| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Tulsi Gabbard accuses Trump of placing US troops under command of 'Islamist dictator' |
| 2019-09-18 |
| [WASHINGTONEXAMINER] Rep. Tulsi Gabbard compared President Trump to a pimp while criticizing one of his tweets that indicated he would follow Soddy Arabia ...a kingdom taking up the bulk of the Arabian peninsula. Its primary economic activity involves exporting oil and soaking Islamic rubes on the annual hajj pilgrimage. The country supports a large number of princes in whatcha might call princely splendor. When the oil runs out the rest of the world is going to kick sand in the Soddy national face... 's lead in responding to an attack on one of the kingdom's major oil facilities. "I've never engaged in hateful rhetoric against you or your family, and I never will, but your offering our military assets to the dictator of Saudi Arabia to use as he sees fit is a betrayal of my brother and sisters in uniform who are ready to give our lives for our country, not for the Islamist dictator of Saudi Arabia," the Hawaii Democrat said in a video posted to Twitter on Monday. "For you to think that you can pimp out our proud service men and women to the prince of Saudi Arabia is disgraceful, and it once again shows that you are unfit to serve as our commander in chief." Gabbard, an Iraq War veteran who still serves in the Hawaii Army National Guard, continued: "My fellow service members and I, we are not your hookers. You are not our pimp." Gabbard's video was a response to a Trump tweet from Sunday, in which the president wrote, "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!" |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #23 So bottom line is that as long as we use oil, we're not energy independent. There is a single market for oil, and we pay whatever price producers demand. Anyway - oil consumption and production numbers at the link. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/us_oil.php |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2019-09-18 23:30 |
| #22 Every day we become more and more "energy independent" As long as we use oil, we're not energy independent. We don't use it because we like it. We use it because it's cheap. There's a single price for oil. We produce 12m per day, use 20m. Producers sell to the highest bidder. $100 oil means we pay $100. Oil producers make out like bandits. As consumers, we're screwed, unless we make like the Saudis, nationalize oil production and give everyone a stipend from the proceeds. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2019-09-18 23:29 |
| #21 Every day we become more and more "energy independent" Turn a few more screws and your argument becomes mute. Unless you consider we can charge more for our exports, then it's a benefit to let them war. |
| Posted by: bbrewer126 2019-09-18 22:33 |
#20 a nation that is no threat to us Oddly enough, that might have been true if Eisenhower the dodderer hadn't dismantled the European empires, leaving the US as the only UN "policeman" to keep the peace. But Humpty Dumpty can't be re-assembled, and the only thing holding back general war (as countries resume fighting each other for fame and glory) and soaring commodities prices is Uncle Sam. The minute we step back, I fully expect history to resume in the Middle East, with a new Ummayad or Abbasid empire taking the place of the existing gaggle of states. What stinks about it is the fact this empire will comprise 40% of the world's oil production. That's why we stay involved. Because $200 oil* will take the country into steep recession. The Saudis were nuts to let oil get to $100. That was the trigger for the Great Recession. They now know the global economy's pain threshold and are racing to get oil production back online before we go through another painful recession. * We use 20m barrels of oil a day. Every dollar price increase costs the economy $7.3b per year. A $10 price increase represents a $73b hit. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2019-09-18 20:34 |
| #19 perhaps he's on the payroll? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2019-09-18 20:09 |
| #18 a nation that is no threat to us What a fascinating assessment. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2019-09-18 20:08 |
| #17 Gosh,the entire idea of going to war with a nation that is no threat to us is SO un-American. Iranian AgitProp would be no different than your bullshit, you pusillanimous tool. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2019-09-18 18:40 |
| #16 Herb, our policy aim is clear, simple and 100% consistent with the tried and true "offshore balancing" approach that Britain used successfully for hundreds of years vis-a-vis Europe: prevent any single power from dominating the Middle East. Iran seeks to dominate the Middle East. They must be prevented from doing so by an offshore balancing strategy combining economic pressure with punitive strikes and opportunistic anti-Iranian coalitions. None of the above requires us to invade Iran. But we absolutely should apply as much pressure, wherever whenever and however we can, as an offshore balancer. Carry on. |
| Posted by: Lex 2019-09-18 15:55 |
| #15 A Saudi military strong enough to take on Iran is strong enough to unify the Middle East. They've tried it before - until the Brits knocked them back on their heels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikhwan_revolt Far better if everyone in the region is defanged, including Iran. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2019-09-18 15:38 |
| #14 While or after he considered himself British? |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2019-09-18 15:37 |
| #13 Ah, the guilt by association logical fallacy. It never gets old. Hitler was in favor of banning smoking. You're also in favor of banning smoking. If your comments were Nazi agit-prop, how would they be different? Gosh, the entire idea of going to war with a nation that is no threat to us is SO un-American. What would George Washington say about intervening against the Persians on behalf of desert nomads? |
| Posted by: Herb McCoy 2019-09-18 15:19 |
| #12 I've lost track...was this an inside job by state department neocons to work war profits or a legitimate Iranian strike where the US is the bought and paid for military pawns of the Saud? Oh I have one...this is a combined effort by valjar democrats and Iran to influence the Israeli elections to insert a peace above all government. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2019-09-18 12:01 |
| #11 I wish military interventions could be like education or public safety appropriations, where we spend the money once and never have to do it again. That is what the gamma ray bombs are for |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2019-09-18 09:35 |
| #10 Easy there. Truth is, we have no good options in this mess. The Iranians hold all the cards. |
| Posted by: Lex 2019-09-18 09:09 |
| #9 If Herb's comments were Iranian agit-prop, how would they be different? |
| Posted by: Rob Crawford 2019-09-18 08:31 |
| #8 Sorry Herb and Tulsi, American military is never under foreign control. It's the law, period. The chain of command goes directly to the President. We coordinate, cooperate, and support but we never surrender the ultimate allegiance to the Constitution. Your problem is that we are riding a tiger and can't get off. The American Constitution was never designed to have a large standing army engaged in entangling alliances across the world. It has corrupted the underlying checks and balances relationships internal to the federal government. If you took the time to notice, the current occupant is trying to actually disengage us and avoid bellicose knee jerk military actions, which is probably why a couple of old guard cabinet people have left. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2019-09-18 07:56 |
| #7 just Trump keeping up appearances that the sheet-wearers in SA are our allies and that what happens to them is important to us. 'Oh no, don't throw us in that briar patch, Br'er Mullah!' |
| Posted by: Bob Grorong1136 2019-09-18 07:37 |
| #6 Unfortunately, you can judge what Islamics would do by what, say, USSR would do. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2019-09-18 04:28 |
| #5 For the US and Israel to sit back and focus on their own problems while the islamics fight amongst themselves to be oil suppliers with no markets would be even better. |
| Posted by: Dron66046 2019-09-18 04:15 |
| #4 The problem lies in judging Iranian reaction to expected US response to the latest Iranian aggression, this time against Saudi Arabia. Iranian response against the US or Israeli targets could lead quickly to serious war, but would probably end the Iranian regime rather quickly. A more plausible response by Iran would be against Saudi Arabia itself. It is for that reason that consultation with Saudi Arabia is necessary. The government of same must be willing and prepared to defend itself against further Iranian aggression or means must be employed to protect it against the next Iranian response. Incidentally, further Iranian aggression against Saudi Arabia is even more probable if there is no US response to the latest Iranian attack, than if there is one. For the US to respond while ignoring potential Saudi vulnerabilities would be irresponsible. |
| Posted by: Daniel 2019-09-18 04:02 |
| #3 ^LOL |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2019-09-18 02:58 |
| #2 We spend our own money on these pointless interventions, and nothing ever gets better. I wish military interventions could be like education or public safety appropriations, where we spend the money once and never have to do it again. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2019-09-18 02:57 |
| #1 Well, she's not wrong. It's insane that the US puts its military at the service of other countries like this. What are we, an international mercenary company? No, we're not. Mercenaries get paid. We spend our own money on these pointless interventions, and nothing ever gets better. |
| Posted by: Herb McCoy 2019-09-18 01:51 |