Reply With Quote
him and Saudi Arabia. LOL calling them our allies.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/23/wo...ies-at-90.htmlKing Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, who came to the throne in old age and earned a reputation as a cautious reformer even as the Arab Spring revolts toppled heads of state and Islamic State militants threatened the Muslim establishment that he represented, died on Friday, according to a statement on state television. He was 90.
The Royal Court said in a statement broadcast across the kingdom that the king had died early Friday. The royal court did not disclose the exact cause of death. An announcement quoted by the official Saudi Press Agency said the king had a lung infection when he was admitted on Dec. 31 to a Riyadh hospital.
The king’s death adds yet another element of uncertainty in a region already overwhelmed by crises and as Saudi Arabia is itself in a struggle with Iran for regional dominance.
The royal family moved quickly to assure a smooth transition of power in a nation that is a close ally of the United States, the world’s largest exporter of oil and the religious center of the Islamic faith. In a televised statement, Abdullah’s brother, Crown Prince Salman, announced that the king had died and that he had assumed the throne.
him and Saudi Arabia. LOL calling them our allies.
be interesting to see what happens next. a struggle for power in Saudi Arabia could have significant regional and international repercussions.
Current guy is 80, dementia
After him, the next guy could support Wahhabi extremists seriously
Not much different there. Saudi Arabia has been the major source of support for Wahhabi extremism for a long time.
would've made far more sense to retaliate against Saudi Arabia after 9/11, than Afghanistan or Iraq tbh.
(which, for the record, I would also have been against.)
Yeah, it sucks. The ruling family has to "keep it real" by tolerating Wahhabists and we have to act like it isn't happening.
Why do we have to act like it isn't happening?
overly simplified, but there is a two word reason: Saudi Aramco
because if we don't they'll run to align with Russia or China which would start WWIII
"keep it real"
BigOil defines US foreign policy
Afghanistan made perfect sense. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were behind the attack and the main guys were located in Afghan at the time. Iraq was stupid.
well you gladly took their money in 1990
That's right. Tow the liberal line.
Yes, it could.
I'll bet the armed forces have strategies in place to both leave there in a hurry, and go in there in full force.
I'm sure some money and power of some families has. You would doom a whole nation for that? Would you attack Mexico for the drugs they bring in to us? Blame the whole nation for the actions of some?
No, but it is a concern that is a part of the equation.
I thought you took their money, but then you pussed out right before boarding at Logan International, am I right?
Nothing liberal about it. Bush made the right call going into Afghan. Iraq was stupid and pointless. Obama should have left Afghan once Bin Laden was caught and killed.
Punishing AQ in Afghanistan was right, "nation building" in Afghanistan for 13+ years was bull .
The Repugs and the US military LOST unwinnable Afghanistan (like British and Russians lost there) and LOST unwinnable Iraq (USA should have listened to the French and Germans)
... and US Foreign Policy group (aka, the MIC) gladly sold Saudi $100Bs in military equipment.
Nation building is always a losing cause.
The Repugs and the US military LOST unwinnable Afghanistan (like British and Russians lost there) and LOST unwinnable Iraq (USA should have listened to the French and Germans)
And that mission is long finished.
Why are we still there?
Money and mission support came from Saudi Arabia. Bad guys are more or less inteerchyangeable, but it couldn't have been done without the money.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
