U.S. to deploy military forces to Saudi Arabia, UAE after drone attacks on oil sites

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...ces-saudi-arabia-after-drone-attacks-n1057216
U.S. to deploy military forces to Saudi Arabia, UAE after drone attacks on oil sites
Dang it! We are not Saudi's whipping boys. This has nothing to do with us.
Vote Tulsi

 

I was under the impression that 09/11/2001 was caused by Islamic madness over US troops being stationed in Saudi Arabia, in other words that there were infidels in Muslim holy lands.

Looks like history is about to repeat itself.

 

Imagine the US getting 10.000's of salafist troops, and having people walking with burka's all over the place. The amount of hate crimes would skyrocket.

 

I agree there is no way in hell we should be sending American troops to die for the BUTCHER MBS!!!

 

I hope they let our boys drink alcohol this time around.

 

Well, that'll show em. Take that, Iran.

 

so.. likely personnel to operate the Patriot missile defence... since that would be the only way to defend against a missile

 

It was for Osama Bin Laden. The Saudis liked the Americans stationed in Arabia. OBL hated them and the Saudis.

 

Yeah. Right. Geez. Thats your best? God help ya.

 

If you need more, that's a problem. Americans are sick of losing blood and treasure in other people's wars. It is past time we start getting our troops back home.

 

And that translates into a vote for Tulsi, how? By ignoring every other aspect of her anti-capitalism, anti-individualism, anti-reason mystical rantings?

Nah. No thanks. I can do better—I don’t want to defend the Saudis, I want them destroyed. Best of both worlds is they (the Saudis and the Iranian Ayatollahs) annihilate each other. If not, America is up to the task.

 

I hope Tulsi does well in the primary as a signal to the Democratic Party elite that this is how the people want them leading. After that, Trump vs. Biden or Warren. Trump is also more anti stupid war than either of the Hillary 2.0 candidates. When he beats those two crooks, that will really send them a message. I want the Democratic party to be a reasonable alternative to the Republicans so I have a choice. Right now? There are no moderates left in the DNC.

 

Wow. What a choice: Pragmatic Nationalism (The Republicans under Trump) or National Socialism (The Democrat’s under Warren) —FKD AND BE FKD

 

Examples por favor.

 

So, Saudi Arabia's facilities were blown up, and we are now sending troops there. Seems like a gradual build up for another war. Why?

1 - We don't need their oil.
2 - Iran is not a threat to us.
3 - They are not Sunnis, so they won't unite with Turkey, Pakistan, etc.
4 - If Iran gets out of hand, it's Russia's problem not ours.

 

The world has not been divided between the US and Russia for the Russians to assume such a posture! Indeed, that is a ridiculous statement which will ensure that the great potential that exists in relations between Iran and Russia to never be fulfilled. Already, one great obstacle to such relations between the two is the inordinate influence of Russia's own version of the pro Israel lobby in that country, represented by among other things the ties between many Russian Oligarchs and other such figures with Israel. We don't need to add Russian imperial pretensions to compound the problem.

 

p.s.
If at any point, the choice for Iranians really would become a choice between Russia and the United States, there would be no contest who they would choose. For all of its evils and warts, a distant hegemon which will have to eventually subcontract its duties in the region to Iran as its policeman as it did during the days of the Shah, will be preferable to a Russia which is not so distant and which doesn't have anything anyone in Iran would be interested to buy either. At least, during the Cold War years, the Soviets had an ideology (however defective) to peddle. Today, all they have to peddle is an unreliable willingness to use a veto or some such thing at the UN to put some breaks on the drive for US hegemony. Nothing much more than that.

 

I meant that since Russia has relations with Iran and is next to Iran, we shouldn't be the ones interfering in what Iran does or doesn't do. If we're so paranoid about Iran - and maybe with good reason, (to be honest, I really don't know), then it should be Russia's as well China's concern, not ours.

As for Israel, 1/3 of the people there speak Russian, and about 2 million are Russian nationals and not all of them are Jews - so it goes a little beyond oligarchs who are really more frightened of Putin then he would ever be of them. If he wanted to, he could very easily nationalize their companies. As an example, all those tens of billions that went into Socchi for the Olympics, were paid for by the oligarchs as a favor to Putin.

Unlike us, where our politicians are controlled by the wealthy, Putin's power lies in his contacts with the Intelligence agencies and with the people. In Russia he is known as 'Putin the Savior' for saving them and their nation.

Anyway, this is the major mistake Washington made in regard to Russia. They somehow believe the oligarchs control Putin the way they control our government. It's stupidity, because the first thing Putin did was force them to pay their taxes and not to get involved in the government. That's when most of the oligarchs left.

 

I disagree with you about Russia and Putin. To be sure, I totally understand why Putin is popular in Russia after more than a decade of humiliating subservience, corruption, and cronyism they endured that was turning what once a superpower into a giant banana republic. But when it comes down to it, Russia and Putin have been misled by figures close to Israel to entertain a silly role and idea that will at best turn Russia into a monstrous state with a shelve-life no greater than any other such state. The path for Russia to be a genuine, lasting, major power with something to offer to all those many who aren't thrilled being part of the American empire, and who aren't looking to be part of anyone else's empire either but would be quite happy to join a principled alliance with Russia, is in front of Russia. It just has never been able to cease it, even though if it did, it would be checkmate for the Americans and insurance for Russia for many decades and more.

 

In the meantime:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019...ands-saudi-troops-attack-190928144722091.html

 

As always, a very thoughtful and intellect-challenging contribution.

A correction: You most likely mean seize instead of cease?

 

I see and what happened to the cease fire? Thousands sound maybe like a bit of an exaggeration Be interesting if this is true.........

 

Najran is famous in Orthodox Christianity as the site of the Christian burnings by the Jewish King of Yemen.

 

What they are saying is true, although the 'thousands' does not relate to Saudi forces as many of the soldiers captured are Saudi paid mercenaries from poor countries like Sudan and others belong to the Yemeni forces the Houthis are fighting.

As for the 'ceasefire', the Saudi of course never observed it and the Houthis mentioned that if the Saudis don't observe the ceasefire, they will resume their operations. More significantly, the Houthis were trying to send an olive branch to backup Iran's attempt to bring a peaceful, diplomatic, resolution of these issues at the UN, which the Saudis clearly rebuffed and rejected.

The irony is that when the Saudis attacked Yemen 4 years ago, the Houthis were nothing like an Iranian proxy. Iran had next to nothing to do with what was going on in Yemen. And in the first few years of that war, Iran really wasn't supplying the Houthis much in terms of weapons either. The equipment the Houthis relied on at the time was almost exclusively from the Yemeni military stockpiles, with some limited supplies of anti-tank missiles which they received from Hezbollah. But as that war dragged on, Hezbollah's involvement with the Houthis increased and when the maximum pressure campaign was launched, Iran also began to pave the way for greater support for the Houthis. Indeed, it was only a few months ago that Iran's Supreme Leader formally received a Houthi delegation and officially recognized them as the government of Yemen. Since then, the Houthis have become slightly more like the force the Saudis had once declared they were, meaning the Saudis managed to create the very thing they supposedly wanted to destroy when they launched their campaign of murder and genocide against Yemen.

In the past, Houthi actions should have been understood on the basis of purely local, Yemeni, events. Today, the best way to understand those actions is to see them as the newest member of the axis of resistance. Thus, when the UAE had acted like it understood the message from Iran and began to distance itself from the US and Saudi Arabia's efforts against Iran, and also dropped out basically from the coalition against the Houthis, the Houthi attitude towards them changed. But recently, after the UAE was again nudged reluctantly back into the fold, recently indicating they would be joining the US-led coalition in the Persian Gulf, the fact that they have not been actively fighting the Houthis anymore isn't what is behind the Houthis threatening to attack them. Rather, the Houthis are now delivering a larger message about the foolishness of aligning with the US/Israel in their agenda and approach to Iran.

 

Thanks for the correction. Indeed, I meant seized. I type these messages quickly and make these kind of mistakes quite regularly, especially when two words have the same phonetic sound. Hence, a lot of times I have to edit "there" to "their" and such. Sometimes, I notice the mistake after its too late to edit.