Quoted: Sorry to answer questions with questions. But here are a few Questions for you all: 1. How could we have fought the war on terror without a base of operations in the middle east?

Well, we do have Qatar....(but I'll give you more, on #2).

2. In 2002, what middle eastern country had could we invade to establish the base of operations without being perceived as the aggressor?

Why ever would we have to invade a country?? WTF have we been paying Israel all these years for?? We give American $$, why can't we have bases there?

Are we gonna piss anyone MORE off, by basing in Israel, or INVADING a Moslem Nation?? What's the difference?

3. What are the strategic, tactical and political consequences of an American friendly Iraq with respect to the war on terror?

Who says they're gonna be "American Friendly"?? We were TOLD before the war, they would welcome us as "liberators"...

The answer, is, NO benefit to the US war on terror. Actually, it diminishes our resources, while the REAL perps of 9/11, (Saudis), continue to collect greenbacks...

Answer to Jarhead 22's first question: We are in Iraq? Leverage.

Yes, leverage, for who???  

edit; add a quote..

Quoted: The Jews? No, Israel! No, maybe it was the Jews? OK, it was the Jews and Israel. Eric The(IsraelAndTheJewsIsMyFinalAnswer)Hun

While we may disagree... (I have a feeling face to face over a campfire may solve much of our problem), I do much more prefer a smilie, and some occaisional humor.

There is much to love and respect about you, I've seen that......

(but yer still off base on this one! )

edit to add code.

I wish some of these Jews, who rule the world by proxy after all, would come into this thread and explain why they haven't mandated a stop to all this anti-Jewish bombing and killing in Europe, Turkey, Isreal, etc.  
Come to think of it, it would probably reduce the revenue from the Jewish-owned media too much and that would make the Jewish-owned banks complain to the Jewish-owned Defense Department, and those Jews would complain to the World Zionist Conspiracy, and on and on until nobody could get any sleep.

Either that or maybe these Arabs are simply victimology fucked up murderer/loosers who love to blame the honky devil for their shitty existance.

Is it really that complicated?

Quoted: I wish some of these Jews, who rule the world by proxy after all, would come into this thread and explain why they haven't mandated a stop to all this anti-Jewish bombing and killing in Europe, Turkey, Isreal, etc.   Come to think of it, it would probably reduce the revenue from the Jewish-owned media too much and that would make the Jewish-owned banks complain to the Jewish-owned Defense Department, and those Jews would complain to the World Zionist Conspiracy, and on and on until nobody could get any sleep. Either that or maybe these Arabs are simply victimology fucked up murderer/loosers who love to blame the honky devil for their shitty existance. Is it really that complicated?

Prolly too complicated for you...

I'd LOVE to take it up, but I'm in enough trouble already!!!    

Tell ya what.... Start a new thread, lets get it on.... !!!

Yeeee-Hawwww

It is that simple.  Tell the truth now, where would you rather live:  In Tel Aviv with Arabs or any city in Syria without Jews?  You know very well you would live a long life in Tel Aviv and a short life in Syria.

I don't understand why there is a grey area here.

Quoted: It is that simple.  Tell the truth now, where would you rather live:  In Tel Aviv with Arabs or any city in Syria without Jews?  You know very well you would live a long life in Tel Aviv and a short life in Syria. I don't understand why there is a grey area here.

Because, compared to Where I live now, they're BOTH shitholes....And, I don't hafta choose...

And you're right.... There are NO "gray areas"....

Yes you live in Oregon which is a beautiful state, very good people who believe in the rule of law.  The opposite of Oregon is every Arab nation:  desert, death, depression, dictators, dung.  Oregon has no oil but has immense wealth.  Arabia has beaucoup oil but has desert, death, depression, dictators, dung.  The proxy of the Jews smiles on Oregon and shits on Arabia.

Quoted: You know what? You're right. I engaged you, mistakenly believing it was worthwhile to do so. Now I see the light. In the spirit of your first post in this thread, go piss up a rope.

Y'see!  NOW you get it.  The response to someone saying "Get over it and stop bitching" is either "Yeah, you know, you're right, this is pointless," (which, in this case, would have been the sensible answer since all your questions have been dealt with over and over and over for months now), OR to say "Go to hell."
You chose the less sensible alternative, but at least it WAS one of the logical possibilities!  

Quoted: Welp, some of the smartest people in the world, are formulating our mid-east military, and political policy... If it's going wrong, the question is, why?? (OR, maybe it's NOT going wrong,...for them!! ) Jar, WHO benefits.......

Occam's Razor applies in all things.

I don't buy that the president is intentionally feeding US troops into a woodchipper a year before an election. That doesn't pass the smell test or Occam's Razor, so your conspiracy theory is DRT.

Got anything else?

Quoted: 1. How could we have fought the war on terror without a base of operations in the middle east?

Saudi Arabia, Iran or Syria, while not as centrally located as Iraq, would have made equally good bases. And we had much stronger evidence of complicity with terrorists with regard to any of the above than we did for Iraq. All we had on Iraq was some weak UN business that the UN wouldn't even prosecute.

2. In 2002, what middle eastern country had could we invade to establish the base of operations without being perceived as the aggressor?

None. Absolutely none at all. Ask the Iraqis or the Syrians who is the agressor in Iraq. Ask the French, Germans, Russians, UN, etc, etc.

3. What are the strategic, tactical and political consequences of an American friendly Iraq with respect to the war on terror?

What likelihood is there that there will be an America-friendly Iraq in a year? Do you give it better than 30%?

Answer to Jarhead 22's first question: We are in Iraq? Leverage.

So Iraq is better leverage than Iran, with it's nuclear program? Or Saudi Arabia with it's oil reserves?

Quoted: Quoted: 1. How could we have fought the war on terror without a base of operations in the middle east? Saudi Arabia, Iran or Syria, while not as centrally located as Iraq, would have made equally good bases. And we had much stronger evidence of complicity with terrorists with regard to any of the above than we did for Iraq. All we had on Iraq was some weak UN business that the UN wouldn't even prosecute.

Perhaps. However, invading Saudi Arabia, Iran or Syria would have caused a far worse political problem.

2. In 2002, what middle eastern country had could we invade to establish the base of operations without being perceived as the aggressor? None. Absolutely none at all. Ask the Iraqis or the Syrians who is the aggressor in Iraq. Ask the French, Germans, Russians, UN, etc, etc.

When invaded Iraq we had 17 UN resolutions we could point to and say we were carrying out the wishes of the security council and the UN. France, Germany and Russia simply disagreed that they had given us that full authority. They stopped further resolutions, but could not revoke the resolution they had already signed.

THEREFORE, the US had a perfect place to establish a base of operation in the middle east to fight the war on terror.

3. What are the strategic, tactical and political consequences of an American friendly Iraq with respect to the war on terror? What likelihood is there that there will be an America-friendly Iraq in a year? Do you give it better than 30%?

Historical answer. See Japan and Philippines.

Yes, I believe there is an almost 100% chance that we will be able to use Iraq as a base of operations for the war on terror. After that, I believe there will be a great chance the Iraq will become an ally in the long term. They were already one of the most Westernized countries in the middle east. Most Iraqis already speak some English. Now they will be able to become more Americanized. Satellite dishes are available everywhere. Their kids will grow up watching MTV. The parents will spend hours watching sitcoms and they will become hyperconsumers as soon as the country is stabilized. In short we will sheeplize them.

Answer to Jarhead 22's first question: We are in Iraq? Leverage. So Iraq is better leverage than Iran, with it's nuclear program? Or Saudi Arabia with it's oil reserves?

Having a base of operations and staging area for American troops in the middle east gives us a HUGE increase in political leverage against Saudi Ariba, Syria, Iran, UAE, Yemen, Egypt, etc.

We will use AND ARE using that leverage to get the Saudi's to crack down and control their militants. The recent bombings in SA are a direct result of the policy we have adopted. The Saudis are pulling in the reigns of the Saudi terrorists. The terrorists have struck out at them. Now the Saudis will have no choice but to crack down on them further. This has made and will make the terrorists turn their sights inward. It is much harder to bomb America when you are fighting against your own country.

Our policy as in effect opened a second front for the terrorists. I contend that was the objective all along.

Question: What are the strategic, tactical and political consequences of an American friendly Iraq with respect to the war on terror?

Tactical ramifications: More difficulty for terrorist sponsors like Iran and Syria to transit material aid to terrorist groups though Iraqi soil. Terrorist foot soldiers(though probably not the most dangerous and sophisticated ones) may opt for martyrdom in Iraq other than elsewhere. Strategic and political ramifications: Syria,Iran,and Saudi Arabia forced by immediate U.S. presence to modify stance on terrorist support. Iraqi oil reserves may provide level of oil security required before real pressure can be placed on Saudi Arabia.American presence on Syrian and Jordanian border may alleviate Israeli fears enough to allow for concessions on disputed territories. Presence of liberalized Iraq on border countries may cause hastening of political change in Iran and elsewhere,which has already started. Individual empowerment leads to more focus on individual entreprise,which leads to less influence of radical elements and a desire for the type of stability necessary for economic growth. Summary: Iraq can prove to be the keystone to regional change if managed correctly. Elements hostile to this change are sure to marshal all resources against this. In spite of a number of almost overwhelming errors the ultimate goals can still be acheived.We must hasten the political and economic rebuilding in this country,irregardless of the security situation.

Sombody finally took a minute to think about and answer my question. He didn't anwer the political part, but I'd say he did a pretty good job considering he is a moderate liberal and was opposed to the Iraq action.

outdoorsbest.zeroforum.com/zerothread?id=131525&page=3

Liberty86 hit the nail on the head. My sons budy is in the 5/3 Marines. Spent some time in that "shithole" as he put it. He is re upping for 4 more years so he can go back & finish the job at hand. He will be with the 4th Marines when they deploy from Camp Pendleton along with 20,000 others from that base.
He told me of a 8 year old Iraqi boy shortly after the invasion cooled down. The youngster came up to them ,begging for food."Good Bush,Good Bush" was all the English he knew. But then to the young Marine's shock, the boy picked up his shirt revealing healed bullet wounds. Pointing at them he shouted "Saddam, Saddam" and gave the thumbs down deal!!
That's why he is going back. These people have been LIBERATED and a bunch of thug terrorists are trying to undermind this effort. The Marine stated "either we fight those fuckers there in Iraq or we'll fight them in downtown L.A. or Portland or Washington D.C. or ... (you fill in the city). "We have an oppertunity to kill a shitload of those raghead fucks by the hundreds... no thousands over there. Who cares how much of that shithole we have to destroy to get them. It doesn't matter how we get them as long as we get them ... DEAD." Better there than here!

Then he says "Semper Fi"!!

I said, "I'll drink to that"! And we did.


How many more body bags will we need for our next 9/11 ?? We must take the fight to them.

I don’t believe for one minute that every Iraqi is a Jihadist.  I think many remember only too well Saddam and his henchmen.  The insurgency and bloodshed we’re currently experiencing should have been expected and was.  The zealots prayers are that we will cut and run (can anyone say Mogadishu).   Why was it we rolled into Baghdad without hardly firing a shot?  A great majority of Iraqis hated Saddam and his regimes guts.   Things in time will play out.  Sure, everyone hates to see our men and women killed or wounded.  What do you think would have happened if all the news outlets gave a daily death report during WWII?  Hell, we'd all be speaking German.            

Quoted: Perhaps. However, invading Saudi Arabia, Iran or Syria would have caused a far worse political problem.

The al Saud gave millions of dollars to al Qaeda. Do you think al Qaeda opened children's centers and soup kitchens with it? They spent that money on operations against the US, culminating in the bombing of the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. That was Saudi royal family money paying for the boat to bomb the Cole, for flying lessons for the 19, for payoffs in Africa.

"We will make no distinction between terrorists and those who fund, train or harbor them."

If the administration would just yank loose the IV of al Saud-paid lobbyists and money, the al Qaeda situation would change in a heartbeat.

I guess all the Americans that Hizbollah kidnapped and killed are ancient history as far as Iran and Syria goes, so you may be right there. But the American blood on al Saud hands is still fresh and wet.

When invaded Iraq we had 17 UN resolutions we could point to and say we were carrying out the wishes of the security council and the UN. France, Germany and Russia simply disagreed that they had given us that full authority. They stopped further resolutions, but could not revoke the resolution they had already signed.

So, instead of the blood of thousands of Americans, we had a piece of paper signed in UN headquarters. Gotcha.

THEREFORE, the US had a perfect place to establish a base of operation in the middle east to fight the war on terror.

That remains to be seen.

Historical answer. See Japan and Philippines.

Japan was utterly crushed, and the demonstrated willingness of the Truman administration to drop nuke after nuke until Japan completely capitulated was evident. Totally different than the situation on the ground in Iraq, don't you think?

The Phillipines were always very friendly toward the US, and we certainly compared favorably to Spain, if that's the historical reference you're making. A bit different from the situation on the ground in Iraq, wouldn't you say?

Yes, I believe there is an almost 100% chance that we will be able to use Iraq as a base of operations for the war on terror. After that, I believe there will be a great chance the Iraq will become an ally in the long term. They were already one of the most Westernized countries in the middle east. Most Iraqis already speak some English. Now they will be able to become more Americanized. Satellite dishes are available everywhere. Their kids will grow up watching MTV. The parents will spend hours watching sitcoms and they will become hyperconsumers as soon as the country is stabilized. In short we will sheeplize them.

Do you really think the Shia will allow that to happen? As much as they hate Saddam, they have far more loyalty to the ayatollahs than they ever will to any US gerrymandered "democracy" we can install. In the case of a real democratic vote, the majority Shia will vote in the new Revolutionary Islamic Republic of Iraq, modeled on their next door neighbors. How much help do you think we'll get from them with the war on terrorism?

Having a base of operations and staging area for American troops in the middle east gives us a HUGE increase in political leverage against Saudi Ariba, Syria, Iran, UAE, Yemen, Egypt, etc.

Having that base IN Saudi Arabia or Iran or Syria would be even better, because we would have conquered a regime that actually did contribute to terrorism against America in the process. Not so much in Iraq, until we knocked over Saddam Hussein and left the borders to --surprise!-- Syria and Iran open, allowing them to export terrorism to Iraq for our benefit.

We will use AND ARE using that leverage to get the Saudi's to crack down and control their militants. The recent bombings in SA are a direct result of the policy we have adopted. The Saudis are pulling in the reigns of the Saudi terrorists. The terrorists have struck out at them. Now the Saudis will have no choice but to crack down on them further. This has made and will make the terrorists turn their sights inward. It is much harder to bomb America when you are fighting against your own country.

I don't think so. The Saudis have had some problems over the past couple of years, not as a result of anything those dirty bastards are doing for us, but because al Qaeda hates them just a shade less than us. If the Saudis are actually going after al Qaeda, it's as an internal matter because they're being attacked, not as some kind of "coalition in the war on terrorism." The al Saud hate us, but they need us because we buy the lion's share of their oil, the one thing keeping them from devolving back into the filthy goatropers they are inside their silken robes.

Our policy as in effect opened a second front for the terrorists. I contend that was the objective all along.

Hey, I'm all for fighting them over there instead of over here, but we're just not fighting smart.

Quoted: Jeepers, Jarhead_22, we can barely get the American public on our side in the fight in Iraq! What's the likelihood that we could have ginned up public support for an invasion of Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Syria? What possible legal rationale could we have used to conduct such a campaign?

Please see my response in the post above to Q3131A's first point.

Nope, we got the best for the least amount of trouble. And by 'trouble' I also mean 'body-bags' as well, for any of those countries would likely have been able to inflict greater casualties on our troops that Iraq proved able.

Do you think Saudi Arabia has stockpiles of RPGs and SAMs laying around in grade schools? I doubt it. And no matter where we invaded, we'd certainly be subject to foreign terrorist attacks if we didn't send enough troops to secure the borders.

Or are you satisfied that the administration has done and is doing all it can for the fighting man in Iraq?

Quoted: Quoted: Our policy as in effect opened a second front for the terrorists. I contend that was the objective all along. Hey, I'm all for fighting them over there instead of over here, but we're just not fighting smart.

That was not my point.

We had several choices when it came to fighting the war on terror:

1. Do nothing. Politically impossible.
2. Make a gesture and declare victory. Might have worked for Bill Clinton. But Bush has resolve.
3. Do everything. Attack each and every country who's government supports terrorism. That would equate to SA, Iran, UAE, Syria, Egypt and several other smaller countries. Politically this was impossible. The world would have turned against us.
4. Attack a subset of countries that support terrorism. SA and Syria would be targets of opportunity. However, the world would have turned against us. It would not have been sustainable. Bush's support would have quickly eroded and failure would have followed.

OR

5. Find a way to get the governments of the middle east that support terrorism to stop and crack down on their domestic terror groups. But how?

1. Set up a base of operation in Iraq.
2. Set an example to the governments of the middle east that we have the capability, will and resolve to remove any government that doesn't help us in the war on terror.
3. Apply newfound leverage against the government of SA to crack down on their terrorists.

The Iraq decision was an easy one. Take a minute and think about the Tactical, Strategic and Political advantages of having our troops in Iraq. Also, what are the long term benefits to the United States for a self governed Iraq with an American presence?

Quoted: Do you think Saudi Arabia has stockpiles of RPGs and SAMs laying around in grade schools? I doubt it. And no matter where we invaded, we'd certainly be subject to foreign terrorist attacks if we didn't send enough troops to secure the borders.

No matter where we invaded, we would have won. The question is what the rest of the world would have done. If we invaded SA, we would now be fighting a MUCH larger conflict perhaps militarily but DEFINITELY politically.

Or are you satisfied that the administration has done and is doing all it can for the fighting man in Iraq?

I am satisfied that the administration is pursuing A correct course of action in the middle east. They are setting an example (IRAQ), providing a staging area for future operations (if necessary), AND applying their newfound leverage to stop SA (and others) from supporting terrorists. AND in fact gotten SA to crack down on their terrorists.

We can't replace all the governments of the middle east. We can help them do things our way. By SA cracking down on their terrorists we have opened another front against them. The terrorists are now fighting a two front war.

No one's willing to address anything I've said about Saudi Arabia. Why is that?

Did the al Saud NOT give millions to al Qaeda to get them to point their swords outward at America instead of inward at the al Saud? Was I wrong about that?

Did al Qaeda NOT use that money to fund operations against the Khobar Towers (19 Americans killed, ~500 wounded), the USS Cole (17 Americans killed, 39 wounded), the US embassies in Kenya (12 Americans killed) and Tanzania, the Pentagon (126 Americans killed, plust 64 on board AA Flight 77), UAL Flight 93 (45 Americans killed) and the World Trade Center (~2880 Americans killed, including two airliners and emergency service personnel). Was I wrong about that?

Did President Bush NOT say that we would make no distinction between the terrorists themselves and those who FUND, train and harbor them? Was I wrong about that?

Have the al Saud done a single thing to help us bring down al Qaeda? Have they helped the FBI with investigations into any of the above, or have they hindered those investigations?

Did the al Saud do a single thing to put down al Qaeda until al Qaeda started directing their attacks inward at Saudi Arabia?

A federal prosecutor --were he allowed to-- could easily win a case with this, but the president won't take it across the river to the Pentagon and turn them loose on it. Why? Political cover.

How much political cover have we gotten from the UN resolutions on Iraq? How much assistance have we gotten from the UN? Supposedly the "world would turn against us" if we invaded terrorist-harboring and -funding Saudi Arabia with what we have on them, but has the world not turned against us anyway for going into Iraq, UN resolution or no? What more could they do? Or do you mean literally have turned against us? Would Germany have declared war on the US if we had invaded Saudi Arabia? Would France?

If legitimacy is what this administration wanted in the war on terrorism, there could be no more ironclad case than that against Saudi Arabia. But instead we invade Iraq, where there have been no hard links to al Qaeda turned up.

What happens if Hizbollah flies a jetliner into a Manhattan high rise? Will we invade Belgium instead of Iran or Syria? Belgium has as much to do with Hizbollah as Iraq does with al Qaeda.

Quoted: No one's willing to address anything I've said about Saudi Arabia. Why is that?

Probably because we don't disagree. I doubt that you will find many SA lovers here.

Did the al Saud NOT give millions to al Qaeda to get them to point their swords outward at America instead of inward at the al Saud? Was I wrong about that?

Nope. They gave the money, aid, support and comfort to the terrorists.

Did al Qaeda NOT use that money to fund operations against the Khobar Towers (19 Americans killed, ~500 wounded), the USS Cole (17 Americans killed, 39 wounded), the US embassies in Kenya (12 Americans killed) and Tanzania, the Pentagon (126 Americans killed, plust 64 on board AA Flight 77), UAL Flight 93 (45 Americans killed) and the World Trade Center (~2880 Americans killed, including two airliners and emergency service personnel). Was I wrong about that?

Nope, they did that.

Did President Bush NOT say that we would make no distinction between the terrorists themselves and those who FUND, train and harbor them? Was I wrong about that?

He said that.

Have the al Saud done a single thing to help us bring down al Qaeda? Have they helped the FBI with investigations into any of the above, or have they hindered those investigations?

Can you say that they haven't helped?

Did the al Saud do a single thing to put down al Qaeda until al Qaeda started directing their attacks inward at Saudi Arabia?

Can you say what caused al Qaeda to suddenly make such a large scale attack in SA? I put forth that is was due to the Saudis responding to American pressure.

A federal prosecutor --were he allowed to-- could easily win a case with this, but the president won't take it across the river to the Pentagon and turn them loose on it. Why? Political cover.

Huh? Sick the lawyers on international countries?

How much political cover have we gotten from the UN resolutions on Iraq? How much assistance have we gotten from the UN?

An immense amount.

Supposedly the "world would turn against us" if we invaded terrorist-harboring and -funding Saudi Arabia with what we have on them, but has the world not turned against us anyway for going into Iraq, UN resolution or no?

The world has not turned against us because there were 17 UN resolutions condemning Iraq. We had the political cover necessary to invade Iraq for the war on terror.

What more could they do?

Are you serious? They could levy economic embargos on the USA. They could affix Tariffs to all American goods. They could expel our ambassadors. They could stop talking to us. They could send advisors to monitor the situation. They could subtly aid the enemy. They could overtly aid the enemy. They could send troops to fight with the enemy. They could declare war on us.

Who is they? France, Great Britain, Spain, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Libya, South Africa, Switzerland, etc.

We may be the worlds only superpower, but international politics is still VERY a reality we must face.

Or do you mean literally have turned against us? Would Germany have declared war on the US if we had invaded Saudi Arabia? Would France?

There are a thousand gradients that each country could take to hurt the United States. See above x 500.

If legitimacy is what this administration wanted in the war on terrorism, there could be no more ironclad case than that against Saudi Arabia.

How? Did the SA government attack the United States? Did the millions of Saudi citizens fart in our general direction? There is NO case for invading Saudi Arabia. NONE.

But instead we invade Iraq, where there have been no hard links to al Qaeda turned up.

No. But now we have a base of operations for providing political leverage and military support for the war on terror. That was and is the goal for invading Iraq.

What happens if Hizbollah flies a jetliner into a Manhattan high rise? Will we invade Belgium instead of Iran or Syria? Belgium has as much to do with Hizbollah as Iraq does with al Qaeda.

Belgium is not strategically situated in the middle east. Belgium has no UN resolutions against it that would provide political cover.

What would we do? Well, now that we are able to better fight the war on terror. I suppose we would launch air strikes against Hezbollah camps and positions. We would also be better prepared politically to twist the arm of whatever country those camps were in to allow us to fly over.

Jar,

I have answered your questions. Now please take some time and answer mine.

What are the tactical, strategic, and political ramifications of having a base of operations in Iraq? How does that help us to fight the war on terror?

Quoted: As for that long diatribe about this Feith guy...anytime I find more than one horribly slanted political buzzword per paragraph(like "neoconservative", "ultrahawkish", etc.) I automatically discount the source as biased--it implies that by slapping a label on someone I can automatically deduce their motives--which is as closed-minded as someone saying "guns are evil." limaxray, that was an outstanding post, as well as jar's post you quoted..... As I said, when I posted this stuff, I'll gather info from whatever source. I'm able to recognize MOST propaganda. If something interests me, I find other sources, to verify it. If I quoted from the "New American", I'd prolly get the same reaction.... It sounds to me, like you may have some experience. If so, perhaps you will understand what I'm saying?? EVERYONE has an "agenda". It is up to us, to try and discern "Truth". (hint; it's ALL spiritual) At any rate, WITH PERMISSION, from you AND jar, I'd like to comment, and perhaps ask some questions, out of your post.

By all means, quote away.  Always interested in the free exchange of ideas.

Regarding the Saudi government (the al Saud family) and investigations into 09.11.01 and the Khobar Towers:

Quoted: Can you say that they haven't helped?

Yes, I can say that, and the FBI has said it. Every Saudi they want to talk to is unavailable, and any suspects they develop in Saudi Arabia are taken into custody by the Saudis and "dies during questioning" or otherwise made unavailable.

Can you say what caused al Qaeda to suddenly make such a large scale attack in SA? I put forth that is was due to the Saudis responding to American pressure.

There was nothing "sudden" about it. The Saudis have been undergoing a low grade insurgency for some time now. Four Brits were arrested, jailed and tortured for bombings over what the Saudis call a bootlegger's war. No such war is going on, as bootleg whiskey is distilled in foreign housing compounds for private consumption, and there is no market for illegal hooch outside of the compounds. These bombings had all the hallmarks of al Qaeda attacks on foreign compounds, but because the Saudis found illegal distilleries when they went into the compounds, they had a convenient scapegoat.

www.sptimes.com/2002/webspecials02/saudiarabia/day2/story1.shtml

Huh? Sick the lawyers on international countries?

No. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in what I was trying to say.

A prosecutor with this kind of evidence against an individual would be good to go in a courtroom. There is a mountain of evidence showing the vast sums of money the al Saud paid to al Qaeda. By contrast, the Bush administration won't take this evidence and lay it out for the world to hear as a figurative "indictment" against the al Saud to justify regime change in Saudi Arabia.

An immense amount.

The UN refused to authorize invasion of Iraq because Iraq was continuing the low-level obstructionist tactics that has marked its involvement with the UN inspections and sanctions for years, nothing more. The US far exceeded the "permission" or "authorization" granted by the UN when we invaded Iraq, demonstrated by the total lack of assistance from that body, and repeated attempts to "internationalize" relief and reconstruction efforts in post-Saddam Iraq.

The world has not turned against us because there were 17 UN resolutions condemning Iraq. We had the political cover necessary to invade Iraq for the war on terror.

The world has turned against us. They are eager for us to fail in Iraq. Where is the international assistance with troops for post-Saddam Iraq's security? Where is the international assistance with money for post-Saddam Iraq's reconstruction? Not forthcoming anytime soon.

They could levy economic embargos on the USA. They could affix Tariffs to all American goods. They could expel our ambassadors. They could stop talking to us. They could send advisors to monitor the situation. They could subtly aid the enemy. They could overtly aid the enemy. They could send troops to fight with the enemy. They could declare war on us.

Not if we laid out the evidence against the al Saud regime, and there is far more of it regarding terrorism that there ever was against the Baathist regime in Iraq. But we'll never know now.

This statement:

Did the SA government attack the United States? Did the millions of Saudi citizens fart in our general direction? There is NO case for invading Saudi Arabia. NONE.

would seem to be in contradiction to these:

Nope. They gave the money, aid, support and comfort to the terrorists.

Nope, they did that.

The Saudi government, as I've said repeatedly, and you agreed to, funded the Islamist terrorist group al Qaeda. Al Qaeda attacked America. What terrorist group that attacked America did Iraq fund? What did millions of Iraqi citizens do to offend America? Are we making war against the citizenry of Iraq? Have I suggested that we make war against the citizenry of Saudi Arabia? No, I have repeatedly talked of taking the war on terrorism to the al Saud, the ruling family of Saudi Arabia.

Belgium is not strategically situated in the middle east. Belgium has no UN resolutions against it that would provide political cover.

I can see that irony and analogy are lost on you.

To sum up:

• Why invade Iraq, a socialist autocracy inimical to the goals of hardcore Islamist terrorists, when there are so many nations with direct links to the scummiest bastards in existence? Syria: Hamas, Hizbollah. Iran: Hizbollah. Saudi Arabia: al Qaeda. Pakistan: al Qaeda. Pakistan at least has a new administration, but they're holding on by their fingernails anyway.

Politics.

• Why invade Iraq before Saddam Hussein was positively identified and fixed in place for elimination? Just like the collossal screw-up in Afghanistan of invading before Osama bin Laden was ID'd and fixed, this has given a hero/martyr figure for loyalists to fixate on and left in place a powerful enemy for possible allies to fear. Every breath Saddam and Osama take makes us look incompetent to the world. Nobody saw that coming?

It doesn't matter if Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are still alive. Nothing personal, ollie ollie oxen free.

• Why are US troops sitting in Germany, the middle of the EU who won't give us a dime or a soldier for the effort in Iraq, instead of on the ground in the sand? Why were they left there instead of securing Iraq's borders months ago so every jihadi wannabe with a pound of semtex and a grudge couldn't ride in out of Syria and Iran and get some?

Maybe no one thought of this.

• Did President Bush come up with the idea of democracy for Iraq? The majority of Iraqis are Shiite Muslims. What kind of government do you think they're going to vote themselves given the opportunity? Something like ours, but with falafel huts on the corner instead of McDonalds? Or do you think it'll end up looking more like the Islamic Republic of Iran, another majority Shi'a nation?

No answer. Apparently there is no concern that the majority Shia population of Iraq will ally itself more closely to its coreligionists in Iran --who are busily getting closer and closer to having nuclear weapons and medium range missiles with which to deliver them-- than with the US sponsored democracry-to-come in Iraq.

Jar,

I have answered your questions. Now please take some time and answer mine.

What are the tactical, strategic, and political ramifications of having a base of operations in Iraq? How does that help us to fight the war on terror?

According to the radio this morning, the Saudis are claiming to have killed more Al Qeada members than any other country in the last 6 months. They are claiming they have expelled over 200 Islamic clerics. They are claiming that they have frozen bank accounts of terrorist groups and shut down questionable charities.

This is a direct result of our newfound political clout. AND is the only way we can fight an win a long term war on terror.

It is also the reason that the Saudis were attacked last week by the terrorists.

It is clear to me that our policy in Iraq is working and we are winning the war on terror.

Quoted: What are the tactical, strategic, and political ramifications of having a base of operations in Iraq? How does that help us to fight the war on terror?

The advantages of having troops on the ground and free to operate in the middle east are obvious. But won't the Saudis, our allies in T*W*A*T (The War Against Terrorism) let us operate out of there? I mean, they've seen the light now and are cracking down on al Qaeda, right?

Do you ever check out www.memri.org? If you did, you might see that, regardless of what the Saudis claim about killing al Qaeda, expelling Islamic clerics and going after terrorist funding, they hate us and everything we stand for, but they're addicted to US greenbacks just like we're addicted to light sweet Saudi crude.