Query: Should we consider the Saudis allies in the War on Terror?
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=275697948158759
If not, what changes in our policies toward Saudi Arabia should we effect? What sort of leverage do we actually have in that bilateral relationship?
We can have a very similar discussion on Pakistan as well.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Query: Should we consider the Saudis allies in the War on Terror? [/quote]
One thing is for sure; you can count the Al-Sauds on your side for your War of Terror.
Saudis?
Foe.The (not really) comical part of it all,is all the strident rhetoric and condemnation of countries that give a straight forward portrayal of their relationship with the US,while letting the real enemies have the keys to the kingdom.
I cannot understand the logic.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Saudis?
Foe.The (not really) comical part of it all,is all the strident rhetoric and condemnation of countries that give a straight forward portrayal of their relationship with the US,while letting the real enemies have the keys to the kingdom.
I cannot understand the logic.[/quote]
Neither can I. Bin Laden would happily cut the throats of the house of Saud.
I’d say they are kind of like a gas station toilet. Repulsive for the most part but your best friend when you have explosive diarrhea and no where else to go.
But never forget,if you lie with dogs,you get fleas.
Too many cooks…
The latest meaning of the verb spinning has american roots, yes?
War on terror, pfft. That is spinning.
How to deal with Saudi Arabia, that is something real an american should be interested in.
I cannot help but wonder if there could not have been a Manhattan or Appollo project for the development of alternative fuel sources for the price of the war in Iraq.
I know that it would be a tad socialist, but so is war, and it would make this whole region insignificant.
[quote]orion wrote:
I cannot help but wonder if there could not have been a Manhattan or Appollo project for the development of alternative fuel sources for the price of the war in Iraq. [/quote]
What good is that to the oil lobby? Or AIPAC? Or the gun manufacturers?
Foe, definately. They’re shady as hell. 19 of 21 hijackers were saudi on 9/11. We didn’t ask Saudi Arabia to answer for it. Not in the least.
[quote]gatesoftanhauser wrote:
Foe, definately. They’re shady as hell. 19 of 21 hijackers were saudi on 9/11. We didn’t ask Saudi Arabia to answer for it. Not in the least.[/quote]
I wonder why?
Read the book… “Paramedic to the Prince” it is a great book written by an American Paramedic that was on the medical team of King Abdullah. gives you a great insight into Saudi Arabia and is a great read. Most of the foriegn fighters in Iraq now %25 are from Saudi. Not from Iran… Saudi Arabia is the heart of terrorism. It is just the Bush families close ties with the Al-Sauds that keep us from bombing that place.
Iraq had no terrorist until George invaded now they are flooding over the borders from Saudi Arabia… Believe it man. Read the book a five star read…
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Query: Should we consider the Saudis allies in the War on Terror?[/quote]
In the same way as the Columbian drug lords are your allies in the War on Drugs, yes.
[quote]lixy wrote:
One thing is for sure; you can count the Al-Sauds on your side for your War of Terror.[/quote]
Yup. George Bush did the Saudis and the Iranians a huge favor, when he knocked off Saddam.
The Saudis would be ecstatic to see Bush attack Iran next.
I’d say “foe”, but the problem is disentangling from them. The hard part is not wanting to sever the relationship on the basis that we’ve decided they aren’t real allies, the hard part is getting that done.
Our relationship with the nations of the Middle East has always been one of convenience - we shared a goal of preventing the Soviets from coming into the region.
Now is the time to make the Middle East irrelevant - but it will be a slow, surgical, and time-consuming process. Of course, with our Western ally Israel getting the stank-eye from every barbarian nation there, until the Middle Eastern nations grow up and join the rest of the world - chuckle - we will likely always have some involvement there.
But I can live with limited involvement - just not dependency and entanglement.
Good post TB. I have to agree.
But if we want to disentangle ourselves from the Middle East, why invade Iraq?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I’d say “foe”, but the problem is disentangling from them. The hard part is not wanting to sever the relationship on the basis that we’ve decided they aren’t real allies, the hard part is getting that done.
Our relationship with the nations of the Middle East has always been one of convenience - we shared a goal of preventing the Soviets from coming into the region.
Now is the time to make the Middle East irrelevant - but it will be a slow, surgical, and time-consuming process. Of course, with our Western ally Israel getting the stank-eye from every barbarian nation there, until the Middle Eastern nations grow up and join the rest of the world - chuckle - we will likely always have some involvement there.
[/quote]
And why is that any of our business? Our hallowed “ally” Israel, the same one that bombs our warship, steals our nuclear secrets and helps sell us on a disastrous war. They’re big boys, with nuclear weapons and the best and most well-equipped military in the region. Why don’t we let them worry about their security, and we worry about ours? Isn’t American foreign policy supposed to be about AMERICAN interests?