Jump to content
Key Links: Announcements | Support Desk

The Politics Thread


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • Members

I think this article makes a lot of good points, although I have to admit I fell for the type of thinking that he is discussing initially. By initially, I mean nearly two years.  Then I realized I was falling for twitter nonsense.  It comes as absolutely no surprise that it's elite white women behind this thinking either. They are so desperate to shame the rabble as a means of distancing themselves. Meanwhile, it's education itself that is the distance and there's no point pretending that gender or race puts us on the same team.

 

3 minutes ago, Khan said:

That's some good news.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 37.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Vee

    5013

  • Khan

    3055

  • DRW50

    5044

  • DramatistDreamer

    4689

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members
14 hours ago, JaneAusten said:

Sherrod Brown doesn’t represent me and Marceline can likely share a lot more about him, but an interesting topic the last few days about comments Brown made about the Abrams race in Georgia. I have to say he didn’t let weasel Chuck Todd get away with his usual finger wagging at democrats for using the word “stolen”.

 

As Sherrod says in the video he was a Secretary of State. If anybody is qualified to call the election stolen it's him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It's well known that the U.S/KSA (oil) alliance has been in effect for several decades through various presidential administration in both political parties but KSA/MbS and Trump Inc. seem to be especially connected to each other. And the Trump administration is in the intrigue up to their necks.

 

 

 

Update:

I read this article this morning but here are the latest developments, I'm not even going to post that ridiculous statement that the Trump WH put out.  Rather clumsy lede by AP.  Trump didn't do the pressing, he was the one being pressed to be tougher on KSA.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
15 hours ago, JaneAusten said:

Sherrod Brown doesn’t represent me and Marceline can likely share a lot more about him, but an interesting topic the last few days about comments Brown made about the Abrams race in Georgia. I have to say he didn’t let weasel Chuck Todd get away with his usual finger wagging at democrats for using the word “stolen”.

 

 

I bring this up because there was a battle on social media the past couple of days at why and why not the term #stolenelection may or may not be appropriate when referring to the election. A debate between Richard Hasen and Charles Pierce.  Me, Brown is right and Abrams is right.

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/11/georgia-stacey-abrams-brian-kemp-election-not-stolen.html

 

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a25224334/sherrod-brown-stolen-election-georgia-brian-kemp-chuck-todd/



Thank you so much for posting this. it's been past time someone, ANYONE, called Todd out for his hypocrisy and fawning over everything. this is classic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, DramatistDreamer said:

It's well known that the U.S/KSA (oil) alliance has been in effect for several decades through various presidential administration in both political parties but KSA/MbS and Trump Inc. seem to be especially connected to each other. And the Trump administration is in the intrigue up to their necks.

 

 

 

Of course Trump would overlook anything when the people involved have more money than god.  At the same time, I'm not sure this is anything worse than what the Bush administration did after 9/11. It's more obvious in the moment though and in that way disturbing, just like so much of what's going on right now.  The masks are off and all pretense of moral leadership is gone.

Edited by Juliajms
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
10 minutes ago, Juliajms said:

Of course Trump would overlook anything when the people involved have more money than god.  At the same time, I'm not sure this is anything worst than what the Bush administration did after 9/11. It's more obvious in the moment though and in that way disturbing, just like so much of what's going on right now.  The masks are off and all pretense of moral leadership is gone.

 

I thought that the administration of Bush Jr. was one of, it not the most destructive presidencies in my lifetime (I can only speak for myself) but one tangible difference between the two is that Trump likely has personal business with the Saudis. 

Dick Cheney might have had business with KSA through his contracting firm Halliburton and though, he may have been the 'unseen hand' behind the president, he didn't hold the actual title.  Trump, who is the current occupant of the title has business with the Saudis through Trump Inc.   

 

One of the reasons why I hope Rep. Maxine Waters demands and digs through those tax returns, is that there may be some irrefutable proof of Trump's conflicts of interest-- then again, he may have figured out a way to obscure the evidence by January '19.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
9 minutes ago, DramatistDreamer said:

 

I thought that the administration of Bush Jr. was one of, it not the most destructive presidencies in my lifetime (I can only speak for myself) but one tangible difference between the two is that Trump likely has personal business with the Saudis. 

Dick Cheney might have had business with KSA through his contracting firm Halliburton and though, he may have been the 'unseen hand' behind the president, he didn't hold the actual title.  Trump, who is the current occupant of the title has business with the Saudis through Trump Inc.   

 

One of the reasons why I hope Rep. Maxine Waters demands and digs through those tax returns, is that there may be some irrefutable proof of Trump's conflicts of interest-- then again, he may have figured out a way to obscure the evidence by January '19.

Yes, the personal corruption of the Trump administration might be worse than that of the Bush administration.  I really can't say because with Bush being from oil country it's not clear to me how much he and his family benefited from the connection to Halliburton and the oil industry. Let's just say I'm suspicious that we don't know everything there is to know on that front.

 

My real point is that while Trump is personally corrupt, W actually sent us to war with the wrong country to protect the Saudis.  How many people died because of the lies that administration told and the misdirection they did concerning 9/11? Some reports say that half a million children died as a result of things like starvation and lack of medical care, when we all know that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. That seems worse to me than 45's greed, but at the same time the impunity Trump has given the Saudis is also dangerous and I'm sure a lot of innocent people will pay for that too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
12 minutes ago, Juliajms said:

Yes, the personal corruption of the Trump administration might be worse than that of the Bush administration.  I really can't say because with Bush being from oil country it's not clear to me how much he and his family benefited from the connection to Halliburton and the oil industry. Let's just say I'm suspicious that we don't know everything there is to know on that front.

 

My real point is that while Trump is personally corrupt, W actually sent us to war with the wrong country to protect the Saudis.  How many people died because of the lies that administration told and the misdirection they did concerning 9/11? Some reports say that half a million children died as a result of things like starvation and lack of medical care, when we all know that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. That seems worse to me than 45's greed, but at the same time the impunity Trump has given the Saudis is also dangerous and I'm sure a lot of innocent people will pay for that too.

 

Bush's issues in Iraq from what I've read, had more to do with Saddam Hussein and 'finishing the job that his father George H.W. didn't complete'. 

bin Laden, on the other hand had already been expelled by the Saudis, no?  While Reagan and the U.S. military trained bin Laden and the mujahideen against the Soviets (skills that would boomerang back on Sept 11th).  I doubt that the Saudis needed U.S. protection on that matter since Bin Laden was far from KSA in the caves of Afghanistan.  Kuwait, Iraq's vulnerable neighbor, was another matter.

 

Sometimes U.S. and Saudi oil industries collaborate (oil production, strategically driving down oil prices) and sometimes they are at cross-purposes (e.g. Trump administration granting waivers enabling businesses to buy from mutual enemy Iran, for seemingly political purposes).  I haven't done much reading/research into Halliburton and oil, but Halliburton profited handsomely in Iraq by catering to the U.S. military in the theaters of war (catering, supplies, etc.)  The war in Iraq itself was highly profitable whereas the war in Afghanistan (where bin Laden was thought to be hiding for a decade), was not.

 

Trump's vested interest in KSA is likely to be much the same as the other autocratic countries he does business with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
21 minutes ago, DramatistDreamer said:

Bush's issues in Iraq from what I've read, had more to do with Saddam Hussein and 'finishing the job that his father George H.W. didn't complete'.

 

Exactly.  However, in order to sell America on the idea of starting another war with Iraq and Saddam, they had to lie about finding WMD's in Iraq.  (Which there weren't, of course, as folks were insisting even back then.  Just as folks were confused and outraged that tracking down and capturing and/or killing the architects of 9/11 suddenly turned into rooting out and annihilating Saddam.)

 

Frankly, I think George W. Bush attained the presidency with the idea of settling the score with Saddam.  He had no other goals, no other agendas -- that was strictly Dick Cheney's and others' domain.  All he cared about was destroying Saddam and toppling his regime; and he used the most devastating act of terrorism on U.S. soil to make that happen.

Edited by Khan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
35 minutes ago, DramatistDreamer said:

 

Bush's issues in Iraq from what I've read, had more to do with Saddam Hussein and 'finishing the job that his father George H.W. didn't complete'. 

bin Laden, on the other hand had already been expelled by the Saudis, no?  While Reagan and the U.S. military trained bin Laden and the mujahideen against the Soviets (skills that would boomerang back on Sept 11th).  I doubt that the Saudis needed U.S. protection on that matter since Bin Laden was far from KSA in the caves of Afghanistan.  Kuwait, Iraq's vulnerable neighbor, was another matter.

 

Sometimes U.S. and Saudi oil industries collaborate (oil production, strategically driving down oil prices) and sometimes they are at cross-purposes (e.g. Trump administration granting waivers enabling businesses to buy from mutual enemy Iran, for seemingly political purposes).  I haven't done much reading/research into Halliburton and oil, but Halliburton profited handsomely in Iraq by catering to the U.S. military in the theaters of war (catering, supplies, etc.)  The war in Iraq itself was highly profitable whereas the war in Afghanistan (where bin Laden was thought to be hiding for a decade), was not.

 

Trump's vested interest in KSA is likely to be much the same as the other autocratic countries he does business with.

But isn't it the case that 9/11 was state sponsored by the Saudi's? I don't think we have the smoking gun on that, but it seems like we've gotten bits and pieces of info on that front over the years.  Given how many of the attackers were of Saudi origin it would have made a lot more sense to go after them.  It would have made even more sense not to go after anyone, of course. Revenge was in the air back then though, I remember that much for sure.

20 minutes ago, Khan said:

 

Exactly.  However, in order to sell America on the idea of starting another war with Iraq and Saddam, they had to lie about finding WMD's in Iraq.  (Which there weren't, of course, as folks were insisting even back then.  Just as folks were confused and outraged that tracking down and capturing and/or killing the architects of 9/11 suddenly turned into rooting out and annihilating Saddam.)

 

Frankly, I think George W. Bush attained the presidency with the idea of settling the score with Saddam.  He had no other goals, no other agendas -- that was strictly Dick Cheney's and others' domain.  All he cared about was destroying Saddam and toppling his regime; and he used the most devastating act of terrorism on U.S. soil to make that happen.

Yes, that's how I see it too. I know GWB seems warm and cuddly now to some (in the press), hell I even feel that way at times because he's not a foaming at the mouth racist, but he is responsible for more senseless death than Trump at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
26 minutes ago, Khan said:

Exactly.  However, in order to sell America on the idea of starting another war with Iraq and Saddam, they had to lie about finding WMD's in Iraq.  (Which there weren't, of course, as folks were insisting even back then.  Just as folks were confused and outraged that tracking down and capturing and/or killing the architects of 9/11 suddenly turned into rooting out and annihilating Saddam.)

 

Frankly, I think George W. Bush attained the presidency with the idea of settling the score with Saddam.  He had no other goals, no other agendas -- that was strictly Dick Cheney's and others' domain.  All he cared about was destroying Saddam and toppling his regime; and he used the most devastating act of terrorism on U.S. soil to make that happen.

 

Unfortunately many people were fooled by the contrived statements about WMDs that were never proven to exist.  Also, the U.S. never understood how complex ethnic and religious rivalries were, which was one of the reasons why Iraq was such an unmitigated disaster.

Once upon a time, the U.S. had use for Saddam Hussein (under Reagan...again) until they didn't.  He was every bit as much of a despot back then but back then, he was a useful despot.

 

Sometimes I wonder, personally if Al Qaeda was timing it specifically for an American presidential administration that was prone to war-mongering like a G.W. Bush administration.  Would bin Laden have tried this during an Al Gore presidency? He didn't do this during the Clinton years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
14 minutes ago, Juliajms said:

But isn't it the case that 9/11 was state sponsored by the Saudi's? I don't think we have the smoking gun on that, but it seems like we've gotten bits and pieces of info on that front over the years.  Given how many of the attackers were of Saudi origin it would have made a lot more sense to go after them.  It would have made even more sense not to go after anyone, of course. Revenge was in the air back then though, I remember that much for sure.

 

The thing is, that there are rivals and factions that don't get along even within the KSA.  Al Qaeda, right from the start was a pan Islamist militant organization, meaning they draw extremists from all over the Islamic world, not just Saudis.  Bin Laden himself was ethnically Yemeni and Syrian.  Bin Laden fought alongside the Pakistani mujahideen in the '80s against the Soviets.  (which might be why he felt so comfortable retreating to Pakistan in the wake of the 9-11 attacks)

There was some support for Al Qaeda within KSA, many from Wahabis who ostensibly hated the royal governing family.  To calm them, the ruling royal families allowed the Wahabis to carve out their own sphere of influence within the kingdom, which many believed the governing families within KSA would later regret as it pulled the kingdom further toward Wahabism and an extremely conservative form of Islam, which the jet-setting, conspicuous consuming Saudi royals did not care for.

Ironically, MbS seemed to be pulling KSA away from those more conservative aspects which were rooted in Wahabism, which is why MbS initially had so much support, particularly from Western countries and KSA's youth (which he may still have support from, tbh).

 

We should never forget that Al Qaeda attacked and bombed other countries years before they attacked the U.S.   Al Qaeda killed hundreds, thousands of people, mostly Muslims before they attacked the U.S.  Bin Laden was already on the Most Wanted Lists for Terrorists, years before September11th, 2001.

 

I'm not really sure where the theories of collusion between the Saudi government and Bin Laden stem from as I'm not familiar with those theories but I do remember that in Bin Laden's manifesto (written years after the attack), he claimed that Al Qaeda's motives for the attacks were a reaction against the U.S. having troops stationed in KSA, where the U.S. used Saudi airfields and airspace, as well as sanctions against Iraq. 

The bitterly cruel irony is that, of course, Al Qaeda would ultimately use airplanes as weapons of destruction.  In short, we know that there are individuals who have been highly supportive of terrorist organizations and some of them are in KSA, as well as the UAE but from what I've read and saw in documentaries, Bin Laden, in particular had a distaste for the Saudi royal family and the feelings were mutual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, DramatistDreamer said:

 

The thing is, that there are rivals and factions that don't get along even within the KSA.  Al Qaeda, right from the start was a pan Islamist militant organization, meaning they draw extremists from all over the Islamic world, not just Saudis.  Bin Laden himself was ethnically Yemeni and Syrian.  Bin Laden fought alongside the Pakistani mujahideen in the '80s against the Soviets.  (which might be why he felt so comfortable retreating to Pakistan in the wake of the 9-11 attacks)

There was some support for Al Qaeda within KSA, many from Wahabis who ostensibly hated the royal governing family.  To calm them, the ruling royal families allowed the Wahabis to carve out their own sphere of influence within the kingdom, which many believed the governing families within KSA would later regret as it pulled the kingdom further toward Wahabism and an extremely conservative form of Islam, which the jet-setting, conspicuous consuming Saudi royals did not care for.

Ironically, MbS seemed to be pulling KSA away from those more conservative aspects which were rooted in Wahabism, which is why MbS initially had so much support, particularly from Western countries and KSA's youth (which he may still have support from, tbh).

 

We should never forget that Al Qaeda attacked and bombed other countries years before they attacked the U.S.   Al Qaeda killed hundreds, thousands of people, mostly Muslims before they attacked the U.S.  Bin Laden was already on the Most Wanted Lists for Terrorists, years before September11th, 2001.

 

I'm not really sure where the theories of collusion between the Saudi government and Bin Laden stem from as I'm not familiar with those theories but I do remember that in Bin Laden's manifesto (written years after the attack), he claimed that Al Qaeda's motives for the attacks were a reaction against the U.S. having troops stationed in KSA, where the U.S. used Saudi airfields and airspace, as well as sanctions against Iraq. 

The bitterly cruel irony is that, of course, Al Qaeda would ultimately use airplanes as weapons of destruction.  In short, we know that there are individuals who have been highly supportive of terrorist organizations and some of them are in KSA, as well as the UAE but from what I've read and saw in documentaries, Bin Laden, in particular had a distaste for the Saudi royal family and the feelings were mutual.

I'm talking about things like this:https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/911-saudi-government-embassy-dry-run-hijacks-lawsuit-cockpit-security-a7938791.html

 

but maybe in the end it's all just conspiracy theory. I definitely don't have the energy to go down the rabbit hole of figuring it out when so much crazy is happening in the present.

Speaking of SA, I hope some hope will come for these women.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Community Activity

    1. 10,098

      Guiding Light discussion thread

    2. 83

      B&B September 2021 Discussion Thread

    3. 10,098

      Guiding Light discussion thread

    4. 8,209

      AMC Tribute Thread

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy