• 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.

Fledermaus said:
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
Click to expand...

1. Oil
2. Oil
3. Oil
4. Oil
5. Oil
 
dave8383 said:
Maybe, but the Saudi's have a history of paying. They paid a large amount of the bill for Gulf War 1.
Click to expand...


They did, but that was in their direct interest.

The US moved against the Iraq because they invaded Kuwait.

This upset both the equilibrium in oil prices that has come to be prized by the oil consumers and oil companies alike,

It also upset the delicate balance between Shia and Sunni interests in the Persian Gulf region.

Which is one of the main reasons why the US DID NOT remove Sadaam Hussein.

The Saudis paid. But so did the many NATO countries and Japan. In short, the industrialized world chipped in to keep the oil flowing at a steady price.

This was good politics, too.

The Bush Administration, like the Clinton Administration that inherited the policy, stayed hand’s off until 9/11. (Although the Clinton Administration was growing aware of the threat posed by Osama Bin Laden.
 
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...

Smedley Butler would tell you that many or most military actions during the last century or so had nothing to do with defending this country. On the contrary, as Trump is again demonstrating, the military actions have been about imperialism.

As Butler said, war is a racket.
 
Just because Trump says SA is paying us...you know Trump lies all the time right?

Show us the receipts.
 
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...

It's not even "a Democrat thing" because if most Republicans and conservatives were angry about this issue, THIS Democrat (me) would side with THEM. Believe me USN, this venue makes everybody appear a lot more partisan than maybe we always are.

You know my Navy wife was an engineman, there's plenty of common ground to be had if we are just willing to look for it.
Our brave men and women in the military should not be used as chattel. This screwball deal make them into a mercenary consumer product, and I just can't wrap my mind around such an idea, nor can I figure out how it benefits the American people in general.
 
Fledermaus said:
Simplistic thinking...……

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
Click to expand...

Items 1,2,3, and 4 only exist because of number 5.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
It's not even "a Democrat thing" because if most Republicans and conservatives were angry about this issue, THIS Democrat (me) would side with THEM. Believe me USN, this venue makes everybody appear a lot more partisan than maybe we always are.

You know my Navy wife was an engineman, there's plenty of common ground to be had if we are just willing to look for it.
Our brave men and women in the military should not be used as chattel. This screwball deal make them into a mercenary consumer product, and I just can't wrap my mind around such an idea, nor can I figure out how it benefits the American people in general.
Click to expand...

I can think of no good reason why you should have to wrap your head around seeing our men and women in service described as though they were mercenaries for sale.

Nor do I see why any American should have to wrap their heads around reckless imperialistic adventures, particularly ones launched on a whim, with little more consideration a forehand than how they will play in the next news cycle.
 
TomFitz said:
Items 1,2,3, and 4 only exist because of number 5.
Click to expand...

1. predates the 1938 discovery of oil.
2. Was prompted first by the Italian attacks on oil field in WWII and the rise of the Soviet Union.
3. Pro-American, pro-western government has nothing to do with oil.
4. This isn't oil related either.
5. Oil
 
TomFitz said:
I can think of no good reason why you should have to wrap your head around seeing our men and women in service described as though they were mercenaries for sale.

Nor do I see why any American should have to wrap their heads around reckless imperialistic adventures, particularly ones launched on a whim, with little more consideration a forehand than how they will play in the next news cycle.
Click to expand...

As Smedley Butler USMC observed in the last century, war is a racket.
 
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...

Saudi Arabia has been the target of attacks from the Iranian backed and financed Houthi. That alone justifies it from a military stand point. We are facing a promised escalation of attacks by Iran. That alone justifies it. That they agreed to pay for it does not necessarily mean that money is the only reason we are deploying troops. Trump has consistently complained that the US is shouldering too much financial responsibility for being the world's policeman. That this not costing us anything in theory at least indicates that his administration is starting to shift some of the cost burdens onto others---in this case the country that benefits from the troop deployment. While I personally would rather see the US move to a more isolationist footing when it comes to our military, to the extent that we are not, getting others to pay more for the benefit of our presence is progress.

Japan has been paying a fairly large chunk (75%) of our presence there for awhile, but nobody lamented that because it started pre-Trump. Saudi Arabia was already paying about 65% of US costs for deployments there. Our NATO allies pay about 35%.
 
He'll sell anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom