Gov't Report Indicts Saudi Royal Family

[Az]

does this really come as a surprise to people? I thought this was known for quite some time.

[GePap]

Day the US takes action vs Saudi Arabia= Day Hell freezes over.

You see, since money = freedom of speech, and companies have the right to speech, and since arms and oil companies get huge profits from dealings with SA, the free political speech of the Oil and Weapon's companies (and Saudis) will make sure that politicians see the correctness of taking a 'levelled, principled, intelliegent' approach towards Saudi Arabia.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Azazel
does this really come as a surprise to people? I thought this was known for quite some time.

Heck, I've been predicting action against Saudi for months, now.

It's one of the major unspoken reasons we needed to take Iraq.

[Pekka]

**** Saudi Arabia. This is really nothing new to us.. but I guess someone is finally picking it up more. I think it's good, we need to chase them down.

It's full of fundies, with money too, they torture western press guys (just saw a documentary, very interesting).. the royal family is just playing good guys, but the public hates them, and it's just a matter of time when they lose power.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Pekka
**** Saudi Arabia. This is really nothing new to us.. but I guess someone is finally picking it up more. I think it's good, we need to chase them down.

It's full of fundies, with money too, they torture western press guys (just saw a documentary, very interesting).. the royal family is just playing good guys, but the public hates them, and it's just a matter of time when they lose power.

Um, this IS new in terms of establishing a real link between the Saudi government and September 11th. Before, it was mere speculation and the thought it was wealthy Saudis acting independently. But if the government really was involved, this is going to put massive pressure on the Bush administration.

Take down Saudi Arabia? Not likely. First, our forces are already spread thin and have their hands full in Iraq and Afghanistan. Diverting the necessary military resources to "regime change" in SA will mean exposing us on all sorts of fronts, including North Korea. Second, the Muslim world sat by and tolerated Afghanistan, they bristled at but accepted Iraq, but SA would be a whole different story. It would be the straw that broke the camel's back, since the premonitions of American attempts at ME hegemony would be seen to be coming true.

[The Mad Monk]

As I've stated before, all we have to do to take down Saudi is...nothing.

By nothing, I mean no bases, no arms sales, no oil trade.

We're already moving the bases.

[GePap]

One of the "justifications" of this war was that by taking out Saddam Hussein, we would no longer need troops in SA, thus removing one of Al Qaeda's claims (US in Holyland). The likelyhood that we wil invade SA (and actually put US forces in the Holy Cities) lies somewhere between zip and cilch. Besides, whom would we put in charge? The Sau's are relaitve moderates in SA.

Then there are the economic implications: the second any tensions between the US and SA came to fore, oil jumps $10 a barrel..the longer they go, the higher that number. Whoops, so much third quarter eocnomic recovery...and perhaps Bush precidency. Oh, and wait, the Sauds are one of the biggest buyers of US weapons (which of course means they have better stuff than Iraq): so congressmna, your district has 3000 jobs with weapon's contractors, but if we loose the SA account, that's 2000 less jobs in your district....

Too much has been invested in the US-SA allience for it to simply die away as some people here fantasize.

[Boris Godunov]

It's the last two that are the kicker, for this administration. U.S. arms and oil companies have a vested interest in keeping SA as a client, and this administration is not one that is likely to change that.

[Pekka]

Boris, uh oh, the joke's on me. Yaeh, I read the posts wrong, that Saudi Arabia has been caught of having lots of terrorists and they won't do anything about it.
So yes, this is new as in if there are real evidence.

I say let's take them out. First of all, 'you're either with us, or against us' and they have clearly showed that they are against. Now, we have more reasons to invade Saudi Arabia than whole lots of other troubled countries. This is the real case here, and I think even sissie euros won't raise their voices so hard than in the case of Iraq.

Now, if we want to fight terrorism, and do what we preach, then we must go and take them out.

I think attacking SA is not so big of a problem as attacking Iran for example would be. Or Syria. It would show that W is fair and does what he says. If not, it only will make it seem like he takes out troubled places that suits him, meaning it's not really a war on terrorism, but a good excuse to pursue other agendas.

So I think we should bring it on to SA soon.

[chequita guevara]

It's less important in terms of international relations and more important in terms of the Phoney Presidency. As lie after lie is revealed, even Bush's staunchest supports will begin to abandon him. Heck, we might even see a President Hastert sometime next year.

[GePap]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
As I've stated before, all we have to do to take down Saudi is...nothing.

By nothing, I mean no bases, no arms sales, no oil trade.

We're already moving the bases.

Oil is Oil, someone will buy Saudi Oil if not the US. Besides, sitting on the biggets amount of Oil, the Sauds get to dictate prices..they can last out any US admin., if they decide to push prices up to $45 a barrel by cutting production.

And Arms dealers in this country are unlikely to care to lose their biggest market, speically when other states could sell to SA anyhow.

nd again, who takes over..the Saudi Moderates? Yeah, right.........

Welcome to the wonderfull world of unintended consequences and grey zones.

[Boris Godunov]

"We?" Who is "we," Finn man?

[Pekka]

What they should do, is put lots of public polls, get the facts there and all that, and I'll bet public wants to do something about with SA.. won't be a close call, I predict 90% for 10% against.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Pekka
What they should do, is put lots of public polls, get the facts there and all that, and I'll bet public wants to do something about with SA.. won't be a close call, I predict 90% for 10% against.

You mean the same public that 3 months ago thought many of the hijackers were Iraqi? You forget how easily the public is lead.

[The Mad Monk]

Boris (and GePap), that's where Iraq's oil does become important. Once it's up to capacity, it can both supply us in the event of a Saudi embargo (or blockade), and break the Saudis on price. Plus, the new Iraqi government can pick up the Saudi slack on arms sales.

We have been after Saudi almost from 9-11...but we needed Iraq first.