Why haven't we invaded Saudi Arabia?

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by Gabriella84, Jun 16, 2005.

  1. Gabriella84
    Online

    Gabriella84 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    In the words of the Bush Administration, the alleged "war on terror" is about finding and eliminating the merchants of terror. It came into being after the United States was attacked by terrorists on Sept. 11, 2001.

    Prominent among the findings of the 9-11 Commission was the 15 of the 19 terrorists involved in the attacks were Saudi citizens. They were based in Saudi, traveled on Saudi passports and were financed by the Saudi government. Approximately 200 pages of the original 9-11 Commission Report were "classified" or deleted when the Saudi government protested the implication of members of the Saudi ruling family.
    The report further states that Saudi Arabis shelters and finances around 90 different terrorist cells.
    The same human rights commissions that deplored the conditions in Saddam-era Iraq also listed the Saudi among the Top 5 abusers of individual rights. Women are non-citizens. Non-Muslims have no rights. Saudi is a total dictatorial regime that imposes punishments such as public floggings, amputations and beheadings.

    So how come we invaded Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. theim
    Offline

    theim Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,628
    Thanks Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Madison, WI
    Ratings:
    +234

    Because that would totally be about oil.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Merlin1047
    Offline

    Merlin1047 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2004
    Messages:
    3,500
    Thanks Received:
    449
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    AL
    Ratings:
    +450
    Welcome to the world of islam. Saudi Arabia is no better and no worse than any other country run by muslims. This is what their religion teaches and this is what their theocracies demand. The funny part is that folks like you bitch about the fact that we're opposing these kinds of governments.

    I find it particularly strange that you should ask the question why we have not invaded Saudi Arabia. I suspect that you do not pose this as a legitimate query, but simply another specious construct to enable you to throw more stones at the Bush administration. You know damn well that if we DID invade Saudi, you and the rest of the neo-hippies would be accusing GW and Haliburton of concocting another war for personal profit. Please, give the rest of us credit for just a tiny bit of intelligence. If you're going to post just another bit of BS, at least do us the courtesy of putting a little effort into it. This transparent little bit of fluff is rather insulting in its overt simplicity.
     
  4. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    Saudia Arabia is the head of the beast. Attacking iraq was like a warning to them, (and was also justified due to saddams connections to terror, murderous intent, violations of U.N. resolutions, etc.)

    Are you telling me you would be behind attacking Saudi Arabia if Bushco wanted to? Which dem is espousing attacking Saudi Arabia?
     
  5. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    Libs lack an intellectual core. Their worldview is composed of a series of reactionary criticisms of republicans which do not reconcile with one another. Sad.
     
  6. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    Frankly, Gabriella, there are a large number of Republicans who would b very happy if all the troops in Iraq turned south and marched on Riyadh. But, to repeat what's already been asked, wouldn't the Left cry foul and claim that it's all about oil?

    The House of Saud used to be an ally, back in the Cold War days. Those days are over. I say, Saudi Arabia should be our enemy.
     
  7. IControlThePast
    Offline

    IControlThePast Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    Messages:
    470
    Thanks Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +21
    Are you saying you'd rather give a warning to terrorists instead of just lop their head off?

    Not many libs are saying attack SA, because they don't think we have the manpower to do so. They're saying why didn't we attack SA instead of Iraq. Look where all the hijackers came from, which is a bigger connection to Al Qaida than Saddam had. Why do we even pretend to be friends with SA.
     
  8. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    That's a great question. My answer is that it's a Cold War legacy friendship. It's time to take the kid gloves off.
     
  9. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    Violence should be the last option. Isn't this your position? Once again, your positions are inconsistent. You have no logical core. Is this what you want? Violence first? Questions later? No diplomacy? You are just being reactionary and illogical.
    We pretend to be friends because of oil, "Peace for Oil" if you will. Also SA was not in violations of 12 yrs of U.N resolutions. You brain is running on fumes; eat a meal.

    But if we had enough manpower libs would be all for attacking Saudi Arabia? IS this what your saying? You know this is bullshit. Be honest. Quit lying.
     
  10. Gabriella84
    Online

    Gabriella84 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    It is a rhetorical question, of course.
    There have been tons of nonsensical reasons given for invading Iraq. If the United States really had to go to war to prove Bush's manhood, why not just go for the throat and invade Saudi Arabia instead?

    Why?
     

Share This Page