Why did america go against Iraq for human rights, but not saudia arabia?

Question

Listen to all who say "oh sadams killed this killed that" , if you guys care so much about human rights and genocide, then how come you dont stand up against saudia arabia????? They kill hundreds of women every month, dont allow any other religon but islam, if your caught with any sign of christianity or judaism or other, your killed, if your gay, your raped in jail and then killed, why dont you carry about this??? Because bush supporters dont! thats why, you just care about the oil and know if you do something against them,your done, i for one am against Bush and his stupid plan, dont take it offensivly since not all of you are idiots like Bush,

"Rich S" Saudia Arabia, has not, I agree invaded a country or pay suicide bombers, but the rest my friend, they have done :)

Answer 1

America did no such thing.

It is likely that you mean the United States. You see, There is no such a thing as ‘American’ nationality, America is not a nation America is a continent with many nations in it. The US never named itself the name of the United States is a designation it comes from the end of the Declaration of Independence, "WE, therefore, the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in GENERAL CONGRESS, Assembled...". The preamble to the U.S. Constitution reiterated the phrase: "We the People of the United States..." (The authors of these two documents probably used the phrase "united states" in place of a list of colonies/states because they remained uncertain at the time of drafting which colonies/states would sign off on the sentiments therein.) The geographic term "America" specifies the states' home on the American continent.

It is therefor incorrect to refer to US citizens as Americans with the intent of denoting citizenship, or the United States as America with the intent of denoting a nation. Americans have a term for US citizens, we are called United Statesians by the rest of Americans, to say American with the intent of denoting citizenship or America when we mean the United States reflects poorly on our attitude towards the 70% of Americans that are not United Statesians.

Now, while Saudi Arabia is not a democracy you are exaggerating to no end. People can be anything they want be that Jewish, Christian or Muslim. Homosexuality however is punished but that is because that is what the Muslim creed demands.

And yes the US mostly cares about it's own interests, National Security and Oil DOES fall in that category.

Answer 2

if that they had long gone with an accepted group, then there would desire to be no issues till documents have been lacking or they did no longer greater healthful the criteron. some thing would desire to have long gone incorrect. The Saudi's are very strict with their rules purely like all different usa. would be you could desire to seem into the situation some greater. sturdy success and don't concern... Allah will come across a fashion.

Answer 3

Why hasn't Bush held Saudi Arabia liable for their human rights violations? Interesting question. It would seem that you don't know where King George got most of his money for his presidential campaigns. He used the al-Saud family's credit card to finance the thing. Of course, he isn't going to bite the hand that has been funding him all these years (i.e., Saudi oil).

Answer 4

america dont care about human rights. all they wanted was oil . but scince most of the iraqi people didnt like sadam they just tought. iraq is an easy target.

Answer 5

MOST PROBABLY BECAUSE SAUDI ARABIA WASNT KILLING THEIR OWN PEOPLE AT ABOUT A 100, 000 SOULS PER YEAR. AND SAUDI ARABIA HASN'T INVADED THEIR NEIGHBORS RECENTLY. AND SAUDI ARABIA WASN'T PAYING SUICIDE BOMBERS FAMILIES 25,000 A POP FOR ACTING LIKE LUNATICS. AND SAUDI ARABIA HASN'T KILLED 200,000 INNOCENT PEOPLE WITH GAS BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO ERADICATE THEM.......THAT AND SEVERAL OTHER REASONS.....YOU GET THE POINT.

Answer 6

Western powers have always been hypocritical in these issues. i love the quote about the shah of Iran "he's a son of a b*tch, but he's our son of a b*tch". nothing much has changed.