It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Okay, so let's go occupy Saudi Arabia!

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 08:52 AM
link   
New Osama bin Laden tape urged Islamic militants to stop the West from obtaining Middle Eastern oil. The Saudi branch of al-Qaida called for attacks against oil infrastructure in the Persian Gulf in a statement posted on the Internet on Sunday.




"Today, Syria and Iran continue to harbor and assist terrorists. This behavior is completely unacceptable, and states that support terror will be held accountable." George W. Bush

"make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them". George W. Bush

"Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." George W. Bush


Al-Qaida rallies fighters to target Saudi oil

Okay, so now that Dubya is with us. I'd like to know, mostly from Republicans
why our glorious president and his neo-con administration haven't discussed the intial plans to invading Saudi Arabia?

I mean come on! Osama Bin Laden releases an audio tape, which is basically himself pointing a finger as to where the US should attack/occupy next and our adminstration turns a blind eye.

So please feed me with all the justification I so desperately crave as to why we're even fighting a war on terrorism!





posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Why would Dubya attack SA? Thats just crazy, Dubya has a bunch of friends and money there, dont be silly...



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Give me a break, i'm not being silly at all!

I'm fully aligned with Bush Doctrine, foreign policy towards our fight against terrorism. Osama bin laden has fully indicated where we can find al-qaeda, so our policy dictates we should now shift our attention towards Saudi Arabia.

This is a war on terrorism right?



So who's with me? let's go shock and awe their arses!



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 09:33 AM
link   
In all seriousness Syntaxer, you make a great argument. You are using Dubyas own policy to logically show why we need to invade Saudi Arabia. The problem is, even Dubya doesnt follow it. I mean after all, Iraq doesnt fit the bill at all, and we invaded them!!! So on the flip side, why would we think that a nation that meets Dubya's criteria 100% like Saudi Arabia get invaded? If we follow this logic further, the next country we will invade would be...Mmm.... Sri Lanka!!! Yes, they are the enemy. That Arthur C Clarke must be up to no good. Then on to.Mmm.Greenland!!! Yes!



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 10:05 AM
link   
The US is already in Saudi Arabia... thats one of the main reasons Bin-Ladin is so pissed at the US.

He doesn't hate your "freedom".. he doesn't care that you dont pray to Mecca 5 times a day... no he wants the US out of Saudi!

How can you invade when you already have?

[edit on 20/12/2004 by Corinthas]



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 10:11 AM
link   
The real question is, should the US act to protect American interests that are under attack, whether in SA or elsewhere. The answer is yes.

What if SA asks the US for assistance in fighting al Qaeda within their borders? Does that qualify as an invasion?



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
What if SA asks the US for assistance in fighting al Qaeda within their borders? Does that qualify as an invasion?


Well i think american interests in Saudi are not worth protecting beacuse they are the cause of the domestic terror situation. Pull out of Saudi and osama might offer peace... OK you'd have to give up on Irael and all that stuff too, i know, but pulling out of Saudi would be a start.


If invited to fight... well it would be hard to call it an invasion, allthough you can very easily overstay your welcome.

Remember europe in 1945? Well Yanks are stll crawling all over it now, 15 years after the Russians went home! You were invited (no invasion) but never left (yes invasion).

[edit on 20/12/2004 by Corinthas]



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Hmm,

We invaded Iraq to liberate the oppressed people who suffered under Saddam, yet the US has evidence with miles of paper trails that all violate fundamental human rights in Saudia Arabia.

We need to liberate the oppressed people of Saudi Arabia now!


-There is no independent local media
-Freedom of association is non-existent
-There are no political parties or trade unions
-No nongovernmental organizations that monitor or criticize government policies and practices.
-Peaceful anti-government demonstrations are prohibited
-Saudis are permitted no right to freedom of assembly
-Arbitrary arrests, detention, and tortures

The Shi'a minority comprising roughly 7 percent of the population, face constant severe discrimination from the majority Sunni's. Osama bin laden has clearly indicated where the enemy hides and we must liberate the people!

Man these poor people need democracy more than ever! dat-data-dant!

Plus, we may, or may not find weapons of mass destruction!



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Well it is up to the US to determine whether the interests are worth protecting. And, it sounds like you would want to have the US pull out of Europe. That's not going to happen, nor is it the opinion of the majority of Europeans.




posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by syntaxer


Okay, so now that Dubya is with us. I'd like to know, mostly from Republicans
why our glorious president and his neo-con administration haven't discussed the intial plans to invading Saudi Arabia?



?? probably because US Forces sent to SaudiArabia
would be like mobilizing & putting under seige
BOSTON & Logan Field
because the 9-11 zealots launched an attack from there


neither the city or the airlines were complicit
maybe some agency was negligent but not complicit
so it is with the Saudi
the west has treaties, agreements, rule of law & mutual accords
with Saudi...they are a lawful nation
[get an involved, attention to detail, debate with
someone more versed than myself....]



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by St Udio
?? probably because US Forces sent to SaudiArabia
would be like mobilizing & putting under seige
BOSTON & Logan Field
because the 9-11 zealots launched an attack from there


Logan Field? Logan is no "field", it's an International Airport.



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 11:11 AM
link   
I'd say that there is no move to attack and occupy the Saudi kingdom for a few reasons.

On the one hand, the state doesn't allow terrorists to operate within it. It struggles against them, with some effectiveness. However, lets be realistic, saudi internal politics are more or less split between two factions. One uses wahhabist clerics to control the public, the other is fanatical wahhabist supporters who favour terrorism.

Also, iraq, as opposed to Saudi Arabia, had undergone years of sanctions that were intended to cripple the country and break the back of Hussein. They were the 'last straw' so to speak. The proverbial carrot had been used up entirely and all that reasonably remained to control or influence hussein was military force. Saudi Arabia, if, say, put under sanctions like those in iraq, woudl capitulate immediately. The Saud Family rules thru power, but primarily thru wealth, and their power only exists to protect their wealth. Hussein could operate under sanctions because his primary concern was power itself. The Saud would give if their money was cut off.

Also, saudi arabia no real military capabilities inside the region, let alone outside of it. Not to say that they are powerless and don't have very modern and powerful weapons, but there isn't any danger of Saudi tanks blasting thru iraq and iran or blitzing deep into egypt and the sudan. They also don't appear to have pursued chemical, nuclear, or biological weapons.

I do, however, think that much of whats going on in the Terror War is a result of Saudi domestic politics. Apparently the royals are quite split between these status quo people, who might be pushing for less clerical influence on the government (ie, more independence from the clerics for themselves) and those who are sympathetic to the stricter religious interpretations of the wahabbi clerics. Apparently the concern of the 'moderate' royals (tho thats quite a misnomer) is well founded, since industrialists families like the bin Ladin group are also sympathetic to wahabiism and as Osama bin Ladin himself demonstrates, quite capable of causing lots of problems. Because of this, the 'moderates' lay off the clerics.

So the way the US can influence this, at this point, is not thru outright military occupation. There are power structures already existing in Saudi Arabia that the US can effect the changes it wants, rather than none as in Iraq, but the problem is that they can't be pushed to much without breaking.

Also, saudi arabia is a major source of oil. Lets face it, there are stark stratego-economic realities here. Interupt the flow of oil, and you mangle all modern industrialized economies. Forget about the 'oil salesmen', they'll end up alright, beign able to ramp up global production and jack up prices outrageously, but the public, industry, hell society itself isn't going to be able to operate properly without oil.

And moreso, its a strategic resource. Its like being a tribe in the bronze age, but having access to iron and horses, you can sweep out of central asia screaming and ravening all the way from harappa to mycenae to egypt. But if you loose that strategic iron and horse, then you are the one who collapses. I'm not quite sure how disaterous it would be, but its certainly not something one would want ot jump into, especially when one can twist the arms of the Saud family and have them crack down on financing and training.



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 11:14 AM
link   

The US is already in Saudi Arabia... thats one of the main reasons Bin-Ladin is so pissed at the US.


Last I heard we pretty much pulled out of there...



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Corinthas
Pull out of Saudi and osama might offer peace... OK you'd have to give up on Irael and all that stuff too, i know, but pulling out of Saudi would be a start.

Why should the US leave Saudi Arabia? Its not bin ladin's country, the US was invited to be there to protect it from hussein. And if the US leaves saudi, they'll continue terrorising and demand that centcom leave. Then they'll demand that nato leave afghanistan, or that the US not back musharraf or that they not agree to sanctions against syria and demand that the US withdraw all support for israel and not get involved in the Sudan and a whole host of other issues. So what, the US should have its foreign policy dictated to them?
Lets say the US leaves, entirely. Pulls out every base and every soldier. What happens when the saudis start executing entire villages because they are anti-saud? Or what happens when the sunni in iraq put the shia into concentration camps? Or what happens if iran invades iraq and expands in territory? Or when the kurds in the north of iraq start supplying the kurds in turkey, and turkey, as a nato member, requests aid? Is it all right with bin ladin that the US follow thru with its nato obligations? Does the US have to get permission of actual and potential terrorists?

And lets say the US just ropes off the entire area, goes isolationist on it and doesn't care how anarchic or murderous it gets over there, just doesn't get involved. How many people are still going to attack the US, or use anti-US propaganda and attacks to build up support and power for themselves in the region? And if the US is attacked any way, is it allowed to respond then?

What happens when terrorists and arab nationalists decide to attack US companies in the region? Or if they use the pressence of those companies and western media as a reason to fight the west, for 'corrupting influence'? Is the US now required to forbid any of its companies from doing legitimate business in the region? Or what happens when people smuggle western media into the middle east, I mean actual middle easterners bringing it in because they want a more western society for themselves, is the US going to be required to get involved in other countries businesses to prevent the smuggling? Is the US going to have to require that third parties not sell to 'middle eastern' countries?

Does the US have to oppose russia then also? Would n't supporting Russia eventually be seen like supporting Israel, with the chechnyans replacing the palestinains? And what next? THe serbs? The albanians? The french and italians? Well when does it stop tho?

Wouldn't it be more reasonable to , instead of the US pulling out entirely, in military and economic and cultural terms, from any place perceived as theirs by radicals, demand that the radicals not use terror and murder to get what they want? Or at the very least to demand that they not invade the US to attack it?








now, 15 years after the Russians went home! You were invited (no invasion) but never left (yes invasion).

What? Be serious, the german government doesn't want those bases in germany to leave now, those bases are profitable for germany. The US would be better off without them there now anyway.

[edit on 20-12-2004 by Nygdan]



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by negativenihil

Originally posted by St Udio
?? probably because US Forces sent to SaudiArabia
would be like mobilizing & putting under seige
BOSTON & Logan Field
because the 9-11 zealots launched an attack from there


Logan Field? Logan is no "field", it's an International Airport.


yep, your more correct that i am,
the'Field' part was incorporated into the greater entity...
www.airnav.com...

General Edward Lawrence Logan International Airport

(see, thats why i suggested debating with a much 'sharper tack'...)

448



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 12:24 PM
link   
I think it's all a matter of Authorised or Unauthorised dictatorship, if you make agreements with the large american corporation about selling your oil for a certain price (and in dollars, not in euros) and buying american weaponary in return , you are part of the democratic league that will not be invaded (Pakistan, Saoudi Arabia)

If, However you want to sell your oil on your own terms and WORSE buy russian weapons instead, you are an imminent threat to the region, dictatorship, iraq, Venezuela???

If we look in all honesty at the muslim fundamentalism, we could only conclude that Mecca is the eye of the storm. Nigeria needs democracy also.



[edit on 20-12-2004 by Countermeasures]



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Shouldn't it be up to us, the United States of America to rise up and put an end to the oppressed people of Saudi Arabia?

We should go into Ira..q... uh, Oops i ment Saudi Arabia, and liberate the people, you know provide them with a regime change, they deserve democracy and the right to freedom just as much as Iraqi's ya know!

Right now Saudi Arabia provides the US with 17% of our imported oil. So if we invade/occupy and oust the royal familes etc, destroy al-qaeda at it's birth place, place a new regime which will continue providing us with 17% or more oil..

and we can all rest assure knowing that we won the war on terrorism right?

I love death & destruction, this rules!



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Corinthas
The US is already in Saudi Arabia... thats one of the main reasons Bin-Ladin is so pissed at the US.

He doesn't hate your "freedom".. he doesn't care that you dont pray to Mecca 5 times a day... no he wants the US out of Saudi!

How can you invade when you already have?

[edit on 20/12/2004 by Corinthas]


Do you by chance have a link to the story showing .lines "USA Invades or Invaded Saudi Arabia"?

I thought not.




posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Shots:

I think he is reffering to the bases we already have there. I think his point is pretty obvious, how did you miss that?



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
Shots:

I think he is reffering to the bases we already have there. I think his point is pretty obvious, how did you miss that?


Well as I recall it was stated we invaded and we all know that is false. We were invited, there is a big differance, that is why I asked to see the .lines knowing none excisted, sort of a lame joke if you will. I am bad




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join