President... again, in a row... in having to deal with Iraq or Iran because of all our activity elsewhere in the region. Notwithstanding from this discussion is our own history with both Israel and Saudi Arabia, which has come with entangling alliances and consequences keeping us in this region of the world for an unforeseen future.

Any of you are welcome to check my post history here in the forums on this subject and you will find the occasional post where I mention the cost in lives, the fiscal cost to our debt position, and the impacts to generation after generation of all those we send over to that area of the world for whatever reason.

Our soldiers have been outright abused by President after President, with a few that standout for various reasons... like Bush 43 and Clinton for that matter.

Principled and moral intentions with all this activity, up for debate.

So now we have ole President orange tan suggesting that Saudi Arabia pick up some of the tab that all to often ends up right on the voter or national credit card (or both)... and there is outrage over our soldiers being treated as paid fighters and mercenaries.

I am sorry, I do not buy it.

Our soldiers have been bought and paid for all along the way, it is absent all reality that even if Saudi Arabia picks up some of this tab that all of a sudden it is the first time the US has financially benefited in some way from warfare in this region with someone we call a bad guy (often that we once called a good guy.)

You guys today all upset about this are being hypocritical and shelving the reality of our confusing, entangling, and hypocritical foreign policy for this area of the world going back generations now.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Trump sending troops to Saudi Arabia for money?

Is there a immediate threat going on in this backwards and savage empire that warrants Trump adding troops? Trump said that he wasn't interested in making new wars, and ending prolonged wars. But he is going to send troops to SA? To what end?

And then Trump demanding money in exchange?

Trump's curious defense for deploying more troops to Saudi Arabia | MSNBC

WTF Donnie?
Click to expand...

Yup I’m with y’all


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Jetboogieman said:
Are you willing to say you were wrong then about Trumps decision to allow Turkey to slaughter the Kurds because "we were getting the hell out of the ME?" and admit that had nothing to do with it?
Click to expand...

Before you project an interpretation of my alleged "position" and then demand I admit to something, please do me (and the Forum) the courtesy of providing a citation to a post in support of your assertion.

Don't expect a kneejerk agreement or denial.

Meanwhile, I believe I have been pretty clear on my position on U.S. involvement in the Middle East; which is consistent with viewpoint presented in my "Four points on Foreign Affairs." https://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/captain-adverse/1391-time-re-introduce-myself.html
 
We know the President likes to thump his chest and feed his ego. This doesn't mean he is making a bad decision. He did say he wants all of our troops out of the ME but conditions have changed. Tensions are high and the potential for war still exists so it probably makes sense to send troops to Saudi Arabia. It's better to send 2800 troops now than 100,000 later. Countries pay for our military support one way or another.
 
If Saudi Arabia had no oil, would US defend it? If Iraq and Kuwait had no oil, would the US have jumped in? The US wants to intervene in Venezuela, another country that has oil, but how about intervening in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras? Oh, but they don’t have oil. Saudi Arabia is 40% of OPEC and a key pillar of the Petrodollar which was forced down their throats in 1974. As usual, it's all about money.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
There seem to be a number of fundamental concepts about America, democracy, and the rule of law that just don't click for Donnie.

He just doesn't get why this is a big deal.
"Aren't those troops America's property to be exported at a profit?"
Click to expand...

Donald Trump is a crooked real estate developer, and the son of a shady real estate developer.

This is the way guys like him conduct themselves.
 
OrphanSlug said:
I do not mind being in the minority on this.

I should preface this by saying I am no supporter of Trump or Republicans these days, usually take a cynical attitude about our activities across the greater Middle East region of the world, and generally am harsh on the idea of the US being the de facto world's police department.

That said, I am taken aback by a President asking for another nation who benefits from our military activity anyway to pick up some of the check.

Where I am stuck on all this is Trump is now the 5th President... in a row... to drop a bomb on Iraq for whatever reason and the 7th President... again, in a row... in having to deal with Iraq or Iran because of all our activity elsewhere in the region. Notwithstanding from this discussion is our own history with both Israel and Saudi Arabia, which has come with entangling alliances and consequences keeping us in this region of the world for an unforeseen future.

Any of you are welcome to check my post history here in the forums on this subject and you will find the occasional post where I mention the cost in lives, the fiscal cost to our debt position, and the impacts to generation after generation of all those we send over to that area of the world for whatever reason.

Our soldiers have been outright abused by President after President, with a few that standout for various reasons... like Bush 43 and Clinton for that matter.

Principled and moral intentions with all this activity, up for debate.

So now we have ole President orange tan suggesting that Saudi Arabia pick up some of the tab that all to often ends up right on the voter or national credit card (or both)... and there is outrage over our soldiers being treated as paid fighters and mercenaries.

I am sorry, I do not buy it.

Our soldiers have been bought and paid for all along the way, it is absent all reality that even if Saudi Arabia picks up some of this tab that all of a sudden it is the first time the US has financially benefited in some way from warfare in this region with someone we call a bad guy (often that we once called a good guy.)

You guys today all upset about this are being hypocritical and shelving the reality of our confusing, entangling, and hypocritical foreign policy for this area of the world going back generations now.
Click to expand...

I largely agree with you, with a couple of exceptions.

I don’t “ take a cynical attitude about our activities across the greater Middle East region of the world, and generally am harsh on the idea of the US being the de facto world's police department.” That is the responsibility that comes with world power. Americans, particularly the parochial reactionary right, do not understand that.

The key is exercising that power with responsibility and restraint.

The best argument for that approach is to look at what happens when we behave impulsively, unilaterally and without any sense of global responsibility. You can see what that looks like on your TV right now.

As to the “confusing, entangling, and hypocritical US foreign policy in the Middle East, one word ties it all together.

Oil.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Trump sending troops to Saudi Arabia for money?

Is there a immediate threat going on in this backwards and savage empire that warrants Trump adding troops? Trump said that he wasn't interested in making new wars, and ending prolonged wars. But he is going to send troops to SA? To what end?

And then Trump demanding money in exchange?

Trump's curious defense for deploying more troops to Saudi Arabia | MSNBC

WTF Donnie?
Click to expand...

The troops are there because we want them there and the Saudi's are paying because they can afford it.
 
dave8383 said:
The troops are there because we want them there and the Saudi's are paying because they can afford it.
Click to expand...

I doubt that the Saudis are paying anything.

This is just some BS Trump just made up because it plays to his flat earth base.
 
TomFitz said:
I doubt that the Saudis are paying anything.

This is just some BS Trump just made up because it plays to his flat earth base.
Click to expand...


Maybe, but the Saudi's have a history of paying. They paid a large amount of the bill for Gulf War 1.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Trump sending troops to Saudi Arabia for money?

Is there a immediate threat going on in this backwards and savage empire that warrants Trump adding troops? Trump said that he wasn't interested in making new wars, and ending prolonged wars. But he is going to send troops to SA? To what end?

And then Trump demanding money in exchange?

Trump's curious defense for deploying more troops to Saudi Arabia | MSNBC

WTF Donnie?
Click to expand...

I'm all for the Saudis paying the tab. Part of it, anyway.
 
apdst said:
I'm all for the Saudis paying the tab. Part of it, anyway.
Click to expand...

Maybe Nato participating countries alongside US troops in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa and Nato forces in the Arabian Sea participating in anti piracy duties and guarding the Strait of Hormuz might start demanding the US pay 'em for their services or they split.

If Trump wants to make everything into a real estate transaction with an ocean view in some instances then maybe that's where it all will go.
 
Tangmo said:
Maybe Nato participating countries alongside US troops in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa and Nato forces in the Arabian Sea participating in anti piracy duties and guarding the Strait of Hormuz might start demanding the US pay 'em for their services or they split.

If Trump wants to make everything into a real estate transaction with an ocean view in some instances then maybe that's where it all will go.
Click to expand...

Well, those countries would have to start paying their fair share, for starters. The United States is alreasy paying the lion's share of the bills in NATO.
 
apdst said:
Well, those countries would have to start paying their fair share, for starters. The United States is alreasy paying the lion's share of the bills in NATO.
Click to expand...

It's a pay to play jungle out there that Trump's taking us into innit.
 
HumblePi said:
If Saudi Arabia had no oil, would US defend it? If Iraq and Kuwait had no oil, would the US have jumped in? The US wants to intervene in Venezuela, another country that has oil, but how about intervening in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras? Oh, but they don’t have oil. Saudi Arabia is 40% of OPEC and a key pillar of the Petrodollar which was forced down their throats in 1974. As usual, it's all about money.
Click to expand...

How much oil does Israel have?

Japan?

South Korea?

South Vietnam?

Venezuela was giving all the oil they could even after we supported the challenger instead of the proto-dictator they continue to have?

And how much oil does France, Germany and the rest of NATO have yet we helped protect them for decades?

Sometimes it aint the oil.
 
Fledermaus said:
How much oil does Israel have?

Japan?

South Korea?

South Vietnam?

Venezuela was giving all the oil they could even after we supported the challenger instead of the proto-dictator they continue to have?

And how much oil does France, Germany and the rest of NATO have yet we helped protect them for decades?

Sometimes it aint the oil.
Click to expand...

I'll tell you why it matters how much oil France, Germany, N. Korea, Japan, South Korea or South Vietnam has. It matters specifically because those countries don't have oil. Controlling the flow of oil means controlling prices. That's why the Strait of Hormuz is so vital. International trade, the world's currency is all based on the Petrodollar. Keeping the Petrodollar high means big profits. Global trade all starts with the oil trade and the whole global economic activity depends on oil.

Yessir, without a doubt, it's all about the oil and all about the money.
 
HumblePi said:
I'll tell you why it matters how much oil France, Germany, N. Korea, Japan, South Korea or South Vietnam has. It matters specifically because those countries don't have oil. Controlling the flow of oil means controlling prices. That's why the Strait of Hormuz is so vital. International trade, the world's currency is all based on the Petrodollar. Keeping the Petrodollar high means big profits. Global trade all starts with the oil trade and the whole global economic activity depends on oil.

Yessir, without a doubt, it's all about the oil and all about the money.
Click to expand...

Make up your mind.

Either we are interested in countries that have oil or we are interested in countries that don't have oil.

And if we cared not for NATO and other nations why should we care if Iran, Iraq, etc. cut of the oil?

Oh, and nations around the world utilize the Petrodollar and often peg their own currency to it.

Try that with the Ruble, Yuan, etc.
 
Fledermaus said:
Make up your mind.

Either we are interested in countries that have oil or we are interested in countries that don't have oil.

And if we cared not for NATO and other nations why should we care if Iran, Iraq, etc. cut of the oil?

Oh, and nations around the world utilize the Petrodollar and often peg their own currency to it.

Try that with the Ruble, Yuan, etc.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that I've been ambivalent in the least regarding oil producing countries. Why is this so very difficult for you to comprehend? I've been perfectly clear about why the US protects countries like Saudi Arabia.
 
HumblePi said:
I don't believe that I've been ambivalent in the least regarding oil producing countries. Why is this so very difficult for you to comprehend? I've been perfectly clear about why the US protects countries like Saudi Arabia.
Click to expand...

Multiple reasons.....

1. A long term ally. First of England, then America.
2. Military bases. Dating back decades.
3. Pro-American government.
4. Officially anti-terrorist
5. Oil
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom