Condidering that the actions of their citizens kick-started the "War on terror" (whatever that phrase may mean). There was no Afghans or Iraqis on those flights 5 years ago. Is the war being fought on the wrong front?
2006-09-10 22:27:03 · 22 answers · asked by This is me now 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
because saudi arabia 'listens' to both muppets..
2006-09-10 22:33:51 · answer #1 · answered by ★ yaya ★ 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Because of the personal friendship between the Bush family, the Bin Laden Family, & the Saudi Royal family.
on 9/11 Bush Sr. was in a meeting with Osamas bro in N.Y. the same bro that financed Bush Jr.'s failed oil fiasco. After Gulf War1, the US left a lot of military in Saudi Arabia. This idea of having the Infidal's stuff in the most sacred of Islamic countries is not accepable to Muslims. Something to do with not trusting us since the Crusades. Osama & some other Saudies were upset, so theBin Ladens & the Royal family told them to take it elsewhere. So they moved their whole crew to Afghanistan, and the families back in Arabia sent them much money to stay away. This money they used to train & get ready for 9/11. If you recall, after 9/11, there was a law suit taken out by the relatives of the victims of 9/11 ,not against Iraq,Afghanistan, or Iran, but against Saudi Arabia.
also on 9/13 only 2 planes were allowed to leave , a commercial jet and a private jet taking both The Bin Ladens & the Royal Family back to Saudi Arabia. Not one of them was so much as questioned by either the CIA or FBI. Let's face it, Bush does not want Osama captured. It could prove very awkward to say the least.
So the logical country to attack is Iraq. Duh, there is something very wrong with this picture.
2006-09-11 05:14:17 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well let me say this Bush is bed Partner's with the Saudis has been long before the white house and if there is an axis of evil, it is in the white house now. A senseless war at the cost of American lives. Everything that had happened 5 year's ago was planned long before the evil entered the white house. There is only one thing to fear( Washington). That war should have never taken place and Bush should be held accountable for it and stand trial for his war crimes.
2006-09-10 23:43:08 · answer #3 · answered by bear 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Pierre Salinger was a diplomat of sorts in the 80s or so who prefaced a book of Moamarr Qadaffi, saying essentially thus: "We knew it wasn't the Libyans who did the Lockerbie bombing. We thought it was the Saudis...."
They just couldn't go after the Saudis because of their position as OPEC lords and such. They mean too much to us, the US. Many conservative hawks have quietly been looking for a way to deal with the Saudis though.
The Saudis are on the non-Jew, pro US (yet publicly anti-Israel) wing of our forgeign policy. They stand up for what we like, they buy our weapons (and French weapons) and they keep an amicable relationship with our State Department. What more could you want in an oil state? Like we're freeing the world or something....
2006-09-10 22:38:11 · answer #4 · answered by Gremlin 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
You stated it was the actions of "their citizens"--that kick-started the "war on terror". Not the government. The government did not condone these act.
The "axis of evil" are adversarial governments. You wouldn't want another country to declare war on your nation based on what some citizens did, would you?
2006-09-10 23:28:54 · answer #5 · answered by amish-robot 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
you know what the problem is? it is that you fight the whole country not the people who mess up things and you think you are that strong
you can't stand against a big country like Saudi Arabia or fight it because it is a strong country as it exports oil to most of the world's countries and all the world would stand with her not by words and pressure but with force
you can't even settle in Iraq what do you expect of such a war?
2006-09-10 22:41:51 · answer #6 · answered by Different 2 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Those flights 5 years ago were just and excuse for what Bush & Co. had wished to do before but did not have plausible reason.
2006-09-10 23:02:26 · answer #7 · answered by WEBBADGER 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Good question. Hint: it has something to do with money and oil.
But honestly, Saudi Arabia doesn't hate us. Some of their citizens might, but the government isn't dedicated to our destruction. That's as much of an ally as we can hope for in that region, so we're not in any hurry to trash the relationship. Do we want the royal family handing their millions over to Iran and saying, "Hey, you know that little bomb you've had your eye on? Let me go ahead and buy it for you." No, I don't think we want that.
2006-09-10 22:32:13 · answer #8 · answered by smurfette 4 · 0⤊ 4⤋
The Taliban, former Afghan Government openly sponsore Osama and Hussien supported him, the Americans say but Saudi though Osama is one of theirs did not epressed at least in the open that they are in favor of Bin Laden's activities.
2006-09-10 22:37:30 · answer #9 · answered by santiago c 1 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Bush and Blair consider danger to oil alone as terror. so they encourage Pakistan to manufacture terror and send it to india.
2006-09-10 23:26:11 · answer #10 · answered by Brahmanda 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Because it is only a spare tire with a few missing lug nuts.
2006-09-10 22:31:09 · answer #11 · answered by Colorado 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋