Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Saudi Arabia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Another Example Of Saudi Threat
Ex-pat2    1/10/2004 2:52:37 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4384-2004Jan9.html As the search for WMD/Al Queda links continue, the Saudi threat is still growing.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
swhitebull    RE:Another Example Of Saudi Threat - exPat   1/10/2004 2:59:47 PM
If you want TONS of evidence on the Saudi threat, try Frontpagemag.com, and Memri.org, going thru their archives. They have spent lots of time documenting this growing and current menace - and it isnt getting any better, but worse, as their exporting of religious doctrine permeates our country. It's even being taught in our schools, as teachers are supplies with Wahhabi materials, and have their students pretend to me muslims for a week, up to and including praying towards mecca and Allah. swhitebull - we are surprisingly in agreement on this one, ex.
 
Quote    Reply

Vulture    excuse me but did anybody here   1/10/2004 4:50:54 PM
think for a second , that one of the reasons we are in Iraq is too infleunce Saudi Arabia? Yes, Saudis breed terrorists and the US knows it. What it can do about it is something else. My favorite scenario: US forces help squash a religious revolution by the Wahabis. Then US forces stabilize the govt by purging "terrorist influences".
 
Quote    Reply

Ex-pat2    RE:Another Example Of Saudi Threat - exPat   1/10/2004 4:59:58 PM
I'm an equal opportunity of bashing the rich and powerful. While I am sure the Clinton admin kow-towed just as much as the Bush admin to Saudi interests. It appears the intimate relations between the House of Saud and the House of Bush run much deeper over a longer span of time. I would like to know what those 20 plus pages about 9/11 had to say about the Sauds. Along with Cheney's energy meetings.....well in the absence of openess one can only think the worse. Don't get me painted as some democrat whiner - I was appalled at Clinton's definition of sex and lying to the American public too. But a dalliance with an intern is not the same as dalliances between big corporate interests, House of Saud interests, and the White House. On that we may not agree on - but at least you can smell out a rat in regards to the Sauds, that's a start.
 
Quote    Reply

Ex-pat2    RE:excuse me but did anybody here   1/10/2004 5:13:41 PM
And here is the crux of my disagreement with the Bush cheerleading squad regarding Iraq. Without the WMD "imminent threat" scenario used for invading Iraq, I believe the link to Al Queda, and House of Saud funding could have been a better sell to Americans for invading Saudi Arabia in the aftermath of 9/11. We could have still kept the timetable for going into Iraq. We would have Saudi oil to pay for the whole shooting match. And if ever the strategy was drawing out all the jihadists like "moths to a light" the eastern Province would have been a better "killing ground" to do it than the streets of Mosul/Baghdad/Tikrit. Let the Wahhabies keep Riyadh/Mecca/Medina. Their funding life-support from Saudi oil revenues would be cut off 100%. They would just melt back into a bedouin life. Send in enough tankers to double-up our strategic oil reserves. Many more plusses than going after Saddam first and leaving the back-stabbing Sauds....at our backs. I may not even begrudge Halliburton from gouging out huge profits from the Saudi oil fields, at least it woudln't be from the taxpayer coffers.
 
Quote    Reply

Final Historian    RE:excuse me but did anybody here   1/10/2004 6:05:15 PM
Unfortunately, I don't see a reasonable situation in which the US could have done anything serious with the House of Saud. As bad as Iraq was, messing with Saudi Arabia would have been 10, one hundred times worse in terms of Arab and Muslim response.
 
Quote    Reply

Ex-pat2    RE:excuse me but did anybody here   1/10/2004 8:33:33 PM
I have to disagree. Given the geography, defending the Eastern Province from all-comers, would have been much, much, easier than the city-street operations on-going in Iraq. Hell, there might have actually been better cooperation from the native population in the Eastern Province, given their long history with Aramco and the large Shiite population. Make a deal with the historical tribal leaders of the region and they would gladly take the House of Saud place under the protective wing of the U.S. And the pay-off would be worth the risk of alienating the Arab/Muslim world - as if a long-standing occupation of Iraq might not do this anyway. Making the Eastern province a base of operations in the Mid-East offers much more than Iraq ever could. Getting Saddam in Iraq was significant. But the pit of vipers in Saudi Arabia continues to breed more every day. But mainly, I always thought that the perpetrators of 9/11 were more of a threat than Saddam. There wasn't anything "imminent" about Al Queda - they already drew blood. I'll even grant the Bush cheerleaders a concession about going after Saddam first - not recognizing the need to follow the trail of 9/11 to it's source is a big mistake. It would also be a mistake to think that the demise of Saddam (who as a secular dictator was not exactly in-line with the aims of Islamic jihadists anyway)will diminish the threat of all those other deadly vipers, mostly hiding in Saudi Arabia. Eventually we will have to go turn over every rock in Saudi Arabia to find them. You may trust the House of Saud to do a good enough job - I don't.
 
Quote    Reply

Vulture    Expat u miss Final's point   1/10/2004 8:45:48 PM
Final Historian correctly points out the risk of Islamic response as in large scale Jihad vs the US. Just invading Saudi Arabia would invite , we would not have to even touch Mecca,Medina etc. That is why one plan is too get the Saudis to call on the US to help put down an uprising. Then we just don't leave till we are satsified the terrorist infrastructure is eradicated ;)
 
Quote    Reply

Ex-pat2    RE:Expat u miss Final's point   1/10/2004 8:56:41 PM
Now you are going a bit far - I may concede that attacking Saudi Arabia would stir up a hornets nest that deposing of Saddam wouldn't. But do you seriously think that most Americans would offer up their sons and daugthers to put down an insurrection for the House of Saud? I wonder what the contract payments for Halliburton would be in that scenario?
 
Quote    Reply

Final Historian    RE:Expat u miss Final's point   1/10/2004 9:15:06 PM
Ex-Pat, I think you fail to realize just how dangerous an attack on Saudi Arabia would be. Thousands came after the US in Iraq. That number would be tens, hundreds of thousands for Saudi Arabia. And the economic damage from the disruption in oil flow would have been horrendous. I happen to think we might do it some time in the future, mind you, but that would be 2005 or so. When we have built up the Strategic Oil Reserve and hopefully Iraq is more secure. Indeed, one could argue that by taking out Iraq we have secured our north flank for an eventual move into SA. Perhaps I am being too optimistic and not cynical enough. Time will tell.
 
Quote    Reply

Ex-pat2    RE:Expat u miss Final's point   1/11/2004 3:45:40 PM
And again FH you fail to grasp the strategic - and tactical - advantage of holding on to an underpopulated coast with uncontested Naval/Air support - rather than an interior highly populated areas that seriously negates those advantages. And we would have the oil revenues to pay for the best idea Bush has had - future manned space travel. Rather than that oil revenue still being funneled into Al Queda coffers. If I raq does pay off as well as you hope - I will cheer along with all the cheerleaders on this forum. I'm not against the war on terror - I am a very strong proponent for it. I just think your analogy of the "risks" in Saudi Arabia is as exaggerated as the "imminent theat" of Iraq's WMD. Oh yeah, those 30 odd artillery shells burried for 10 years may be the closest proof yet of imminent threat. Had to be one hell of a howitzer to threaton more than untrained Iranian kids conscripted in their war on Saddam.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics