Congratulations Bush on New Milestone!!

[RRocket]

Yea..the "link" was an Al Queda operative was in Iraq. That was the link....LOL

 

[Calabrio]

Do you think there's a huge distinction between a country harboring terrorist, and one specifically providing safe harbor to those specifically associated with "al queda."

Do you even understand what Al-Queda is? Do you think they have a corporate headquarters somewhere and a rigid hierarchy? Groups all over the world are loosely connected to Al-Queda, or operate under the al-Queda name.

If you think of this war on terror in terms of "Is it Al_Queda" and not- are there islamic terrorists- then prepare to be defeated, because you're missing the point.

We're not at war with "al-queda" specifically or alone. They are a powerful organization associated with a deadly philosphy embraced by many, many groups through out the world.

Iraq had been harboring terrorist for DECADES. Just because you don't think there were ENOUGH people specifically associated with Al-Queda in country at the time of the invasion doesn't mean squat. It simply emphasized your lack of understanding of the region and the politics there.

 

[RRocket]

I am well aware of the region and Al Queda. But your government has been feeding this BS about Al Queda and Iraq for some time. Even a YEAR after 9/11, 65% (approx.) thought Iraq was directly involved. So who's clueless about the region exactly?

And if you knew as much about terrorism as you think you do, you'd be pounding on the "Saudi Arabia" door as hard as I am...

 

[Calabrio]

I am well aware of the region and Al Queda. But your government has been feeding this BS about Al Queda and Iraq for some time. Even a YEAR after 9/11, 65% (approx.) thought Iraq was directly involved. So who's clueless about the region exactly?

"My government" has not been feeding us BS about Al Queda and Iraq. The fact the general public gets facts wrong on a very confusing and complicated situation should come as no surprise.

And if you knew as much about terrorism as you think you do, you'd be pounding on the "Saudi Arabia" door as hard as I am...

I'm not talking about Saudi Arabia right now. But the problems in Saudi Arabia don't mean that the theory behind the Iraqi theater of the War on Terror was wrong.

Saudi Arabia is certainly problematic- do you have a quick solution. Because if you start making waves in that country, if things don't work out perfectly, the consequences will be far worse than anything happening in Iraq.

But, if you'd like to propose some ideas to reform Saudi Arabia, go right ahead and tell us. But keep in mind, oil is $54/barrel right now, do it wrong and it'll hit $200 real quick.

 

[RRocket]

Talk about Iraq all you want. Even before you guys went to Iraq, Saudi Arabia was a bigger threat to the US than Iraq could ever be. But again..YOUR government fed the US population a line of BS about Iraq....and the majority of you morons bought it....Which is why you are in Iraq today instead of Saudi Arabia. Oh..and YOUR government keeps telling us Saudi Arabia is your ally. Who's lying to whom here?

So what you are saying, in effect, is the breeding ground for terrorism (Saudi Arabia) it's OK to turn a blind eye as long as you have cheap fuel?

To be honest I've often thought that's why the US piles on every country in the world for inhumane treatment and points the finger at various countries...EXCEPT Saudi Arabia. Terrorism is OK, as long as we get cheap fuel....I get it, I get it..

 

[Calabrio]

Talk about Iraq all you want. Even before you guys went to Iraq, Saudi Arabia was a bigger threat to the US than Iraq could ever be.

Be more specific- what in Saudi Arabia was a bigger threat? The government? No. That's not the case. Elements of the population? Yes, there are radicals throughout the population for a variety of reasons. So, how would you like to address this problem.

But again..YOUR government fed the US population a line of BS about Iraq....and the majority of you morons bought it....

Restate the "BS" about Iraq and I will address it specifically. Regardless your claim, the government did not advance any dishonest lie about Iraq.

Which is why you are in Iraq today instead of Saudi Arabia.

...you haven't answered my question about Saudi Arabia. What is it that you think should have been done.

We are not "in" Saudi Arabia for a variety of reasons. I can explain them if you'd like, but I don't think you're interested in actually understanding this issue, you're more into name calling and perpetuating concepts that aren't true.

Oh..and YOUR government keeps telling us Saudi Arabia is your ally. Who's lying to whom here?

That would because the government of Saudi Arabia has been of assistance to this country numerous times through out it's history. It's not the best ally, but it has even provided valuable intelligence in recent years.

The government of Saudi Arabia is motivated to control this radical islamism because it threatens the their country now. The Saudis are targets of terror as well. However they are able to use strong arm tactics to combat it.

Are they an ally - yea. Saudi Arabia has also often increased production to help keep oil prices stable in the past. Is it perfect- absolutely not, but it's better than nothing.

If you want to talk about Saudi Arabia, I'm more than willing to, and able to. But you're going to have to start using some specifics and not these generalities.

So what you are saying, in effect, is the breeding ground for terrorism (Saudi Arabia) it's OK to turn a blind eye as long as you have cheap fuel?

No, I'm saying that if you destabilize Saudi Arabia, the government will fall to the radicals.

And outrageously expensive gas will destroy the economies of the world. And that super expensive oil price will fund terror.

To be honest I've often thought that's why the US piles on every country in the world for inhumane treatment and points the finger at various countries...EXCEPT Saudi Arabia. Terrorism is OK, as long as we get cheap fuel....I get it, I get it..

No, you clearly don't get it. I doubt you will, because you're not interest in reality.

The floor is yours, give some solutions, some approaches. What do you think should be done. "TAKING CARE OF...." is not a strategy- hell, a statement like that isn't even accepted when smart people are talking over their third pitcher of beer. Provide some detail if you're going to make statements like that.

 

[RRocket]

Save your condescending crap for someone else. You show how little you know about Saudi Arabia by believeing the governemtn is a US "ally". You ARE correct in saying that radical Islam threatens Saudi Arabia. But you are flat out wrong in saying that Saudi is trying to control this radical Islam. Not only are they not trying to control these radicals, they actually have helped their cause. It's been documented by the CIA and other spy agencies that not only is the government in regular contact with the terrorists (Wahhabis, Al Queda, Muslim Brotherhood..you name it), they have supported them with donations, cash, weapons and sanctuary.

But the worst thing they do is build maddressas for them. Essentially, the muslim radicals bride the governemnt into building all sorts of maddressas as long as the radicals more or less keep the peace in Saudi Arabia. And what do they teach at these maddressas? Radical Islam to the next generation of terrorists. Not enough? How about personal cell phone numbers (on speed dial on their cell phones), home phone numbers and official government business cards and letters on government paper of the Royal Family being found on terrorists captured by various countries.

Want more specific? Ok..Saudi prince Na'if who is the Saudi Interior Minister said "the great power that controls the earth now is an enemy of Arabs and Muslims". He said that after 9/11 Does that sound like a friend? Or how about this one..he commisioned 5 known Al Queda followers as officers into the Armed Forces. Yup..that's someone who's a great friend to the US and doing his best to thwart terrorism.

Want more? Ok..in 1996 Saudi Arabia REFUSED to hand over Osama to Sudan, despite pleas from the US. Why didn't they? "He's too popular in Saudi Arabia" said the government. Granted, this was 1996, but even the US knew who OBL was in 1996.

More? Leaked classified information says 2/3 of the worst terrorist being held at Guantanomo are Saudi nationals. Or what about when NATO forces raided the Saudi High Commission offices in Bosnia. They found photos of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that were both later destroyed by bombs. They also found photos of the USS Cole, and the World Trade Center as well as files on the use of crop duster planes and documents on how to forge US identity cards.

Or what about the Saudi embassy in Washington issuing the wife of a suspected Al Queda operative a new passport so she and her children could flee back to Saudi Arabia. Why was she fleeing? Because she was supposed to testify in front of a federal grand jury....

I could go on, and on, and on and on about the government involvement. Nevermind that Saudi Arabia leads the world in beheadings and is a huge violator of humna rights. And religion? Forget it. If you aren't Muslim you are persecuted. So strict are they about religion, that they let a bunch of teenaged girls burn to death in a school fire and wouldn't allow them out because they didn't have their head scarves on. That's the decency police for ya!

Again..I could go on and on. Saudi Arabia is no friend of the US. I mean they ARE because you guys love their oil and they love your great arms deals. For years and years, the Saudis were the USA #1 consumer of arms. But in reality, this is the breeding ground of ALL world terrorism. This place is 1,000 times worse than Iraq. What's the solution? I can't say. But I do know an occupation of Saudi Arabia rather than Iraq would be far more beneficial to the people of the United States...

 

[shagdrum]

No offense RRocket, but I gotta agree with Calabrio on this. your argument is basically general claims and then basically saying "your stupid" to believe otherwise (in addition to direct name calling [see "moron" in response #55]).

 

[fossten]

I have to agree with shag on this one, RRocket. Calabrio asked you repeatedly to share your solution with the rest of us, e.g. you have the floor, and all you've done so far is go on a negative rant without offering a solution.

I'm with ya on the malevolence of their society, ok? You can't shock me about that. What I want to hear is what we are going to do about it. I've presented my solution in another thread - namely, wipe out Iran and Saudi will beg for peace. I'd like to hear your solution.

Edit: Let me add one more thing - although I agree that Saudi isn't really our friend, Iran with it's wacko leader and pursuit of nukes is a greater, more imminent threat. Would you agree that we should deal with the clear and present danger first, then deal with Saudi?

 

[RRocket]

Fossten,

Just because I don't have THE solution, it doesn't mean it's not a problem. Heck..your WHOLE government is clueless about Iraq, and you guys are fine with that...but you're not fine that an engineer (me) doesn't know what the solution is? I mean there are TONS of problems in the US that I don't have an answer for (poverty, unemployment, etc..) but that doesn't mean there's no problem worth discussing.

Hmmmm....about your second point. I'm mixed on this one. Several reliable US intelligence sources said Iran is about 3 years away from completing said nuclear device. And then they have to find a way to deliver it effectively. So I'm not sure if it's the most imminent threat. In that same time frame, it's VERY possible that the radicals in Saudi Arabia could overthrow the government in that same time frame. ...

There have been several plans over the years drawn up by the US and their intelligence community. The Congressional Research Service did one up called "Oil FIelds as Military Objectives: A Feasability Study". There are a couple of others. Neither of them is easy. But certainly no more difficult than Iraq, yet a more intelligent military objective than Iraq.

 

[fossten]

All I am trying to say is that if you don't have a solution, or won't even offer a suggestion, then what good is it to bash and criticize? Your original premise in this thread is that Bush deliberately sent troops to Iraq so he could see them all killed. It's absurd, it's vicious, and it doesn't do any good to anybody except the rabid Bush-haters on the left and the terrorists trying to defeat us.

It's fine to question the policies of government, but attacking and bashing with no viable alternative is simply spiteful and petty and it makes you look small.