Should we attack Saudi Arabia?

[Syrinx]

If Saudi Arabia was behind the events of September 11, 2001, should the USA overthrow the monarchy there?

[quinnox]

1. This is a tricky situation

The question is based on an assumption not proven. I don't believe the top royalty had anything to do with it. But there might be some in the lower echelon who had some involvement. We should work with the Saudi's to find these people, and have them brought to justice.

Attacking Saudi Arabia in general is a very bad idea, as it would likely result in a world war.

[Must_B_Free]

44. Who cares if its an assumption?

Isn't that the point of Iraq, that we should attack anyone we suspect of being a threat to us?

At the very least, we should depose the leaders and seize all of their assets, no?

[acerbic]

2. It would be daaangg good bidness!

The Saudis are using Abrams tanks, F-15 fighters etc., so blowing them to bits would take much more munitions than was needed for Iraq's tin cans, and the new government would of course immediately have to buy replacements. Profits bonanza, woo-hoo! :puke:

[Pallas180]

3. oh we won't "attack" them. We'll just move in there to "protect" them.n/t

:evilfrown:

[Clete]

4. And don't forget, "free" them.

[lcordero]

5. 7 of 19 supposed hijackers are alive

I doubt that the Saudi's even had anything to do with 9/11

[Syrinx]

6. How did they do that?

[Syrinx]

7. I just wish the full history of the relationships would come out

you know what I'm talking about.

[bluestateguy]

8. I would applaud an attack on Saudi Arabia

They are hateful, anti-American, ungrateful, greedy, oil sucking bastards. Their persecution of women and minorities is worse than Iraq and rivals that of the Taliban. They give aid and comfort to Al Qaeda far more so than Iraq, or even Iran, ever did.

[Syrinx]

10. Iraq war was unprovoked

Saudi invasion would, perhaps, be justified, depending on the evidence.

Whatt's going on?

Is it that Bush is a whore, or worse.

(no offense to whores, who mostly are earning money to feed their children )

[Mal]

11. You say "Anti-American" as if it's a negative thing...

While the rest of that sentence could well be taken as a description of America.

[Syrinx]

16. We're the "oil suckers"

But I basically agree with the rest.

Of course there are some good Saudi guys. I guess.

I've only met three, and they were all really awful to women.

[9215]

9. By housing terrorists Saudi Arabia is an imminent and ongoing threat

to the US

Yea, sure, let's DUer.

[Syrinx]

12. You mean "just talking about it?"

[Tammuz]

14. COME ON DUer's dont fall for Karl Rove's spin!

Look you DUer's listen up. Karl Rove edited out those portions but somehow it got leaked ALL OVER the media that the edits were about Saudi Arabia.

How are we to know what the edited parts are about when they are edited?????


Hint: Saudi Arabia has the most oil in the world.

[Syrinx]

17. The families go way back

But, though they demand total loyalty, they display absolutely none themselves!

It's amazing.

[9215]

18. Well, not exactly

I mean spread the word around. All we can do is talk about it, but that's how ideas build momentum.

[Rowdyboy]

13. Short of destroying the regime...

We, as a nation, should make our displeasure with the actions of Saudi Arabia evident. They are the true threat in the middle east.

[Clete]

15. Okay I am reading the answers on this thread and have a question?

What exactly are you going for if you attack Saudi Arabia? (Incidentally, I am not condoning an attack, only clarifying why anyone would want to.) Do you want to get rid of the government, in this case the Saudi monarchy? Or, are you okay with the government, which incidentally has no clue as to what the ordinary Saudi wants, and just want to attack the ordinary Saudi's because they are allegedly harboring terrorists? Are the terrorist cells you want to go after outlawed in Saudi Arabia, so therefore you would want to go after them instead, which would make a military operation downright silly? Really, I am trying to understand this. What are you trying to say?

[Syrinx]

20. Huh?

[9215]

22. Why attack? Because they are the real enemy, ATTACK

ATTACK, ATTACK!

[Syrinx]

27. I'm open to suggestions.

[leesa]

33. It reqires a criminal investigation...why are you so bloodthirsty??

Carpet bomb another country for the sins of a handful of people. Americans are sick.

[9215]

35. My post was more sarcasm than anything else.

I was using the rabid Right's rationale for attacking, but simply applying it to the real threat. IMO doing to Saudi Arabia what we are now doing to Iraq would be more justified based upon the former's link to Al Qaeda.

I agree with your approach to the problem. My post was confusing.

[Coffee Coyote]

19. we shouldn't attack anyone

The crux of our foreign policy problems is that they are reactive and not proactive. Using the old Orwellian saw of "national security", we hew to "eye for an eye" measures for addressing problems. We atack/they attack/we attack again.

Proactive would mean changes on fundmentally deep levels we neither have the imagination nor courage to do. Invest in solar and wind energy on a large scale. Electric cars on larger scales. Saudi Arabia is just as enslaved as we are. We think we're doomed to be dependent on oil forever, and they think they have to produce oil forever. This vicious cycle, with relgious fanaticism thrown into the mix, along with nationalist pride and its accompanying resentments, has given us the sad state of affairs we find ourselves stuck with.

Easier said than done to rise above it, but the fact that there are lots of us merely AWARE of this is reason enough to look forward.

The 9-11 attackers and all responsible are loyal to no nation, and a national-level response is shortsighted and misguided. They must be accountable in and of themselves. No invasions, no Fox News logos, and no twangy soundbites from the West Wing.

The Iraq Quagmire is already proving that our reactionary policies create a Hydra Effect in regards to terrorism. Stay tuned folks, 2004 has "You Ain't Seen Nothin' Yet" written all over it.

[ReadTomPaine]

21. If it were decided that Saudi Arabia was acting in a hostile manner..

The most effective way to punish them would likely be to freeze all of their assets and hold key members of the Saudi Royal family while they were traveling abroad. In the precarious state their monarchy is in, we’d achieve ‘regime change’ quickly via revolution, tho I am not so sure that the results would be much better than we have now.

[9215]

25. Yea, but Rumferatu says that an abscense of proof

means they are hiding something, and Wolfi says you don't need proof to attack a country as he said about Iraq..

ATTACK ATTACK! ATTACK!

[Syrinx]

23. Epilog:

Of course so. If Bush's sorry business partners did that, we should wipe the bastards out. And impeach the resident. 'Course ain't no honest Republicans left anymore..

[BrotherBuzz]

24. I'm still trying to figure out 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend"

"If you're not with us, you're against us..." is lousy foreign policy

The only thing I believe in is FIGHT WAR, NOT WARS

[caribmon]

26. Invasion of Saudi

Is sure to start a world war. You cannot invade and bomb Mecca and Medina without facing the wrath of Muslims worldwide.

[BrotherBuzz]

28. You got that right

FIGHT WAR, NOT WARS

[Muddleoftheroad]

34. Invading

You don't have to invade to destrabilize the House of Saud and THAT should be done. I've heard rumored that the U.S. is going to promote the King of Jordan's rights in Iraq and restore the status of the Hashemite kingdom. THAT will mess with the Saudi royal family if it happens.

[not systems]

29. nope

They are forth I heard.

But seriously the USA is pulling forces out that
have been there since the first gulf war.

Then if the monarchy starts to lose control
they will "invite" us back in.

Then the USA controls the oil.

Really that is where the oil is I am not
making that up.

If B* get a second term I would not be at
all suprised to see this or a similar war
scenario happen.

This current anti-saudi kick my be laying
the ground work for a future war.

Paranoid?

[CaptainMidnight]

30. GAME, SET, MATCH

We're already planning on it.

Been in the works for quite a long time, now.

We WILL be invading Saudi Arabia, no question, to grab their oil wells. This will happen sooner than later.

Check out FTW: www.fromthewilderness.com

Ruppert's been right about 95% of the time on EVERYTHING.

Captain Mike

[Loonman]

31. Hmmmm.....

No....but we should sanction the hell out of them, freeze their US accounts, cancel all our oil contracts and buy oil from Russia, Europe and Africa, instead.

Saudi Arabia is a hornets nest of murderers, extremists, and their friends and financial backers.

[leesa]

32. Why attack? There are other ways of dealing with issues other

than brute force. Didn't your mommy ever teach you that?? Have a criminal investigation by all means, but why can't redneck Americans think of anything else to do but blind revenge?? Are we so stupid and unimaginative that brute force is our only response to anything we don't like. What have we become???

[Syrinx]

40. Redneck Americans?

Because I happen to be from Alabama, I'm a "redneck American?" Bullshit.

And I didn't say we should attack SA. I asked your opinion if we should.

If it's true they orchestrated 911, I say hell yes. Get rid of the bastards.

But Bush is protecting them, because that's where he get's his money.


On edit: I mean the monarchy, not the people.

[noonwitch]

36. No, we shouldn't have attacked Iraq

Our involvement in Afganistan was somewhat justified, if we had stayed the course and truly helped the people reclaim their country from the Taliban. We were totally right to bomb the daylights out the mountain caves in which bin Laden and al Queda were hiding out.

If we invaded Saudia Arabia, the country where Mecca is located, the radical muslim world will escalate attacks on americans/the west, they will launch whatever best weapons they have at Israel. Our best response is to develop alternative fuels and better cars, coupled with economic sanctions. If we don't need their oil, we don't need to do any business with them until they straighten up their act-stop funding terrorism, give women rights under the law, etc. If they want to stick to their medevial system at that point, fine, we won't be enabling them in that agenda any more.

[LiberalLibra]

37. Otherwise know as "how to unite every Muslim in the world against us".....

....because with two of the most holy sites to Muslims in Saudi Arabia Muslims would take an attack on Saudi Arabia as an attack on their religion. Now that would be a guerrilla war like none other.

[MattNC]

39. exactly n/t

[Shanty Oilish]

42. al-Qaida would thank us

Not every Muslim endorses the Saudi royal house. Not hardly.

[NNN0LHI]

38. Rather then invade them it would be easier to just remove the security...

...provided to the Saudi ruling family from the US military and US private security firms that are there to keep them in power. The Saudi people will take care of the rest in a jiffy. The ruling family are the corrupt business partners of the Bush family who caused all of this to begin with.

Don

http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2003/0305vinnell_body.html

Bombings Bring U.S. 'Executive Mercenaries' Into the Light

You had probably never heard of the Vinnell Corp. before the brutal bombing that killed at least nine of its employees in Saudi Arabia this week, but you should have.

This is the second time Vinnell's Saudi operations have been targeted. The first attack, in November 1995, hit the headquarters of the Saudi Arabian National Guard, or SANG, and a nearby office complex that housed Vinnell employees. Though both attacks were decried by U.S. officials as senseless violence, they actually had a chillingly clear, brutal logic.

Vinnell's job in Saudi Arabia is to train the national guard, which Jane's Defense Weekly has described as "a kind of Praetorian Guard for the House of Saud, the royal family's defense of last resort against internal opposition." That is why company employees were targeted in 1995 and again last week. The story of how an obscure American firm ended up becoming an integral part of the Saudi monarchy's handpicked internal security force is a case study in how unaccountable private companies have become a central tool of U.S. foreign policy.

Vinnell was founded in 1931 as a small Los Angeles-area construction firm. According to a 1975 profile of the company in the New York Times, the firm's early growth was tied to the building of the LA freeway system, work on the Grand Coulee Dam, and the construction of Dodger Stadium.

The question now is what to do about companies like Vinnell, which is currently a subsidiary of Northrop Grumman Mission Systems, and which received a new $831-million, five-year contract in 1998.

more

[the_sam]

41. Absolutely Not

An attack on Saudi Arabia would be extremely destabilizing and would certainly result in many more casualties than we had in Iraq. Furthermore, it would guarantee U.S. control of the largest number of proven oil reserves, which the U.S. will use to continue to push for the financial and monetary policies that have already killed millions.

If someone kills members of your family, you don't just go and kill members of his/her family, even if his/her family gave him/her the gun with which he/she did the killing. You go the police, who apprehend the guilty parties and bring them to trial.

Likewise, if Saudi Arabia was responsible for 9/11, they should be brought to justice through accepted international institutions like the International Criminal Court.

[w4rma]

43. With what army? (n/t)

[The Stranger]

45. This is a joke, right?

Light talk about attacking other countries and possibly killing hundreds of thousands of people?

It's a joke, right?

(Right?!)

[ProfessorGAC]

46. Yeah. Let's Just Attack Everyone

If they ever had an anti-american thought, we should bomb them into oblivion.

The Professor

(BTW: I'm being sarcastic.)