| Submit your comments on this article |
| Arabia |
| Attacks on Saudi Arabia Aren't America's Problem |
| 2019-09-18 |
| [Townhall] America's top source of imported oil (43 percent of it) is Canada. As fellow NATO members, an attack on Canada would be considered an attack on the United States, and a response could include the use of armed force. As with any declaration of war, this would require congressional approval, but the bottom line is that Canada is the very definition of a U.S. ally in diplomatic terms. The same doesn't hold true for America's second-largest oil supplier, Saudi Arabia (9 percent). There is no agreement or framework for the U.S. to respond to an attack on Saudi soil, let alone any obligation to do so. The Saudis are commonly referred to as American allies, even though they really aren't in any official sense. They do, however, purchase U.S. weapons and represent significant oil imports, so they are trading partners and commercial allies. That's about as far as it goes. So when a Saudi oil facility was attacked from the air over the weekend, knocking out roughly half of its oil production capacity, U.S. President Donald Trump's knee-jerk response (on Twitter, of course) was troubling. "Saudi Arabia oil supply was attacked," Trump tweeted. "There is reason to believe that we know the culprit, are locked and loaded depending on verification, but are waiting to hear from the Kingdom as to who they believe was the cause of this attack, and under what terms we would proceed!" First of all, why is there only "reason to believe" that U.S. officials know who the culprit is when the region in question is one of the most surveilled on the planet? We should know who did it, right down to the precise trajectory of the attack. Let's see the evidence. And why would America, with all its spy technology and resources, be "waiting to hear" from the Saudis about who they decide to blame? Cause he wants them to come begging, before he makes an offer. And this time around, IMO, it's going to cost them plenty. ...America has flooded Saudi Arabia with weapons and military assistance. Placing a missile system in the paws of a panda bear would have been more productive. The Saudis have been employing America's finest weaponry to fight the pro-Iranian Houthis for control of neighboring Yemen and have been losing to guys in flip-flops. It's so embarrassing that American defense manufacturers should sue the Saudis for defaming their products. House of Saud (it's not really a country) can't afford to have real military - because coup. ...The best thing Trump can do is cut off all military assistance and arms sales to the Saudis and focus on what he can control to America's benefit: total North American energy independence. It's not about Saudis, it's about Iran, missy. |
| Posted by:g(r)omgoru |
| #6 Never thought i'd say this, but I agree with Herb. Fuck them and let them pull their own weight. |
| Posted by: bbrewer126 2019-09-18 22:05 |
| #5 Regime change? I think you misread the temperament of the US population right now. Half is trying to regime change our own government. |
| Posted by: ruprecht 2019-09-18 15:11 |
| #4 What commitments do we have to Saudi Arabia? Why are we not engaging in "regime change" to install a democratic government? You know, like we're doing in Venezuela and Iran? It is best for everyone, especially Americans, if we disentangle ourselves from these terrorist camel fucking assholes. The sooner the better. If Europeans were serious about their interests they would have paid their fair share of NATO. Obviously they're not worried, hence Nordstream 2. Why must we create a war on their behalf, one they never asked for and will vehemently protest? America First! |
| Posted by: Herb McCoy 2019-09-18 13:46 |
| #3 Although I tend to agree about wanting to get involved a huge amount of the worlds oil comes out of Saudi Arabia and if the world economy tanks that would be bad for the US. |
| Posted by: ruprecht 2019-09-18 12:22 |
| #2 Alas, the influence a nation or organization has on the world is based on how well it respects its commitments to others when the others are subject to attack. UN piece keeping took a hit that it has never recovered from when it abandoned its role as peacekeeper when it withdrew at Nasser's request from Sinai when he became belligerent toward Israel. Chamberlain's refusal to help Czechoslovakia in 1938 and 1939 led Stalin to approach Hitler, and them jointly to start WWII. US abandonment of its commitment to Ukraine when under attack from Russia, which had been made in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons, all immensely weakened respect and influence of those who ignored their commitments and all quickly led to war. The reasons given here for abandoning long term commitments would have the same effects. Wiping out the bases used this attack and destroying the Iranina navy would be an appropriate mild response. Destroying i Iran's nuclear sites would be stronger. At the same time Israel will have to go on war footing and should be prepared to destroy Hezbollah entirely if there is a Lebanese response. Without some response now, there will be a worse problem soon. When aggressors think they are successful, they expand their aggressions. |
| Posted by: Daniel 2019-09-18 03:27 |
| #1 Due to the shale oil revolution, the US is now self-sufficient in petroleum. We can now tell those Saudi pieces of shit who did 9/11 to go and fuck their camels, and they can keep their polluting fossil fuel in the ground where it belongs. Once upon a time we were utterly dependent on Saudi oil. That time has passed. |
| Posted by: Herb McCoy 2019-09-18 01:53 |