IF!
And I mean a huge IF!
If a Saudi National is behind the attacks in Boston, then a case can be made that Saudi Arabia deserves to be the target of at least a punitive attack more than Afghanistan ever did. Same for Iraq.
Quite honestly, if a Saudi National did this then they are a terror state of the first degree and probably more of a threat than the Taliban. We haven't been attacked (at home) by that group but we have been the target of continuous attacks from Saudis.
So why aren't we launching cruise missiles at the Saudi capital? One word. Oil. And I disagree with the President's policies almost reflexively, but one thing is beyond debate. His stalling of the pipeline from Canada and his reluctance to promote natural gas for vehicular use will go down as his some of his biggest blunders. We can't act in our own national interest because we are refusing to rid ourselves of dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Amazing.
Err... no.
ReplyDeleteThe reason why we aren't shooting cruise missiles at Saudi Arabia is that this is a Saudi individual acting on his own (potentially, the investigation is still ongoing), not an attack by the Saudi government.
If the Saudi government was behind this then this would be a state-on-state event that could be a justification for an attack by the US on Saudi Arabia. But so far, it isn't. It's just an individual who happens to be a Saudi.
disagree. Saudi Arabia sponsors madrasas that are the breeding ground for extremist. they support organizations that are anti-american but pro kingdom. in essence you have individuals that are state sponsored attacking us. but even using your talking points your logic breaks down. we conduct attacks on a continuous basis in Pakistan and its against individuals not the state. additionally we launched entire operations against pirates and they weren't state sponsored. the French have invaded Mali to attack a group that wasn't state sponsored so .....
Deleteuh yeah. its oil.
You got it perfectly right solomon. Al Qaeda had no connections with the Iraqi Baath Party yet we still attacked and occupied Iraq. After 9/11 we should of bombed Saudia Arabia and took all their oil since most hijackers were Saudi scum. Eleven years later and they do it again. But Hussein Obama will do nothing like usual, he's a big fat pussy muslim. Just look what happened in Benghazi.
DeleteWhile there are certain member of Saudi Royalty (Lordy there are literally hundreds of them) that support extremist views, the people and government of Saudi Arabia as a whole support us.
ReplyDeleteAQ would like nothing better than to have the US attack SA and bring down the Royal FAmily. Imagine all that oil money in the hands of AQ.
So your answer to an attack by (pure supposition as nothing has been said yet) a Saudi national is to attack SA... exactly what AQ wants.
Now who's the puppet.
Mexican gangs kill US citizens every day. Do we bomb Mexico?
Colombian drug runners bring in tons of drugs every year and cause the death of thousands. Do we bomb Columbia?
You don't attack a nation if some of it's citizens misbehave, especially when that government is actively hunting down those same people.
btw, as of Aug 2012, the US only gets 8% of it's oil from SA.
ReplyDeleteyou're tying yourself up in knots to defend an unsupportable position. the point remains. if we held Saudi Arabia to the same standards that we held Afghanistan and Iraq to then the Saudi's would be getting heel stomped as we speak, followed closely with a bullet to the face.
DeleteAfghanistan was actively protecting terrorists while SA is actively hunting them.
DeleteApples and Oranges.
Iraq had very little to do with Terrorism.
Saudi Arabia is full of terrorist muslims whom which 99% of the population hates America. Your freaking crazy to say its just a small group of extremists. Saudi Arabia funds terrorist organizations world wide, do some research.
DeleteResearch, yes you should.
DeleteGuys, there's more than oil there, there's the holy city of Islam, the birth place of their prophet. Going against Saudi Arabia could rally all the jihadists in the world under one banner, not good, not good at all. Plus, while the Saudi's have been, to some extent, cooperating with the US and the Allies, the others gave them the finger.
ReplyDeleteGlad someone sees the folly in this suggestion.
DeleteAttacking Saudi would be a sure fire way to result in one of these type of attacks every week!
Plus, would do a hell of a lot of damage to US industry and economy as Saudi is one of the biggest markets for US arms.
IIRC, One of OBL's main claimed motivations was the fact that there were western forces in SA when we were actually defending SA.
DeleteTalk about irony.
Not only that but think of the damage that could be done to the US Dollar if the Saudi's turned round and said we will only take Euro's for our Oil.
DeleteEr, per your President Iraq was about WMDs not terrorists
ReplyDeleteCould be diversion from Iran, to avoid carpet bombing in some months...
ReplyDeleteCould be many things... Some people will say CIA...
You have a good President, that think before launching tomahawk, i hope that he will do a better job than Bush Jr.
Are you seriously advocating attacking Saudi, by the way site of two of the most holy places in Islam, on the basis that one of their citizens may have been behind this terrorist event???
ReplyDeleteTalk about a guaranteed way to create a complete shit storm
Why not attack the UK based on the Richard Reid failed attempt.
Or the US itself for Tim Mcvey
has anyone seen, this video
ReplyDeletehttp://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a65_1366060955
it suggests pipe bomb like device, not very powerful, look at all those unbroken windows & few casualties. the blast wave wasn't powerful & dissipated, very quickly.
i don't know how, professional this was, but if that's the extent of there, expertise, they'll be hunted down pretty quickly.
i think. no knee jerk reaction, should be taken. Solomon your first reaction was domestic. there is a god chance of that being the case.
My first impression was the same.
DeleteHigh ratio of injuries to deaths with reports of ball bearings or similar causing life changing injuries but not high loss of life.
AQ events typically have powerful explosives causing blast injuries (London, Madrid etc) and high loss of life.
Suggests to me domestic rather than a AQ spectacular
Realise this post might sound callous and my sympathies to those involved.
My intention was to try and analyse the facts without the emotional response
the pipeline your talking about will not help usa, most of the oil in keystone will not be used in the USA
ReplyDeleteKeystone XL oil will compete on the global market. If it's of good enough quality and cheap enough, the the US can buy it just as anyone else can.
ReplyDeleteWe are at a price advantage due to not having to ship it from overseas.
Saudi Arabia -- what is this? They produce oil, and... what else? Almost everything else is imported or produced by foreign workers.
ReplyDeleteIts not like once self sufficient Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Syria, and yet still self sufficient Iran.
They have oil and money from oil. Blockade oil export and state will degrade into a stone age within one year, without single dropped bomb/humanitarian aid.
Actually saudis controlling oil prices worldwide and thus controls every other state that relies on oil export, like Russia for example.
If Sausdis will (be persuaded to) drop oil prices below $40, then Russia will crumble into dust within few years, like degraded Sovied Union did.
Technically Saudi Arabia is an economical weapon of mass destruction at the affordable price, so why broke this dependable extremely useful and effective weapon?