Gov't Report Indicts Saudi Royal Family

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
We need those smilies where they are shooting machine guns and rockets...you know the ones on that angry Muslim site...

You mean civfanatics ?

[GePap]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
You're not listening in the right places, then.

No, I am listening only to those places with sane annalysis.

You forget that the Saudi's agreed to a US pullout: they want the Us out as much as you. Being the number one customer of US weapon system in the world, they are safe without US forces.

[Spiffor]

Actually, the Mad Monk has a point. The Sauds may fall victim of a rebellion, which will hugely weaken Saudi Arabia. I think the US doesn't want it, because the likely outcome of this rebellion is a more hostile regime.
During such rebellion, Saud's militery might will wither, making the country more fragile to foreign attacks. Neighbouring countries would want the anarchy not to spread within their borders, so that's only normal if they send expeditionary forces to secure zones beyond the Saudian border.

However, I differ with TMM on one point: in a rebellion scenarion, the borders will not change. Once the situation has calmed downed, the neighbouring countries won't push their borders as far as to where their army went. They may keep an authority over the 'secured' territories, but it should be a military governance at most, i.e something that will end at some point when the new Riyadh regime will agree on the specifics with its neighbours. But Saudi Arabia will end up being the same geographic expression, with probably another name.

[The Mad Monk]

How, exactly, would the Saudis disagree to a pullout?

[GePap]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
How, exactly, would the Saudis disagree to a pullout?

They could very well publicly say "we think the US is making a mistake". The pullout was done with saudi agreement.

Which of saudi Arabia's neighbors would do squat? Iraq? No. Jordan? No. Yemen might try for a bit in the south, but as for the other gulf states...

Saudi Arabia has the most powerfull military in the gulf by far: no one is going to get chunks of it.

[The Mad Monk]

You are assuming that it's military will remain in one piece, and that it's commanders and troops won't factionalize, returning to their own tribes and territories.

I'm saying you're mistaken.

[chequita guevara]

Break-up Saudi Arabia into El-Hasa, El-Hedjaz, and El-Nedj. That'll fix 'em. A single united Arabia isn't natural anyway.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Sava
bah, if we turn them all into dust, they can't bomb us.

Better yet, throw out the current government and put an all woman government in charge (all woman parliament, female prime minister, all-woman judiciary), outlaw the Burka, and revoke male sufferage.

Flood the whole place with pornography. Because teenage boys always prefer religious texts to pornography, right? Also, legalize prostitution and make sure sex is encouraged. And free beer - especially for teenage boys. Let the Wahabbists actually compete in the marketplace of ideas.

Then put a McDonalds in every Mosque and on every corner in Mecca. They can all serve the new McPork sandwich with pork fries or Pork McNuggets. And sell it really cheap so people are encouraged to buy them over other foods.

[GePap]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Break-up Saudi Arabia into El-Hasa, El-Hedjaz, and El-Nedj. That'll fix 'em. A single united Arabia isn't natural anyway.

No state is natural. But the house of Saud made it into one state, and it will take much more than a change in thr rulers to undo that. Most young Saudis only know of one Saudi Arabia: why should they break it up? So one side loses the Holy cities and the other the Oil?

Not bloody likely.

You are assuming that it's military will remain in one piece, and that it's commanders and troops won't factionalize, returning to their own tribes and territories.

And what they will do is fight to see who get the whole pie and to replace the Sauds, not to make little states, for the reasons above.

[The Mad Monk]

Since each faction leader will see himself as the best choice for ruler, they may start out trying to capture the whole nation, but will end up as a group of feuding warlords.

The cultural heritage of the region is closer to Afghanistan than Egypt, in that it has only known unity under foreign rule, until very recently.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Well, we certainly couldn't hit Saudi while our bases were still there -- that had to wait until Iraq was secure.

Why not? It's not like they could take those bases, or we were incapable of shifting the security posture (already pretty high) in preparation for offensive action.

We will never go after Saudi Arabia, not in a million years.

[Ned]

Re: Gov't Report Indicts Saudi Royal Family

Originally posted by Berzerker
Apparently the Saudi gov't and Royal family had very close ties with Al Qaida. Huh? I thought it was drug users funding the terrorists, now we find out it was our own gov't? You know, all that financial support the Republicrats have been supplying the Saudis, and all that oil we've been buying. So, why do so many Republicrats laugh when SUV owners are blamed when they had no problem blaming "druggies"?

I have a hard time following this post. The news seems to be that the Saudi royal family was close to and funded al Qaida. Of course this is wrong and we have to get the Saudi's to stop - or else. I believe there is bi-partisan support for this.

But what about the rest of the post - drug dealers, Republicrats, the US goverment funding terrorists, SUVs?

Is this a drug induced rant, or is there a point here?

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Why not? It's not like they could take those bases, or we were incapable of shifting the security posture (already pretty high) in preparation for offensive action.

We will never go after Saudi Arabia, not in a million years.

Allow me to rephrase:

We couldn't allow the Saudis to be consumed by the fruits of their own hypocracy while we were on their soil. We had to move the bases so our hands would remain clean.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Re: Re: Gov't Report Indicts Saudi Royal Family

Originally posted by Ned


I have a hard time following this post. The news seems to be that the Saudi royal family was close to and funded al Qaida. Of course this is wrong and we have to get the Saudi's to stop - or else. I believe there is bi-partisan support for this.

But what about the rest of the post - drug dealers, Republicrats, the US goverment funding terrorists, SUVs?

Is this a drug induced rant, or is there a point here?

His larger point is that the government has, for years, bent over backward (the better to insert its head in its ass...) NOT to acknowledge the reams of credible evidence that the Saudis were Al Qaeda's pimp daddies. Thus:

Drug users: I think he's indicting those idiotic public service announcements that linked even casual pot use to "supporting terrorists."

Republicrats: Sucking up to the House of Saud has been a bipartisan sport.

US supporting terrorism: by continuing to support the House of Saud, that's exactly what we're doing.

SUVs=America's addiction to oil=the whole reason we're timid about confronting the Saudi's.

It may have been drug-induced, but it's pretty spot-on.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk


Allow me to rephrase:

We couldn't allow the Saudis to be consumed by the fruits of their own hypocracy while we were on their soil. We had to move the bases so our hands would remain clean.

Nonsense. As someone (GePap, I think) has already pointed out, moving the bases was actually a favor to the Saudis: it removed one of the rallying points for their opposition.