English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Why did pick Iraq not Saudi Arabia, wouldn't it seem that there would be the nation plotting against American's if 15 hijackers were from Saudi and none were from Iraq?... How can we get out of this situation we are in? can a new administration fix this?

2007-02-28 14:09:42 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Military

Iraq and september 11th are not two different things, if 9/11 never happened Bush would not have received the approval to wage war in Iraq... it all goes together!

2007-02-28 14:18:58 · update #1

I'm not a liberal... I'm actaully moderately conservative...! Iwas just asking if anyone had researched why we didn't go to Saudi when many signs pointed to their involvement!

2007-02-28 14:41:13 · update #2

20 answers

We went into afghanistan, not iraq, as a result of sept. 11...mainly because this country was known to be harboring Al qaeda, the terrorist org that supposedly formulated and executed the attacks on america

2007-02-28 14:23:33 · answer #1 · answered by Peter K 2 · 0 1

Saudi would have been a mistake.....

The war with Iraq… Basically what the war with Iraq does is this:

It takes the WEAKEST link in the chain and gains military ground for a possible front against other nations. You notice that once the United States took a hard core stance against terrorist organizations many countries turned around to see the American military on their back door

It has ALWAYS been known that land bases are much more successful to engage the enemy with fewer casualties. It is also known that we have had bases in the middle east for years. What deterrent did these bases create? Nothing, only targets for terrorists that left our hands tied because, “Who do you go after?”

Iraq was the BEST choice to defeat a rouge country that supported terrorism, (via video tape of Saddam paying families of the people who committed suicide bombings $25,000.00.) Look at the terrain, look at the people that wanted Saddam out. Even his neighbors for the most part didn’t like Saddam. Other countries would have given us even a bigger fight. The USA didn’t even have to build airstrips.

Things should have been done were not. Talks that should have taken place did not. A HARDER DIPLOMATIC LINE should have been taken. Just because these things were NOT done doesn’t mean that the war would have gone differently or less loss of lives would have happened.

2007-03-01 00:38:12 · answer #2 · answered by twister_rocks2000 1 · 3 0

If we went after the House of Saud, then we would lose every alliance and or treaty on the Arabian Peninsula. Next to the Kuwaitis, they are the only other moderate country that 1, has a sizable oil field; 2, has agreed to allow a large amount of troops on a continuous basis; and 3, we would piss off every Muslim in the world if we occupied Saudi. The two most important holy sites are at Mecca and Medina, and both are located in Saudi Arabia. It is purely a political question. That's all it is.

2007-02-28 23:14:04 · answer #3 · answered by darkhelmet29 2 · 1 0

Well, the best evidence including an admission or claim for the credit by Osama Bin Laden is that the hijackers were working for Osama who was based in Afgahnistan, not Saudi Arabia. Osama by the way is also a Saudi. Where they were born is not relevant. The important thing is that they were being sheltered and supported by the Taliban government in Afghanistan. Which in case you missed it was the first place we attacked.

Iraq was totally separate case. The only connection claimed by anyone of authority was that after 911 we weren't going to wait to see if Saddam actually developed WMD's, gave them to terrorist, and caused the loss of more American civilians before we attacked him. Saddam was given a chance to surrender before we attacked and he refused.

Probably need to read more about whats going on, and get your information from more than the Leftist media. Yahoo might be a good start but you don't need to stop there.

2007-02-28 23:17:17 · answer #4 · answered by Roadkill 6 · 1 1

That is easy.

The Iraq was was waged by Bush as revenge for his father being denied a second term in office. Billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of USA and Iraqis lives later, the truth is coming out in bits and pieces. 9/11 was a charade to justify attacking Iraq.

Saudi Arabia would have been too expensive a target and Iraq had the dual identity of being Arab and being available as a vocal opponent to USA colonial ambitions in the Middle East. No WMD, no reason to murder Kusay and Uday, no reason to hang Saddam...all directed actions by Bush the chimp himself anfd his beloved Dick Cheney mafia. Saddam obviously knew how to maintain order based on his own country and his own culture.

Bush has created civil war in Iraq, and will pass off the mess to the next USA President. We have a winner!

2007-02-28 23:13:32 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

You would have needed to read up on the Gulf War, the UN, and the UNSC events that followed to know the background. With that in mind, here is President Clinton on regime change in Iraq. 31 Oct 1998, the Iraq Liberation Act.

http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm

2007-03-01 01:32:58 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Ehhh...because Saudi Arabia did not violate the terms of the Gulf War ceasefire, nor did they steadfastly refuse to show what had become of the WMD they used against their own people , nor did the UN Security Council vote unanimously to take action against them ...that would be Iraq.
The House od Saud are indeed a nest of vipers, but they are a sight better than whats waiting in the wings to take over.
We will be out of Iraq when they can fend for themselves and protect the citizenry that voted in a legitimate government in free elections.
It won't be much longer - things are starting to turn in our favor, slowly but surely.

2007-02-28 22:24:10 · answer #7 · answered by Garrett S 3 · 3 1

Bush family is owned lock stock and oil barrel , by the house of Saud, and the Bin Laden family when Osama's older brother died in a plane crash in 1988 he was leaving the airport in Texas after staying with the Bushs. Read up on James Bath and Arbusto oil investors. The Carlyle Group another Bin Laden Bush mutual investment . these are facts not BS for all the right wing nuts out there....you just don't hear it on talk radio

2007-02-28 22:39:53 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Because the Bush family is tight pals with the Royal family of Saudi Arabia.

2007-02-28 22:13:57 · answer #9 · answered by CC 6 · 3 1

Population of Saudi Arabia = 27,019,7311

Number of al-Qaeda operatives from Saudi Arabia = 15

Number of them supported by the Saudi government = 0

2007-02-28 22:18:13 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3 2

fedest.com, questions and answers