Why doesn't the U.S discuss attacking Saudi Arabi over 9/11?

berimBOWLoh said:
yea, man. a defensive war is the same as an offensive one.


America struggles to contain afganistan, iraq etc but would do well in a country with even more fanatics and much better military hardware.


sounds like an easy win, bro. unless you know, you actually think about it.
Click to expand...

The US does bad at occupations not wars, the Yemeni war is not an occupation, the Saudis cant really make any ground into rebel territory.
 
Rod1 said:
The US does bad at occupations not wars, the Yemeni war is not an occupation, the Saudis cant really make any ground into rebel territory.
Click to expand...

again, much different than the USA trying to implement some kind of regime change in Saudi Arabia. It would be a nightmare war. SA would call in all their terrorist friends from around the middle east, call in all the religious fanatics they fund etc etc.


honestly, really think about it. you think America could run over SA easily?? I dont see it. It would make Iraq, Afganistan etc look like cakewalks. These ppl have way more $, way more influence and way more weapons.

Without SA cooperation things would be much worse in the middle east than they are today for America. If they went openly all out anti america things would get crazy, real fast. SA could launch terrorist operations all over the world, easily.

I understand why America doesnt go that route. The devil you know and understand is usually a much better option in that region. Should have heeded that with Gadafi and Saddam.
 
berimBOWLoh said:
again, much different than the USA trying to implement some kind of regime change in Saudi Arabia. It would be a nightmare war. SA would call in all their terrorist friends from around the middle east, call in all the religious fanatics they fund etc etc.


honestly, really think about it. you think America could run over SA easily?? I dont see it. It would make Iraq, Afganistan etc look like cakewalks. These ppl have way more $, way more influence and way more weapons.

Without SA cooperation things would be much worse in the middle east than they are today for America. If they went openly all out anti america things would get crazy, real fast. SA could launch terrorist operations all over the world, easily.

I understand why America doesnt go that route. The devil you know and understand is usually a much better option in that region. Should have heeded that with Gadafi and Sadam.
Click to expand...

I never said invade Saudi Arabia, just stop giving them so much leeway.
 
Rod1 said:
I never said invade Saudi Arabia, just stop giving them so much leeway.
Click to expand...


how?? you need their cooperation in the region. what can you really threaten?? threaten to send them over to China and Russia as main allies?? fuck yourselves over??
 
berimBOWLoh said:
how?? you need their cooperation in the region. what can you really threaten?? threaten to send them over to China and Russia as main allies?? fuck yourselves over??
Click to expand...

Thats the problem, you arent really getting their cooperation on a shitload of stuff.
 
afghans undeniably are a better experienced and trained fighting force than the Saudis....

and it's not even remotely close.
 
berimBOWLoh said:
yea, man. a defensive war is the same as an offensive one.


America struggles to contain afganistan, iraq etc but would do well in a country with even more fanatics and much better military hardware.


sounds like an easy win, bro. unless you know, you actually think about it.
Click to expand...

Fanatics would play a part but modern weaponry would be useless against the USA. The USA military could destroy all tanks, artillery and planes in a few days from the air. The saudi military is dysfunctional, not only their officers are completely useless but they need constant american support in terms of intelligence.
Except if you're China or Russia your best bet to face an american invasion is small arms, mines, MANPADS, ATGMs as these can be hidden from airstrikes.
That's why America had to rush in to save Saudi Arabia from mighty Iraq in '91. Still the Iraqis were able to invade and take over a Saudi city.

Talking about fanatics, the Taliban is much more skilled than the saudi military.

America wouldn't attack Saudi though because of financial reasons.

However, after 9/11 the saudis conducted a massive purge against AQ supporters in their country.
 
Saudis have shit tons of money and are the only thing keeping US currency more valuable than monopoly money with the petro dollar.
 
Peteyandjia said:
W-Bush-bowing-to-saudi-king-2003.jpg
Click to expand...

Not only is this disgusting, but I'm shocked that neocons haven't called GWB out on his gay behavior.
 
They're the corner stone of the petro-dollar. That's why.
 
Greoric said:
@HendoRuaGOAT threw up the explanation in an earlier post. You disagree? What was incorrect about it?
Click to expand...

All of it?

Not factually true that the deal described happened, wouldn't make any sense for the U.S. to make a deal like that (I don't even know the theory behind the idea that the U.S. would care, for example--is there one?), etc. Just a nutty CT.
 
Jack V Savage said:
All of it?

Not factually true that the deal described happened, wouldn't make any sense for the U.S. to make a deal like that, etc. Just a nutty CT.
Click to expand...

Most of what the government does is conspire.
 
ultramanhyata said:
In retrospect, do you think invading Afghanistan achieved anything?
Click to expand...

No, or not much, its a shit show over there. Maybe marginally better than what was there before (Taliban) but it could falling back to them at any time. It is really sad because you could see some real progress in spots but the place was neglected over Iraq and many gains were lost. Its also the intractability of the over all culture.
 
Jack V Savage said:
All of it?

Not factually true that the deal described happened, wouldn't make any sense for the U.S. to make a deal like that (I don't even know the theory behind the idea that the U.S. would care, for example--is there one?), etc. Just a nutty CT.
Click to expand...

Jack, I think to hold this position you would need to offer an alternative explanation for why Saudi only sells oil for US currency, or why the US keeps selling advanced weapons to a known supporter and main financier to terror groups.

I mean why else would we be selling cluster bombs to SA to bomb the poorest nation in the ME?
 
HendoRuaGOAT said:
Jack, I think to hold this position you would need to offer an alternative explanation for why Saudi only sells oil for US currency, or why the US keeps selling advanced weapons to a known supporter and main financier to terror groups.

I mean why else would we be selling cluster bombs to SA to bomb the poorest nation in the ME?
Click to expand...

To hold my position that your nutty CT is factually inaccurate only requires that I'm familiar with the facts. There's no record of any such deal, and the U.S. would receive no benefit from it. It's false, and not even plausible, even if you assume that everyone with any influence over such a decision is a monster.

The reason that most oil-producing nations sell oil in dollars is that U.S. dollars are traditionally more stable, and because they're so widely used, it's more convenient.
 
Mecca and Medina are in Saudi Arabia. The two holiest sites in Islam. How do you think even moderate Muslims are going to react to America invading the centre of their faith?

I have nothing but contempt for Islam. But I understand that seriously pissing off well over a billion people should be avoided if at all possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,710
Messages
55,436,384
Members
174,774
Latest member
kilgorevontrouty

Share this page

Back
Top