• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Saudi Arabia rejects US Senate’s ‘interference’ in kingdom

I should have said that I don't think anyone else here is advocating for an invasion of SA. casebro seems like an outlier.
 
carlitos said:
I should have said that I don't think anyone else here is advocating for an invasion of SA. casebro seems like an outlier.
Click to expand...

Possibly, but he's who I responded to, and I defended that response when challenged by others.
 
That did not go well.

How's this - *I* am not advocating for any kind of violence against SA. Just some sanctions, seizing assets, pulling diplomats, cozying up to Qatar, banning them from UN committees, that sort of thing.
 
carlitos said:
That did not go well.

How's this - *I* am not advocating for any kind of violence against SA. Just some sanctions, seizing assets, pulling diplomats, cozying up to Qatar, banning them from UN committees, that sort of thing.
Click to expand...

Fine by me, except for cozying up to Qatar. They're not good guys either.
 
Ziggurat said:
I'm not talking about "speaking out", nor am I suggesting we should do nothing. But invading Saudi Arabia wouldn't just cost us. It would cost the world. It would probably lead directly to the deaths of millions of people, quite possibly tens of millions. That is seriously wrong, far more wrong than the assassination of one person.
Click to expand...

Why is this straw man so prevalent?
 
Ziggurat said:
I think that's exactly what he meant. That is, after all, where the term's popular usage comes from.
Click to expand...

Then you clearly have a reading comprehension problem.

casebro said:
Personally, I think to hell with their puppet states, we should "Shock and Awe" Saudi Arabia. With fracking and shale, we don't need their oil. And like in Kuwait, we didn't destroy the wells anyhow. The world oil market won't suffer, only the Saud politics would.

What is our own Orange Haired Shah doing? "Speak stoopid but carry a big stick".
Click to expand...
 
Cabbage said:
Then you clearly have a reading comprehension problem.
Click to expand...

Nothing about his post indicates he wasn't talking about an invasion. And if we invaded, Islamic radicals would shut down oil production, and the world would suffer.
 
I said bomb the **** out of the Saud Royal family. Maybe Ecuador will hide the survivors?

And like in Kuwait where we did it without shutting off the oil. It was the Iraqis that set fire to the oil infrastructure. And the oil was back up and running in weeks.

And not for this one crime, but for sponsoring most of the terrorism in the middle East. Including 9-11.
 
The problem is MBS, not Saudi Arabia, and the US has the power to make it desirable for the House of Saud to replace him - plenty hate him already, and would be grateful to the US with help and excuses to put him in his place.
America wouldn't lose influence or profits.
 
casebro said:
I said bomb the **** out of the Saud Royal family. Maybe Ecuador will hide the survivors?

And like in Kuwait where we did it without shutting off the oil. It was the Iraqis that set fire to the oil infrastructure. And the oil was back up and running in weeks.
Click to expand...

The oil was shut off. And it was back up and running fairly quickly because once the Iraqis were kicked out, the local population was on our side. There were no continuing attacks against oil production or oil workers. That wouldn't be the case if we invaded Saudi Arabia.

Hell, even now the Saudis have to put very tight security on their oil infrastructure to protect it against terrorist attacks. The threat would be magnified many times over if we invaded. And both Iran and Russia would have strong motives to support such terrorist action against Saudi oil production.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
The problem is MBS, not Saudi Arabia, and the US has the power to make it desirable for the House of Saud to replace him - plenty hate him already, and would be grateful to the US with help and excuses to put him in his place.
America wouldn't lose influence or profits.
Click to expand...

I thought we were supposed to have learned our lesson from Iran.
 
Ziggurat said:
I thought we were supposed to have learned our lesson from Iran.
Click to expand...

You are making an incoherent comparison.


The problem with putting pressure on Iran is that by now it has become self-sufficient, or as found other supporters - which is why the US has to go after Chinese CFOs who deal with Iran.

In comparison Saudi Arabia is critically depended on the US to maintain its forces - the House of Saud would not survive a withdrawal of US support.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
You are making an incoherent comparison.


The problem with putting pressure on Iran is that by now it has become self-sufficient
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about Iran now. I'm talking about the whole Shah vs. Mosaddegh thing, where we picked sides in an internal power struggle. And now you want us to do that in Saudi Arabia.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
You are making an incoherent comparison.


The problem with putting pressure on Iran is that by now it has become self-sufficient, or as found other supporters - which is why the US has to go after Chinese CFOs who deal with Iran.

In comparison Saudi Arabia is critically depended on the US to maintain its forces - the House of Saud would not survive a withdrawal of US support.
Click to expand...
But who fills the political vacuum that would create?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom