Saudi Arabia

[bertusgeert 1]

I dont monitor or post here often, and this topic might have been discussed already.

I also don't read, listen or watch too much news anymore...no sense in agrivating myself by listening to someone interepret worldly events in their own way..

BUT...an interesting question that I wondered about....


Why, when the US blames Iraq for links with terrorism and al-qaida, don't they attack Saudi Arabia? There is a lot of proof available that the Saudi's are active with hosting terrorists/al-qaida. (the gov. might be on the US side, but the point stands, they are clear and present).

So is the US simply being hypocrytical to keep gas prices down? Help me out on this one, i'm not quite seeing all the reasons.

---------------------------------------------
As jy dom is moet jy bloei!

[jimbarry 0]

Practical isn't always pretty, and it's often not perfect. There are good intentions and dirty hands on both sides of the American/Saudi "relationship" over the years. But it seems there's still a dialog going on between both countries, and both have been known to be able to put pressure and gain concessions out of the other to keep the money and oil flowing. On the other hand, there was no reasoning left with the previous Iraqi gov't. They had 12 years to comply with their agreements, and they didn't.

Terrorist groups embarass the Saudi government and it certainly does seem that they have been working hard to root it out. If today's reports are correct, some of the individuals involved with Johnson's kidnapping and murder were just recently killed by Saudi police.

I'm sure it's no coincidence that most of the 9-11 hijackers were recruited by alqaeda from saudi arabia, perhaps in an attempt to drive a wedge between them and the US.

We currently need oil, and they have it. They like money and are happy to take it from us. They've never cared for us having military bases there, but again, concessions. Does anyone think there would be an active alliance between the gov'ts of the US and the Saudis if oil weren't involved?

I'm sure I'm leaving tons out, and hence leaving myself wide open to misinterpretation by others who may jump in on this, but this topic, while an excellent point, just might be way too big for a discussion forum like this.

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

Why, when the US blames Iraq for links with terrorism and al-qaida, don't they attack Saudi Arabia? There is a lot of proof available that the Saudi's are active with hosting terrorists/al-qaida.

There is no evidence to show that Saudi Arabia, as a government, is supporting terrorism. Iraq, as an entire government, was supporting terrorism. Saudi has certain individuals in their government that may support terrorism but the government doesn't as a whole. Hell, we have individuals in the U.S. government that support terrorism. So does Pakistan, Malaysia, Canada, France, Germany, etc.

There is a big difference. The media and the liberals are trying to confuse people for political gain. Meanwhile, they are undermining every effort the U.S. makes to stop terrorism.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[crwtom 0]

Quote

There is no evidence to show that Saudi Arabia, as a government, is *
supporting terrorism.

There is massive evidence that a lot of terrorism and terrorist groups
originated from saudi arabis. There is plenty of evidence that saudi
arabia has been dragging their feet big time going after them.

the stability of the saudi government is in the balance as well - the future
of the house of saud less than certain. The alternatives are their versions
of Talibans or radical Califates. Expect a "welcome back home" party for
Usama.

The pet project of W just north of the border certainly didn't help
stabilization - the recent frequency of terror acts on saudi arabian soil and
the chatter of a revolution are unprecendented.

Should push come to shove the adventure of GWB in Iraq would but the
US also in a terrible bind. Military, financial and other resources are tied up
there. More importantly, occupying or taking control of a second arab
country would seal the reputation of the US as an insatiable colonial power.
Already quite stimulated Al Quaeda recruitement would skyrocket.
So much for the "battle for hearts and minds".

Quote

Iraq, as an entire government, was supporting terrorism.

true - the 1993 attempted attack on Bush senior for which there was US
retliation. That's the extend to which evidence direct involvment and
planning exist. Moreover minor financial support for Palestinian Hezbollah
since Saddam and Isreal were obviously at bad terms and, finally, the
supposed meetings between Iraqi secret service and AlQuaeda, which
according to 9-11 report remained just that - a meeting. (As far as I
understand Putin's remakrs were in reference to no more than general
"chatter" but not concrete plots or any tangible evidence)

Tallying this up Iraq would make somewhere between #8 and #12 on a
watch list of nations with terrorist problems that need to be dealt with.
(and "dealing with" can mean many things - NOT just "invasion").
Unfortunately elevating it up to a distant #1 front runner has cut us out of
resources and opportinuites dealing with those.

Many of 150'000 (or so) troops tied down in Iraq on could now be combing
the border mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Some others
special forces may control no man lands near the former Soviet republics -
where one may fear material from old Soviet nuclear and chemical stockpiles
to be smuggled through.

Financial aid against the famine and security forces could have been used in
Sudan, which DID have close Al Quaeda ties and DID engage in the
deleopment of WMD's, in order to stabilze and prevent it from slipping back
into "old habits".

Foremost, however, the enormous outpuring of good-will and assurances for
help eerywhere in the world right after the 9-11 attcks could have been used
to put pressure on many government that were either lax or latently suppotive
to terror groups. For example, in those days the streets of Theeran filled with
spontaneous demonstrations of sympathy for the US of A. Somehting that
could've easily been used to the pressure Iranian government in collaboration
and proactive crack-downs on terrorist groups. Similarly, for Suadi Arabia,
Syria, Lybia, Palestinians, etc.

With the handling of the "Get Saddam" project all that sympathy and the moral
high ground (in the international perception) have been royally sqaundered.
Unique chances are irreparably down the tubes.

Yeah, I guess the guys in DC are fighting a war on terror - but sometimes I'm
puzzled whose side they're fighting on.

Cheers, T

*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

There is no evidence to show that Saudi Arabia, as a government, is *
supporting terrorism.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


There is massive evidence that a lot of terrorism and terrorist groups
originated from saudi arabis. There is plenty of evidence that saudi
arabia has been dragging their feet big time going after them.

But, like I said, there is no evidence the official Saudi government is supporting terrrorism. There is a lot of pressure being put on Saudi Arabia to increase their anti-terrorism work. There is no reason to go to war with the government though. There are a lot of other countries that are "dragging their feet" in dealing with terrorism for fear of inciting their own extremist Muslim population. If you are trying to use this as a basis to go to war with them then we could also go to war with Lebanon, Syria, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Malaysia, Pakistan, Yemen, Sudan, etc. The list goes on.

Quote

Foremost, however, the enormous outpuring of good-will and assurances for
help eerywhere in the world right after the 9-11 attcks could have been used
to put pressure on many government that were either lax or latently suppotive
to terror groups.

Didn't we try using that pressure with at least one country? Which one was it?..................................oh yeah! It was Iraq.

Seems the outpouring of sympathy had no real tears behind it.

Quote

Financial aid against the famine and security forces could have been used in
Sudan, which DID have close Al Quaeda ties and DID engage in the
deleopment of WMD's, in order to stabilze and prevent it from slipping back
into "old habits".

You want us to give money to the government of Sudan? I'm sure it will be used for its intended purpose just like Saddam used his. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Investigation/oil_for_food_ripoff_040420-1.html Of course we had the UN helping make sure it went to the right place in Iraq. That turned out well.

BTW, Iraq DID engage in the development of WMD's and DID have ties with Al Qaida.

Iraq's Nuclear program: http://www.nci.org/iraq/iraq511.htm
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Iraq/IraqRefs.html

Iraq's chemical weapons program:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/cw-unscom.htm
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/biochem.weapons/

Al Qaida ties 9/11 commission: http://frankwarner.typepad.com/free_frank_warner/2004/06/contrary_to_som.html

other sources: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[crwtom 0]

[

Quote

population. If you are trying to use this as a basis to go to war with them then we could also go to war with Lebanon, Syria, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Malaysia, Pakistan, Yemen, Sudan, etc. The list goes on.
[\quote]

of course only of you think "wars" and "invasions" are the only way to deal
international security problems. It is certainly not my point of view or a view
I expressed. There many more ways we're cut short of but resources and
legitimacy now. You cannot put all political problems on the shoulders of
the military.

***Didn't we try using that pressure with at least one country? Which one was it?..................................oh yeah! It was Iraq.[\quote]

I really don't know which Iraqi terrorit group the Iraqi's were asked to
crack down on or which radical islamic hatred preaching schools they
were asked to shut down. Which of those that were more vile and more an
imminent therat than those known cells, groups, and schools in other islamic
states around the world.

As to the sympathy - I can't remember any signification hestitation on the
part of the international community to go to war in Afghanistan. You can
find members of pretty much any NATO nation there. (In fact
it was rather the US Admin that - at first - wanted to give the Taliban a
"way out"). This was a real terrorist hosting country - and we're still not
sure what's going on much outside of Kabul - the troops needed are tied
down somewhere else. The major culprits are still at large and the war lords
to their things.

Finally, my quote also had the word "handling" of the conflict in it. The
"handlin" was quite a stark contrast of what it was in the first Gulf war.
Ther you had a few demonstration - but essentially everyone of the allies
was on the same page - nothing compared to the recent diplomatic
bungle.

***
***
Sudan, which DID have close Al Quaeda ties and DID engage in the
deleopment of WMD's, in order to stabilze and prevent it from slipping back
into "old habits".

You want us to give money to the government of Sudan?
[\quote]

I guess than the only thing to do is to go to war with Sudan - right?

Let's say we really have to - things go south there, radical elements replace
the government (that's already been openly sympathetic to AlQuaeda),
and/or the genocide against the southern population gets "unbearable".
... would our previous Iraq adventure put us in a
better position to do so or not?

***
BTW, Iraq DID engage in the development of WMD's and DID have ties with Al Qaida.
[\quote]

Sure we can go to war with all and everyone who is "evil" by some standard.
With all however there is a price tag - militarily, politically, financially, human
cost etc. . So you may want to pick your fights wisely and think about the
ramifications of what you do.

Just to stick with the Sudan-Iraq comparison, Sudan was the host country to
Usama bin Laden and his network until 1996 much like the Taliban in
Alfghanistan right after that. You can be sure that there are still plenty of
radical islamic groups in the Sudan. I have a hard time understanding how a
couple of inconclusive meetings with Iraqis can measure up to this degree of
AlQuaeda collaboration. I think we had much bigger fish to fry.

Also as to WMD's Iraq was certainly not the only "green" one on that map.
Much more dangerous and likely sources of nuclear technology for the "evil
guys" are the much less controlled former Soviet republic, North Korea, Iran,
and Pakistan. Similar for chemical ones for which, e.g., Syria has a known
(and not just vaguely suspected) arsenal. It is hard to understand what
makes Iraq the far and away the number one among these.

What is clear, however, is that Iraq has been a pet cause of many of the
people through out the 90's with all the pamphlets posted to their
NAC web pages etc.. 9-11 should have prompted a serious reevaluation of
priorities in a very complex new war. Instead an "old hat" was brought from
the backburner and the US military used as a "silver bullet" that was supposed
to bring about the quick fix. ("Saddam"'s high name recognition came in pretty
handy as well)


The war on terrorism has two elements - the relentless eradiaction of the
radical terrorist elements starting where they are most imminent, and second
winning the battle of "Heart and minds" of the moderate islamic world.
IMO we're not doing a good job at either.

Cheers, T

*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

[tbrown 26]

Isn't it amazing how the Saudis catch up with and shoot the terrorists THE DAY AFTER they behead their American captives ? It's getting to be something of a habit with them.

The truth is their entire social fabric is so rotten and corrupt it's going to collapse under its own weight very soon. Over a fourth of the population consists of foreign workers, without whom nothing could get done. The Saudis are so used to sitting on their asses they would be absolutely helpless without the foreign labor that makes their society run. The most common degree conferred in their country is in religious studies, not science, law, or medicine or the arts. They can't or won't fight to protect their own country and would have collapsed in a matter of days if Saddam had wanted to invade them in 1990, before we could get sufficient Desert Shield troops over there. And then they had the nerve to whine about how our troops "offended" their medieval customs.

Anyway, al Qaeda knows all this, after all Bin Laden is a Saudi himself. It's no wonder they have such good luck recruiting from an alienated younger generation. They know if they can scare the foreigners into leaving that the economy will collapse. Meanwhile, the royal family sits on their asses wondering why all the bribes and donations to al Qaeda won't buy them "peace in our time".

Some of us at these forums are too young to remember the fall of the Shah and the Iranian revolution, and what it did to world oil prices. That memory is going to be small potatoes compared to the fall of the House of Saud. And it's coming. We may have to invade that country to prevent a worldwide catastrophe.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[piisfish 140]

Quote

We may have to invade that country to prevent a worldwide catastrophe.

are you serious ??

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[Trent 0]

Alas, the only real solution to the middle east problem is to develop and use alternative fuels on a global scale. That way, they can keep their precious desert and fall further back into the annals of technology and progress.

Of course, then we'd see terrorism because the world will have robbed them of their economic rights. *sigh*

Oh, hello again!

[rickjump1 0]

Invasion? We alone don't have enough troops. Without an international effort I don't see it happening. And like the Shah, a puppet government would not last long. We are talking big time conflict. Get rid of that SUV.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[Kennedy 0]

read this
http://foi.missouri.edu/evolvingissues/fallhouseofsaud.html

posted by someone in the civilian airliner thread.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[rickjump1 0]

Scary/Frightening.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[tbrown 26]

Quote

Quote

We may have to invade that country to prevent a worldwide catastrophe.

are you serious ??

Sadly, yes. For the record, I was opposed to invading Iraq and would not like to see us invading Saudi. It would be a very bad, dark time, with terrible costs and the possibility of World War, the use of nukes, or any other nightmare I'd rather not mention. But realistically, what kind of alternatives do you think the west would have if the world's #1 oil producers spiraled down into anarchy and civil war ? The #2 producer (Iraq) is already a mess. This is why the Middle East has been such a headache to the rest of us. I only hope we can somehow get beyond an oil fueled economy, then we can tell those people to eat their damn oil and kill each other all they want.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[piisfish 140]

Quote

I only hope we can somehow get beyond an oil fueled economy

so there is an alternative to invading all petrol producing countries... but there is no big interest to these solutions from some people who have lots of power and who are involved in the petrol business...

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[Gravitymaster 0]

Becoming energy self sufficient will do nothing to stop our enemies from attacking us. It will only change their justifications.

[DrunkMonkey 0]

Quote

Quote

I only hope we can somehow get beyond an oil fueled economy

so there is an alternative to invading all petrol producing countries... but there is no big interest to these solutions from some people who have lots of power and who are involved in the petrol business...

The Solution: Ethanol

Get off their oil, get outta their region, let them eat their petrolium. Fuck them. Isolate them. Refuse their airliners landing rights. Turn away their goods. Let them wither...

[benny 0]

Quote

Becoming energy self sufficient will do nothing to stop our enemies from attacking us. It will only change their justifications.

Whilst this may be true my good man, at least we wouldn't be sending our hard earned dollars to pay the man who in turn gives that money to terrorist causes.

Never go to a DZ strip show.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Becoming energy self sufficient will do nothing to stop our enemies from attacking us. It will only change their justifications.

Whilst this may be true my good man, at least we wouldn't be sending our hard earned dollars to pay the man who in turn gives that money to terrorist causes.

What "man" are you refering to my good man.

(How ya been doing buddy?)

[benny 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Becoming energy self sufficient will do nothing to stop our enemies from attacking us. It will only change their justifications.

Whilst this may be true my good man, at least we wouldn't be sending our hard earned dollars to pay the man who in turn gives that money to terrorist causes.

What "man" are you refering to my good man.

(How ya been doing buddy?)

Well, the man in that case would be like the house of Saud I suppose. I mean really, is there any doubt that they support terrorism at least just a little bit?

Aside from that, I've been doing fairly well, and you?

Never go to a DZ strip show.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Well, the man in that case would be like the house of Saud I suppose. I mean really, is there any doubt that they support terrorism at least just a little bit?

Aside from that, I've been doing fairly well, and you?

[piisfish 140]

Quote

What effect would the lack of U.S. influence have when China moved in to fill the vacuum? Would the Chinese supply an Anti-US Muslim Exteremist Theocracy with WMDs in exchange for oil?

there is another solution then, purchase all the oil possible, invade countries who do not want to sell ther petrol, invade every country whose govt might say this is wrong.
Oh and invade Switzerland, the country who just been defeated by France in Football (the real one, which is called soccer on your side of the pond), and whose natl TV just gave evidence that one of their players had spit on another player, despite the UEFA said nothing happened...

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

What effect would the lack of U.S. influence have when China moved in to fill the vacuum? Would the Chinese supply an Anti-US Muslim Extremist Theocracy with WMDs in exchange for oil?

there is another solution then, purchase all the oil possible, invade countries who do not want to sell ther petrol, invade every country whose govt might say this is wrong.
Oh and invade Switzerland, the country who just been defeated by France in Football (the real one, which is called soccer on your side of the pond), and whose natl TV just gave evidence that one of their players had spit on another player, despite the UEFA said nothing happened...

I didn't suggest any of that, I just asked if you had considered what would happen. Have you?

[billvon 3,079]

>It will only change their justifications.

And remove their resources. Would you rather be attacked by a group with billions of dollars, access to weapons and WMD's, or a guy with a stick?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>It will only change their justifications.

And remove their resources. Would you rather be attacked by a group with billions of dollars, access to weapons and WMD's, or a guy with a stick?

Doubtful. Much of the money Al Qaeda has comes from opium and other investments. Remember how much money they made in the stock market after Sept 11? In addition, the Chinese are ready, willing and able to fill any financial gap caused by the US reduction in oil use.

[billvon 3,079]

>Doubtful. Much of the money Al Qaeda has comes from opium and other
>investments. Remember how much money they made in the stock market
>after Sept 11?

People can indeed make money in the stock market. But we spend about 120 BILLION a year for imported oil; that's some serious seed money for a terrorist blue-chip fund.

>In addition, the Chinese are ready, willing and able to fill
>any financial gap caused by the US reduction in oil use.

Agreed, but then again, if China's oil usage causes terrorism against China, I am less concerned about it, since we can't do anything about that. I mean, how worried are you about the Tamil Tigers? They are responsible for far more terrorism than Al Qaeda, but since they don't attack Americans we don't pay them as much mind.