Saudi Arabia accuses Iran of ordering drone attack on oil pipeline

[spidermike007]

17 hours ago, soalbundy said:

The last sentence is correct but I think the US could make things far more uncomfortable for the Saudi's than the other way around, the ruling class in Saudi is protected by the US in much the same way that Israel is, the difference being when push comes to shove the Israeli's can look after themselves. The CIA is good at stirring up dissent and it wouldn't take much to remove the kings and princes if they don't follow uncle Sam's wishes. 

That would never happen. Not in a million years. The only way that heinous family will be removed, is by the Saudi people. The US is scared to death of the power vacuum that would happen, without the crime lords in power, and the potential for the area to become a terrorist hotbed, which would be a sort of twisted justice, considering how much money the Saudis have spent supporting terror worldwide. 

[Morch]

3 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

That would never happen. Not in a million years. The only way that heinous family will be removed, is by the Saudi people. The US is scared to death of the power vacuum that would happen, without the crime lords in power, and the potential for the area to become a terrorist hotbed, which would be a sort of twisted justice, considering how much money the Saudis have spent supporting terror worldwide. 

 

So the "heinous family" will only be removed by the Saudi people, says a poster who on other posts opines that such people aren't keenly interested in democracy etc. No actual reasoning as to why that's "the only way", naturally.

 

And on the subject of power vacuums - given ample past examples, is there much to be said in favor of a power vacuum? Never mind that the same argument was used on previous rants to criticize the prospects of regime change in Iran. Moreover, how would it be anything resembling "twisted justice"? The one's who'll suffer most would be the people, not necessarily Saudi royals or Trump & Co.

 

[spidermike007]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

So the "heinous family" will only be removed by the Saudi people, says a poster who on other posts opines that such people aren't keenly interested in democracy etc. No actual reasoning as to why that's "the only way", naturally.

 

And on the subject of power vacuums - given ample past examples, is there much to be said in favor of a power vacuum? Never mind that the same argument was used on previous rants to criticize the prospects of regime change in Iran. Moreover, how would it be anything resembling "twisted justice"? The one's who'll suffer most would be the people, not necessarily Saudi royals or Trump & Co.

 

I never for a nanosecond criticized regime change in Iran. I love the idea. You are either making this stuff up, and reading into it, with a high degree of inaccuracy. What I did say, is that the last thing in the world the US needs now, is to be involved in another war, and that the past two decades of US attempts at regime change have failed miserable. And lastly, Trump and Blindfold Bolton are the last men in the world capable of regime change anywhere. What is required is a very intelligent and visionary plan. Something Bolton nor Trump are capable of. 

[Morch]

1 minute ago, spidermike007 said:

I never for a nanosecond criticized regime change in Iran. I love the idea. You are either making this stuff up, and reading into it, with a high degree of inaccuracy. What I did say, is that the last thing in the world the US needs now, is to be involved in another war, and that the past two decades of US attempts at regime change have failed miserable. And lastly, Trump and Blindfold Bolton are the last men in the world capable of regime change anywhere. What is required is a very intelligent and visionary plan. Something Bolton nor Trump are capable of. 

 

When "regime change" is referenced on these topics, it is almost invariably in relation to USA policy and past actions. In the post above (as in others), that option is criticized.

 

Holding the position that such a change could/should/would come from people described as not having overly interested in Western ideals of democracy doesn't make much sense either.

 

So to "love the idea" is fine, but doesn't seem to have a whole lot of meaning.

 

As for Trump/Bolton incapable of affecting regime change, I'll have to disagree. Like going to war, regime change is quite possible (one way or another). The issues involved are more to do with the consequences of such actions.

[puck2]

On 5/18/2019 at 1:50 PM, Morch said:

<------->

So to "love the idea" is fine, but doesn't seem to have a whole lot of meaning.

 

As for Trump/Bolton incapable of affecting regime change, I'll have to disagree. Like going to war, regime change is quite possible (one way or another). The issues involved are more to do with the consequences of such actions.

OMG, the „regime changes“ the US tried in the world after WW II have been so successful ?

 

I.e. in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq. Of course, following your logic, the regime change in Iran would be as successful …. as before. Tell us more jokes, but real jokes. As if the chaos in the ME – caused by the US – wouldn't be enough.

 

If the US under Trump would like to be a world moral player, why not fight for changes in Saudi Arabia, Russia, China a.s.o.??

 

Why don't the USA fight for regime changes in the own country? Under Trump it is revealed the the own „regime“ - called democracy – is full of undemocratic holes a lot more than in an Swiss cheese. Only a few examples:

 

• President must not be the one who has won the majority of the votes, laughable.

• Separation of powers.

  • In a normal democracy the president is the head of the executive. Trump is working like another power of the state, the legislative; by his myriad of executive orders (which belong to the parliament and should be laws).

  • He even can overrule decisions of both chambers of the Congress. (dictator style), if they don't suite him..

  • The 3^rd power in the state, the judicature, is completely influenced politically and therefore not independent. The members of the highest court in the USA are chosen because of the political background and not because of their judicial qualities. And those members have to give back to the parties or (president) Trump which or who have/had chosen them. Remember the Brett Kavanaugh story. Do you think he will ever vote against Trump?

  • That the members of the Highest Court can stay there until they die of Alzheimer - to exaggerate it - is another undemocratic, but serious joke.

  • The REPs have been able (by law!) to stop Obama's nomination of one member of the highest court, because they knew they would have the majority in both houses of the congress after the next election. That's manipulation.

  • Most embarrassing, the POTUS is able to stop all investigations against him by executive orders, mainly under the pretense of „security“.

 

 

Nearly all predecessors of Trump have had the quality and the character not to abuse the flaws mentioned above. Because we know Trump we recognize what can happen if these holes are not plugged.

 

The US a pothole country without regime changes.

 

Edited May 19, 2019 by puck2

[Morch]

 

 

@puck2

 

Where, precisely in my post, did you find support for the USA's regime-change polices? Kinda rich talking about "following your logic" when one is having even simple comprehension issues.