Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Attacks in Saudi Arabia on two oil factories

Options
1235»

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    is_that_so wrote: »
    I think pretty much every country is smarter than the current US foreign policy, even Britain. There's also the source of the evidence.
    Going to war needs the approval of too many people who will not cooperate with him. Even a proportional military response looks OTT as they haven't attacked the US in any way. Expect lots of noise from him and more "super sanctions".

    Evidence isn't an issue. Or at least it wasn't when it was WMD. Neither was an attack on the US required. Kuwait might effectively belong to the US but it wasn't the US anymore that Saudi Arabia is. As for support? That would depend on whether war is considered good for reelection or not. Let those prices rise and hit folk in their pockets a while. They'll be clamouring to hit them mad mullahs. Could be swung the right way: not too many body bags coming home to ruin reelection.

    Was there something about no at-war predident failing to be re-elected?


  • Options
    #123
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Danzy wrote: »
    Trump is the least military oriented President in 40 years.

    He'd get it if he wanted it but he is the one saying no.

    Do you honestly believe he is anything but the least military adventure oriented President since the 70s. He is getting slated by his opponents for it.

    Trump has basically rejected pax americana as a doctrine, told Europe and others, use tour own troops and money for defence, America should go home. He may even be withdrawing from areas they shouldn't be but he doesn't believe yank soldiers should be abroad fighting in near any circumstances.

    He got slated for that as an attack on NATO, largely from his opponents.

    Bushes, Clinton,Reagan, Obama, would have had the sky lit up over this.

    The dems will use this against him next year, as things stand now.

    You can argue convincingly that he is a narcissistic nut but pretending he likes war, wants war, is bizarre.

    Question is: does he want reelection. And if so, does war serve that aim.

    Given he's a narcissist.


  • Options
    #124
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Evidence isn't an issue. Or at least it wasn't when it was WMD. Neither was an attack on the US required. Kuwait might effectively belong to the US but it wasn't the US anymore that Saudi Arabia is. As for support? That would depend on whether war is considered good for reelection or not. Let those prices rise and hit folk in their pockets a while. They'll be clamouring to hit them mad mullahs. Could be swung the right way: not too many body bags coming home to ruin reelection.

    Was there something about no at-war president failing to be re-elected?
    He can't go to war without Congress. Even limited military responses could blow up in his face, especially as no Americans were involved. More sanctions would be a lot easier and make him look strong, at least in his own mind. A war would also kill off any goodwill that might accrue out of the Afghan withdrawal. The irony here is how the Saudis benefit from the surge in oil prices.


  • Options
    #125
    Danzy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,280 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Question is: does he want reelection. And if so, does war serve that aim.

    Given he's a narcissist.

    He was partially elected in rejection of foreign adventures. His base don't want it, his rival next year, will probably disagree on it and use it against him.


    Why do people pretend he is mad for war?

    It makes no sense.


  • Options
    #126
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    Danzy wrote: »
    Why do people pretend he is mad for war?

    It makes no sense.

    My guess is when people saw him appoint Bolton, they used the same old 'guilty by association' card they use with everything.

    I don't think people realize you could appoint someone for that position you completely disagree with good cause.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    My guess is when people saw him appoint Bolton, they used the same old 'guilty by association' card they use with everything.

    I don't think people realize you could appoint someone for that position you completely disagree with good cause.
    Winner winner chicken dinner.

    “His view was not always the same as everybody else in the room. That’s why you wanted him there. The fact that he was a contrarian from time to time is an asset not a liability,” Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) told reporters.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #128
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    :eek:

    Is this also the first admission from the U.S. that the attacks on the pipeline were Iran's fault?(If this has been admitted before I would appreciate if someone could link me)
    "All of this is threatened by Iran's significant escalation of violence"-US Secretary of Defense Mark Esper

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpUlp5taIGw


Advertisement