No. Hell, Kuwait BARELY did...UNI88 wrote:Does Yemen count?GannonFan wrote:
Did someone invade and annex another country? How is the press not reporting on this??
Strike on Saudi Oil Production
- AZGrizFan
- Supporter
- Posts: 59959
- 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
"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
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
- Chizzang
- Level5
- Posts: 19273
- 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
Kuwait was a puppet regime...AZGrizFan wrote:No. Hell, Kuwait BARELY did...UNI88 wrote:
Does Yemen count?
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"
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
A: The actual teachings of Jesus
- UNI88
- Supporter
- Posts: 19955
- Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:30 am
- I am a fan of: UNI
- Location: the foggy, woggy banks Of the Limpopo River
Re: Strike on Saudi Oil Production
But hasn't Saudi Arabia essentially invaded Yemen?AZGrizFan wrote:No. Hell, Kuwait BARELY did...UNI88 wrote:
Does Yemen count?
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
- CID1990
- Level5
- Posts: 25460
- 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
Saudi Arabia in 1991 did not have the offensive capability to kick Iraq out of Kuwait, and they do not have it today.Chizzang wrote:Kuwait was a puppet regime...AZGrizFan wrote:
No. Hell, Kuwait BARELY did...
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"
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
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
- Chizzang
- Level5
- Posts: 19273
- 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
100% Yes they did...UNI88 wrote:But hasn't Saudi Arabia essentially invaded Yemen?AZGrizFan wrote:
No. Hell, Kuwait BARELY 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
Q: Name something that offends Republicans?
A: The actual teachings of Jesus
A: The actual teachings of Jesus
- Chizzang
- Level5
- Posts: 19273
- 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
You sound like Dick CheneyCID1990 wrote:Saudi Arabia in 1991 did not have the offensive capability to kick Iraq out of Kuwait, and they do not have it today.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"
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
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
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
A: The actual teachings of Jesus
- CID1990
- Level5
- Posts: 25460
- 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
You sound like someone who has never seen an Arab army (of any stripe) in action.Chizzang wrote:You sound like Dick CheneyCID1990 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
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
- Chizzang
- Level5
- Posts: 19273
- 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
I understand how important it is to youCID1990 wrote:You sound like someone who has never seen an Arab army (of any stripe) in action.Chizzang wrote:
You sound like Dick Cheney
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)
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
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
Q: Name something that offends Republicans?
A: The actual teachings of Jesus
A: The actual teachings of Jesus
- JohnStOnge
- Egalitarian
- Posts: 20313
- 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
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.CID1990 wrote:Nice!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.
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
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
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
Re: Strike on Saudi Oil Production
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.
Delaware Football: 1889-2012; 2022-
- CID1990
- Level5
- Posts: 25460
- 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
WRONGChizzang wrote:I understand how important it is to youCID1990 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)
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
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
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.
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris
- CID1990
- Level5
- Posts: 25460
- 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
JohnStOnge wrote: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.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
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
- Chizzang
- Level5
- Posts: 19273
- 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
I still don't buy it...CID1990 wrote:WRONGChizzang 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
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
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.
but I'm not looking to change your mind
Iraq didn't have a million soldiers
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
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
A: The actual teachings of Jesus
- CID1990
- Level5
- Posts: 25460
- 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
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.Chizzang wrote:I still don't buy it...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.
but I'm not looking to change your mind
Iraq didn't have a million soldiers
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
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
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
- Chizzang
- Level5
- Posts: 19273
- 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
I haven't changed my story one iotaCID1990 wrote:You said Saudi could have done the job in KuwaitChizzang wrote:
I still don't buy it...
but I'm not looking to change your mind
Iraq didn't have a million soldiers
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
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
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
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
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
A: The actual teachings of Jesus
- CID1990
- Level5
- Posts: 25460
- 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
^^^^ that part right there where you claim the Saudis could have kicked Saddam out of Kuwait...Chizzang wrote:I haven't changed my story one iotaCID1990 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
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
Ultimately we'll never know because we have too many presidents sucking Saudi dick
and doing their fighting for them
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
- Pwns
- Level4
- Posts: 7273
- 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
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.
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.
Celebrate Diversity.*
*of appearance only. Restrictions apply.
*of appearance only. Restrictions apply.
- GannonFan
- Level5
- Posts: 18038
- 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
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.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.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation
- Chizzang
- Level5
- Posts: 19273
- 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
Agreed,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.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.
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
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
A: The actual teachings of Jesus
- AZGrizFan
- Supporter
- Posts: 59959
- 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
Is there a link to that info handy?Chizzang wrote:Agreed,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.
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
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)
"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
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
- AZGrizFan
- Supporter
- Posts: 59959
- 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
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...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.
"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
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
- Pwns
- Level4
- Posts: 7273
- 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
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.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.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.
Celebrate Diversity.*
*of appearance only. Restrictions apply.
*of appearance only. Restrictions apply.
- AZGrizFan
- Supporter
- Posts: 59959
- 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
I think it's kind of like Obama's "red line in the sand" threat....empty rhetoric.Pwns wrote: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.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.
"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
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
- Chizzang
- Level5
- Posts: 19273
- 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
I'm just going to pretend your utter blindness is a game...AZGrizFan wrote:Is there a link to that info handy?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
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)
There are literally hundreds of articles on this exact topic
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
A: The actual teachings of Jesus
- AZGrizFan
- Supporter
- Posts: 59959
- 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
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"...Chizzang wrote:I'm just going to pretend your utter blindness is a game...AZGrizFan wrote:
Is there a link to that info handy?
There are literally hundreds of articles on this exact topic
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."
"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
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12