Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is a strategic move against Iran.. You bet it is a good move. Iran is working on a nuclear weapon. We best fight them over there and keep the war far from our shores... it is coming, it will happen.
This is a strategic move against Iran.. You bet it is a good move. Iran is working on a nuclear weapon. We best fight them over there and keep the war far from our shores... it is coming, it will happen.
Ya, there was a deal keeping that from happening but In the infinite wisdom of Lord Cheeto, we are at this point..
Ya, there was a deal keeping that from happening but In the infinite wisdom of Lord Cheeto, we are at this point..
GG..
That dumb deal of Obama did not stop the Iranians from getting a nuclear weapon.. there was no way to check on their progress and it was a limited time that they said they would not have a nuclear weapon.. it was no agreement at all . NONE! It was reported at the time of the signing Iran may have already had a nuclear weapon.
This is a hard one. I would prefer we stayed the heck out, our energy industry means we no longer need the middle east. Not nearly to the extent Europe does let them play the role of Mid-East Protector. This being said we have actual treaties with Saudia Arabia that I feel we must actually honor(we had no such treaties with the Kurds). But i would make a point to end those treaties as soon as we can legally do so and get out. Let them either find a way to make peace with each other or kill each other, its their choice to make.
That the Saudis kill their opposition doesn't bother me as much as the fact that Saudi Arabia is ruled by an omnipotent King.
One single man who has the power to rule his government and his people with completely unregulated power can betray the closest ally in a split-second. All the Kings of old did, many times, and the Saudis have done it these days several times.
A King has less restriction on his powers than a Dictator, especially when his people sincerely believe he was Chosen By God.
Oil has created the political necessity of allying with the Saudis. But until their King has some strong limits on his power, we should never trust them or their loyalty to us.
Never forget that it was a Saudi religious zealot who conceived of the 9/11 attacks. And then recruited other zealots from the radical mosques that the Saudi King had sponsored and paid for, from all over the Sunni middle east.
Without those zealots having the mosques to spread their Sunni radicalism, there would be no Al-Quieda, and no Al-Quieda would have meant no ISIS would have emerged as an even more radical force from within the same nation and the same mosques they built.
So far, the Kings have shown no sign whatsoever they oppose their zealot's religious leaders at all, but every one of them has the power to stop the radicalism quickly. Any King could imprison or execute those preachers of hatred at any time they wish.
They could also easily starve those movements out by refusing to supply them at any time too, if they didn't choose to stop the movements so dramatically. The King controls all the most holy sites of one branch of Islam. At any time, all that any King needs to do to cool the fire of zealotry is to restrict the pilgrimage to Mecca.
So far, none have shown any intention of controlling the zealotry at all. Nor have they slowed down the construction of new mosques all over the world where any Sunnis exist. Until they do, I will never trust a single Saudi leader's word on any promise they make to us.
Our fight is not with the Muslims, nor is it with the Sunni Muslims. Nor, for the moment, even the Shii'a Muslims. Our fight is with the radical zealots that have been bred, fostered, and fed that have risen from among them.
For as long as they face no resistance from the powers than enable them, they will continue to rise as a threat to us and every other religion on the planet.
In the end, they will threaten the Saudi Crown, because there will come a time when the Crown will have to do something to control them inside the Saudi nation. Anarchy is a universal threat to all nations, even theirs.
Until the Saudis show me some sign they are willing to act on the west's behalf and exert their immense powers of control over those people, they are not to become trusted as a true ally to the United States.
This is a strategic move against Iran.. You bet it is a good move. Iran is working on a nuclear weapon. We best fight them over there and keep the war far from our shores... it is coming, it will happen.
Ah, that's the same "logic" used for Iraq and Afghanistan. I think some Afghanis are crossing the Alps right about now on their way here.
Since Iran is not aligned closer with Russia and China and many other countries, the idea that we will do something to them seems far-fetched. Trump should have not broken that treaty. NK has built up their capacity greatly and Iran will have a nuke before long also.
I'd much rather trade and deal with Iran and tell the Saudis they can pound sand....extra great support for Islamic Dictatorships doesn't seem like the best long term plan.
At least Iran has a real culture and and working class and lots of decent people.
That dumb deal of Obama did not stop the Iranians from getting a nuclear weapon.. there was no way to check on their progress and it was a limited time that they said they would not have a nuclear weapon.. it was no agreement at all . NONE! It was reported at the time of the signing Iran may have already had a nuclear weapon.
And the alternative is that they now have heavily enriched uranium DUE TO the breaking of that deal and will have one sooner.
Given the choice - which is better? Sooner or later?
Plenty of debate about leaving the Kurds hanging, but this one is real money and thousands of US Troops. Today Trump has, by his lonesome, decided to send in the big guns (lots of planes, weapons and 2,000 additional troops) to Saudi Arabia.
The total will be at least 3,000 including fighter squadrons and much more. This after this weeks tweet from Trump "going into the Middle East is the worst decision ever made!" He added that "we are slowly and carefully bringing our great soldiers & military home.""
For or Against???
I'm not for leaving the Kurds hanging out to dry, but I understand that we cannot spend the next 50 years protecting them.
I also understand what protecting the Saudi oil supply is all about.
I'm one of the few who seem to.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.