Why haven't we invaded Saudi Arabia?

[rtwngAvngr]

You're just stuck in a loop, and you've probably got there by assumptions. Which part am I selectively enforcing? I'm not enforcing any of it. You can't pick and chose which parts of the UN you like and enforce those. You can't pick and chose which US laws you like and decide not to enforce the rest.

You give creedence to the charter but not resolutions. that's selective. Your brand of selectivity just happens to favor tyrants in this case.

You want to provide any evidence for your petulant assertions here, or do you only have straw men arguments for responses?

reread the thread. Please don't reuse my fifty cent vocab words. Be original.

So you think that Congress would have decided differently if the (false) intelligence said Iran or SA instead of Iraq?

I believe the many violated resolutions by saddam greatly influenced the decisions of our congress.

Another straw man argument and assumption. If anyone is denigrating them, it's you. I just said we couldn't get enough of them to meet a good manpower ratio for us. You said we got 30. Now do you still disagree that 30 is not enough to meet that ratio, or do you think our allies aren't doing everything they can to help us, in which case you are denigrating their efforts.

You have denigrated their efforts, thinking somehow pointing out their manpower contributions indicates they're not REALLY helping out, or something. I'm not really sure what's going on in your constipated psyche.

So you think most people in the Republican party are tyrants? People who want to restrict individual liberty by say, the Patriot Act, or the new Flag Burning Amendment, or who don't believe in legal personal drug use, or assisted suicide, or exactly what the ACLU stands for are tyrants? I expected to only hear this from liberals.

I have some issues with the patriot act, But leftist libs like you are not for freedom. You're for the tyranny of the self proclaimed cultural socialist elite.

You're missing some thinking in there. Freedom involves freedom to be able to have a life not well lived or defined in that manner by Christianity, through personal choice. Do you deny that Mill's harm principle actually gives more personal freedom than Christianity?

I'm just saying economic freedom is a human rights issue. We should all have the right to give and recieve goods and services for a price we set ourselves.

Suprise, another straw man and assumption lacking any evidence whatsoever. I would hope most other Republicans aren't as much of a disgrace as you.

You're the disgrace here, ninny.

So then, why, to the extreme, are we not attacking ourselves for violating the charter? We aren't even holding it against ourselves.

You're an idiot.

 

[IControlThePast]

You give creedence to the charter but not resolutions. that's selective. Your brand of selectivity just happens to favor tyrants in this case.

I don't give credit to either, as I've said twice now. You give credit selectively to one. I'm not selective. Are you almost ready to make an argument for your case where you're selective, and I'm not.

I believe the many violated resolutions by saddam greatly influenced the decisions of our congress.

What greatly influenced our Congress was alleged WMDs, bioterrorism, Saddam's brutal repression of the civilian population, alleged Al Qaida connections, Iraq was supposedly destabalizing to the peace in the Middle East, and the attempted assasination against Bush Sr. The president was given power to attack even if Iraq immediately stopped all supposed violations of UN resolutions.

You have denigrated their efforts, thinking somehow pointing out their manpower contributions indicates they're not REALLY helping out, or something. I'm not really sure what's going on in your constipated psyche.

That's some absolutely frightful logic. I could use it and say that you're disrespecting our troops because you think we need a Coalition in the first place, and because you're not acknowledging the portion of the job our troops are doing. We need more to help, as a manpower/funding contribution. You don't seem like a PC person, so I don't know what issue you exactly have with the truth and fact that it's mostly the US funding and fighting this war, and therefore we need more contribution from additional allies to help ease the burden on us.

I have some issues with the patriot act, But leftist libs like you are not for freedom. You're for the tyranny of the self proclaimed cultural socialist elite.

Would you like to explain how the "harm" principle creates a tyranny of self proclaimed cultural social elite instead of just mixing a bunch of big words together while lacking substance. Or maybe even just try an answer that doesn't rely on another straw man and petty generalizations.

I'm just saying economic freedom is a human rights issue. We should all have the right to give and recieve goods and services for a price we set ourselves.

True, but don't we deserve more than that even? We can set prices, etc. by simplying using the government as a control mechanism for it and taking a vote on the prices, which is what socialism really is.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I don't give credit to either, as I've said twice now. You give credit selectively to one. I'm not selective. Are you almost ready to make an argument for your case where you're selective, and I'm not.

No, you gave credit to the charter, but not the resolutions. You can deny it now, but we all see what you said.

What greatly influenced our Congress was alleged WMDs, bioterrorism, Saddam's brutal repression of the civilian population, alleged Al Qaida connections, Iraq was supposedly destabalizing to the peace in the Middle East, and the attempted assasination against Bush Sr. The president was given power to attack even if Iraq immediately stopped all supposed violations of UN resolutions.

And saddam has possessed and used all of the above, and our congress made the right decision.

That's some absolutely frightful logic. I could use it and say that you're disrespecting our troops because you think we need a Coalition in the first place, and because you're not acknowledging the portion of the job our troops are doing. We need more to help, as a manpower/funding contribution. You don't seem like a PC person, so I don't know what issue you exactly have with the truth and fact that it's mostly the US funding and fighting this war, and therefore we need more contribution from additional allies to help ease the burden on us.

Your party is the one which apparently despises unilateral action. More help would be nice, true.

Would you like to explain how the "harm" principle creates a tyranny of self proclaimed cultural social elite instead of just mixing a bunch of big words together while lacking substance. Or maybe even just try an answer that doesn't rely on another straw man and petty generalizations.

I'm just saying economic freedom and human rights are not separate issues.

True, but don't we deserve more than that even? We can set prices, etc. by simplying using the government as a control mechanism for it and taking a vote on the prices, which is what socialism really is.

Price fixing by democratic vote is assinine.

 

[Avatar4321]

To answer the question simply, because that would be dumb strategy.

Let's say that we eventually did need to take out Saudi Arabia. Does anyone here think it would be a good idea to attack them right off the bat and give the terrorists ammunition to recruit fellow muslim wackos to their jihad against America? Seriously would that be a good idea? I mean we are talking about invading the country with the most Holy sites of Islam. The terrorist would have a huge propaganda advantage at this point.

However, let's look at it the way we are doing it. We take out a dictator in Iraq, show the people we want to help them govern themselves. Help establish representative government there. We do that with Iran and Syria as well. Bring freedom weaken the terrorists. then the rest of the Islamic world knows we arent waging a war against them but liberating them. The Terrorist propaganda has much less effect if the time came to invade saudi arabia.

Besides, with the current strategy we are positioned alot better strategicly in case such an invasion was ever necessary. It's just common sense.

 

[Comrade]

To answer the question simply, because that would be dumb strategy.

Let's say that we eventually did need to take out Saudi Arabia. Does anyone here think it would be a good idea to attack them right off the bat and give the terrorists ammunition to recruit fellow muslim wackos to their jihad against America? Seriously would that be a good idea? I mean we are talking about invading the country with the most Holy sites of Islam. The terrorist would have a huge propaganda advantage at this point.

However, let's look at it the way we are doing it. We take out a dictator in Iraq, show the people we want to help them govern themselves. Help establish representative government there. We do that with Iran and Syria as well. Bring freedom weaken the terrorists. then the rest of the Islamic world knows we arent waging a war against them but liberating them. The Terrorist propaganda has much less effect if the time came to invade saudi arabia.

Besides, with the current strategy we are positioned alot better strategicly in case such an invasion was ever necessary. It's just common sense.

I agree that we should consider in the possibility in the future of the necessity of removing the Saud regime, especially if they continue their worldwide financing of Islamic 'Charities' (i.e. Jihad schooling).

The hardest part would be establishing a truly free society in which the government selected by the people was unfettered by Islamic dictates. I get the feeling the Saudi's have conditioned themselves as one of the most religiously fundamental people in the world, and might just happily choose to keep their women controlled by male society, and unlike the Iraqis, have grown used to fundamentalist controlled government. But then again it's no reason not to give them that chance. I'd like to hear more discussion on the topic from others.

 

[spillmind]

bush is the crown prince's bitch!

http://ohyahmon.com/assets/images/whos yo daddy.jpg