• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why attack Iraq before we attack Saudi Arabia and Pakistan

dahunan

dahunan

Lifer
This topic may have been beaten to death already, but I missed it - so ??

I am still curious why nobody seems to support attacking Saudi Arabia and then Pakistan or vice versa???

We know that 15 of 19 WTC terrorists were Saudi Citizens
We know that Saudi Arabia breeds the most radical forms of Islam
We know that Saudi Billionaires fund terrorism
We know that Saudi Arabia funds Palestinian Murderers and even has state media sponsored telethons for them
We know that Saudi businesses have chosen to support Bin LAden by pulling tons of their money out of the US Stock Market.
We know that Saudi Arabia has chosen to promote a boycott on American made goods
We know that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are the most INTOLERANT AND HATEFUL COUNTRIES ON THE PLANET

We know that half of Pakistan is run by Taliban sympathizers who CROSSED THE BORDER TO FIGHT AGAINST AMERICA WHEN WE WENT TO AFGHANISTAN
We know that Pakistan breeds the most radical brand of Islam


But Saddam MIGHT be causing us a problem in the future so we better take care of him before the elections. WHILE WE IGNORE SAUDI ARABIA AND PAKISTAN

 
You make good points. Unfortunately Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are US "allies". So they can do pretty much whatever they want and the US will turn a blind eye towards them. Wrong you say? Definitely but thats US foreign policy for you.
 
uh first of all, what YOU know doesn't hold a candle to what the US govt and military knows about the current situation.

I defer to the experts who know how to fight a war. They may not be perfect, but I'll bet they're better at military strategy than some random ATOT geek.

Second, Saudi Arabia has not shown to be aggressive militarily as of yet, whereas Saddam tried to take over the region by starting with kuwait. If he is developing WMD he poses a great threat, since he's shown to be hostile already.
 
Because Iraq makes a good target.

Btw ElementR, I'm sure you know that Pakistan has both nuclear weapons and the missiles needed to deliver them (not far from the border, but still..)
 
Originally posted by: element®
, whereas Saddam tried to take over the region by starting with kuwait. If he is developing WMD he poses a great threat, since he's shown to be hostile already.
Click to expand...

We told him that it would not involve us if he attacked Kuwait.

Multiple Billions of dollars feeding religious terrorists has so far shown to be worse than anything Saddam ever attempted to do to America (speaking of Saudi Arabia)

And, uh, I do not trust the intentions of US Govt. / Military when Bush sits back and has a Country Style Barbecue with the Saudi Leaders at his ranch and **during the days after 9/11 when no air traffice was allowed there were still planes in the sky <<those planes were picking up members of the Saudi Royal Family and escorting them back to Saudi Arabia.

 
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
Because Iraq makes a good target.

Btw ElementR, I'm sure you know that Pakistan has both nuclear weapons and the missiles needed to deliver them (not far from the border, but still..)
Click to expand...

A little late to deal with their WMD program now isn't it? Makes you wonder what would have happened if we discovered Pakistan's WMD program earlier? Did we have cause to do anything about it then? I don't think we would have invaded "The Pakis" do you? (heh a Bushism)

In the case of Iraq we have the cause to do something about it before he develops those weapons.
 
Originally posted by: dahunan
This topic may have been beaten to death already, but I missed it - so ??

I am still curious why nobody seems to support attacking Saudi Arabia and then Pakistan or vice versa???

We know that 15 of 19 WTC terrorists were Saudi Citizens
We know that Saudi Arabia breeds the most radical forms of Islam
We know that Saudi Billionaires fund terrorism
We know that Saudi Arabia funds Palestinian Murderers and even has state media sponsored telethons for them
We know that Saudi businesses have chosen to support Bin LAden by pulling tons of their money out of the US Stock Market.
We know that Saudi Arabia has chosen to promote a boycott on American made goods
We know that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are the most INTOLERANT AND HATEFUL COUNTRIES ON THE PLANET

We know that half of Pakistan is run by Taliban sympathizers who CROSSED THE BORDER TO FIGHT AGAINST AMERICA WHEN WE WENT TO AFGHANISTAN
We know that Pakistan breeds the most radical brand of Islam


But Saddam MIGHT be causing us a problem in the future so we better take care of him before the elections. WHILE WE IGNORE SAUDI ARABIA AND PAKISTAN
Click to expand...

Could you provide credible links to all of those accusations. I curious to see what role the Saudi goverment plays in all of that.

 
saudi arabia is effectivly masked in their actions by the fact that they supply oil. yet, theyre a breeding ground for terrorism. its idiocy.
 
Originally posted by: element®
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
Because Iraq makes a good target.

Btw ElementR, I'm sure you know that Pakistan has both nuclear weapons and the missiles needed to deliver them (not far from the border, but still..)
Click to expand...

A little late to deal with their WMD program now isn't it? Makes you wonder what would have happened if we discovered Pakistan's WMD program earlier? Did we have cause to do anything about it then? I don't think we would have invaded "The Pakis" do you? (heh a Bushism)

In the case of Iraq we have the cause to do something about it before he develops those weapons.
Click to expand...


Tell me, do you think the US should have the right to attack any country that tries the develop WMD, or just Iraq?
 
Originally posted by: DaveSohmer
Originally posted by: dahunan
This topic may have been beaten to death already, but I missed it - so ??

I am still curious why nobody seems to support attacking Saudi Arabia and then Pakistan or vice versa???

We know that 15 of 19 WTC terrorists were Saudi Citizens
We know that Saudi Arabia breeds the most radical forms of Islam
We know that Saudi Billionaires fund terrorism
We know that Saudi Arabia funds Palestinian Murderers and even has state media sponsored telethons for them
We know that Saudi businesses have chosen to support Bin LAden by pulling tons of their money out of the US Stock Market.
We know that Saudi Arabia has chosen to promote a boycott on American made goods
We know that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are the most INTOLERANT AND HATEFUL COUNTRIES ON THE PLANET

We know that half of Pakistan is run by Taliban sympathizers who CROSSED THE BORDER TO FIGHT AGAINST AMERICA WHEN WE WENT TO AFGHANISTAN
We know that Pakistan breeds the most radical brand of Islam


But Saddam MIGHT be causing us a problem in the future so we better take care of him before the elections. WHILE WE IGNORE SAUDI ARABIA AND PAKISTAN
Click to expand...

Could you provide credible links to all of those accusations. I curious to see what role the Saudi goverment plays in all of that.
Click to expand...





I will when I get time - So, are you curious or do you not believe any of the statements I made?
I do not have time to use detailed answers right now - but here are some simple Google Searches

PBS Frontline -- Terrorism in Saudi Arabia

Saudi boycott American goods

Saudi telethon for suicide bombers

Saudi Elite fund terrorism
 
Tell me, do you think the US should have the right to attack any country that tries the develop WMD, or just Iraq?
Click to expand...

In the case that they would use it to attack us or our allies yes. You could make the argument that killing is wrong and no one should ever be the aggressor in a war. That pre-emptive striking is the start of war and is a beligerent action. But then I would argue that it is not when the intention is to save lives and not take them.

For example if a gunman had a gun to your family's head during a robbery, you would be justified in taking his life to save that of yours and your family's. Even tho you are the first and only (in the case of killing him instantly) one to fire a shot.

edited only the spelling, and not the content
 
Originally posted by: element®
Tell me, do you think the US should have the right to attack any country that tries the develop WMD, or just Iraq?
Click to expand...

In the case that they would use it to attack the us or our allies yes. You could make the arguement that killing is wrong and no one should ever be the aggressor in a war. That pre-emptive striking is the start of war and is a beligerent action. But then I would argue that it is not when the intention is to save lives and not take them.

For example if a gunman had a gun to your family's head during a robbery, you would be justified in taking his life to save that of yours and your family's. Even tho you are the first and only (in the case of killing him instantly) one to fire a shot.
Click to expand...


But the gun to the head theory does not fit here.
Your gun to the head is a strike so yo would only be striking back.

Preemptive is just like "Minority Report" <<ever watch Minority Report?
 
The Saudi government does not support terrorism. There is no more credible evidence that it does than say, Iraq plans to attack the US.
 
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: element®
, whereas Saddam tried to take over the region by starting with kuwait. If he is developing WMD he poses a great threat, since he's shown to be hostile already.
Click to expand...

We told him that it would not involve us if he attacked Kuwait.
Click to expand...

no, we said we had no opinion of his border dispute with kuwait. we didn't say that we wouldn't do anything if he rolled in and took over the place.
 
Originally posted by: dahunan
This topic may have been beaten to death already, but I missed it - so ??

I am still curious why nobody seems to support attacking Saudi Arabia and then Pakistan or vice versa???

We know that 15 of 19 WTC terrorists were Saudi Citizens
We know that Saudi Arabia breeds the most radical forms of Islam
We know that Saudi Billionaires fund terrorism
We know that Saudi Arabia funds Palestinian Murderers and even has state media sponsored telethons for them
We know that Saudi businesses have chosen to support Bin LAden by pulling tons of their money out of the US Stock Market.
We know that Saudi Arabia has chosen to promote a boycott on American made goods
We know that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are the most INTOLERANT AND HATEFUL COUNTRIES ON THE PLANET

We know that half of Pakistan is run by Taliban sympathizers who CROSSED THE BORDER TO FIGHT AGAINST AMERICA WHEN WE WENT TO AFGHANISTAN
We know that Pakistan breeds the most radical brand of Islam


But Saddam MIGHT be causing us a problem in the future so we better take care of him before the elections. WHILE WE IGNORE SAUDI ARABIA AND PAKISTAN
Click to expand...

Your points are all well taken but we can't attack all these countries at once. I bet there is a 10 or 15 year plan to deal with all these countries. There was talk of Iran and Syria being next on the hit list but the White House didn't want to comment on it.

Pakistan is a tougher problem because of there relation with india and the fact they both have nukes. I think we support the dictator because we fear the Religious lunatics even more. Sometimes foriegn policy is the lesser of two evils.

 
But the gun to the head theory does not fit here.
Your gun to the head is a strike so yo would only be striking back.

Preemptive is just like "Minority Report" <<ever watch Minority Report?
Click to expand...


Ok how about someone who owns illegal firearms, and poses a threat? That is more like this situation, and the police using force to arrest that person would be justified IMHO.

More like Waco in this case, where a potential threat exists and must be dealt with.
 
We know that 15 of 19 WTC terrorists were Saudi Citizens
Click to expand...
We also know that one of the goals of Al Queda is the overthrow of the Saudi Royal family. So why should we attack SA?
now that Saudi Arabia breeds the most radical forms of Islam
Click to expand...
The Vatican breeds the most radical forms of Catholicism. What's your point?
We know that Saudi Billionaires fund terrorism.
Click to expand...
See my first answer.
We know that Saudi Arabia funds Palestinian Murderers and even has state media sponsored telethons for them.
Click to expand...
Arab hatred for Israel goes a lot further than SA. Shall we attack them all?
We know that Saudi businesses have chosen to support Bin LAden by pulling tons of their money out of the US Stock Market.
Click to expand...
So that's why they did it. It couldn't possibly be because our stock market is in the tank right. Germany, Switzerland and Great Britain better go on alert.
We know that Saudi Arabia has chosen to promote a boycott on American made goods
Click to expand...
SA has not promoted any boycott. The boycott you are talking about started well before 9/11 and it was in protest of our support for Israel.
We know that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are the most INTOLERANT AND HATEFUL COUNTRIES ON THE PLANET
Click to expand...
That's your opinion. Nothing more.

 
Why attack Iraq before we attack Saudi Arabia and Pakistan
Click to expand...
The real question is why attack any of those countries?

Pakistan has nukes so the Bush people most certainly put it at the back of their hit list. Besides they haven't attacked us.

Saudi Arabia is a "partner" with whom we have an "eternal friendship". They run prime-time TV commercials to remind us of this. The U.S. has a billion-dollar air base there and we buy their oil. Besides they haven't attacked us.

Now Iraq hasn't attacked us and doesn't threaten us yet it has been targetted for invasion for a variety of reasons. Individually no reason cited is justification for invasion but Bush's hope is the whole body of half-truths, unsubstantiated claims, historical misdeeds and general bad behavior is enough to convince people to conquer Iraq.

It's a grand puzzle of scheming, shifting alliances, power grabs, fighting, politics, etc. Makes for great fiction but unfortunately it's reality.
 
Originally posted by: JellyBaby
Why attack Iraq before we attack Saudi Arabia and Pakistan
Click to expand...
The real question is why attack any of those countries?

Pakistan has nukes so the Bush people most certainly put it at the back of their hit list. Besides they haven't attacked us.

Saudi Arabia is a "partner" with whom we have an "eternal friendship". They run prime-time TV commercials to remind us of this. The U.S. has a billion-dollar air base there and we buy their oil. Besides they haven't attacked us.

Now Iraq hasn't attacked us and doesn't threaten us yet it has been targetted for invasion for a variety of reasons. Individually no reason cited is justification for invasion but Bush's hope is the whole body of half-truths, unsubstantiated claims, historical misdeeds and general bad behavior is enough to convince people to conquer Iraq.

It's a grand puzzle of scheming, shifting alliances, power grabs, fighting, politics, etc. Makes for great fiction but unfortunately it's reality.
Click to expand...
actually its been reality for most of history...

 
B/c this has become political, there are agendas, and that means reason is out the window and it's just about partys selfishly trying to get their way.
 
Originally posted by: macmouse
41% of USA's oil comes from Saudi Arabia. Any questions?
Click to expand...

Yeah, where did you learn to do math. SA accounts for 15% of our imported crude oil. We import just as much from Venezuela and Canada and even more from Mexico.

Oil
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top