A "proportionate" response to Iran

Iran is obviously taunting the US because its leadership believes that the US will remain impotent in this regard. And it may be correct.

President Trump says that and American response to the attack upon five percent of the world's oil supply (in Saudi Arabia) will be a "proportionate" one.

Why?

Why not simply kick Iran in the teeth (or even in an unmentionable place), as a warning that it is really a bad idea to mess with the West?

 

Why should we get involved? Let’s get one shithole country (Saudi Arabia) to bomb another shithole country (Iran), while we just sit back, eat popcorn and watch the show.
In SA-Iran war humanity wins! There won’t be any losers!

 

My question is why did the Saudi - US defenses in the country not stop the drones? I have two wishes 1 - The US stays out of this fight. 2 -- The Saudis take out each and every oil facility of Iran. It's time for the countries in the Mid East to bring Iran to it's knees.

 

That is a reasonable question--especially considering that the US is now energy independent--and therefore, not at all dependent upon Saudi oil.

But Iran has been taunting the US, specifically (e.g., frequent chants of "Death to America!")--as well as sponsoring terrorism throughout the Middle East--so I think that it should be taken down a notch or two.

Although Saudi Arabia's record as regarding human rights is abysmal (it has been only about a year since it even allowed women to drive), it does act as an important counterweight, in the region, to Iran.

And I believe in the policy of realpolitik.

 

Our mutual defense pact with Saudi Arabia compells us to act. An attack on one is an attack on all. And we certainly have the budget and capacity now that NATO countries are providing their own damn defense.

 

Looks like Trump is not falling for the Saudi/Israel false flag.

 

What the hell are you talking about? We do not have mutual defense pact with Saudi Arabia. To hell with Saudi Arabia, they are a crap hole country and were the sponsors of 9/11.

 

Do you not agree that when you go up to a hornets nest - and hit it with a baseball bat - it is mindless idiocy to expect not to get stung ? Of course you agree.

If some nation was messing with our economic security - and it was causing major social upheaval, poverty and so on - would you not be standing with the crowds in the USA chanting "Death" - to the nation that was doing this ?

We do not have a great history with Iran - We were on the side of Saddam in the war between Iraq and Iran - even while Saddam was using Chemical weapons. Before that we meddled in their political process big time to effect regime change.

Terrorism - I agree that sponsoring terrorism is a bad thing - arming these terrorist groups with sophisticated military technology is just as bad. I think that when groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda are going around raping, beheading, torturing and committing mass murder of Christians and other marginalized groups - the nations that are supporting these groups should be condemned.

The problem with your argument is that it was not Iran that was arming and supporting Al Qaeda and ISIS (and other extremist Islamist groups of the same ilk in Syria) Iran was fighting these groups .. along with Russia and the Syrian Army.

It was Saudi Arabia - along with the US and other nations states - that were arming and supporting these Goblins.

The majority of the 911 attackers were not "Iranian" - in fact not one of them was - nor were any of them Shia. They were Saudi - and the others were followers of the Saudi inspired Salafi Islamist extremist ideology - one that it has been exporting all over the world for decades- arming and supporting these groups.

In Yemen we are also on the same side of the war as Al Qaeda - and on the same side of the #1 State Sponsor of terrorism - Saudi Arabia.
While both sides have been cited for war crimes .. Saudi Arabia is by far the worst offender and they have also been condemned for crimes against humanity - not just by the UN - but by our own congress and by our close allies such as Britain, France and Germany

It was El Saud that have invaded Yemen- not the Houthi's.

How is it that you figure that Saudi Arabia should be allowed to engage in massive war crimes, atrocity - including torture rape and so on - and crimes against humanity - yet if they hit back at Saudi Arabia we are then supposed to wage war on the supporters of the people fighting El Saud ?

 

What mutual defense treaty with Saudi Arabia? This is the first I've heard of it.

 

I don't think so. It's not like NATO.

The US and Saudi Arabia, allying themselves against this shared enemy, expanded their initial oil relationship into a more expansive security alliance. In 1951, the US and Saudi Arabia established the Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement, the first formal defense agreement between the two nations. It provided for American arms sales to Saudi Arabia and American training of the Saudi military.

https://www.vox.com/2016/1/6/10719728/us-saudi-arabia-allies

 

Its not a false flag. The Saudis don't tear up their own stuff.. Haven't you ever noticed the five year plans since 1970?

 

Oil from Ghawar drove the Marshal Plan after ww2 and during Vietnam the Saudis kept our troops supplied. They have also been our committed swing producer to keep supply as steady as possible thru any and every crisis. Cheap oil from Abqaiq and Safaniya made the US a superpower.

 

I'm against a proportional response to an attack.

I prefer the orders of Captain Kirk to his ship when the Klingon ship suddenly appeared in "Day of the Dove".

"Total reply if attacked".

 

Really that's your logic? The Saudis are a criminal cartel masquerading as a legitimate government. They are thugs and murderers, and were behind 9/11, and many more terrorist attacks. They are not our friends or allies. To commit a false flag operation to get the US to fight a war in their best interest is exactly the kind of thing they do when they are not murdering journalists who print the truth about them.

 

That was sweet of them.
Then of course there was the embargo.
Split loyalties I guess.

 

You never heard of it because there is none.

 

You really bought into the Trumpocity's BS about NATO I see!

 

We will see!

 

You make some good points.

 

Faisel had to go with the embargo. Read Frank Jungers account. But, they continued to supply the troops in Vietnam.

Israel put Nixon between a rock and a hard place.

 

Yeah there is.. 1951.

 

Why would we defend MBS, a murderous thug who kills his own people, when they speak up against him? Then, he lies about it. That is some "ally".

Plus, the US Saudi defense agreement from 1951 is basically about the US selling arms to the Saudis, I don't think we are obligated to defend them. If we are, we should revisit this agreement. Yet, you won't hear Trump talk about that.

Of course, we all know this is not about defending the Saudis, this is about access to oil. Democrats have commented for years that the best way to stay out of middle east conflict is to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. The GOP keeps stonewalling ANY alternative energy effort, however. they seem to like wars for oil.

 

Trump increasedthe sanction on Iran. I agree with him on that.


Saudi Arabia and Israel can go attack Iran. We can provide the satellite Intel.

Of course Netanyahu did not do all that well in their election so I do not think that Israel will do squat to the Iraniacs now?

 

Taunting? Your proof, please.

 

Are you anticipating an "attack" on the USA, like the bogus one traitor Bush talked about? If so, present evidence of one.