I believe that in 2003, instead of Iraq being invaded, real terrorist sponsoring countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan should have been invaded. We should have let Saddam stay in power and we should have funded him to help raise a real army so he could invade Iran for us so we didn't have to reinstate the draft in the US. Saddam hated Iran ten times more than he hated the US and he would have invaded Iran once he heard they were seeking nuclear power. Saddam, no matter how hard he went on his people, was a useful ally to the US and we should have never even have invaded Iraq in 1990 because he would have still been our ally and he would have still had a real army. I think Bush should cut all ties to the totaltarian government of Saudi Arabia, but he makes way too much money to cut the ties.
2007-07-27 03:12:40 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Because Saudi Arabia provides the OIL we need/want. Basically, we support them for the same reason we support COMMUNIST China--it'd be the downfall of the US if we didn't.
2007-07-27 03:20:56 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
We actually have a good relationship with the Saudis and have had for a good many years. LONG before Bush came along. We also train their helicopter pilots and offer other military training to them right here in the U.S. Again, this has been going on since long before the Bush regime came into power. Like any other country, they have their share of outlaws. To break up our diplomatic relationship with them, would be one of the biggest mistakes that we could ever make. :)
2007-07-27 11:00:30 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your post shows just how naive you really are. Saudi Arabia is a complicated country whom we rely on heavily for their oil. Like it or not, that is just a fact. Their government doesn't support terrorism, it just tends to breed terrorism. Saddam posed an actual threat evidenced by his treatment of the Kurds, his threats to Kuwait and Israel and the west, his use of chemical and biological weapons, and his insistence and efforts in acquiring nuclear weapons. The world is a safer place without him today than it was before.
2007-07-27 10:20:21 · answer #3 · answered by Scott B 7 · 4⤊ 5⤋
If that is what you believe then I would say you are totally ignorant on several levels.
2007-07-27 12:59:29 · answer #4 · answered by namsaev 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Profits: Dubya's first priority (second, third,...)
2007-07-27 11:32:09 · answer #5 · answered by Mysterio 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Flatten them all. End of problem.
2007-07-27 10:25:09 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Yeah, what she said.
2007-07-27 10:21:58 · answer #7 · answered by socrates 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
OIL
2007-07-27 10:16:46 · answer #8 · answered by Page 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋