• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should US conduct military strikes over the Saudi oil attack?

Should America conduct a military strike against Iran over the Saudi oil attacks?

  • Total voters
    40

SheWolf

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2010
Messages
37,412
Reaction score
13,543
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
I am not surprised that neocons and warhawks are already calling for military strikes, and we don't even know all the facts.

Fox News senior strategic analyst Gen. Jack Keane said Wednesday that the U.S. military “must conduct a retaliatory strike” against Iran following this past weekend's attacks on Saudi oil facilities.
Click to expand...

“In reality, this is not just an attack on the largest field in the Middle East and our allies, Saudi Arabia," Keane said. "It is an egregious act of war because it is an attack on the world’s economy."
Click to expand...

So, does this call for WWIII? Is this going to turn into a repeat of the political climate before the Iraq War, when America insisted all their allies were wrong to not get involved in Iraq too? I hope not!

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo doubled down on his claim that Iran is responsible for the attacks, telling reporters earlier Wednesday that the strikes were “an act of war.
Click to expand...

An act of war against the US?

I feel like America caused this. Trump ripping up the Iran Deal without offering them anything else, was wrong. Many people were predicting it would lead to a situation like this, and we could end up in a war with Iran. The Iranian government and the Saudis have a long history of tension. Iran also neighbors Pakistan, and since Trump has been pulling American influence out of Pakistan, Russia and China have moved in. Pakistan considers Iran a better ally than Saudi Arabia, and China has a history of pushing back on Saudi Arabia when they threaten or play war games with Iran.

This could get VERY serious IMO.

Also, I think most people in that region of the world will take Iran's side over Saudi Arabia's. Saudi Arabia has a horrible reputation in the Arab world, and in the Muslim world. The SA government is viewed horribly by Arabs and Muslims, and with China creating alliances in the region.... a lot could go wrong.

I don't want a war with Iran, and I don't think striking Iran is going to be a move in the right direction.

Jack Keane says US '''must conduct a retaliatory strike''' in wake of Saudi Arabia oil site attacks | Fox News
 
Last edited:
"IF anyone must" conduct a retaliatory strike then I say it should be Saudi Arabia, not us.
 
The Saudis can do their own military strikes.
 

No, we should not strike Iran. Not unless Iran strikes a US target which is an act of war, or violates any defense treaty we have legally established with a foreign State.

It's time for us to stop advocating knee-jerk reactions which inevitably embroil us in long-term conflicts like Vietnam and Afghanistan, where we "win" the battles, but "lose" the peace.

War should have very specific and achievable aims, and only engaged in when all other reasonable options for peace fail.

I'll say this over and over again, I do not believe that the USA should act as a world's policeman.

So IMO not one American life should be placed at risk unless it be for a just cause with an achievable goal that we can accomplish as quickly as possible and then return to a full state of peace. eace
 
Last edited:
If we establish definitive proof and can identify ways to prevent further Iranian attacks through strikes, then sure.

But asking the Saudis to do is just a great way to accomplish anything.
 
Drill baby drill! We have made Saudi oil irrelevant. Can you imagine what a similar strike 10 years ago would have done?

Compensate the Saudis for their loss from frozen Iranian assets.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
 
What is the point of us selling all those weapons and military equipment to SA if we're just going to swoop in to defend them?

It is ridiculous to think of SA as any sort of victim, here. They have been conducting a ruthless war on Yemen since 2015. They have bombed school buses. Over 5000 civilians have been killed and an additional 50,000 have died from the resulting famine. Suddenly, Houthi fighters strike back at an oil field... and we should feel bad for SA? **** that!
 
Oh, you all want to stay up tonight worrying about the fate of our country? I have a plan for that!

After the attack in June, Trump was poised to launch a military response against the Iranians -- strongly urged by Bolton -- but pulled back after Fox News host Tucker Carlson and others warned him that it was a bad idea.
Click to expand...

Bolton unloads on Trump’s foreign policy behind closed doors - POLITICO

Yes, this guy...



...stands between us and another disastrous war in the Middle East.
 
Last edited:

No, we shouldn't make any strikes on Iran. I agree with all you say about a war with Iran on Trump's behalf. Who is controlling his tiny brain this time, Netanyahu or Mohammed bin Salman? What happened to this statement by Trump?

I don't claim to know all about the situation, but I do know that Trump has caused chaos since his election, not only in the private lives of his admin, but in the lives of all Americans. Also, across the world with our allies and adversaries, his irrational senseless statements and actions have upset everything and he just doesn't seem to give a $hit...either that, or he's just too damned ignorant to even know the harm he's doing or too stupid to care.



Trump Keeps Contradicting Himself on Iran – Mother Jones
 

So why did Pomepo call it an act of war, seemingly in opposition to Trump's later refusal to back that claim? Are they just making it up as they go along? That's rhetorical, of course they are.

And why did Trump hire Bolton (after running through a number of others!), when Bolton is a known knee-jerk war-hawk?

But Trump was emphatic about meeting with Iran without pre-conditions. Said it at least twice on the record, and both Pompeo
and Mnuchin agreed, Trump was willing to meet with no conditions. But now when there is more danger of violent conflict...Trump *doesn't* want to meet them? He keeps meeting with Kim even though he keeps firing off missiles...what gives?

Where is his national security advisor? Not the one that was indicted on felony charges..
Not McMaster...
Not Bolton...

What's this, year three?

Trump inspires no confidence in anything he does, because he's a bungling idiot.
 
No, no, no, and hell no!

We have no defense agreement with Saudi Arabia nor should we.

We sell beaucoup arms to SA, billions. What are they doing with them? Let the Saudis defend their damnselves with their own people and their own weapons (that we sold them).

Why do we need to defend SA? We are no longer dependent on their oil. So for what reason do we need to lift a finger to the nation that sent people to attack America on 9/11?

If we become involved in any armed action in support of SA we will become embroiled in a **** storm in the Middle East.

The US does not need to become involved in disagreements between SA and Iran.

Look at the history of Iran and the US. We do not have clean skirts. Much, not all, of the bad history between Iran and the US is because of US involvement in Iran's internal affairs. You know, like regime change and little things like that.

It is time the US tells SA to handle its own defense.
 
Captain Adverse said:
No, we should not strike Iran. Not unless Iran strikes a US target which is an act of war, or violates any defense treaty we have legally established with a foreign State.
Click to expand...

That is, unless, Trump does decide to strike Iran on behalf of Saudi Arabia, at which point you'll think it's a great idea.
 
Cardinal said:
Oh, you all want to stay up tonight worrying about the fate of our country? I have a plan for that!
...is all that stands between us and another disastrous war in the Middle East.
Click to expand...

Tucker: Hey moron, I mean Trump, embroiling us in the mid-east, even if it's the right course of action or part of a comprehensive strategy to contain Iran, will be too politically scary so don't do it!! We have to win elections, we can't be thinking long-term U.S. foreign strategy, we're not that smart!

Trump: OK Tucker, I hear ya, I mean, I just hired a war-hawk as national security advisor, but I'll tell Bolton to **** off, I hate his moustache anyway. No one cares if I'm inconsistent, I could shoot someone in the street and they would cheer, and stuff. Do I look fat?
 
Yes!

We should start bombing West Libya and stop at the Chinese border.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Why do we need to defend SA? We are no longer dependent on their oil.
Click to expand...

Nope, but Trump sure is dependent on their support for his business ventures.

I think Trump wants BADLY to help his friend MBS but knows that doing so could alienate a chunk of his base.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
If we establish definitive proof and can identify ways to prevent further Iranian attacks through strikes, then sure.

But asking the Saudis to do is just a great way to accomplish anything.
Click to expand...

The Saudi's are at more or less at war with Iran.

Let them fight it out.

How come no one cares that 19 of 20 of the attackers on 09/11/2001 were Saudi.

We love the Saudi's, despite the above fact.

Even if they "reimburse" us for the cost of our military engaging with Iran, how can they payback a loss of an American life?

One thing I notice is that the information on the side of the drones is in English. English on drones from Iran?

 
apdst said:
Yes!

We should start bombing West Libya and stop at the Chinese border.
Click to expand...

Most people could post the above and everyone would automatically assume joke/sarcasm. But it is an apdst post, soooo...
 
No. Any further wars should be declared, and should come with significant wartime tax rates for the middle and upper socioeconomic classes.
 

Pompeo called it an act of war because it was an act of war.

Its not an act of war against us, but is certainly an act of war against SA.
 
Geoist said:
Most people could post the above and everyone would automatically assume joke/sarcasm. But it is an apdst post, soooo...
Click to expand...

Someone with a brain could post a counter argument, even if it was wrong. But, Geoist? No, that won't happen...
 
Fletch said:
Pompeo called it an act of war because it was an act of war.

Its not an act of war against us, but is certainly an act of war against SA.
Click to expand...

Don't worry, Dear Leader is locked and loaded and waiting on orders from the Kingdom! :lamo
 
apdst said:
Someone with a brain could post a counter argument, even if it was wrong. But, Geoist? No, that won't happen...
Click to expand...

Sorry, apdst, your non-arguments don't get the privilege of a counterargument response.
 
Geoist said:
Sorry, apdst, your non-arguments don't get the privilege of a counterargument response.
Click to expand...

That's because you can't present a counter argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…