Foreign governments paying for U.S. troop presence.

[AgonyandIrony]

Somewhat, yes. Goes with the territory of being top dog though.

Ehh. I maintain Osama won in the long run. Veterans can't keep guns out of their mouths, tanked the US economy, fucked up an entire generation. The cave dwelling cunt played the long game. The US also is still struggling with Vietnam as far as homeless vets go, the issue with using your soldiers for shit like Iraq and Vietnam I suppose.

You ever see that old King of the Hill episodes where the WW2 vets were bullying the Name vets? WW2 vets saw a massively positive outcome, were the good guys, and kicked off an economic boom.

I'm against the KSA, I think you and I may have talked about my friend who hasn't spoken to her parents in years in Yemen, so I'm against Trump legitimately bragging about using the US being used as mercs, but I can't say I'm surprised.

 

[Fawlty]

His statement is too vague (and stupid) to properly analyze. At each extreme it can refer to something completely reasonable/legal/moral, or something scandalous/illegal/immoral.

For example, if we were talking about our presence in South Korea, and if in theory it was costing us too much to protect our ally from the North, it would be a dumb way of saying that we'd like them to reimburse us, and there wouldn't really be a problem with it. On the other hand, you could easily imagine this referring to some mercenary-style arrangements that are unacceptable (and you can find them in our history right here in our hemisphere).

So, what deployment under what authorization? What mission is he talking about?

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Treating the US military like Muslim fundamentalists' body guards. He might as well have said, "When MBS says he wants our troops to jump, I ask him how high!" Shameful.

 

[MVelsor]

Agreed that this crosses multiple administrations and both parties, but Trump and W’s have been the worst.

Indeed, JCPOA was horrible for the KSA.

Treating the US military like Muslim fundamentalists' body guards. He might as well have said, "When MBS says he wants our troops to jump, I ask him how high!" Shameful.

Remember the big (and short lived) public relations campaign to present him to the global community as some kind of enlightened 'liberal' reformer?

https://pulitzercenter.org/projects/how-saudi-arabias-reforms-mask-political-oppression

Donald Trump lauded him as a “great friend” and “more than a crown prince.” At home, many Saudis, young and old, express disbelief, and cautious hope, about the sudden transformations. Across the Kingdom, a nascent sense of national pride–carefully cultivated by the Kingdom’s all-new General Cultural Authority and its McKinnsey-branded “Vision 2030” scheme–is taking hold.

Yet this “progress” has not come democratically. Under MBS’s aggressive leadership, the Saudi government has used authoritarian–and often ruthless–means to achieve its modernizing ends. Saudi activists and cultural critics have been repeatedly silenced through government propaganda, censorship, and detentions. “The Saudi government has never tolerated much free speech or dissent,” said Hiba Zayadeen, chief researcher on Saudi Arabia for Human Rights Watch, “but under MBS, the suppression has reached unprecedented levels.”

 

[tonni]

He wasn’t going to be pushed around by the Saudis, remember?

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

The US military hired out as a mercenary force.

What could possibly go wrong?

 

[Sketch]

First off, the US military is not a mercenary force that can be hired out to protect the interests of the highest bidder.
Americans aren’t enlisting to protect Saudi Arabia. This sounds unconstitutional and even treasonous. Even more so when you consider KSA’s involvement in 9/11, the impetus that allowed our government to lie us into the endless wars we’re involved in today.

Secondly, to put things in perspective, we’ve spent over $8T in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the overall War on Terror over the last 18? Years. Putting us on retainer for $1B and bragging like he made a great deal is just typically embarrassing of the stooge in chief.

You're right about everything, but call out the Globalists at least once next time. They cause and decide all of this.

 

[tonni]

You're right about everything, but call out the Globalists at least once next time. They cause and decide all of this.

I think Trump is mentioned here somewhere.

 

[tonni]

Trump is such a weakling, dumb little bitch it's amazing how he's put forward as some masculine icon by Trump supporters.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

You're right about everything, but call out the Globalists at least once next time. They cause and decide all of this.

I try to when I see specific globalists/ neoliberal/ neocons directly influencing us.

 

[lilelvis]

It’s a quagmire for sure.... but, we’ve been doing it all over the world for free. Like the joker says, if your good at something, never do it for free.

 

[Mr Holmes]

First off, the US military is not a mercenary force that can be hired out to protect the interests of the highest bidder.
Americans aren’t enlisting to protect Saudi Arabia. This sounds unconstitutional and even treasonous. Even more so when you consider KSA’s involvement in 9/11, the impetus that allowed our government to lie us into the endless wars we’re involved in today.

Secondly, to put things in perspective, we’ve spent over $8T in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the overall War on Terror over the last 18? Years. Putting us on retainer for $1B and bragging like he made a great deal is just typically embarrassing of the stooge in chief.

good post

 

[Shinigami]

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/...p-of-selling-military-support-to-saudi-arabia

The relevant quote:


On the surface, this doesn't particularly concern me but then I thought about it and I started wondering. If we're demanding that these countries pay us for our troop presence, are we obligated for a certain level of time or specific level of commitment for that?

Say that Country X pays us $Y millions for U.S. troop presence. Can we just up and leave the next day or are we committed to be there for a specific amount of time, defend against specific types of threats, that sort of thing? Does Congress have to approve this or just the C-in-C. And if the C-in-C approves it, can Congress ever terminate the relationship?

I don't know how that works. Can someone explain?

I don't know man....but being a super power we have to be involved. If it isn't us it will be china

Agreed that this crosses multiple administrations and both parties, but Trump and W’s have been the worst.

let's just ignore obama and Libya..got it

 

[Billy no mates]

He's so proud the Sith Lords of global terrorism have thrown him a bone , good dog .

 

[MVelsor]

it's amazing how he's put forward as some masculine icon by Trump supporters.

He wasn’t going to be pushed around by the Saudis, remember?

I try to when I see specific globalists/neoliberal/ neocons directly influencing us.

Just about everything he's done as far as Middle East foreign policy has been in lock-step with Israel and Saudi Arabia's interests. It's no conspiracy theory that the two are aligned and in regular contact with each other independent of America's involvement or input.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-i...vert-contacts-with-saudi-arabia-idUSKBN1DJ0S1

JERUSALEM/RIYADH - An Israeli cabinet minister said on Sunday that Israel has had covert contacts with Saudi Arabia amid common concerns over Iran, a first disclosure by a senior official from either country of long-rumored secret dealings.

The Saudi government had no immediate response to Israeli Energy Minister Yuval Steinitz’s remarks. A spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also did not respond immediately to a request to comment.

Both Saudi Arabia and Israel view Iran as a main threat to the Middle East and increased tension between Tehran and Riyadh has fueled speculation that shared interests may push Saudi Arabia and Israel to work together.

@Happy Man is clowned on but as Senior Advisor to the POTUS, Jared Kushner actually does wield very direct tangible influence. It's the apologist idea that Trump isn't ultimately responsible for his own actions that is laughable, nevermind getting bossed by his son-in-law.

When the JCPOA was thrashed, so went any planned path towards non-interventionism in the region. Not because a sovereign nation agreed to nuclear weapons compliance, but because US no longer needs the petroleum resources and for the potential that lifting sanctions had in establishing a balance of power which could more or less allow the ME to determine its own destiny.

 

[nicapica]

So are the marines or the army gonna do security for Ramadan this year?

 

[Phr3121]

I maintain Osama won in the long run. Veterans can't keep guns out of their mouths. The US also is still struggling with Vietnam as far as homeless vets go.

. I think you meant to say Saddam Hussein - Iraq.
. A good number of veterans who commit suicide never deployed.
. The homeless problem has to do with affordable housing.

 

[Last Samurai]

You're right about everything, but call out the Globalists at least once next time. They cause and decide all of this.

Can you be more specific? Which Globalist(s) did he fail to mention for causing American troops to be deployed to Saudi Arabia.

 

[tonni]

This thread is being ignored, I wonder why...

 

[tonni]

Can you be more specific? Which Globalist(s) did he fail to mention for causing American troops to be deployed to Saudi Arabia.

He’s just a very dedicated troll.