Saudi king approves U.S. military deployment: SPA

Associated Press

Saudi Arabia’s king and crown prince have approved the deployment of additional U.S. troops and equipment, after an attack last month on the kingdom’s oil facilities, state news agency SPA reported on Saturday.

The United States announced a deployment of about 3,000 troops to the Gulf state, including fighter squadrons, an air expeditionary wing and air defense personnel, amid heightened tensions with Saudi’s arch-rival Iran.

President Donald Trump said the Saudis had agreed to pay for the deployment. The SPA report said only that it came in the context of “historic relations and (a) well-established partnership” between the two countries.

That is absolutely wonderful, isn't it? We are now officially a mercenary army, for hire by whatever regime needs some muscle.

What happens if any of those 3,000 troops lose their life while working for the Saudis, and paid for by the Saudis? What letter will the family back home get?

"We are sorry to inform you that while in the employ of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, you child lost his/her life in combat."

What flag is draped over the casket if a soldier dies working in the employ of another government?

I agree we need to be out of the Middle East and where ever else are troops are stationed around the wold. I am tired of being the world police. I do find it odd you support our troops some places and want them out of others. I don’t see a difference between factions in the ME.

Interesting. You cared not a jot about the risk to US military personnel that were removed from northern Syria.
Now, you've dressed this deployment up by invoking the spectre of coffins draped in flags.

I too object to this deployment, however I also object to the deployment in Syria. The common theme for me is that I see no reason for US troops to be in the ME at all.
The common theme for you seems to be whatever is the opposite of what Trump does, regardless of whether it makes your position a hypocritical one.

originally posted by: UKTruth
Interesting. You cared not a jot about the risk to US military personnel that were removed from northern Syria.
Now, you've dressed this deployment up by invoking the spectre of coffins draped in flags.

I too object to this deployment, however I also objecting to the deployment in Syria. The common theme for me is that I see no reason for US troops to be in the ME at all.
The common theme for you seems to be whatever is the opposite of what Trump does, regardless of whether it makes your position a hypocritical one.

UKTruth, you continue coming into my threads and you just make things up, conjure them out of the blue and try to attribute them to me, make it seem like it's something I said. I keep pointing out this is a straw man argument and that I want no part of it and yet you keep coming back and doing the same thing over and over.

Once again, I want no part in talking to you. I find you bring nothing of value to the topics I bring up. I find you rude and repetitive. Imagine that we are in real life and I am turning away and walking away from you.

Please stop talking to me.

Please?

originally posted by: Oraculi

originally posted by: UKTruth
Interesting. You cared not a jot about the risk to US military personnel that were removed from northern Syria.
Now, you've dressed this deployment up by invoking the spectre of coffins draped in flags.

I too object to this deployment, however I also objecting to the deployment in Syria. The common theme for me is that I see no reason for US troops to be in the ME at all.
The common theme for you seems to be whatever is the opposite of what Trump does, regardless of whether it makes your position a hypocritical one.

UKTruth, you continue coming into my threads and you just make things up, conjure them out of the blue and try to attribute them to me, make it seem like it's something I said. I keep pointing out this is a straw man argument and that I want no part of it and yet you keep coming back and doing the same thing over and over.

Once again, I want no part in talking to you. I find you bring nothing of value to the topics I bring up. I find you rude and repetitive. Imagine that we are in real life and I am turning away and walking away from you.

Please stop talking to me.

Please?

This is a forum. You don't get to choose.
You still haven't explained why you seem ok with US soldiers being risked in Northern Syria, but are invoking flag draped coffins because troops are being deployed to protect oil fields in Saudi Arabia.
I guess you simply can't explain, so my conclusion looks to be the best bet - you simply land on the opposite of whatever Trump does.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Oraculi

originally posted by: UKTruth
Interesting. You cared not a jot about the risk to US military personnel that were removed from northern Syria.
Now, you've dressed this deployment up by invoking the spectre of coffins draped in flags.

I too object to this deployment, however I also objecting to the deployment in Syria. The common theme for me is that I see no reason for US troops to be in the ME at all.
The common theme for you seems to be whatever is the opposite of what Trump does, regardless of whether it makes your position a hypocritical one.

UKTruth, you continue coming into my threads and you just make things up, conjure them out of the blue and try to attribute them to me, make it seem like it's something I said. I keep pointing out this is a straw man argument and that I want no part of it and yet you keep coming back and doing the same thing over and over.

Once again, I want no part in talking to you. I find you bring nothing of value to the topics I bring up. I find you rude and repetitive. Imagine that we are in real life and I am turning away and walking away from you.

Please stop talking to me.

Please?

This is a forum. You don't get to choose.
You still haven't explained why you seem ok with US soldiers being risked in Northern Syria, but are invoking flag draped coffins because troops are being deployed to protect oil fields in Saudi Arabia.
I guess you simply can't explain, so my conclusion looks to be the best bet - you simply land on the opposite of whatever Trump does.

Well, it seems you have zero self-respect.

No worries. It's easy for me to skip over your posts, and if you have any dignity you'll do the same with mine. All the best to you.

Saudi Arabia being prominent on the beaches of Normandy during D-Day being the only answer trumps deranged supporters can give.

originally posted by: Oraculi

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Oraculi

originally posted by: UKTruth
Interesting. You cared not a jot about the risk to US military personnel that were removed from northern Syria.
Now, you've dressed this deployment up by invoking the spectre of coffins draped in flags.

I too object to this deployment, however I also objecting to the deployment in Syria. The common theme for me is that I see no reason for US troops to be in the ME at all.
The common theme for you seems to be whatever is the opposite of what Trump does, regardless of whether it makes your position a hypocritical one.

UKTruth, you continue coming into my threads and you just make things up, conjure them out of the blue and try to attribute them to me, make it seem like it's something I said. I keep pointing out this is a straw man argument and that I want no part of it and yet you keep coming back and doing the same thing over and over.

Once again, I want no part in talking to you. I find you bring nothing of value to the topics I bring up. I find you rude and repetitive. Imagine that we are in real life and I am turning away and walking away from you.

Please stop talking to me.

Please?

This is a forum. You don't get to choose.
You still haven't explained why you seem ok with US soldiers being risked in Northern Syria, but are invoking flag draped coffins because troops are being deployed to protect oil fields in Saudi Arabia.
I guess you simply can't explain, so my conclusion looks to be the best bet - you simply land on the opposite of whatever Trump does.

Well, it seems you have zero self-respect.

No worries. It's easy for me to skip over your posts, and if you have any dignity you'll do the same with mine. All the best to you.

That's cool. Skip away. You're always in control of your own actions, but never anyone else's.
I'll continue to point out the hypocrisies when I see them. The motivation for the continual attack threads is important for people reading to know. You are welcome to be anti-Trump to the point you see bad in everything he does and never any good. You're choice, but you are not exept from being challenged and having the inconsistencies in your arguments pointed out.

originally posted by: UKTruth
Interesting. You cared not a jot about the risk to US military personnel that were removed from northern Syria.
Now, you've dressed this deployment up by invoking the spectre of coffins draped in flags.

I too object to this deployment, however I also objecting to the deployment in Syria. The common theme for me is that I see no reason for US troops to be in the ME at all.
The common theme for you seems to be whatever is the opposite of what Trump does, regardless of whether it makes your position a hypocritical one.

I'll answer that. We were in Northern Syria to eradicate ISIS who wished to plan/launch terror attacks on the U.S. and Western nations. The Kurds helped us a great deal in accomplishing that goal. Now, when we leave, not only do they suffer - our original goal will quickly be reversed. ISIS will soon again become a threat.

In Saudi Arabia? It's just oil. So, zero reason to have them there, in my opinion.

a reply to: Oraculi

Saudi king approves U.S. military deployment:

Saudi King, also (probably): "We just bought the US military."

originally posted by: Admitted

originally posted by: UKTruth
Interesting. You cared not a jot about the risk to US military personnel that were removed from northern Syria.
Now, you've dressed this deployment up by invoking the spectre of coffins draped in flags.

I too object to this deployment, however I also objecting to the deployment in Syria. The common theme for me is that I see no reason for US troops to be in the ME at all.
The common theme for you seems to be whatever is the opposite of what Trump does, regardless of whether it makes your position a hypocritical one.

I'll answer that. We were in Northern Syria to eradicate ISIS who wished to plan/launch terror attacks on the U.S. and Western nations. The Kurds helped us a great deal in accomplishing that goal. Now, when we leave, not only do they suffer - our original goal will quickly be reversed. ISIS will soon again become a threat.

In Saudi Arabia? It's just oil. So, zero reason to have them there, in my opinion.

It's a fair argument but not one I agree with.
I would say that defeating ISIS was about removing their caliphate. That's done. I see no path for them to reclaim it based on the withdrawal of 100 US troops.
The argument that the Kurds have claim on US military forces because the US helped them defeat ISIS and drive them from their lands is not a solid argument. The US were helping the Kurds, not the other way around. The US should not be entagled in ME affairs. They are doing more harm than good. They should get out of Syria and out of SA - and stop selling arms to countries that fund terrorism.

originally posted by: Oraculi

That is absolutely wonderful, isn't it? We are now officially a mercenary army, for hire by whatever regime needs some muscle. What happens if any of those 3,000 troops lose their life while working for the Saudis, and paid for by the Saudis? What letter will the family back home get?

I suppose you think your sarcasm is clever. They'll get the same damn letter 58,000 families got when their sons were killed in Vietnam. Of course, that was a couple of generations ago. So WTF is your point?

a reply to: UKTruth

We helped each other defeat a common enemy. And we could have kept a paltry number of troops there. Turn off financial support but keep on limited personnel to maintain an intel stream of terrorist activities in the area. Now, not only are we blind to what may be going on in the region on the ground - we make a*holes of ourselves and will make such alliances in the future more difficult to come by.

And, I'd like us all out too, but I doubt that will ever happen. We will have terror attacks and we will need to go find these people wherever there... It sucks but that future is inevitable short of that WW3 or ELE type of event.

originally posted by: Admitted
a reply to: UKTruth

We helped each other defeat a common enemy. And we could have kept a paltry number of troops there. Turn off financial support but keep on limited personnel to maintain an intel stream of terrorist activities in the area. Now, not only are we blind to what may be going on in the region on the ground - we make a*holes of ourselves and will make such alliances in the future more difficult to come by.

And, I'd like us all out too, but I doubt that will ever happen. We will have terror attacks and we will need to go find these people wherever there... It sucks but that future is inevitable short of that WW3 or ELE type of event.

Terror attacks will continue regardless of whether the caliphate is destroyed. There is no defeating Islamic terror.
The point is that taking away their caliphate makes it more difficult for them to organise and more difficult for them to slaughter.

At some point any engagement has to end. The US cannot permanently take the role of the Kurdish armed forces. Their dispute with Turkey is never going to end. Getting embroiled with that is a terrible idea.

a reply to: Oraculi

Can someone please take that tea towel off his head? He lives a life of luxury in air conditioning he doesn't need one to keep cool!

His royal highness has made a big mistake, the US hasn't been popular in the Middle East of late, scratch that, ever. He has pretty much got a bottle of ketchup and made a big Red target on his nations chest.

Once again the American government chooses wealth by death, how many will die this time?

a reply to: Oraculi

Your response to this defensive measure is beyond ludicrous and inhumane.

It is your contention that US interests ignore a hostile enemy nation like Iran, who fosters terrorist activities against the USA and our friends, and just let them attack people without any remorse on your part. Iran is an aggressor nation who have openly stated they wish to destroy America.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: Oraculi

Your response to this defensive measure is beyond ludicrous and inhumane.

It is your contention that US interests ignore a hostile enemy nation like Iran, who fosters terrorist activities against the USA and our friends, and just let them attack people without any remorse on your part. Iran is an aggressor nation who have openly stated they wish to destroy America.

The Saudi's should protect themselves.
I see no reason to believe that protecting their oil fields secures safety for US Citizens.
The US should get out of the ME.

originally posted by: UKTruth

Terror attacks will continue regardless of whether the caliphate is destroyed. There is no defeating Islamic terror.
The point is that taking away their caliphate makes it more difficult for them to organise and more difficult for them to slaughter.

At some point any engagement has to end. The US cannot permanently take the role of the Kurdish armed forces. Their dispute with Turkey is never going to end. Getting embroiled with that is a terrible idea.

All true words. I feel we actually agree completely with things as they are. We just have different views of the future.

I think it is better not to get "embroiled" between Turkey and the Kurds, but to just leave is to be ignorant. If we have zero presence in the ME - we have zero ability to confirm what eyes in the sky show us. They can plan and carry out attacks before we know what hit us. As for Turkey/Syria specifically, even a small force would deter Turkey from making that place chaotic.

We haven't had any large scale coordinated attacks in the U.S. since 9/11. The forces we've had in the Middle East are ridiculous. But a presence in key terrorist hotspots is important to keep an eye on the goings-on.

a reply to: UKTruth

Iran attacking SA though is a direct provocation like flipping the bird at the USA, except people getting killed and maimed. That demands a response. You just cant allow any bullying and show boating by Iran's pathetic leadership like what they have been doing. The USA has a thousand different reasons to help SA in regard to Iran and what Iran wants to do.

originally posted by: Admitted

originally posted by: UKTruth

Terror attacks will continue regardless of whether the caliphate is destroyed. There is no defeating Islamic terror.
The point is that taking away their caliphate makes it more difficult for them to organise and more difficult for them to slaughter.

At some point any engagement has to end. The US cannot permanently take the role of the Kurdish armed forces. Their dispute with Turkey is never going to end. Getting embroiled with that is a terrible idea.

All true words. I feel we actually agree completely with things as they are. We just have different views of the future.

I think it is better not to get "embroiled" between Turkey and the Kurds, but to just leave is to be ignorant. If we have zero presence in the ME - we have zero ability to confirm what eyes in the sky show us. They can plan and carry out attacks before we know what hit us. As for Turkey/Syria specifically, even a small force would deter Turkey from making that place chaotic.

We haven't had any large scale coordinated attacks in the U.S. since 9/11. The forces we've had in the Middle East are ridiculous. But a presence in key terrorist hotspots is important to keep an eye on the goings-on.

There isn't zero presence - although I believe their should be, with the exception of intelligence officers working with allies.

The place is already chaotic in the extreme - in large part BECAUSE of the US.

Do not forget that in Afghanistan, the US had their 'allies' - led by a certain Osama Bin Laden. He turned against them because they STAYED after helping the Afghans defeat the Russians.

You simply can't win in that area of the world - ever.