I Guess This Means the Invasion of Saudi Arabia is a "GO"!

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bountyhunter

member
Joined
Jan 8, 2003
Messages
3,421
Location
Fascist-Fornia
Quoting Mr. Bush in a speech today:

"Our goal is to defeat the terrorists and their allies at the heart of their power."
Click to expand...

I sure hope I live long enough to see a president who actually will kick their butts..... but, I'm not holding my breath.:barf:




http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,171420,00.html






Shortly after the president's speech, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, of Nevada, issued a statement blasting Bush's plan.

"Once again the president had an opportunity to lay out for the American people the facts on the ground in Iraq and his strategy to achieve the military, political and economic success needed in order to bring our troops home. Once again, he failed to do so. Instead, the president continued to falsely assert there is a link between the war in Iraq and the tragedy of September 11th, a link that did not and does not exist," Reid said.
Click to expand...

Well, sure..... if you're going to NITPICK you can make anything sound bad....
 
One of the primary goals is to stabilize the middle east. Saudi Arabia is pretty darn stable as is. Just how would it be beneficial to attack Saudi Arabia?

Oh, and you are aware that Mecca lies in the heart of Saudi Arabia, right? You've pondered the implications of attacking the holiest city in all of Islam, right?

Or are you just looking for one more excuse to bash Bush? :rolleyes:
 
One of the primary goals is to stabilize the middle east. Saudi Arabia is pretty darn stable as is. Just how would it be beneficial to attack Saudi Arabia?
Click to expand...

1) Stop the unbridled flow of money from wealthy saudis which has been supporting Al Qaeda for 12 years and paid for the 9/11 attacks.

2) Stop the money flow from the wahabbists inside SA who are currently funding the insurgency in Iraq killing more Americans.

3) Put the world on notice that the claim the president made about holding ANYBODY who funded terrorists accountable was not just BS.


Oh, and you are aware that Mecca lies in the heart of Saudi Arabia, right? You've pondered the implications of attacking the holiest city in all of Islam, right?
Click to expand...
So, you are saying we run the risk of upsetting the Islamic fundamentalists? Yeah.... I see your point, we are on such good terms with them now we wouldn't want to risk upsetting our cordial relations.

Or are you just looking for one more excuse to bash Bush?
Click to expand...

That's an original comeback. For the record, he has provided so many reasons to be bashed I don't need to look for any new ones. Weapons of Mass DISTRACTION? Destroying the only secular regime in the middle east opposing Islamofascism?

Yeah... it's all just "bashing"......
 
"Our goal is to defeat the terrorists and their allies at the heart of their power."
Click to expand...

One of the primary goals is to stabilize the middle east. Saudi Arabia is pretty darn stable as is. Just how would it be beneficial to attack Saudi Arabia?

Oh, and you are aware that Mecca lies in the heart of Saudi Arabia, right? You've pondered the implications of attacking the holiest city in all of Islam, right?

Or are you just looking for one more excuse to bash Bush?
Click to expand...

well 15 of the 19 hijackers were from SA so that kind of makes SA the heart of the power.
 
Critical thinking at its finest...

The Saudi Government is generally a stabilizing force in the region. Their leaders are amenable to the usual tools of statecraft. They are guided by rational self interest. Their fundamentalism goes only so far as necessary to retain the support of their people. Contrast this with Saddam, who was irrational and unpredictable, and who sought at every turn to attack his neighbors or his own people.

Many of the Saudi people are fundamentalists of a rabid nature. True, many of them support and fund terrorism. True, most of the hijackers were natives of Saudi Arabia. But the problem lies with the average inhabitants of the nation, not it's leaders.

To eliminate the source of fundamentalism in Saudi Arabia would require that we destroy the civillian population. But the U.S. can NOT go into a foreign country and attack the civilian poplation. I doubt we have the means, and I sincerely hope we never have the intent.

Attacking a government is another matter. Governments can be morally attacked, when our national interests call for such. Governments can, as a practical matter, be defeated (witness Saddam).

But in the case of Saudia Arabia, eliminating the political leadership doesn't solve the problem. The problem lies with the people, not the government.

Thus it is both unwise and unproductive to attack Saudia Arabia, as a political matter.

Consider also that nearly all Muslims consider the Saudi government/nation to have a sacred duty to defend the Holy City. If the U.S. were to attack the guardians of Mecca, we would find ourselves on the receiving end of the combined hatred of nearly every last Muslim man, woman and child. As it stands now, only a few of the extremists bother to actively oppose the U.S.

The extremists are trouble enough; attacking Saudia Arabia would make things exponentially worse.

Bush is smart enough to understand all this.
 
So, you are saying we run the risk of upsetting the Islamic fundamentalists? Yeah.... I see your point, we are on such good terms with them now we wouldn't want to risk upsetting our cordial relations.
Click to expand...

No, you are not seeing his point. Attacking Saudi and taking Mecca would not just upset the stereotypical fundamentalists you so quaintly brush off, it would incite backlash against us from all Muslims. What you said is akin to saying, "Yeah, I see your point. Blowing up a monumental set of towers in NYC will only put us on bad terms with those damn New Yorkers and besides, they don't like anyone else anyways." I believe an act like that pissed off far more than redneck beer-swiling fundamentalists.

Your understanding of the devotion to holy sites, especially that holy site, for those cultures is severly lacking. Do you even realize the significance of Mecca and what it stands for? Any idea about how many people make the pillgrimage to that site every year? Do you realize that some people save their entire life to make that trip. Yeah... you are cetainly correct, it would only piss of the fundamentalists. Fundamentalist being every Muslim who has ever cracked open the Koran.
 
If anyone is going to be next it will be Iran not Saudi Arabia, a country that basically does whatever Bush tells them to. We won't be attacking anyone though unfortunately because we have our hands full with Iraq and Afganistan.

bountyhunter are you a disgruntled Kerry voter by any chance?
 
You don't have to be a disgruntled Kerry voter to see that Bush has no plan for Iraq, or any idea of how to bring our invasion to a conclusion.

The poor sap who "wins" the presidency in 2008 is going to have his work cut out for him.
 
bountyhunter are you a disgruntled Kerry voter by any chance?
Click to expand...
Posts like that are the reason I frequently believe posting is a 100% waste of time.

For the record, I predicted Kerry would lose and referred to him as the one man who would snatch defeat from the jaws of certain victory. I also said I could have found a better candidate by tying a chicked leg to the back of my Chevy and driving past a homeless shelter.

But in the world of Bush lovers, anybody who has no tolerance for liars and those who throw away American soldier's lives on a fool's errand must be a Kerry lover.

whatever.

But think about it..... what does it say for Bush when the only response you have for his thundering incompetence, outright arrogance, mangling of the truth, blind eyes to the actions of the idiots he appointed....

is to say: "He isn't Kerry."

Well, he isn't Charles Manson either.

That doesn't make me any happier with what he has done.
 
Your understanding of the devotion to holy sites, especially that holy site, for those cultures is severly lacking.
Click to expand...
Well... we all can't be as scholarly and well informed on the infrastructure of the middle east as Bush whose policy is: "all Arabs are alike..... these Arabs did a bad thing, so we should invade an Arab country."

Yeah, I guess I can't see the wisdom of that.

If the U.S. were to attack the guardians of Mecca, we would find ourselves on the receiving end of the combined hatred of nearly every last Muslim man, woman and child. As it stands now, only a few of the extremists bother to actively oppose the U.S.
Click to expand...
The Bush propoganda fantasy that "only the extremists oppose the US" is just that... a total fantasy.

In Saudi Arabia, mainstream schools openly teach hatred of the US. Their clerics call for young Saudis to go to Iraq to fight the US, and all Bush does is cover up the truth.

And before you pull the trigger on that last statement..... go and search the web and find out the content of the 28 pages Bush had censored from a classified report which detailed the saudi support and involvement with Al qaeda.

You try to project the myth that we have an ally to protect there, when all they are is an arrogant bunch of liars who use the US like a two dollar whore. When their borders are threatened they demand we send our soldiers to die to defend them.... and we do. When they are not threatened, they throw us off our bases and out like a pack of beggars.... and we take that. They jack up the price of oil and ream us as thanks for our defending them.

Don't try to sell me that garbage about what we "risk" invading SA. When you have nothing to lose, you have nothing to risk. News flash: the Muslims already hate us.
 
I will have to agree - Saudi Arabia is as close to "the heart of the problem" as it gets.

I do not think Saudi Arabia is "stable" in the sense that the royalty there represents the people. The royalty may do us favors once in awhile, but they also do favors for the terrorists. In essence, they are irrelevant.

The average man on the stree in Saudi Arabia is much more likely to be a Wahabbist, anti-American terrorist supporter. Much of the funding for world-wide terrorism come from Saudi activists that gather money for "charity".

The terrorist problem is very much a clash of cultures, and the culture that is mostly to blame for anti-American violence exists in a region that includes most of the Middle East. Saudi Arabia seems to be the highest concentration.
 
Don't forget about Medina the other Islam holy city...Which if I recall correctly is also within Saudi Arabia.....Find a way to disrupt and remove the terror without disturbing the two sacred sites and it'd be a win/win scenerio...The Saudi's just want our money....that's the only reason they keep us as "allies" for lack of a better term...or, I suppose we are their cash cow....Best way for the US to stave off the terror is to remove our dependance on foreign oil sources and rebuild up our military so we can properly defend our nation against these boneheads......


Just my 2cp
 
The terrorist problem is very much a clash of cultures, and the culture that is mostly to blame for anti-American violence exists in a region that includes most of the Middle East. Saudi Arabia seems to be the highest concentration.
Click to expand...
This is the essence of the problem.

The genius of the Bush plan is that, if successful, it has the potential to eliminate that clash of cultures. The goal in Iraq is democracy and free market economy - basically the Marshal Plan all over again. If it succeeds, the people in Iraq will be freer, wealthier, safer, and generally better off than any of their neighbors. Their neghbors will see this, and they will eventually reject their past fundamentalism and demand a future that holds the blessings of democracy.

The key to this plan is to succeed in Iraq. Iraq has the potential to becme a beacon of truth. Freedom makes life better!

It worked for the U.S. It worked in Eastern Europe and (formerly) Soviet Russia. It's currently working in Taiwan, Hong Kong and China. Freedom makes life better!

It will work in the middle east. At least, if we don't give up too soon.
 
bountyhunter you never really answered the question on whether or not you were a disgruntled Kerry voter. FWIW I voted for Bush and am more than happy with my vote. I am not one of those people that think the president is to blame for or can solve the worlds problems.
 
bountyhunter said:
Oh … I’m sorry … you were serious?
Click to expand...

Perfectly. By making an example out of Iraq, we may not have to conquer even one more oil state to accomplish our goals. The Saudis and other potential enemies will step into line when faced with the alternative.

Please understand that I use the terms we and our loosely here. Oh, and terrorism is only incidental to this discussion.

Now, if we botch Iraq, then we’ll be in for a world of hurt, because the only thing worse than being wrong is being wrong and stupid.

~G. Fink
 
You've pondered the implications of attacking the holiest city in all of Islam, right?
Click to expand...

No, no, no, no, no! There's no need to attack Mecca and Medina. That would be a complete waste of time and effort and blood, plus it would hurt the Islamic terrorists' precious little feelings.

Remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
 
Where we attack is a strategic question that will evolve with this war. Nothing is off the table. Or should be. I seem to remember our civilians being attacked in New York, among other places.

As for "holy sites," why do you think the terrorists attacked the World Trade Center? In their minds THAT was OUR holiest of sites.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
Saudis funding killers of US Troops
2
Replies
28
Views
833
pax
P
P
  • Locked
Are the "Dems" getting it?
Replies
21
Views
981
RangerHAAF
RangerHAAF
R
  • Locked
Now Harry Reid!
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
Art Eatman
A
H
  • Locked
Lowell MA. Sun endorsed Bush
Replies
1
Views
398
Chipperman
C
H
  • Locked
Bush a great leader? (article from my local paper)
Replies
14
Views
649
Monkeyleg
M
Back
Top