• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Have people forgotten about 9/11?

tomspug

tomspug

Absorbant
Unfortunately, we cannot attack the Saudis. If we did, our country would lose one of its greatest supplies of oil. They are our allies because they are 1) a gateway to the Middle East, 2) a significant source of oil, and 3) have significant cultural influence.

To attack Saudi Arabia (home of Mecca, btw) would be taken as a direct attack against the religion of Islam. It could possibly be one of the worst things we could ever do for foreign relations in the region. We really don't have a choice. We HAVE to have Saudi Arabia as an ally.

It's partly our fault that they fund terrorism anyways. They got rich because of us, although there are an incredible amount of factors in the creation of terrorism, and we certainly can't blame ourselves for not having 20/20 hindsight. We had NO idea that al-Qaeda existed for the longest time. The government itself doesn't fund terrorism necessarily, so we don't really have a decent basis for invasion, even by Bush's standards.
 
Smoke

Smoke

Done here.
angellous_evangellous said:
As in Saudi Arabia? Are you serious?:eek:

note: Foreign relations of Saudi Arabia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
What in that article makes you feel warm and cozy toward the Saudis?

The royal family are, and always have been, a bunch of dangerous, two-faced double dealers who stroke Western business interests with one hand and Islamic extremists with the other. The deadly relationship between the royal family and the Wahhabi leadership goes all the way back to ibn Wahhab himself. They fund extremist mosques all over the world; their human rights record is abominable; the only thing they have going for them is their oil, and even their oil fields have most likely passed their peak output.

Mind you, I'm not saying we should have attacked them, but they would have been a better target than Iraq if we just had to attack somebody to make the Republicans feel good about themselves.
 
Francine

Francine

Well-Known Member
kadzbiz said:
You think it'll all just come to a stop when they come home?
Click to expand...

I don't give a flying rat's behind what they do over there after we come home. China and Europe seem to get all the oil they want without having bases in the Middle East. How about we just pay for our oil instead of taking it by force?
 
S

Somkid

Well-Known Member
angellous_evangellous said:
As in Saudi Arabia? Are you serious?:eek:

note: Foreign relations of Saudi Arabia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Osama bin Laden is a Saudi prince, the majority of terrorists that hijacked the plains and crashed them in to the world trade center were Saudis so, I fail to see what the purpose in attacking Iraq was in this instance; if it was because they had weapons of mass destruction (which they didn't) ok fine attack but put the blame where the blame is deserved not on the people of Iraq they are innocents in this "war on terror". Try Afghanistan or Iran maybe, they may have had a hand in it but Iraq was a personal vendetta.
 
tomspug

tomspug

Absorbant
Somkid said:
Osama bin Laden is a Saudi prince, the majority of terrorists that hijacked the plains and crashed them in to the world trade center were Saudis so, I fail to see what the purpose in attacking Iraq was in this instance; if it was because they had weapons of mass destruction (which they didn't) ok fine attack but put the blame where the blame is deserved not on the people of Iraq they are innocents in this "war on terror". Try Afghanistan or Iran maybe, they may have had a hand in it but Iraq was a personal vendetta.
Click to expand...

Actually, I'm pretty sure most of the hijackers were Egyptian, but I could be wrong. We have to also remember that we didn't expect the Iraqis to start feuding. It was bad judgment on the Bush Administration's part, but our original intention WAS liberation. How could anyone have guessed it would have gotten as bad as it did?
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
tomspug said:
Actually, I'm pretty sure most of the hijackers were Egyptian, but I could be wrong.
Click to expand...

No, he's right, most of them were Saudis. IMHO, it was meant to get us mad at the Saudis (eg., Osama trying to get us to go to war with Saudi Arabia). It would have been much, much worse for us if we attacked an ally (Saudi Arabia) rather than an enemy.
 
tomspug

tomspug

Absorbant
I agree. To be honest, I don't know much about the war in Afghanistan. I think the only person to blame for that is the media, for refusing to cover it. I really don't know what's going on over there or even if al-Qaeda is based there anymore.

I would be just as angry about the war in Iraq as other people if there wasn't al-Qaeda there, but there is. Once we liberated Iraq, they moved in to try and make things difficult for us by perpetuating the civil discord. We've seen this with pinpointed attacks on holy shrines and mosques and the killing of civilians for seemingly no other purpose than to get people angry (there and here in America). Not only that, Syria and Iran are proven to have been contributing as well. What I don't understand is how easily people ignore these things and focus on Bush. Our army is still in Iraq because our enemies (Iran, Syria, al-Qaeda) are making it hard for us to leave. FINALLY, we're winning, so maybe people can stop focusing so much on the War in Iraq and on the bigger picture.
 
Sunstone

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
We are not yet winning in Iraq because we are not yet accomplishing our political goals. Winning does not mean accomplishing our military goals -- it means accomplishing our political goals.
 
tomspug

tomspug

Absorbant
You'd think that, but Obama isn't claiming he'll "bring our troops home" because we're not accomplishing our 'political goals'.
 
doppelganger

doppelganger

Through the Looking Glass
Obama's plan is pretty much the ISG plan: gradual redeployment of troops outside Iraq with a diminishing presence within the country, and stepped-up regional diplomacy.

That was the right solution when Baker and the rest of the ISG suggested to Bush and it is still the right solution.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
How can we speculate on Osama's plan when we don't even know where he is?
 
tomspug

tomspug

Absorbant
Obama, angellous. We're talking about OBAMA.

I agree, doppelganger. And hopefully, we'll be seeing this start happening this year or next. A decreased sectarian and terrorist violence in the country (which is what we are seeing now that Petraeus is in charge) requires less troops. Australia is already planning on pulling most of their's out this year, so hopefullly that's a good sign for US troops too. That's why you don't hear Hillary and Obama talking much about it anymore, because by the time the presidential election rolls around, Bush will be telling the American people that we ARE withdrawing. We don't need a Democratic president to do that anymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top