Saudi king approves U.S. military deployment: SPA

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
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.

SA is a rich country with huge weapons contracts with the US. They should be able to defend themselves, no?
I just don't see how Americans become any safer by landing US troops in SA.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

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.

Saudi Arabia can't take care of themselves what with all our aid? Why the Us involvement? I thought we needed to get out.

The USA has a thousand different reasons to help SA

Name 3. Notwithstanding 9/11.

And how is this different than Syria, where we actually have troops under fire from Turkish forces. And the Kurds, who have been our allies in the fight against terror.

a reply to: Oraculi

3000?... as if I believe that number...

preparations are being made

originally posted by: Agit8dChop
a reply to: Oraculi

3000?... as if I believe that number...

preparations are being made

Pentagon said as much.

The Pentagon said on Friday it has approved the deployment of 3,000 additional US troops and military hardware to Saudi Arabia, boosting the country's defences after attacks on its oil installations.

"Secretary Esper informed Saudi Crown Prince and Minister of Defense Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) this morning of the additional troop deployment to assure and enhance the defence of Saudi Arabia," it said.

"Taken together with other deployments this constitutes an additional 3,000 forces that have been extended or authorised within the last month," it said.

Link

Just hope no reporters are embedded with them.

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: Agit8dChop
a reply to: Oraculi

3000?... as if I believe that number...

preparations are being made

Pentagon said as much.

oh, well in that case I'll believe it /s

originally posted by: UKTruth

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.

And we are, I hope, not trying to "win" anything. I know we can't win against terrorists. But we can prevent a great deal of it with limited resources and building and maintaining relationships around the globe.

I'm fine with that use of our armed and intelligence forces, for as long as need or forever. They exist for such protection of the U.S. and it's allies.

originally posted by: Admitted

originally posted by: UKTruth

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.

And we are, I hope, not trying to "win" anything. I know we can't win against terrorists. But we can prevent a great deal of it with limited resources and building and maintaining relationships around the globe.

I'm fine with that use of our armed and intelligence forces, for as long as need or forever. They exist for such protection of the U.S. and it's allies.

Then you should be fine with troops being deployed to SA.
I am not, but I am consistent in that now that the caliphate is destroyed.

Iran could launch a full scale attack at any time 👁️‍🗨️

originally posted by: UKTruth

Then you should be fine with troops being deployed to SA.
I am not, but I am consistent in that now that the caliphate is destroyed.

~3000 troops in response to an attack on SA's oil? No, I'm not OK with our troops being used for the financial stability of the world's oil market.

The Caliphate may be destroyed but I'm sure many are already willing to take their place.

Weren't the attacks by air? I don't think an evasion by land will happen. Boots on the ground aren't necessary unless they are skilled in taking out rockets and drones. Maybe it's just a show of force to say beware and don't destabilize oil prices.

originally posted by: Admitted

originally posted by: UKTruth

Then you should be fine with troops being deployed to SA.
I am not, but I am consistent in that now that the caliphate is destroyed.

~3000 troops in response to an attack on SA's oil? No, I'm not OK with our troops being used for the financial stability of the world's oil market.

The Caliphate may be destroyed but I'm sure many are already willing to take their place.

You don't know what the threat from Iran is. The President does.
Personanlly I think it's wrong, but I am not going to pick and choose. I agree with removing troops from getting entangled in teh Kurdish / Turkey dispute and I diagree with getting involved in the SA/Iran dispute.

originally posted by: Agit8dChop

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: Agit8dChop
a reply to: Oraculi

3000?... as if I believe that number...

preparations are being made

Pentagon said as much.

oh, well in that case I'll believe it /s

So who do you believe?

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
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.

SA is a rich country with huge weapons contracts with the US. They should be able to defend themselves, no?
I just don't see how Americans become any safer by landing US troops in SA.

To me it looks like the motive isn't because SA can't defend themselves necessarily, but rather because of Iran's aggression against the USA, and their attack was purely directed at the USA like a big f.u. besides Iran just being reckless and having no problem killing people who didn't attack them first. Actions like that will always lure in the big brother syndrome which is human nature.

People like Iran's idiot leadership that start acting all big and bad must be stood up to. Let them get away scott free with anything and they get a foothold on their next target of opportunity which will get worse. I say kick their @sses right now.
I'm not happy we are even over there either, but it is what it is, and it is not the fault of the USA that there are immoral and evil people who want to cause death and harm to others.

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 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.

Not removed. Still there and being attacked by Turkey.

Before Turkey moved in all our troops were doing was training the Kurds and guarding ISIS prisoners. It isn't like Trump pulled us out of a warzone.

originally posted by: Gorgonite

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 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.

Not removed. Still there and being attacked by Turkey.

Before Turkey moved in all our troops were doing was training the Kurds and guarding ISIS prisoners. It isn't like Trump pulled us out of a warzone.

He gave the greenlight. They started their attack.

We cannot pull out in 24 hours, or even a few days. Ours guys are still there under fire.

Trump left our troops under fire.

a reply to: contextual

oddly enough there were Muslims at d-day just not saudi ones (Tunisians in the free french and Muslim Indians as just a few example) but saudi arabia i think was sort of in the British sphere of influence but not controlled by the UK ever but was a former part of the ottoman empire . they started the war selling the nazis weapons and materiel but ended up declaring war in like 1945 i think but only after their oil shipments were threatened leading to the allies and later the usa specifically to starting relations with the kingdom
en.m.wikipedia.org...

In February 1945, King Abdul Aziz met President Franklin D. Roosevelt aboard the USS Quincy in the Suez Canal. A historic handshake agreeing on supplying oil to the United States in exchange for guaranteed protection to the Saudi regime is still in force today. It has survived seven Saudi Kings and twelve US presidents.

but the ww2 period is when we formally entered our alliance with saudi as long as they kept the oil flowing we would help guard their security and independence and kind of explains our long lasting relationship with the kingdom of Saudi Arabia

as to the troops sent to saudi it seems to be mostly logistical forces for the patriot and thadd batteries (missile defense) and a carrier group with a few extra destroyers that are in the region to help keep the straights open but am unsure as to the troop make up for the prince Suleiman air base but politico says its 2 squadrons of fighter jets and support personnel but its roughly 2000 ball park figure (double what we have in syria today) www.politico.com... but al- jazira says 3000

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?

Would you rather we just pay for it all?

a reply to: UKTruth

saudis kind of suck at ground warfare they been loosing a lot of Abrams tanks to rpgs and despite having a huge budget to buy weapons they are poorly trained compared to the neighbors in the region and vastly out numbered population wise compared to say iran but is roughly on par with Iraq's population . 33 million for Saudi compared to 88 million Iranians (ball park figures)

the iranians have more recent combat experience (over all) as discounting yemen they havent really waged any major wars and were even a mostly token force during their wars with Israel

saudi lost to jordan in a breif skirmish from 1922-23 and has a history of loosing to Yemen going back to the 60s but they did ok ish against isis and only lost like 3 or 5 troops but have lost 500 plus in the foray to Yemen

www.businessinsider.com...

But experts say Saudi Arabia's ambitions are limited by its military, which is considered an ineffective force even though the kingdom is one of the world's largest spenders on defense. "The fact is, Iran is better at doing this stuff," said Michael Knights, a Lafer fellow at The Washington Institute who specializes in the military and security affairs of Iraq, Iran, and the Persian Gulf. "There's nobody in the Iranian General Staff that's afraid of Saudi Arabia on the ground," Knights said.

i think it was one of Saudis reasons for forming a off the books alliance with Israel and Egypt as between the three countries all the short commings end up being mostly fixed , but its not like saudi can just deploy an isreli tank division to Yemen for well obvious reasons

If Saudi wants to buy a military that is what PMC's are for. I bet they are getting US forces for bargain prices.

a reply to: Oraculi

I had a friend who told me when he was younger he had a job in Saudi Arabia as part of a construction job. He said the Saudi's were a bunch racist a holes. He said if you were in the street and they were driving down the road and you were in the way they would not slow down and just run over any foreigner. It sound really intense and hateful when he tells it. It was like 30 years ago and my memory is not that good on the story. There were a few details I'm missing here that I remember thinking "holy Shiite".

I don't think the Saudi's are nice people.