Powell: Iraq Evidence May Have Been Wrong - Page 8 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-16-2004, 04:13 AM   #106
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:17 PM
Iraq is dragging Al Qaeda resources in there to ensure it fails because Al Qaeda and the much larger threat of Islamic Terrorism cannot operate in a world where they lack support and state sponsers. By removing Saddam we have liberated the Iraqi people, that no matter how hard you try to argue otherwise is a truly great thing, and we have the oppertunity to shut down the very machinery that drives Islamist terrorism - that is the lack of freedom and democracy in the Middle East (Exept For Israel, but of course Muslim World is a racist - even though it is a religion and not a race - proposition) that would certainly be an asset in the long term fight against Islamist terrorism.

We have removed the persistent (key word, Saddam has been a problem for the international community for over a decade and his ongoing existence threatened ME Stability) threat from the Baathist Regime in Iraq. There is now absolutely no chance of Saddam rebuilding his stockpiles of Chemical and Biological weapons, we know he had the capacity to rebuild and the intention so it would only have been a matter of time until he reconstituted it without the eye of the UN watching him. We have also removed the threat of an Iranian invasion of Iraq if Saddam was eliminated in a Coup and the government collapsed, by removing him on our own terms it has prevented the chance of a much greater humanitarian and political disaster and that is a good thing.

Now in regards to my constant reference to why the War on Terror is entwined to war in Iraq. The Middle East has been fucked by the world ever since the end of colonial times, by carving up the Ottoman Empire into fake countries it was only under nationalist dictators like Nassr that the Arabs were able to achieve anything, they recieved consistent backing from the Soviet Union and all that wound up doing was providing the authoritarian regimes with the tools to attack Israel and reinforce their power base with force. After failing to obbliterate Israel these dictatorships only cling to power via ammounts of aid paid to them in exchange of cooperation, this has encouraged the Islamist movement which seeks to topple their own corrupt and unstable secular governments and put in place a Wahhabist superstate extending from West Africa all the way to Pakistan. This Ideology is unchallenged in the Islamic world because their view of secularism is that of quasi-socialist stalinist dictatorships, the only option apart from the status quo is an Islamist revolution. Now by invading Iraq and setting in place a liberal democracy it gives the Islamic world a competing ideology, one that is more peaceful and compatible with the rest of the civilized world (yes I consider the Taliban and Saudi Arabia to be uncivilized). If you can demolish Islamism as a legitimate alternative for the people of the Middle East then there will be a substantial drop in support for terrorism and eventually they will simply die off as the Islamic world moves into the 21st century and modernises. Iraq is key because it is introducting the catalysts for change and that is why winning in Iraq will be "knockout blow" against Islamism.

We cannot win this war by fighting against just Osama Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda network. They are simply one cog in the machine of death of international terrorism, to truly defeat them you have to eliminate the state sponsers as well as win the hearts and minds of the people and to do that you have to be decisive and daring, the policies of pragmatism from the Cold War do not apply when dealing with a problem of this magnitude, taking action and directing resources where neccisary is what you have to do to end the global threat in a feesible ammount of time (This would take around 50 years to work in full, you cannot transform a region and ideology that backwards overnight).

Was this war neccissary, now that depends on how exactly you view it. If you view the War in Iraq as an example of oil imperialism that will only strive to achieve hegemony in the ME without fixing the underlying problems that lead to terrorism then you will see it as pointless. If you see the War in Iraq as one of liberation and the removal of a persistent source of instability in the region that may help bring the liberal democratic tradition to somewhere that has only produced violence and hatred for a century then you may subsribe to the "Neoconservative" (Funny thing is that there is nothing conservative about it, it dervives more from Classical Liberalism and Interventionism than modern conservatism) school of thought that this war is a good thing for the people of Iraq and the war on terror broadly.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-16-2004, 05:09 AM   #107
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,237
Local Time: 12:17 AM
Whether what will proceed out of Iraq will be a liberal democratic tradition remains to be seen. Right now much of the power still resides with the US, regardless of the "handover" of power. There are still the different factions within Iraq who have yet to come to terms with one another, and simple democracy is unlikely to fix that problem.

As far as state sponsors of terrorism, Iraq was, at best, a very minor player in the middle east. It has already been well documented that there were no significant ties between Saddam's regime and the Al Qaeda network of terrorists.

And if we are to really go after state sponsorship of terrorism, then we must, as uncomfortable as it may be to the Bush administration and certain US corporations, set our sights squarely on Saudi Arabia (and then Pakistan), who has been arguably the biggest source of funding for terrorism in the middle east for years. There are obviously some uncomfortable facts that have remained hidden - the 20 odd classified pages regarding Saudi Arabia in the recent 9/11 commission's reports, for one. Saudi Arabia is far more guilty of harboring and funding terrorism than Iraq ever was, and is just as guilty of crimes against it's people as Saddam was, and yet they are our allies?

This is why I view the war on terror as partially a sham. We simply cannot truthfully seek out to root out and destroy terror while allowing one of the principal funders and harborers of terrorists into our homes as we do with the Saudi's. But to remove ties with them would undoubtedly create a very negative impact on our economy which the Saudi's have invested a very large amount in. And I have little faith that those in power will wean themselves off the teat of money long enough to see the strange bedfellows they've created and try to rectify the problem.
__________________

__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 07-16-2004, 07:38 AM   #108
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:17 PM
And I agree with you there, until we can honesty go out of our way and remove Saudi Arabia and Iran from the picture success in the war on terror is impossible, the solution is to engineer change in those countries from within. Pakistan is a different case, it is really dangerous if we apply too much pressure - having the Islamists sieze control there and possess nuclear weapons is a much larger threat than Iraq ever was because there we know that the weapons exist and that a faction is willing to use them.

The best option for Pakistan is to get India involved and mutually disarm, guarantee's of security in the subcontinent is the only way that that risk can be eliminated.

Crimes against the people however I will say that in barbarity Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Syria - well basically any Arab country they are all on par but in terms of crimes Saddam tops Saudi Arabia, intitiating two wars, the Anfal campaign against the Kurds, the supression of the uprising by the Shiites (blood is on the US's hands here, giving the regime the right to use attack choppers and telling the people to rise up, one major reason that trust for the Americans by the Shiites is less than otherwise), brutality against political prisoners (here he is on par with every other regime) and support of terrorism (Since 1991 he has done less but Saddam did promise to bring terrorism to the US and a little bit later the trade center bombing occured with some very interesting connections to Iraq by the key players).

I am optimistic that if the current appointed Iraqi Government that has the blessing of the UN is successful and elections get done then a lot can be accomplished, overall progression in the country has been forward and not backward, the economy is being built out of the ashes of the wreck left by Saddam, schools and hospitals are being build and funded and eventually the country can become a leader in the region (I reckon at least 20 years to become a truly independent sovereign nation that isn't reliant on foreign support). It is a massive task to build Iraq because unlike Japan or Germany it lacks the industrial base and skills they had in their postwar situations. The Iraqi's who were well educated in the 50's and 60's and are running the infrastructure are often exiles, hard to come by expertise in a country so devestated by war and dictatorship.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-17-2004, 05:25 PM   #109
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:17 AM
Diemen,

To answer your question about Saddam and a terrorist attack launched directly at the United States, Saddam did try to kill George Bush Sr. when he was in Kuwait 10 years ago. Thats a fact. It is also a fact according to Russia, that Iraq was planning terrorist actions against the United States. That information just became public last week.

I think its important for you to understand the context in which Colin Powell made that statement, otherwise you miss the point. He is talking about Sanctions and the embargo and the NEED to continue them because of their success in hindering Saddam's ability to make new WMD from materials outside the country.


In March 1991 when the Gulf War Ceacefire agreement was written and signed, the United Nations determined that Saddam and his possession of WMD were an un-avoidable threat to the international community that they decided that SADDAM had to disarm of all WMD or face re-newed military action to insure that Saddam was completely disarmed.

Why did they think this? Saddam had invaded and attacked four different countries unprovoked in the previous 10 years, threatening the worlds energy supply and global economy, and the process used WMD more times than any leader in history and murdered over 1.7 million people.

Can you name another dictator in the world that has invaded 4 different countries in the past 20 years, murded 1.7 million people, used WMD more times than any leader in history, most of all, threatened the planets energy supply and global economy with mass disruption that could lead to a global economic depression worst than the great depression?

The United Nations approved a number of resolutions and a ceacefire agreement requiring Saddam to verifiably disarm in 1991 because Saddam was a huge threat to the world as demonstrated by his past behavior and continueing capabilities. The United Nations would NEVER have approved of the use of force to disarm Saddam if he was NOT a threat as you claim. They would not have passed the resolutions under CHAPTER VII rules of the United Nations that allow for enforcement with the use of military force if SADDAM was not a threat as you claim.

Saddam initially cooperated with the UN inspectors back in 1991, but then began a policy of cheat and retreat, in which he would cooperate a little in order to cover for things he was hiding. He was caught time and again, until his resistence in 1997/1998 became so intense that inspections were almost useless. Then at the end of 1998 UN inspectors were kicked out and Bill Clinton launched the largest US bombing campaign in 7 years against Iraq. In 1999 and 2000, the Clinton administration did not follow up these efforts but made it the policy of the United States to change the regime in Iraq.

The Bush administration entered office in 2001 with a determination to resolve the issue with Saddam keeping in mind as the Clinton administration and the UN knew, that a full scale military invasion may ultimately be the only way to end the threat. Bush succeeded in getting inspectors back in Iraq, but Saddam refused to account for the massive stocks of WMD that he had back in 1998 when UN inspectors were kicked out. After 12 years of attempting every means of disarming Iraq with out the use of military force, the United States and other member states of the UN invaded Iraq and removed the regime because of its unwillingness to give up the WMD that it was required to give up per the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement. This is the culmination of 12 long years of hard work to insure that Saddam would never be able to threaten the international community in the way that he did previously.

The war was absolutely necessary because of the threat Saddam posed to the planets energy supply, global economy, and people. If you don't understand that, look at what Saddam did in invading and attacking 4 different countries in the region, the murder of 1.7 million people, the use of WMD more times than any dictator in history, and the threat he posed being so close in proximity to most of the planets energy supply.


I included the findings of new foreign Anti-Aircraft missiles and Anti-Tank missiles found by my friends in Iraq, to show that the embargo and Sanctions were actually not perfect and were quickly eroding.


The United States has multiple threats around the world and I find it absurd this idea that there is only ONE war that one can fight. Thats like saying that the USA should have waited to defeat Japan before getting involved with Germany in World War II, simply absurd.

Another absurd thing is this idea that the war in Iraq was a diversion from the war on terrorism. Here are some cold hard facts for those that think this: Most US forces in Iraq, primarily Armored and Mechanized Divisions, are not used to hunt terrorist in the mountains of Afghanistan. These divisions and units in Iraq have hundreds of heavy tanks and other vehicles and would not be used in the mountainous regions of Afghanistan or chasing terrorist across borders in Europe or elsewhere.

The war in Iraq was necessary independent of any thing to do with Al Quada because it was the only way to resolve the issue of insuring that Saddam was disarmed fully. This is something that had to be done regardless of 9/11 or Al Quada. The process had been moving along with problems, but still moving until Saddam stopped all cooperation in 1998. Sanctions and the embargo were crumbling as I said before, and Saddam still had large stocks of WMD that he had not accounted for. It would have been irresponsible not to have used military force to remove Saddam in light of these facts.



"I'm getting extremely tired of this 'Saddam is in a cell, this a good thing' attitude. Of course a dictator facing his crimes is a good thing, but there are countless more people who are far more deserving of being in a cell than Saddam, whom we either ignore completely or call our allies."

Please name one person(besides Bin Ladin) who is equally or more deserving of being in a cell than Saddam.

Remember that Saddam has invaded and attacked unprovoked four different countries in the past 20 years, used WMD more times than any leader in history, used a greater percentage of his resources than any other leader in history producing WMD, murdered over 1.7 million people, threatened the planets energy supply and global economy in a way that could cause a massive global depression.

So please, tell me who this person or persons that are more deserving in being in a cell than Saddam and please explain why in comparison to what Saddam has done and was capable of doing.




"We didn't need to invade Iraq. Saddam had no viable ties to 9/11 or Al Qaeda. His WMD capabilities were grossly exaggerated, as has already been admitted by the administration. Much of the evidence presented for going to the war has been proven either false or exaggerated. Stop defending it as if it was the only logical choice to make at that juncture."


The war in Iraq was necessary for international security even if 9/11 did not happen and Al Quada did not exist. Its a fact that Saddam had thousands of liters of Anthrax, hundreds of pounds of mustard gas, over 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells and NEVER handed them over or showed where they were dismantled if that is in fact what happened. Even when destroyed, this stuff does not disappear into thin air, and if Saddam destroyed this stuff, he could have shown the international community the remains to back up his claim that he in fact did destroy them. He was required to do so anyways under the terms of the Gulf War Ceacefire. THESE FACTS are not an exageration or false. They are the facts as presented by the United Nations Weapons inspectors.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-17-2004, 05:43 PM   #110
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 07:17 AM
And the same United Weapons inspectors ask for 6 more weeks. it seems that those inspectors are only usefull when you can use them for you story.
__________________
Rono is offline  
Old 07-17-2004, 05:50 PM   #111
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen
Whether what will proceed out of Iraq will be a liberal democratic tradition remains to be seen. Right now much of the power still resides with the US, regardless of the "handover" of power. There are still the different factions within Iraq who have yet to come to terms with one another, and simple democracy is unlikely to fix that problem.

As far as state sponsors of terrorism, Iraq was, at best, a very minor player in the middle east. It has already been well documented that there were no significant ties between Saddam's regime and the Al Qaeda network of terrorists.

And if we are to really go after state sponsorship of terrorism, then we must, as uncomfortable as it may be to the Bush administration and certain US corporations, set our sights squarely on Saudi Arabia (and then Pakistan), who has been arguably the biggest source of funding for terrorism in the middle east for years. There are obviously some uncomfortable facts that have remained hidden - the 20 odd classified pages regarding Saudi Arabia in the recent 9/11 commission's reports, for one. Saudi Arabia is far more guilty of harboring and funding terrorism than Iraq ever was, and is just as guilty of crimes against it's people as Saddam was, and yet they are our allies?

This is why I view the war on terror as partially a sham. We simply cannot truthfully seek out to root out and destroy terror while allowing one of the principal funders and harborers of terrorists into our homes as we do with the Saudi's. But to remove ties with them would undoubtedly create a very negative impact on our economy which the Saudi's have invested a very large amount in. And I have little faith that those in power will wean themselves off the teat of money long enough to see the strange bedfellows they've created and try to rectify the problem.
There are certainly individuals and groups in Saudi Arabia that support Terrorism, but that is not the policy of the Saudi Government. Saudi Arabia has massive amounts of money invested in the United States and and the United States is one of the largest buyers of Saudi oil. Terrorism against the United States does not serve the Saudi Government in any way and is essentionally an attack on oneself do to the interdependent nature of the two countries.

Osuma Bin Ladin may be from Saudi Arabia, but he is not nor has he ever been a member of the Saudi Government. Bin Ladin hand picked the hijackers for 9/11 and loaded it with people from Saudi Arabia because he was hoping to drive a wedge between the two countries. Bin Ladin wants people to believe that Saudi Arabia is America's greatest enemy and he appears to have duped millions of people into believing this.

Saudi Arabia and the United States have had a very long and tight relationship. This strong and tight relationship was started by Roosevelt in the 1930s, not the Bush family as MOORE and ultra-liberals believe or would like to believe. Saudi Oil has been a massive benefit to the global economy for decades, reducing the cost of energy which improves the economy and makes the development of a strong, stable prosperous world, more likely and has contributed to just about everything people do in their lives in an industrial society. When you pay less for energy, you have more resources to do an in-numerable amount of things. In addition, Saudi Arabia was an excellant ally in the Cold War.

The governments of Iran and Syria are deserving of mass scrutiny and possible action for their support of terrorism. Regardless of one some individuals and groups in Saudi Arabia have done, Iran and Syria make them seem like angels.

Saudi Arabia definitely has a lot of problems, but its not the boogy man that liberals make it out to be. Having strong ties with Saudi Arabia is very important. Yes, Saudi Arabia has a non-democratic repressive regime, but that can change with time, and the government has worked very hard for US and global interest over the past 60 years.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-17-2004, 05:53 PM   #112
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Rono
And the same United Weapons inspectors ask for 6 more weeks. it seems that those inspectors are only usefull when you can use them for you story.
The inspectors I was refering to were kicked out of Iraq in 1998. Hans Blix and his team led a different group and were unable to accomplish almost anything because Saddam was not cooperating. Peaceful inspections to disarm a dictator only work when the dictator cooperates.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-17-2004, 06:53 PM   #113
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,290
Local Time: 01:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
There are certainly individuals and groups in Saudi Arabia that support Terrorism, but that is not the policy of the Saudi Government.
There is no way you can state that with any sort of certainty. How do you know what individuals or groups within the government and the ruling family support on the side all while smiling for the cameras?

At best, the Saudi Government has been complicit in terrorism, and has refused to properly crack down on the Wahhabist Islamist terrorists that are constantly bandied about on this forum.

At worst, the terrorists are quietly sponsored by the state, while the House of Saud talks out of both sides of their mouth.

Either way, I wouldn't trust them as far as I can spit.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 07-18-2004, 01:35 AM   #114
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


There is no way you can state that with any sort of certainty. How do you know what individuals or groups within the government and the ruling family support on the side all while smiling for the cameras?

At best, the Saudi Government has been complicit in terrorism, and has refused to properly crack down on the Wahhabist Islamist terrorists that are constantly bandied about on this forum.

At worst, the terrorists are quietly sponsored by the state, while the House of Saud talks out of both sides of their mouth.

Either way, I wouldn't trust them as far as I can spit.
Why would the Saudi Arabian Government want to suddenly harm their largest source of revenue? How does terrorism in any way benefit a government that is so closely intertwined with the United States. Money, not religion, drives the House of Saud. The terrorist don't have money and simply do damage and harm to the Saudi governments largest source of revenue.

There probably are some individuals in the government who do support terrorism against the USA, but the government as a whole clearly does not for the obvious reason that doing so would be the same as cutting ones arm off.

The United States and Western Europe have a long and strong relationship with Saudi Arabia, and it is unlikely that Al Quada or anyone else is going to be able to stop that, because the ties that bind that relationship are simply to strong.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-18-2004, 08:04 AM   #115
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 01:17 AM
There is most definitely a STATED policy of the Saudi Government. That does not mean the individuals in the government follow what the "Wink, Wink" stated position is. Turning the other way and supporting and allowing a form of Islam to breed hate towards other nations is a prime example.

Nice posts Anitram.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 07-18-2004, 03:25 PM   #116
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,237
Local Time: 12:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Saudi Arabia definitely has a lot of problems, but its not the boogy man that liberals make it out to be.
One could easily replace 2 words in that statement and come up with an equally applicable statement:

Quote:
Iraq definitely has a lot of problems, but its not the boogy man that conservatives make it out to be.
And of course it's not official Saudi policy to support terrorists, since they're tied so tightly to the US it wouldn't make sense to make it official. However, that hasn't stopped them from harboring known terrorists and funding terrorist organizations. There are links to both the Bin Laden family and the royal family on these issues, too.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 07-18-2004, 03:33 PM   #117
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,237
Local Time: 12:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Saddam had invaded and attacked four different countries unprovoked in the previous 10 years, threatening the worlds energy supply and global economy, and the process used WMD more times than any leader in history and murdered over 1.7 million people.
And he invaded one of those countries with the support of the US government, despite having already used WMDs, and I believe our statement at the time of his first attack against his own Kurdish people was along the lines of "what he does to his own people is his own business," so we weren't exactly taking a stand against tyranny there, either.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 07-18-2004, 05:23 PM   #118
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen


And he invaded one of those countries with the support of the US government, despite having already used WMDs, and I believe our statement at the time of his first attack against his own Kurdish people was along the lines of "what he does to his own people is his own business," so we weren't exactly taking a stand against tyranny there, either.
Thats actually incorrect. The United States did not support the invasion of Iran by Iraq as it nearly led to Iraq being overrun by Iran which presented the unhealthy situation of Iran being in a position to overrun both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Certainly the United States was heavily concerned about Iran since the fall of the Shah, but there was no desire to see such a fullish and reckless action by Iraq that would later threaten Iraq and the Persian Gulf being overrun by Iranian forces. Had Iraq not invaded Iran, that would never have been a problem. Iraq invaded Iran in 1980, but talks and changes in US policy toward Iraq did not start and change until 1982.

In the mid 1980s, Iraq was struggling to survive and prevent Iran from winning the war. As terrible and brutal what Saddam did to the Kurds was, it would have been unwise to put Iraq in a worse situation and have it lose the war to Iran. The cost of that happening would have been far greater for the people of the region and the world, than what actually transpired. Its not the first time the United States has had to look the other way, when a dictator repressed his own people. Stalin did far worse when he was an Ally of the United States in World War II.

Lets also remember that the United States wanted to avoid having to send large numbers of troops to the Middle East during the Cold War because the vast majority of US military power was tied up in detering and if need be fighting a full scale war in Europe against a potential Soviet led Warsaw Pact invasion of Western Europe.


As far as Iraq's threat to the world goes, can you name another country that has the track record that Saddam's Iraq had over the past 20 years? Bill Clinton and many Democrats took Iraq very seriously, and most foreign policy experts through out the 1990s believed that the country the United States was most likely to go to war with was Saddam's Iraq. So no, the two statements are not applicable at all.

Answer me this, Why would the Saudi Arabian Government support terrorism against the USA, in private or not? Why would the Saudi Arabian Government support hurting its largest interest and investment?

If anything, Saudi Arabia is probably closer to the United States in ways that most of us do not know. Its just been revealed that Saudi Arabia played a much larger role in the invasion and overthrow of Saddam's regime that was known at the time of the invasion.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-18-2004, 05:48 PM   #119
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,290
Local Time: 01:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Why would the Saudi Arabian Government support hurting its largest interest and investment?
This is one way of looking at it.

We should also ask why it is that Saudi Arabia is strategically investing their money in the US and subsequently flexing its muscle all the while oppressing and murdering its own citizens at home. It really does put them at an advantageous point to have multiple investments in the US totalling billions of dollars.

You constantly argued that France and Russia were protecting their investments in Iraq. Well, you can then argue that the Americans are also protecting foreign investments by turning a blind eye to arguably the most corrupt and vile regime in the Middle East.

There are few nations in the world more oppressive to women than Saudi Arabia. There are public beheadings there on a consistent and regular basis. We have a thread for crimes of the terrorist when the crimes of the Saudi government are just as appalling except in vastly greater number and scope. But nobody cares about this brutality so long as we have the money flowing. It is nothing short of despicable.
__________________

__________________
anitram is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com