Strike on Saudi Oil Production

Political discussions
User avatar
AZGrizFan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 50785
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:40 pm
I am a fan of: Sexual Chocolate
Location: Just to the right of center

Re: Strike on Saudi Oil Production

Postby AZGrizFan » Tue Sep 17, 2019 1:02 pm

UNI88 wrote:
GannonFan wrote:
Did someone invade and annex another country? How is the press not reporting on this?? :rofl:


Does Yemen count?


No. Hell, Kuwait BARELY did... :coffee: :coffee:
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
Image

User avatar
Chizzang
Level5
Level5
Posts: 17822
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 7:36 am
I am a fan of: Deflate Gate
A.K.A.: The Quasar Kid
Location: Soon to be Eden Prairie...

Re: Strike on Saudi Oil Production

Postby Chizzang » Tue Sep 17, 2019 1:18 pm

AZGrizFan wrote:
UNI88 wrote:
Does Yemen count?


No. Hell, Kuwait BARELY did... :coffee: :coffee:


Kuwait was a puppet regime...
and Saudi Arabia had enough fire power that they were not even slightly concerned about Iraq
also in 1991 Saudi reduced oil production after the Kuwait invasion
to double down on the oil shortage after the Kuwait hit

That's how "worried" they were about being invaded by Iraq
They saw it as a perfect time to "make mo money"

:lol:

Not to even mention the Bush & House of Saud 75 year family relationship
Saudi Arabia could have handled Iraq over the weekend
but it was a great time for both families to make billions of dollars
Q: Name something that offends Republicans?
A: The actual teachings of Jesus

User avatar
UNI88
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 5449
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:30 am
I am a fan of: UNI
Location: On the foggy woggy banks of the Limpopo River

Re: Strike on Saudi Oil Production

Postby UNI88 » Tue Sep 17, 2019 1:33 pm

AZGrizFan wrote:
UNI88 wrote:
Does Yemen count?


No. Hell, Kuwait BARELY did... :coffee: :coffee:


But hasn't Saudi Arabia essentially invaded Yemen?

User avatar
CID1990
Level5
Level5
Posts: 21064
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:40 am
I am a fan of: Pie
A.K.A.: CID 1990
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: Strike on Saudi Oil Production

Postby CID1990 » Tue Sep 17, 2019 3:52 pm

Chizzang wrote:
AZGrizFan wrote:
No. Hell, Kuwait BARELY did... :coffee: :coffee:


Kuwait was a puppet regime...
and Saudi Arabia had enough fire power that they were not even slightly concerned about Iraq
also in 1991 Saudi reduced oil production after the Kuwait invasion
to double down on the oil shortage after the Kuwait hit

That's how "worried" they were about being invaded by Iraq
They saw it as a perfect time to "make mo money"

:lol:

Not to even mention the Bush & House of Saud 75 year family relationship
Saudi Arabia could have handled Iraq over the weekend
but it was a great time for both families to make billions of dollars


Saudi Arabia in 1991 did not have the offensive capability to kick Iraq out of Kuwait, and they do not have it today.

I would have been completely cool with leaving Kuwait to Iraq but the idea that the Saudis had the capability to dislodge Iraq is a flight of fancy - and I’m acknowledging that they receive(d) a ton of US military aid in the form of toys


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris

User avatar
Chizzang
Level5
Level5
Posts: 17822
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 7:36 am
I am a fan of: Deflate Gate
A.K.A.: The Quasar Kid
Location: Soon to be Eden Prairie...

Re: Strike on Saudi Oil Production

Postby Chizzang » Tue Sep 17, 2019 4:02 pm

UNI88 wrote:
AZGrizFan wrote:
No. Hell, Kuwait BARELY did... :coffee: :coffee:


But hasn't Saudi Arabia essentially invaded Yemen?


100% Yes they did...
and they used "coalition forces" so they could re-entertain the arms deal they were begging for
And we need to sell a few hundred moth balled M777A2 Howitzers...
and a few billion dollars worth of munitions in storage

The Saudi's liked Ali Abdullah Saleh he was hand picked by the family to run the show in Yemen
When he fell out of favor (stopped behaving as directed) the Saudi's asked him to
Transfer power to his deputy Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi

:ohno:
Q: Name something that offends Republicans?
A: The actual teachings of Jesus

User avatar
Chizzang
Level5
Level5
Posts: 17822
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 7:36 am
I am a fan of: Deflate Gate
A.K.A.: The Quasar Kid
Location: Soon to be Eden Prairie...

Re: Strike on Saudi Oil Production

Postby Chizzang » Tue Sep 17, 2019 4:04 pm

CID1990 wrote:
Chizzang wrote:
Kuwait was a puppet regime...
and Saudi Arabia had enough fire power that they were not even slightly concerned about Iraq
also in 1991 Saudi reduced oil production after the Kuwait invasion
to double down on the oil shortage after the Kuwait hit

That's how "worried" they were about being invaded by Iraq
They saw it as a perfect time to "make mo money"

:lol:

Not to even mention the Bush & House of Saud 75 year family relationship
Saudi Arabia could have handled Iraq over the weekend
but it was a great time for both families to make billions of dollars


Saudi Arabia in 1991 did not have the offensive capability to kick Iraq out of Kuwait, and they do not have it today.

I would have been completely cool with leaving Kuwait to Iraq but the idea that the Saudis had the capability to dislodge Iraq is a flight of fancy - and I’m acknowledging that they receive(d) a ton of US military aid in the form of toys


You sound like Dick Cheney :lol:

The KSA military ranks
has Saudi Arabia ranked 6th in the world in 1991 and had Iraq at 19th
Q: Name something that offends Republicans?
A: The actual teachings of Jesus

User avatar
CID1990
Level5
Level5
Posts: 21064
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:40 am
I am a fan of: Pie
A.K.A.: CID 1990
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: Strike on Saudi Oil Production

Postby CID1990 » Tue Sep 17, 2019 4:11 pm

Chizzang wrote:
CID1990 wrote:
Saudi Arabia in 1991 did not have the offensive capability to kick Iraq out of Kuwait, and they do not have it today.

I would have been completely cool with leaving Kuwait to Iraq but the idea that the Saudis had the capability to dislodge Iraq is a flight of fancy - and I’m acknowledging that they receive(d) a ton of US military aid in the form of toys


You sound like Dick Cheney :lol:


You sound like someone who has never seen an Arab army (of any stripe) in action.

I didn’t say the Sauds didn’t have the toys. I said they didn’t have the capability.

We could put them in charge of the 1ID, 1CAV and an entire MarDiv and they still wouldn’t have the capability.

Or do you think we sell them all that sh1t out of concerns over whether they can protect themselves? I’d have thought you’d be on the “about the Benjamins” side. (That’s what its about)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris

User avatar
Chizzang
Level5
Level5
Posts: 17822
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 7:36 am
I am a fan of: Deflate Gate
A.K.A.: The Quasar Kid
Location: Soon to be Eden Prairie...

Re: Strike on Saudi Oil Production

Postby Chizzang » Tue Sep 17, 2019 4:55 pm

CID1990 wrote:
Chizzang wrote:
You sound like Dick Cheney :lol:


You sound like someone who has never seen an Arab army (of any stripe) in action.

I didn’t say the Sauds didn’t have the toys. I said they didn’t have the capability.

We could put them in charge of the 1ID, 1CAV and an entire MarDiv and they still wouldn’t have the capability.

Or do you think we sell them all that sh1t out of concerns over whether they can protect themselves? I’d have thought you’d be on the “about the Benjamins” side. (That’s what its about)



I understand how important it is to you
that the Bush family be correct on this Iraq war thing... or more accurately BOTH Iraq war things
But I'm going to go with the relatively detailed information that outlines the greed of it

Because that seems to be more reasonable
than any fear that Iraq was capable of destroying Saudi Arabia
Remember it's about the Banjamins and both Iraq wars were that simple

:nod:

our deep and trusted friend Saudi Arabia was never in any danger
The beacon of Trust and Reason in the free world - Dearest Saudi Arabia

:lol:
Q: Name something that offends Republicans?
A: The actual teachings of Jesus

User avatar
JohnStOnge
Egalitarian
Egalitarian
Posts: 17420
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:47 pm
I am a fan of: McNeese State
A.K.A.: JohnStOnge

Re: Strike on Saudi Oil Production

Postby JohnStOnge » Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:14 pm

CID1990 wrote:
JohnStOnge wrote:Ok. I'll start:

Trump screwed up by nixing the Iran deal. It's becoming more and more apparent. They are ramping up their nuclear program and causing a lot more shit now . His action most certainly did NOT make things better.


Nice!

You just resurrected the old lefty “we should be nice to them on their own terms so they don’t do bad things” Cold War Soviet pablum

I didn’t think there was anyone left with that old school intellectual bankruptcy but I guess I was wrong

You’re like Tip Klam O’Neil himself


No. We made a deal with them and with our western allies. I don't think we did it in the right way. It was extra Constitutional. But we do extra Constitutional stuff all the time nowadays. Once it was done Iran was living up to it. We not only broke our word to Iran. We broke our word to our Western allies. And it's not working out well.
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star?

Deep Purple: No One Came
Image

User avatar
93henfan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 52681
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:03 pm
Location: Slower Delaware

Re: Strike on Saudi Oil Production

Postby 93henfan » Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:16 pm

CID is correct on Saudi capability in 1991. Saddam had the 4th largest standing army in the world at the time; roughly a million man army with a million reserves. The Saudi army was about 150,000. Saudi wasn't going to do shit without our 700,000+ US boots on the ground.
"Hell yes we're going to take your AR-15" - the democrats

User avatar
CID1990
Level5
Level5
Posts: 21064
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:40 am
I am a fan of: Pie
A.K.A.: CID 1990
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: Strike on Saudi Oil Production

Postby CID1990 » Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:55 pm

Chizzang wrote:
CID1990 wrote:
You sound like someone who has never seen an Arab army (of any stripe) in action.

I didn’t say the Sauds didn’t have the toys. I said they didn’t have the capability.

We could put them in charge of the 1ID, 1CAV and an entire MarDiv and they still wouldn’t have the capability.

Or do you think we sell them all that sh1t out of concerns over whether they can protect themselves? I’d have thought you’d be on the “about the Benjamins” side. (That’s what its about)



I understand how important it is to you
that the Bush family be correct on this Iraq war thing... or more accurately BOTH Iraq war things
But I'm going to go with the relatively detailed information that outlines the greed of it

Because that seems to be more reasonable
than any fear that Iraq was capable of destroying Saudi Arabia
Remember it's about the Banjamins and both Iraq wars were that simple

:nod:

our deep and trusted friend Saudi Arabia was never in any danger
The beacon of Trust and Reason in the free world - Dearest Saudi Arabia

:lol:


WRONG

I don't defend the Bushes on Iraq - I was in favor of the second war based on what I thought would be a short mop up period. But I have fully acknowledged that what actually occurred was not worth the expense in blood and treasure. And I saw how wasteful our spending was first hand when I was there.

So you can invoke the Bushes all you want - it is not important to me to see them on the right side of history or not.

But Saudi Arabia was no more capable of defeating Saddam Hussein in 1991 or 2003 any more than they are capable of keeping Iranian weapons and proxies out of Yemen. And if you look at a basic map of the area, and know what kind of coastal naval capability we have "given them", the picture of their ineptitude would become more clear to you- when you acknowledge that the Saudis are not able to decisively win a Houthi insurgency, much less defeat an entrenched symmetrical enemy with contemporary Soviet hardware.. Your position on Saudi military capabilities is not fact-based.

Edit: on second reading of your reply, I'll note your moving of the goalposts away from Saudi capabilities on offense to an assertion of Saudi defensive capabilities. :tothehand:
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris

User avatar
CID1990
Level5
Level5
Posts: 21064
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:40 am
I am a fan of: Pie
A.K.A.: CID 1990
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: Strike on Saudi Oil Production

Postby CID1990 » Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:59 pm

JohnStOnge wrote:
CID1990 wrote:
Nice!

You just resurrected the old lefty “we should be nice to them on their own terms so they don’t do bad things” Cold War Soviet pablum

I didn’t think there was anyone left with that old school intellectual bankruptcy but I guess I was wrong

You’re like Tip Klam O’Neil himself


No. We made a deal with them and with our western allies. I don't think we did it in the right way. It was extra Constitutional. But we do extra Constitutional stuff all the time nowadays. Once it was done Iran was living up to it. We not only broke our word to Iran. We broke our word to our Western allies. And it's not working out well.



WHOOOOSH PART III

Your position is identical to the Democrat position on the USSR in the 1980s. "Let's don't provoke them or they could do bad things."
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris

User avatar
Chizzang
Level5
Level5
Posts: 17822
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 7:36 am
I am a fan of: Deflate Gate
A.K.A.: The Quasar Kid
Location: Soon to be Eden Prairie...

Re: Strike on Saudi Oil Production

Postby Chizzang » Tue Sep 17, 2019 7:01 pm

CID1990 wrote:
Chizzang wrote:
I understand how important it is to you
that the Bush family be correct on this Iraq war thing... or more accurately BOTH Iraq war things
But I'm going to go with the relatively detailed information that outlines the greed of it

Because that seems to be more reasonable
than any fear that Iraq was capable of destroying Saudi Arabia
Remember it's about the Banjamins and both Iraq wars were that simple

:nod:

our deep and trusted friend Saudi Arabia was never in any danger
The beacon of Trust and Reason in the free world - Dearest Saudi Arabia

:lol:


WRONG

I don't defend the Bushes on Iraq - I was in favor of the second war based on what I thought would be a short mop up period. But I have fully acknowledged that what actually occurred was not worth the expense in blood and treasure. And I saw how wasteful our spending was first hand when I was there.

So you can invoke the Bushes all you want - it is not important to me to see them on the right side of history or not.

But Saudi Arabia was no more capable of defeating Saddam Hussein in 1991 or 2003 any more than they are capable of keeping Iranian weapons and proxies out of Yemen. And if you look at a basic map of the area, and know what kind of coastal naval capability we have "given them", the picture of their ineptitude would become more clear to you- when you acknowledge that the Saudis are not able to decisively win a Houthi insurgency, much less defeat an entrenched symmetrical enemy with contemporary Soviet hardware.. Your position on Saudi military capabilities is not fact-based.

Edit: on second reading of your reply, I'll note your moving of the goalposts away from Saudi capabilities on offense to an assertion of Saudi defensive capabilities. :tothehand:


I still don't buy it...
but I'm not looking to change your mind

Iraq didn't have a million soldiers :lol:
Saddam had a Royal Guard and 35 year old tanks
and a bunch of uniforms on payroll that ran at the first sound of gunfire

The idea that Iraq could wipe out Saudi Arabia (frankly preposterous)
The idea that Saudi Arabia was in any danger is also preposterous
and Iraq having this amazing military is all Northrup Grumman pentagon chatter
Jingoistic war dance stuff (the real money is in fear)

and I wouldn't expect any different from you or 93
also the Bushes were in full attendance at the Royal wedding in 1990 in Saudi Arabia
Dear old family friends

:coffee:

less than 300 US casualties
a small price to pay for a few billion dollars in stock value and military contract money

https://www.military.com/undertheradar/ ... t-gulf-war
Q: Name something that offends Republicans?
A: The actual teachings of Jesus

User avatar
CID1990
Level5
Level5
Posts: 21064
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:40 am
I am a fan of: Pie
A.K.A.: CID 1990
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: Strike on Saudi Oil Production

Postby CID1990 » Tue Sep 17, 2019 9:34 pm

Chizzang wrote:
CID1990 wrote:
WRONG

I don't defend the Bushes on Iraq - I was in favor of the second war based on what I thought would be a short mop up period. But I have fully acknowledged that what actually occurred was not worth the expense in blood and treasure. And I saw how wasteful our spending was first hand when I was there.

So you can invoke the Bushes all you want - it is not important to me to see them on the right side of history or not.

But Saudi Arabia was no more capable of defeating Saddam Hussein in 1991 or 2003 any more than they are capable of keeping Iranian weapons and proxies out of Yemen. And if you look at a basic map of the area, and know what kind of coastal naval capability we have "given them", the picture of their ineptitude would become more clear to you- when you acknowledge that the Saudis are not able to decisively win a Houthi insurgency, much less defeat an entrenched symmetrical enemy with contemporary Soviet hardware.. Your position on Saudi military capabilities is not fact-based.

Edit: on second reading of your reply, I'll note your moving of the goalposts away from Saudi capabilities on offense to an assertion of Saudi defensive capabilities. :tothehand:


I still don't buy it...
but I'm not looking to change your mind

Iraq didn't have a million soldiers :lol:
Saddam had a Royal Guard and 35 year old tanks
and a bunch of uniforms on payroll that ran at the first sound of gunfire

The idea that Iraq could wipe out Saudi Arabia (frankly preposterous)
The idea that Saudi Arabia was in any danger is also preposterous
and Iraq having this amazing military is all Northrup Grumman pentagon chatter
Jingoistic war dance stuff (the real money is in fear)

and I wouldn't expect any different from you or 93
also the Bushes were in full attendance at the Royal wedding in 1990 in Saudi Arabia
Dear old family friends

:coffee:

less than 300 US casualties
a small price to pay for a few billion dollars in stock value and military contract money

https://www.military.com/undertheradar/ ... t-gulf-war


You said Saudi could have whipped Iraq. I assume you mean if Iraq invaded Saudi Arabia because you couldn't possibly be talking about Saudi liberating Kuwait.

I said they weren’t capable

Then you throw up this straw man that Iraq was not capable of destroying Saudi Arabia or that Saudi was under no threat from Iraq (true - I agree) - none of which was what I was talking about though-

And then a bunch of flustered word salad ... its obvious when you’re flapping around

If we want to talk about the Saudis’ defensive capabilities or the offensive capabilities of their neighbors then have at it- thats a different convo

But the choice in 1991 was binary - go kick out Saddam ourselves with a “coalition” facade, or let Saddam keep Kuwait. And I have been on this forum before talking about how ungrateful and frankly arrogant and abhorrent the Kuwaitis were/are so let that be your indication of what I think we should have done... if you still feel like tossing around the Bush love canards


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris

User avatar
Chizzang
Level5
Level5
Posts: 17822
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 7:36 am
I am a fan of: Deflate Gate
A.K.A.: The Quasar Kid
Location: Soon to be Eden Prairie...

Re: Strike on Saudi Oil Production

Postby Chizzang » Tue Sep 17, 2019 10:41 pm

CID1990 wrote:
Chizzang wrote:
I still don't buy it...
but I'm not looking to change your mind

Iraq didn't have a million soldiers :lol:
Saddam had a Royal Guard and 35 year old tanks
and a bunch of uniforms on payroll that ran at the first sound of gunfire

The idea that Iraq could wipe out Saudi Arabia (frankly preposterous)
The idea that Saudi Arabia was in any danger is also preposterous
and Iraq having this amazing military is all Northrup Grumman pentagon chatter
Jingoistic war dance stuff (the real money is in fear)

and I wouldn't expect any different from you or 93
also the Bushes were in full attendance at the Royal wedding in 1990 in Saudi Arabia
Dear old family friends

:coffee:

less than 300 US casualties
a small price to pay for a few billion dollars in stock value and military contract money

https://www.military.com/undertheradar/ ... t-gulf-war


You said Saudi could have done the job in Kuwait

I said they weren’t capable

Then you throw up this straw man that Iraq was not capable of destroying Saudi Arabia or that Saudi was under no threat from Iraq (true - I agree) - none of which was what I was talking about though-

And then a bunch of flustered word salad ... its obvious when you’re flapping around

If we want to talk about the Saudis’ defensive capabilities or the offensive capabilities of their neighbors then have at it- thats a different convo

But the choice in 1991 was binary - go kick out Saddam ourselves with a “coalition” facade, or let Saddam keep Kuwait. And I have been on this forum before talking about how ungrateful and frankly arrogant and abhorrent the Kuwaitis were/are so let that be your indication of what I think we should have done... if you still feel like tossing around the Bush love canards



I haven't changed my story one iota
as I said in a few posts before you joined Saudi Arabia was in no danger
and without question if they chose to use the weapons at their disposal
They could have removed Iraq from Kuwait over the weekend

But why bloody your own hands when you have dear family friends
that control the #1 military in the world
and billion dollar defense contracts in the waiting

I'm not flapping around and this isn't a word salad
This is where you and I fundamentally disagree

:coffee:

Ultimately we'll never know because we have too many presidents sucking Saudi dick
and doing their fighting for them
Q: Name something that offends Republicans?
A: The actual teachings of Jesus

User avatar
CID1990
Level5
Level5
Posts: 21064
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:40 am
I am a fan of: Pie
A.K.A.: CID 1990
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: Strike on Saudi Oil Production

Postby CID1990 » Wed Sep 18, 2019 1:49 am

Chizzang wrote:
CID1990 wrote:
You said Saudi could have done the job in Kuwait

I said they weren’t capable

Then you throw up this straw man that Iraq was not capable of destroying Saudi Arabia or that Saudi was under no threat from Iraq (true - I agree) - none of which was what I was talking about though-

And then a bunch of flustered word salad ... its obvious when you’re flapping around

If we want to talk about the Saudis’ defensive capabilities or the offensive capabilities of their neighbors then have at it- thats a different convo

But the choice in 1991 was binary - go kick out Saddam ourselves with a “coalition” facade, or let Saddam keep Kuwait. And I have been on this forum before talking about how ungrateful and frankly arrogant and abhorrent the Kuwaitis were/are so let that be your indication of what I think we should have done... if you still feel like tossing around the Bush love canards



I haven't changed my story one iota
as I said in a few posts before you joined Saudi Arabia was in no danger
and without question if they chose to use the weapons at their disposal
They could have removed Iraq from Kuwait over the weekend

But why bloody your own hands when you have dear family friends
that control the #1 military in the world
and billion dollar defense contracts in the waiting

I'm not flapping around and this isn't a word salad
This is where you and I fundamentally disagree

:coffee:

Ultimately we'll never know because we have too many presidents sucking Saudi dick
and doing their fighting for them


^^^^ that part right there where you claim the Saudis could have kicked Saddam out of Kuwait...

That’s where you’re wrong. The Saudis could fend off any regional power but they have zero offensive doctrine, they have zero logistical/supply line infrastructure, and they even aren’t terribly proficient with those fancy toys we sell them. Toys which, by the way, are free of proprietary technologies that we don’t want getting into the hands of China or Russia.

If the Saudis had tried to liberate Kuwait all that would have happened is a slugfest against an entrenched enemy with massive civilian casualties, Kuwait City razed to the ground, and then an inevitable Saudi withdrawal after 30-40% losses of all those shiny toys. With Saddam still in possession of the country.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris

User avatar
Pwns
Level4
Level4
Posts: 6119
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 10:38 pm
I am a fan of: Georgia Friggin' Southern
A.K.A.: FCS_pwns_FBS (AGS)

Re: Strike on Saudi Oil Production

Postby Pwns » Wed Sep 18, 2019 7:55 am

Trump appoints new Nat Sec Advisor, is now asking for sanctions.

There's a lot of bad things you can say about Trump that any reasonable person will agree with, but I've seen nothing from Trump that tells me he's itching to bomb him some Ay-rabs. It could be because Tucker Carlson doesn't want him to do it or because he's afraid some of his real estate investments will go down in value, but I don't see him becoming another George W.
We get the government we deserve. :nod:

User avatar
GannonFan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 12755
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
I am a fan of: Delaware
A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack

Re: Strike on Saudi Oil Production

Postby GannonFan » Wed Sep 18, 2019 10:02 am

Pwns wrote:Trump appoints new Nat Sec Advisor, is now asking for sanctions.

There's a lot of bad things you can say about Trump that any reasonable person will agree with, but I've seen nothing from Trump that tells me he's itching to bomb him some Ay-rabs. It could be because Tucker Carlson doesn't want him to do it or because he's afraid some of his real estate investments will go down in value, but I don't see him becoming another George W.


No one's ever going to accuse Trump of being an interventionist. Accuse him of a lot of other stuff, but he's clearly not that.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation

User avatar
Chizzang
Level5
Level5
Posts: 17822
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 7:36 am
I am a fan of: Deflate Gate
A.K.A.: The Quasar Kid
Location: Soon to be Eden Prairie...

Re: Strike on Saudi Oil Production

Postby Chizzang » Wed Sep 18, 2019 10:21 am

GannonFan wrote:
Pwns wrote:Trump appoints new Nat Sec Advisor, is now asking for sanctions.

There's a lot of bad things you can say about Trump that any reasonable person will agree with, but I've seen nothing from Trump that tells me he's itching to bomb him some Ay-rabs. It could be because Tucker Carlson doesn't want him to do it or because he's afraid some of his real estate investments will go down in value, but I don't see him becoming another George W.


No one's ever going to accuse Trump of being an interventionist. Accuse him of a lot of other stuff, but he's clearly not that.


Agreed,
He doesn't have his money tied up in Defense Contractors
He has his money in real estate - and his family is busy cutting real estate deals all over the middle east

:lol:

If he had his money in Northrop Grumman we'd be bombing right now
Remember: U.S. Generals are a bunch of idiots (that fuck up his business deals)
Q: Name something that offends Republicans?
A: The actual teachings of Jesus

User avatar
AZGrizFan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 50785
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:40 pm
I am a fan of: Sexual Chocolate
Location: Just to the right of center

Re: Strike on Saudi Oil Production

Postby AZGrizFan » Wed Sep 18, 2019 11:48 am

Chizzang wrote:
GannonFan wrote:
No one's ever going to accuse Trump of being an interventionist. Accuse him of a lot of other stuff, but he's clearly not that.


Agreed,
He doesn't have his money tied up in Defense Contractors
He has his money in real estate - and his family is busy cutting real estate deals all over the middle east

:lol:

If he had his money in Northrop Grumman we'd be bombing right now
Remember: U.S. Generals are a bunch of idiots (that fuck up his business deals)


Is there a link to that info handy? :coffee: :coffee:
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
Image

User avatar
AZGrizFan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 50785
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:40 pm
I am a fan of: Sexual Chocolate
Location: Just to the right of center

Re: Strike on Saudi Oil Production

Postby AZGrizFan » Wed Sep 18, 2019 11:49 am

Pwns wrote:Trump appoints new Nat Sec Advisor, is now asking for sanctions.

There's a lot of bad things you can say about Trump that any reasonable person will agree with, but I've seen nothing from Trump that tells me he's itching to bomb him some Ay-rabs. It could be because Tucker Carlson doesn't want him to do it or because he's afraid some of his real estate investments will go down in value, but I don't see him becoming another George W.


Iran has given him every reason in the WORLD to bomb the living fuck out of them and he's held off. Literally any other president before him would have already launched the B-52 aircraft...
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
Image

User avatar
Pwns
Level4
Level4
Posts: 6119
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 10:38 pm
I am a fan of: Georgia Friggin' Southern
A.K.A.: FCS_pwns_FBS (AGS)

Re: Strike on Saudi Oil Production

Postby Pwns » Wed Sep 18, 2019 11:55 am

GannonFan wrote:
Pwns wrote:Trump appoints new Nat Sec Advisor, is now asking for sanctions.

There's a lot of bad things you can say about Trump that any reasonable person will agree with, but I've seen nothing from Trump that tells me he's itching to bomb him some Ay-rabs. It could be because Tucker Carlson doesn't want him to do it or because he's afraid some of his real estate investments will go down in value, but I don't see him becoming another George W.


No one's ever going to accuse Trump of being an interventionist. Accuse him of a lot of other stuff, but he's clearly not that.


I wouldn't say "no one". The same people that say you can't trust a word the guy says will try to say he's a hawk because of the "fire and fury" and the "locked and loaded" language.
We get the government we deserve. :nod:

User avatar
AZGrizFan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 50785
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:40 pm
I am a fan of: Sexual Chocolate
Location: Just to the right of center

Re: Strike on Saudi Oil Production

Postby AZGrizFan » Wed Sep 18, 2019 11:57 am

Pwns wrote:
GannonFan wrote:
No one's ever going to accuse Trump of being an interventionist. Accuse him of a lot of other stuff, but he's clearly not that.


I wouldn't say "no one". The same people that say you can't trust a word the guy says will try to say he's a hawk because of the "fire and fury" and the "locked and loaded" language.


I think it's kind of like Obama's "red line in the sand" threat....empty rhetoric.
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
Image

User avatar
Chizzang
Level5
Level5
Posts: 17822
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 7:36 am
I am a fan of: Deflate Gate
A.K.A.: The Quasar Kid
Location: Soon to be Eden Prairie...

Re: Strike on Saudi Oil Production

Postby Chizzang » Wed Sep 18, 2019 12:16 pm

AZGrizFan wrote:
Chizzang wrote:
Agreed,
He doesn't have his money tied up in Defense Contractors
He has his money in real estate - and his family is busy cutting real estate deals all over the middle east

:lol:

If he had his money in Northrop Grumman we'd be bombing right now
Remember: U.S. Generals are a bunch of idiots (that fuck up his business deals)


Is there a link to that info handy? :coffee: :coffee:


I'm just going to pretend your utter blindness is a game...
There are literally hundreds of articles on this exact topic

:shock:

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-s ... es-2018-10

"Trump has had ties to Saudi investors for over two decades"

"In 2016, the New York Daily News reported that the Saudi government also purchased the entire 45th floor of the Trump World Tower, for $4.5 million, in June 2001. Given annual fee fares for the building at the time, Trump also was paid $5.7 million by the Saudis between the purchase and 2016, the paper reported."

Trump bragged about his business dealings with the Saudis during a 2015 campaign rally in Mobile, Alabama.

"I get along great with all of them; they buy apartments from me," Trump said. "They spend $40 million, $50 million. Am I supposed to dislike them? I like them very much!"

Bloomberg has about 6 articles on this topic as well
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic ... -khashoggi
Last edited by Chizzang on Wed Sep 18, 2019 12:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Q: Name something that offends Republicans?
A: The actual teachings of Jesus

User avatar
AZGrizFan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 50785
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:40 pm
I am a fan of: Sexual Chocolate
Location: Just to the right of center

Re: Strike on Saudi Oil Production

Postby AZGrizFan » Wed Sep 18, 2019 12:19 pm

Chizzang wrote:
AZGrizFan wrote:
Is there a link to that info handy? :coffee: :coffee:


I'm just going to pretend your utter blindness is a game...
There are literally hundreds of articles on this exact topic

:shock:

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-s ... es-2018-10

"Trump has had ties to Saudi investors for over two decades"

"In 2016, the New York Daily News reported that the Saudi government also purchased the entire 45th floor of the Trump World Tower, for $4.5 million, in June 2001. Given annual fee fares for the building at the time, Trump also was paid $5.7 million by the Saudis between the purchase and 2016, the paper reported."


NONE of that would indicate he "IS (emphasis added) running around cutting real estate deals all over the middle east"...all of that was before he was president. Your post implies "currently"..."right now"..."as we speak"...
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
Image


Return to “Politics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bearkat91 and 44 guests