Why haven't we invaded Saudi Arabia?

[Gabriella84]

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?

 

[theim]

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?

Because that would totally be about oil.

 

[Merlin1047]

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?

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.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

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?

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?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

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.

 

[5stringJeff]

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?

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.

 

[IControlThePast]

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?

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.

 

[5stringJeff]

Why do we even pretend to be friends with SA.

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.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Are you saying you'd rather give a warning to terrorists instead of just lop their head off?

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.

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.

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.

 

[Gabriella84]

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?

Please, give the rest of us credit for just a tiny bit of intelligence.

Why?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

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?

That would have been diplomatically untenable. We assumed the world would be behind toppling a regime in violation of multiple u.n. resolutions. We forgot libs and american enemies believe resolutions only should be enforced against america and her allies.

There were many good reasons for invading iraq, above and beyond what bush said. Don't limit this debate to only what bush said, learn to think for yourself.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

It is a rhetorical question, of course.

Of course. Having fun?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

It is a rhetorical question, of course.

It does have an answer though. It would have too diplamatically and political difficult.

 

[archangel]

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?

You are a perfect example of why the University of Berkley should be shut down...it was a great University about 40 yrs ago...now all they teach is children like you to protest...you have no idea why you protest...just that you are supposed to! When you graduate and get your so called degree...why don't you join the military...get a commission and do something usefull for once in your life!
ps: do they still teach spitting 101?...I got my share of y'all Berkley spitters during the Vietnam era!!!!

 

[5stringJeff]

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?

That's because we didn't go to war to prove Bush's manhood. And if you think that supporting terror is a "nonsensical" justification for war, then what is your justification for invading Saudi Arabia?

 

[no1tovote4]

There was only one country that had an official status passed by the Senate and signed by the President (in 1998) to have regime change as a goal of policy. It wasn't Saudi Arabia, I'll give you three guesses which it was...

 

[IControlThePast]

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.

Logical core LMAO. Let's just examine what you said. "Attacking Iraq was like a warning." Newsflash: Attacking Iraq is using violence. I'm not for using violence to give warning to Terrorists, that's what diplomacy is for. Using violence is for lopping off the head. We don't plan on just taking out a couple of OBLs friends as a warning, we plan on taking out the head, OBL. You know how the saying goes, cut off the head and the body dies. That doesn't happen when you cut off the arm. These arms can regrow, and then we've wasted manpower and money.

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.

"Peace for oil" didn't quite cut it for Iraq. Why should our oil money be used to fund Terrorists? That's why they haven't gone away. You can't expect to win the War on Terror like that. There are much better targets than Iraq out there too. SA (which you think is "the head of the beast"), or Iran for example, which was openly pursuing a WMD program, or North Korea that already had them and threatened us, or Syria which has been on the Terror watch list for over 20 years, etc.

You know violating the 12 years of resolutions is BS. The UN didn't attack him for it. The UN enforces UN resolutions, or in this case chooses not to. The country of America plus its gathered Coalition attacked because Saddam was a Dictator, disagreed with our government, and we thought he could have WMDs. We violated UN resolutions by attacking him, but I don't see us attacking ourselves.

If the liberals thought we had the supplies (money and men) then yes, they would support it. As it was, they didn't think we really had the money and men to keep Iraq, Afghanistan, and the USA secure.

 

[5stringJeff]

We violated UN resolutions by attacking him, but I don't see us attacking ourselves.

What UN resolutions did we violate by attacking Iraq?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Logical core LMAO. Let's just examine what you said. "Attacking Iraq was like a warning." Newsflash: Attacking Iraq is using violence. I'm not for using violence to give warning to Terrorists, that's what diplomacy is for.

Attacking Iraq was violence against Iraq, but it was a warning to saudi arabia. Diplomacy doesn't work with proven repeat liars who only respect violence.

Using violence is for lopping off the head. We don't plan on just taking out a couple of OBLs friends as a warning, we plan on taking out the head, OBL. You know how the saying goes, cut off the head and the body dies. That doesn't happen when you cut off the arm. These arms can regrow, and then we've wasted manpower and money.

So you're for attacking Saudi arabia? Sure you are. We're getting crap from libs about deposing saddam despite multiple U.N. resolution violations, proven genocide against his people, rape rooms, tyranny, abetting global terrorism etc. You think taking out Saudi Arabia would have been politically easier?

"Peace for oil" didn't quite cut it for Iraq.

Yeah. It didn't violence was eventually necessary. It may eventually be against the saudis as well. You seem awfully hawkish about Saudi Arabia. You're lying.

Why should our oil money be used to fund Terrorists? That's why they haven't gone away. You can't expect to win the War on Terror like that. There are much better targets than Iraq out there too. SA (which you think is "the head of the beast"), or Iran for example, which was openly pursuing a WMD program, or North Korea that already had them and threatened us, or Syria which has been on the Terror watch list for over 20 years, etc.

We can't do them all at once. you're not for this anyway. this is what I mean by no core. If bush said we were doing all this tomorrow, you and your cohorts would be ag'in' it.

You know violating the 12 years of resolutions is BS.

Oh really. No it wasn't.

The UN didn't attack him for it. The UN enforces UN resolutions, or in this case chooses not to.

This sort of capricious enforcement is not acceptable in a global body which wishes to retain any legitimacy.

The country of America plus its gathered Coalition attacked because Saddam was a Dictator, disagreed with our government, and we thought he could have WMDs. We violated UN resolutions by attacking him, but I don't see us attacking ourselves.

No we didn't. We picked up the slack when the U.N. failed due to it's corrupt leadership. The world should be thanking us for our brave action.

If the liberals thought we had the supplies (money and men) then yes, they would support it. As it was, they didn't think we really had the money and men to keep Iraq, Afghanistan, and the USA secure.

You know this is a lie. Your party is obsessed with bringing down Bush over national security.




I love it: "You know the un resolutions was bs". You've lost it man. He was in clear violation of about 17 of them. Get a grip.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

What UN resolutions did we violate by attacking Iraq?

He's lost it.
:scratch: