Serious question

[Gonz]

At least for one page, let's keep the fascist/communsist/klan argument out.

If the US were to settle Iraq & actuall mass on the Saudi border, talking invasion, would you actually support it? Why or why not?

We all know who I'm talking to directly, but the question is open to one & all.

 

[Jeslek]

With what goal in mind? The Saudis, while they don't treat their citizens exceptionally nicely, they are no Saddam Hussein. But they are a pain sometimes. I have no opinion on this matter yet. All I can tell you is that erm, walking those dunes in July is no fun.

 

[Squiggy]

Yes. We defined our mission and it begs to be fulfilled. But you only ask because you know damn well that it won't happen. It seems the Bush family and friends have business interests that conflict with us worrying about that mission anymore. I've surrendered rights to that mission. All Americans have. If we don't fulfill it we are NOT what all of you hold us up to be.

 

[Professur]

Not without a UN resolution.

 

[BigDadday]

I think I would also want to know with what goal was in the minds of those who made that decision before saying I stand behind my country as this is a very tricky question.BD

 

[Gonz]

I'm not convinced they aren't on our radar. I am convinced that it's preferable to settle many scores while we're "in town" & those have a high probability to settle matters in SA, without direct US intervention. In fact, many of teh scores we have to settle may work themselves out becasue of one or two direct interventions.

 

[Squiggy]

Not without a UN resolution.

We have hard evidence tracing the funding of 911 back to SA. We don't need the UN this time. It would be a counter strike not a first strike.

 

[Professur]

counterstrike was already used to go after Afganistan.

 

[Squiggy]

But Afganistan wasn't the only perpetrator. Call them a coallition if it makes you feel better.

 

[Gonz]

Since I've not seen/read it, was any of the money traced back to SA traced to the government, directly or was it traced to citizens with nothing better to do as I have seen?

 

[Professur]

But Afganistan wasn't the only perpetrator. Call them a coallition if it makes you feel better.

Oh, I see. So how many counterstrikes would you like? One for each building hit? One for each person killed? One for each person traumatized?

 

[Squiggy]

Just enough to bring the guilty to justice.

 

[Professur]

Well, that ain't gonna happen in this world.

 

[Gonz]

for those needing reason-retribution for 09/11 & regime/political change.

 

[Squiggy]

huh?

 

[Gonz]

answering Jeslek & BD

 

[chcr]

With what goal in mind? The Saudis, while they don't treat their citizens exceptionally nicely, they are no Saddam Hussein.

I'm not 100% convinced that's true. I don't know that it's not, however.

 

[outside looking in]

No, at least, not in the immediate future (next several months). I'm all for striking at SA if and when the correct time comes, but I don't believe that time is now. Standing toe to toe and slugging it out isn't always the most efficient or most successful method of fighting. Whether it is or isn't depends on the particulars, and in this case, I think there are tactically more efficient and more likely to succeed approaches.

And yes, I think slugging it out with Saddam was the correct decision in that case. It's not a "one tactic fits all" kind of obligation or retribution. SA has theirs coming, of that I'm sure.

 

[Jeslek]

A great way to start a war would be to dump some pig carcasses in Mecca.

 

[Ardsgaine]

It would depend on a few things:

1) We need a reason. If we have proof that the government was involved in 9/11, that's good enough for me. If it was certain citizens, then we should demand that those citizens be brought to justice and insist the the government cooperate. Regime change alone isn't a sufficient reason for an invasion, but it's good enough for supporting non-islamist opposition parties in the country.

2) We need to take care of our flanks. Syria and Iran are the first order of business. Both of them are active state sponsors of terrorism. Iran can probably be handled by supporting the opposition movement, which is rather large and spoiling to take over. Syria would be another one-month military exercise.

3) We have to keep in mind that Saudi Arabia is the Islamic Holy Land. Palestine and Jerusalem are of minor importance compared to Mecca and Medina. Mecca is synonymous with a place of pilgrimage even in our own language. The Muslims bow towards Mecca five times every day when they say their prayers. What's going to happen in the Muslim world if we start dropping bombs on Mecca? If we take the step of overthrowing the House of Saud, we had better be prepared for a general war in the middle east, unless we have properly positioned ourselves prior to that by forming alliances in key Muslim states that will stand up to such a war.