So should we invade Saudi arabia?

Insofar as Saudi Arabia has the holiest sites of Islam, I'd say no. Unless we want to fight a billion or so Muslims all at once.

Insofar as Saudi Arabia's monarchy is dependant on support from Wahhabi Imans who preach an extremely fundamentalist strain of Islam and use our oil money to fund schools spreading their doctrine all over the world....

everyone should drive a hybrid to reduce our oil dependency.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Dec 7 2006, 05:44 PM) [snapback]359101[/snapback]</div>

I'll be withholding my opinion until you voice your own, this is according to the new rules on PC FHoP. While you do a good job with the question, very worthwhile topic BTW, and explaining the facts surrounding the topic you don't weigh in on one side or the other.



Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Dec 7 2006, 07:39 PM) [snapback]359125[/snapback]</div>

I agree - if we want to "attack" them - hit them where it counts - in their wallets. Kind of hard to fund islamic extremism withour any $.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Dec 8 2006, 03:04 AM) [snapback]359197[/snapback]</div>

You really need to find a new axe. This one appears to be ground down to the handle.

By the way, the post does fit. A link is provided to an article and makes a sarcastic comment regarding the present war. If you read the article, you'll see that there are claims that Saudi Arabia is funding the insurgency.

Given the ridiculous "you're either with us or again' us" and "If you're not with us, you support the terrorists" rhetoric we've heard since 2003, it's a legitimate question. It appears that Saudi Arabia is a state that sponsors terror. By the logic that got us into the quagmire in Iraq, Saudi Arabia should be a target.

And if you can't figure out where I stand on this issue, you're just not paying attention.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Dec 7 2006, 08:44 PM) [snapback]359101[/snapback]</div>

I think you underappreciate the fear within the Saudi monarchy. Given a surging Iran on the brink of becoming a nuclear power - given Iran's direct support and funding of the insurgancy in Iraq and their desire to gain control over Iraq or at least the oil portion Shia dominated parts thereof, and Iran's direct involvement in trying to overthrow the Lebanese govt NOW the Sunni's of Saudia Arabia have their collective bowels in a small uproar. The possibility of being surround by a Iran dominated and nuclear possesing radicalized Shia population the Saudi Royals are not going to let American forces out of Iraq and I believe are actively supportive of a American military presence within their kingdom.

Further evidence of this was found during the Israeli / Hezbollah war in which Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt basically gave Olmert the green light to take out Hezbollah. The fact that Olmert wussed out will prove to be a HUGE mistake - in fact evidence is already mounting to that effect.

So, we do not have to invade Saudi Arabia - we are already there - and we won't be allowed to leave given the current geopolitics of the area. I predict the situation there will get worse before it gets better.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Dec 7 2006, 10:44 PM) [snapback]359101[/snapback]</div>

Looks like Bin Laden has succeded... Exactly what they wanted you to think by using Saudi's on 9/11...




<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Dec 8 2006, 06:01 AM) [snapback]359203[/snapback]</div>

I agree.... Imagine if we focused our efforts and became the WORLD LEADER in electric automotive... No one would have to fire a shot, and they'd be stuck with a lot of dirty sand...

Until then, the people of Dubai can ski in the middle of the desert...

 

By many forms of reasoning we should go after them for supporting our enemy... However, I'm wondering exactly how?

If the government was providing the support, the answer would be obvious - take the exact same stupid nice person tactics that got us stuck in Iraq: Go in, remove the current government and try to set up some other government so we can fight a war against insurgents for the next dozen years.

But it's private citizens sending cash over the border. Mandating that a government controls it citizens seems a bit hypocritical. I could hop on a plane tomorrow and fly just about anywhere i wanted with a suitcase full of cash. I could give that suitcase to some group thats involved in some conflict somewhere. Does that mean that the group they're fighting should turn and try to invade the US??? We all enjoy a lot of freedoms here, and one of those freedoms is supporting what we think is right. How many people supported the protests, riots, and draft dodging back in Vietnam? the only difference here is the actual actions taken in support of their beliefs. As Americans, we feel better about creating chaos at home to support our beliefs, while they feel they can do more good with money.

Now, don't get my rant here wrong - i support our troops 100%, want the war to end tomorrow and everyone to come home safe and sound. I would support any actions that were taken to secure the border and prevent transfers of money or goods as discussed in that article. I just don't believe we should get into a conflict with another nation just because of the actions of a few of it's private citizens.

 

Sure...they have oil don't they?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(huskers @ Dec 8 2006, 10:36 AM) [snapback]359279[/snapback]</div>

If I can, let me change the dynamics of the post slightly. Doe you think Saudi Arabia is posses a bigger threat to us or Iran?

 

Good question... whats your view on it, dbermanmd?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Dec 8 2006, 10:52 AM) [snapback]359291[/snapback]</div>

Since the last response to this thread is a question in reponse to a question, I will answer the question - the results of which are easily deduced from my prior post here last week.

Iran is our NUMBER ONE THREAT TODAY. Simple. If you have a different opinion I would love to hear it and why.

 

A popular bit bit of wisdom in the press recently has been something like this: "Reagan fought the cold war with a much more powerful and aggressive enemy without firing a shot, and he often got on the phone with the enemy to talk things over when there was trouble."

I'm of the opinion that the US would be in a better, safer position globally had we not sent our troops into any country other than Afghanistan. Fighting an ideology is impossible without resorting to genocide, and we could crush them swiftly by just banning oil imports and creating a bicycle-riding, healthier, happier country! Overly-simplistic? yes, but I can dream...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Dec 11 2006, 02:25 PM) [snapback]360429[/snapback]</div>

Precisely. Removing Saddam has removed Iran's worst enemy (re: that little war from 1980-88 in which they killed about a million of each other). Iran is much stronger with Saddam gone.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ichabod @ Dec 11 2006, 01:38 PM) [snapback]360441[/snapback]</div>

Reagan created Alqueda in Afghanistan to fight the Russians.Maybe Bin Laden was responsible for actually winning the cold war.
Reagan also sold weapons to Iran and supported S Hussein.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Dec 11 2006, 01:25 PM) [snapback]360429[/snapback]</div>

No. I think in the end it will prove to be a smart move - maybe for the wrong reasons.

I would not attack Iran with boots on the ground. I would destroy their nuclear facilities, their air force and whatever other military assets from above and let the people do the rest as you are starting to see today. There is a large % of Iranians who want this guy out - not President Carter of course - but so be it.

And yes I would have done Iraq - even with 20/20 hindsight.

We have enough military resources for this - the question is do we have enough will power like we had fighting the Soviet Union, or the Germany/Japan/Italy (losing on average 8,000 men per month), or during the Civil War, etc, etc. One thing is for sure - we can fight them there now - or we can fight them here and there later - the only question is how many innocent American civilians will lose their lives above the 3,000 alread murdered?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Dec 11 2006, 02:46 PM) [snapback]360487[/snapback]</div>

You should write the book on these moments in history you are citing.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Dec 11 2006, 01:39 PM) [snapback]360442[/snapback]</div>

Actually yes and no. Either way we cannot let Iran control the oil fields and we cannot let them develop nuclear weapons.