Saudi's Bitch.

Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard tweeted Sunday that President Donald Trump was making the U.S. act as “Saudi Arabia’s bitch,” addressing Trump’s tweet on drone strikes that hit Saudi oil facilities.

https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/tulsi-gabbard-trump-is-having-america-act-as-saudi-arabias-b/?fbclid=IwAR2DFlxlVUQPmRuloDo_4uzGf1urKqrEyu4DMIRNQVNJ-24bh-nEK56kMhI


Of course, she's not polling good enough to be in the debates, based on the "DNC".

This is exactly how we got Trump and Hillary. We will have two equally poor choices in 2020, and we only have ourselves to blame (well not me, I'm not voting for either one, and yet I'll be considered the dumbass).

We have no business threatening going to war for Saudi Arabia for any reason. It's not our fight.

Lurker wrote:We have no business threatening going to war for Saudi Arabia for any reason. It's not our fight.

Since when has that stopped us?

Maddog wrote:

Lurker wrote:We have no business threatening going to war for Saudi Arabia for any reason. It's not our fight.

Since when has that stopped us?

Well, under the Constitution only the Congress can declare wars.  GWB sought and received war powers with respect to Iraq in 2003.

With Syria, Obama followed the law and put a bill on the table, and the Republican Congress withheld permission.  This was the main reason why Obama could not act...less astute conservatives assert that is why Obama was so passive in geopolitical matters.  But it was the Republicans who would not go along, that were at fault.

The only way Trump could get war powers, would be to expand the 2003 permission that GWB received.  But that was clearly specific, and limited to Iraq.  The only way we fought ISIS, in limited fashion, was to say it was in 'hot pursuit' of the people we were at war with in Iraq.  Thus, Trump will have to go to war illegally, in order to retaliate or take any military action.

And...retaliate for what?  Whoever attacked the Saudis, didn't touch US interests, property or people. Moreover, the Saudis were not even involved in Iraq. And, we have no treaty with Saudi Arabia that would necessitate any retaliation. Any action against Iran would have to be invented out of whole cloth.

But when has the Constitution, or the law, ever contained Trump?

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Since when has that stopped us?

Well, under the Constitution only the Congress can declare wars.  GWB sought and received war powers with respect to Iraq in 2003.

With Syria, Obama followed the law and put a bill on the table, and the Republican Congress withheld permission.  This was the main reason why Obama could not act...less astute conservatives assert that is why Obama was so passive in geopolitical matters.  But it was the Republicans who would not go along, that were at fault.

The only way Trump could get war powers, would be to expand the 2003 permission that GWB received.  But that was clearly specific, and limited to Iraq.  The only way we fought ISIS, in limited fashion, was to say it was in 'hot pursuit' of the people we were at war with in Iraq.  Thus, Trump will have to go to war illegally, in order to retaliate or take any military action.

And...retaliate for what?  Whoever attacked the Saudis, didn't touch US interests, property or people.  Moreover, the Saudis were not even involved in Iraq.  And, we have no treaty with Saudi Arabia that would necessitate any retaliation.  Any action against Iran would have to be invented out of whole cloth.

But when has the Constitution, or the law, ever contained Trump?

The US military operated in many theaters outside of Iraq and Afghanistan, while Obama was president.

Just stop.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Well, under the Constitution only the Congress can declare wars.  GWB sought and received war powers with respect to Iraq in 2003.

With Syria, Obama followed the law and put a bill on the table, and the Republican Congress withheld permission.  This was the main reason why Obama could not act...less astute conservatives assert that is why Obama was so passive in geopolitical matters.  But it was the Republicans who would not go along, that were at fault.

The only way Trump could get war powers, would be to expand the 2003 permission that GWB received.  But that was clearly specific, and limited to Iraq.  The only way we fought ISIS, in limited fashion, was to say it was in 'hot pursuit' of the people we were at war with in Iraq.  Thus, Trump will have to go to war illegally, in order to retaliate or take any military action.

And...retaliate for what?  Whoever attacked the Saudis, didn't touch US interests, property or people.  Moreover, the Saudis were not even involved in Iraq.  And, we have no treaty with Saudi Arabia that would necessitate any retaliation.  Any action against Iran would have to be invented out of whole cloth.

But when has the Constitution, or the law, ever contained Trump?

The US military operated in many theaters outside of Iraq and Afghanistan, while Obama was president.

Just stop.  

Name them. Afghanistan was covered by the 2003 act.

The president has only 1) emergency powers, and 2) powers passed by Congress.

Wiki wrote:The War Powers Resolution is a federal law intended to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress. The Resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution. It provides that the U.S. President can send the Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization," or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories

The only solid violation of the War Powers Resolution, 50 U.S.C. §§1541–1548, is when Bill Clinton bombed Kosovo in 1999. Congress disapproved that action. Trump has intervened in Yemen, and lost American lives in doing it. Admittedly, that conflict started back in the Obama period, but Trump has vetoed Congressional attempts to terminate US involvement. Obama started actions in Libya and and against ISIS, but that is arguably an extension of the 2003 act.

In any case we are not engaging in whataboutism, because we both would agree that any unauthorized military action against Iran would be illegal and unconstitutional. The US has no legally authorized justification to enter either in any action on behalf of the Saudis, or the present fight in Yemen.

Pushed to release information about civilian deaths in drone strikes, in July 2016 the US government made the absurd claim it had killed, at most, 116 civilians in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Libya between 2009 and 2015. Journalists and human rights advocates said the numbers were ridiculously low and unverifiable, given that no names, dates, locations or others details were released. The London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which has tracked drone strikes for years, said the true figure was six times higher.

Given that drones account for only a small portion of the munitions dropped in the past eight years, the numbers of civilians killed by Obama’s bombs could be in the thousands. But we can’t know for sure as the administration, and the mainstream media, has been virtually silent about the civilian toll of the administration’s failed interventions.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/09/america-dropped-26171-bombs-2016-obama-legacy

Do you not know how to Google?

I imagine these libertarians and Quill like democrats in ww2

They would have actually watched whilst why the extermination of the Jews in Europe would have actually come to pass.

How selfish have humans become?

That now buisness is the key to thwart war whislt allowing the persecution of hundreds of millions

Its a modern day form of Communism

phildidge wrote:I imagine these libertarians and Quill like democrats in ww2

They would have actually watched whilst why the extermination of the Jews in Europe would have actually come to pass.

How selfish have humans become?

That now buisness is the key to thwart war whislt allowing the persecution of hundreds of millions

Its a modern day form of Communism

We pretty much left the Spaniards alone while the Soviets and Nazis fought a proxy war there.

Sometimes intervention does more good than it's worth.

For the most part, the US use is no longer being used to stop one country from invading others (with the exception of the first Gulf War).

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:I imagine these libertarians and Quill like democrats in ww2

They would have actually watched whilst why the extermination of the Jews in Europe would have actually come to pass.

How selfish have humans become?

That now buisness is the key to thwart war whislt allowing the persecution of hundreds of millions

Its a modern day form of Communism

We pretty much left the Spaniards alone while the Soviets and Nazis fought a proxy war there.

Sometimes intervention does more good than it's worth.

For the most part, the US use is no longer being used to stop one country from invading others (with the exception of the first Gulf War).    

1) First point, read a history book as you are utterly ignorant of this conflict

2) Yes I have heard that claptrap before after saddam butchered millions of people. Never understood that nonsense. When it was because of his hate and violence against hias, that created the continued shia and sunni violence. If we had of supported the uprising during the kuwait war. We would have had the support of the most of the Middle East. So doing fuck all do loads of harm and caused 200,000 deaths whilst we sat back. Leading to hate further in the second Iraq war

3) The US has the power to influence and stop persecution and does fuck all about it these days, because they only care about buisness over suffering

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

We pretty much left the Spaniards alone while the Soviets and Nazis fought a proxy war there.

Sometimes intervention does more good than it's worth.

For the most part, the US use is no longer being used to stop one country from invading others (with the exception of the first Gulf War).    

1) First point, read a history book as you are utterly ignorant of this conflict

Stupid remark. A dumb fuck Texan, with a junior collage education, who got his history out of Classic Comic Books, doesn't strike me as a heavyweight intellect. WTF does history have to do with it, anyway? Repeat after me: GET YOUR FUCKIN' ASS OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST!

Maddog wrote:2) Yes I have heard that claptrap before after saddam butchered millions of people. Never understood that nonsense. When it was because of his hate and violence against hias, that created the continued shia and sunni violence. If we had of supported the uprising during the kuwait war. We would have had the support of the most of the Middle East. So doing fuck all do loads of harm and caused 200,000 deaths whilst we sat back. Leading to hate further in the second Iraq war

Tough sheit. You, as America, have gone into other people's countries and killed more than Saddam could ever do. We've written laws now. Do it by the book or go to jail.

Maddog wrote:3) The US has the power to influence and stop persecution and does fuck all about it these days, because they only care about buisness over suffering

WTF does that mean? Business? What business? The only business I see is "no business": the US has no business going into another's country, killing other people's babies, for the sake of their own cultural values. Who made you a fookin' god?

Oh Maddog, seems you have been morphed into me now mate lol

Mad, I tried to save you, man.

Original Quill wrote:

phildidge wrote:

1) First point, read a history book as you are utterly ignorant of this conflict

Stupid remark.  A dumb fuck Texan, with a junior collage education, who got his history out of Classic Comic Books, doesn't strike me as a heavyweight intellect.  WTF does history have to do with it, anyway?  Repeat after me: GET YOUR FUCKIN' ASS OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST!

Maddog wrote:2) Yes I have heard that claptrap before after saddam butchered millions of people. Never understood that nonsense. When it was because of his hate and violence against hias, that created the continued shia and sunni violence. If we had of supported the uprising during the kuwait war. We would have had the support of the most of the Middle East. So doing fuck all do loads of harm and caused 200,000 deaths whilst we sat back. Leading to hate further in the second Iraq war

Tough sheit.  You, as America, have gone into other people's countries and killed more than Saddam could ever do.  We've written laws now.  Do it by the book or go to jail.

Maddog wrote:3) The US has the power to influence and stop persecution and does fuck all about it these days, because they only care about buisness over suffering

WTF does that mean?  Business?  What business?  The only business I see is "no business": the US has no business going into another's country, killing other people's babies, for the sake of their own cultural values.  Who made you a fookin' god?

Original Quill wrote:Mad, I tried to save you, man.  

By being sanctimonious and pretentious?


Funny how you never attack Ben's education.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Mad, I tried to save you, man.

By being sanctimonious and pretentious?


Funny how you never attack Ben's education.

Are you hurt? You have attacked my education, my profession, and my family...moreover, you have doxed me endlessly by attempting to rewrite my entire background. The point I make is not intended to be hurtful, but to point up that you are not being a reflective person. You have to be reflective, and introspective, in order to reach deeper understanding. We most often find this skill in our educational experience.

You have an 'acquired' understanding of political matters. You haven't reached those thoughts through any internal processing. For example, your affection for libertarianism bears no sensitivity, nor even awareness of the liabilities of the doctrine. You are what Eric Hoffer called a true believer. Hoffer, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements (1951).

The issue with such people is they get angry when their inability to argue and travel through their own theories is revealed. Had their awareness been born within, they would never have such difficulty. The next step for them is to turn their anger on the adversary...partly because it gives vent to the emotional anger, and partly because it hides their disappointment in themselves.

A True Believer is unreachable, except in as much as he is willing to let other ideas enter his mind. So far from inviting, the true believer builds his beliefs into an impenetrable exoskeleton, rather than an affable and inviting endoskeleton. A junior college graduate (admittedly, just a symbol) means a person who has not had the exposure to ideas sufficient to build such self-confidence.

Ben, by the way, exhibits none of the traits of a true believer. His approach is always questioning, accepting and inviting, rather than didactic. His intellectual practice is to always entertain ideas and comments, rather than shutting them out. It’s too bad you didn’t know Irn Bru, who also had a curious and deep intellect.

phildidge wrote:

I don't doubt that Iran had something to do with it.

It's just that I don't see a "good" side in this.

Sell the Saudis some weapons and let them fight it out with their insane Persian cousins.

Not a single person I know that is currently serving, should risk getting killed over this regional pissing match.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

By being sanctimonious and pretentious?


Funny how you never attack Ben's education.  

Are you hurt?  You have attacked my education, my profession, and my family...moreover, you have doxed me endlessly by attempting to rewrite my entire background.  The point I make is not intended to be hurtful, but to point up that you are not being a reflective person.  You have to be reflective, and introspective, in order to reach deeper understanding.  We most often find this skill in our educational experience.

You have an 'acquired' understanding of political matters.  You haven't reached those thoughts through any internal processing.  For example, your affection for libertarianism bears no sensitivity, nor even awareness of the liabilities of the doctrine.  You are what Eric Hoffer called a true believer.   Hoffer, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements (1951).

The issue with such people is they get angry when their inability to argue and travel through their own theories is revealed.  Had their awareness been born within, they would never have such difficulty.  The next step for them is to turn their anger on the adversary...partly because it gives vent to the emotional anger, and partly because it hides their disappointment in themselves.

A True Believer is unreachable, except in as much as he is willing to let other ideas enter his mind.  So far from inviting, the true believer builds his beliefs into an impenetrable exoskeleton, rather than an affable and inviting endoskeleton.  A junior college graduate (admittedly, just a symbol) means a person who has not had the exposure to ideas sufficient to build such self-confidence.

Ben, by the way, exhibits none of the traits of a true believer.  His approach is always questioning, accepting and inviting, rather than didactic.  His intellectual practice is to always entertain ideas and comments, rather than shutting them out.  It’s too bad you didn’t know Irn Bru, who also had a curious and deep intellect.

No princess, I'm fine. I just don't believe much of what you say.

And I have said your family is intelligent for living in Texas.

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:

I don't doubt that Iran had something to do with it.

It's just that I don't see a "good" side in this.

Sell the Saudis some weapons and let them fight it out with their insane Persian cousins.

Not a single person I know that is currently serving, should risk getting killed over this regional pissing match.    

The proxy conflict between Iran and saudi has been ongoing since the second Iraq war. Now iran hold the upper hand in this with basically control of both Syria and Iraq. This is why Saudi is concerned over Iran gaining so much strengh with axis nations and with Russian and the Chinese being backers to their state. Litterally going to war with Saudi. Its why the one player in this that Iran fears happenning is a coalition of Saudi and israel. The later already see Iran as the biggest threat to peace and more so with its nuke programms. Israel has twice in history stopped both Iraq and Syria gaining Nuke weapons. Hence Iran will not want Israel drawn into open conflict with them. As this would draw the US and the EU into the conflict. Its why Iran is going after the oil economy of saudi. Iran would rather fund and support Hamas and hezbollah to tie down israel on its borders. What will be interesting is how and who Jordan decides to back in a future conflict. Which is more than likely to now happen.

If Iran is able to control the middle east then you should start concerning yourself, because they hate the US and then your front line buffers will cease to be effective in countering any attacs on US soil

What happens in one relgion of the world, now effects the world globally and as seen this happened with these strikes to oil facilities
So it effects everyone and will do more if the oil facities come crashing to a halt. Yes the US is producing more than the rest but your exposts would dry up as people would be unable to buy them. Everything has a counter effect, which has a domino effect. As the world is connected globally through business. So it is every much about what will eventually happen to the US

phildidge wrote:

I hope people review this short clip (a lot of people don't like clips).  It shows that the Saudi evidence is more of their didactic approach, and less of a convincing argument.  They make essentially two arguments: 1) that the drones are of Iranian design; and 2) the direction from which the drones came.

First, half of the terrorist attacks are carried out by using weapons of American design.  Does that mean that Americans are complicit in terrorism?  No...it means only that Americans are in the nefarious business of exporting weapons.  Likewise, Iranians are manufacturers and exporters of weapons, notably missiles.

Second, what proof do the Saudis have that the drones came from the north or east (Iran)?  All you have to do is re-position the camera, and you can argue that the drones came from the south, the west, or indeed, the Persian Gulf, where there are warships aplenty.

My theory is that the Saudis are using Iran as a scapegoat for a plan they have to raise, by orders of magnitude, the price of oil.  The Trump-US is glad to help, because: how many properties/apartments have Saudis bought from Trump or Kushner enterprises?  The Trump-US helps cover up murders by Saudi princes, why not a couple of drone attacks.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Are you hurt?  You have attacked my education, my profession, and my family...moreover, you have doxed me endlessly by attempting to rewrite my entire background.  The point I make is not intended to be hurtful, but to point up that you are not being a reflective person.  You have to be reflective, and introspective, in order to reach deeper understanding.  We most often find this skill in our educational experience.

You have an 'acquired' understanding of political matters.  You haven't reached those thoughts through any internal processing.  For example, your affection for libertarianism bears no sensitivity, nor even awareness of the liabilities of the doctrine.  You are what Eric Hoffer called a true believer.   Hoffer, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements (1951).

The issue with such people is they get angry when their inability to argue and travel through their own theories is revealed.  Had their awareness been born within, they would never have such difficulty.  The next step for them is to turn their anger on the adversary...partly because it gives vent to the emotional anger, and partly because it hides their disappointment in themselves.

A True Believer is unreachable, except in as much as he is willing to let other ideas enter his mind.  So far from inviting, the true believer builds his beliefs into an impenetrable exoskeleton, rather than an affable and inviting endoskeleton.  A junior college graduate (admittedly, just a symbol) means a person who has not had the exposure to ideas sufficient to build such self-confidence.

Ben, by the way, exhibits none of the traits of a true believer.  His approach is always questioning, accepting and inviting, rather than didactic.  His intellectual practice is to always entertain ideas and comments, rather than shutting them out.  It’s too bad you didn’t know Irn Bru, who also had a curious and deep intellect.

No princess, I'm fine. I just don't believe much of what you say.  

And I have said your family is intelligent for living in Texas.

Ditto and why and until he stops with his antics, i will continually ignore his poor and absurd replies

He needs to grow up. He once used to be a very good debator but now has been radicalised it seems with such extreme views.

Hence its a bore debating him these days

So if and when he reverts to being a decent poster, then i will happily engage him in debate, but when he makes up such bullshit and outlandish claims. I will continue to send him to coventry

Saudi Arabia says it has evidence showing Iran sponsored Saturday's drone and missile attacks on two of its oil facilities, and called on the international community to take action. The question is whether there could be a war.

The scale of the attacks means that Saudi Arabia cannot overlook what happened, and its decision to identify Iran as the culprit compels the kingdom to respond.

The Saudis will probably wait until a team of independent experts from the United Nations has completed an investigation into the incident.

Although the experts are likely to come to the same conclusions - namely, that the attacks could not have been carried out without Iranian material support and guidance - the process will give the Saudis time to consider their options.

Saudi Arabia and its allies believe the country has raised the stakes in order to convince US President Donald Trump to ease the crippling economic sanctions he reinstated when he abandoned a nuclear deal with Iran last year and demanded a new one be negotiated.

Iran's leaders hope that the risk of the region sliding into war will bring world powers to the realisation that the sanctions are a recipe for disaster.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-49760200

phildidge wrote:Saudi Arabia says it has evidence showing Iran sponsored Saturday's drone and missile attacks on two of its oil facilities, and called on the international community to take action. The question is whether there could be a war.

The scale of the attacks means that Saudi Arabia cannot overlook what happened, and its decision to identify Iran as the culprit compels the kingdom to respond.

The Saudis will probably wait until a team of independent experts from the United Nations has completed an investigation into the incident.

Although the experts are likely to come to the same conclusions - namely, that the attacks could not have been carried out without Iranian material support and guidance - the process will give the Saudis time to consider their options.

Saudi Arabia and its allies believe the country has raised the stakes in order to convince US President Donald Trump to ease the crippling economic sanctions he reinstated when he abandoned a nuclear deal with Iran last year and demanded a new one be negotiated.

Iran's leaders hope that the risk of the region sliding into war will bring world powers to the realisation that the sanctions are a recipe for disaster.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-49760200

phildidge wrote:

Iran's economy is hurting massively under sanctions and it comes as no surprise. That they would use one of the terrorist by proxy groups to turn up the heat on oil, with such an attack. Nobody wants to see the price of oil go up. So Iran is being clever by hitting nations where it hurts in their pockets. They want to see an ease of their sanctions and why you will see more of these attacks on Saudi its enemy. They want to ply pressure on the rest of the world. Its basically blackmail.

You are right about the US making up the slack and no doubt the US could relieve pressure by dropping prcies.

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t27939-attack-on-saudi-oil-fields-who-done-it

Who would of thought Didge being right again eh?

phil wrote:Who would of though Didge being right again eh?

Tho, didge is wrong this time. There's a much simpler explanation. Saudis need to raise the price of oil. Saudis traditionally launder money through Trump and Kushner enterprises. Saudis bomb their own refineries. Trump reciprocates with a business favor, helps Saudis out by providing Iran cover story.

Don't be gullible. Trump lies. Whatever he says, trust the opposite.

Original Quill wrote:

phil wrote:Who would of though Didge being right again eh?

Tho, didge is wrong this time.  There's a much simpler explanation.  Saudis need to raise the price of oil.  Saudis traditionally launder money through Trump and Kushner enterprises.  Saudis bomb their own refineries.  Trump reciprocates with a business favor, helps Saudis out by providing Iran cover story.

Don't be gullible.  Trump lies.  Whatever he says, trust the opposite.  

They don't need to bomb their own refineries to cut production.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Tho, didge is wrong this time.  There's a much simpler explanation.  Saudis need to raise the price of oil.  Saudis traditionally launder money through Trump and Kushner enterprises.  Saudis bomb their own refineries.  Trump reciprocates with a business favor, helps Saudis out by providing Iran cover story.

Don't be gullible.  Trump lies.  Whatever he says, trust the opposite.  

They don't need to bomb their own refineries to cut production.

They do if they want to avoid the wrath of the American people.  Then the consequences widen.  With them aggravated with SA, Americans begin to question aid to Saudi Arabia, participation in the genocide in Yemen, and most of all...Americans will stop taking Saudi Arabia under wing and fighting their battles for them.

The Saudis need to curry favor with Americans, where the opposite would happen if they simply raise prices.  Put aside that Trump, himself, wants to do maximum damage and turn the screws on Iran...which will never happen because Iran is too strong.