Uhhhh , Can We Settle This Distortion Once And For All ?

Question

sigh.. . . . .It's become quite tedious, to say the least, that we still have people asserting that we should've attacked Saudi Arabia as a result of 9/11 because the hijackers were Saudis . Sorry folks but if you have said that , you oughta take a deep breath and start considering more rational thought . But in the interest of trying to reslove this notion , I will play devil's advocate to try and put this into perspective .
"We should've attacked Saudi Arabia because the hijackers were Saudis".. . . . . .Let's put that notion to the test shall we . OK , what if say 5 Americans blow-up a building in Great Britain ? Should Great Britain attack us ?
What if 20 Americans blow-up a building in Australia ? Should Australia attack us ?

What if 20 American Greenpeace Members blow-up a Russian fishing vessel ?-- Should Russia attack us ?

Did ya figure out the difference yet ?
I do wait in joyful hope for your logical and well thought-out answers .

Answer 1

I agree with you.

Now all we need to do is to point out that NO ONE SAID IRAQ WAS BEHIND 9/11! The idea was to prevent future attacks and "connect the dots," as many had criticized Bush for not doing.

When a plane crashes because of a specific mechanical failure, the FAA orders EVERY plane of that type inspected for the same problem. Why? A widget on plane #2 didn't cause the crash of plane #1! But the idea is to LEARN from the tragedy to prevent future tragedies of a similar type from occurring. The analogy is far from perfect but it does convey the thinking, which many war opponents are deliberately distorting.

And I doubt that the US would have ever been satisfied with the access Saddam would give us for inspections - "regime change" had been US policy since 1998 - but Saddam stupidly believed the French and Russians who said they would prevent any attack. He thought by bluffing and saying he had WMD he could hold the coalition off. He was wrong.

Many war opponents always have another war they would favor instead - North Korea, Saudi Arabia, etc. - but never seem to favor the current conflicts we're in. I suppose they'll have a chance to show their support for a military operation in Iran, which is being as public as it can be about its development of, and desire to use, WMDs.

In short, there was ample reason for the Iraq War. What about the cease-fire violations? If the violations didn't matter then why even have terms for a cease-fire? And remember the oil-for-food sanctions? The left was saying that the US was killing thousands of Iraqis a month because Saddam used the money for palaces and weapons. Well, the sanctions are gone now!

PS Hillarycare and OJ both make a "comeback" after 13 years, on the same weekend? Scary! :)

Answer 2

Because the oil fields in Saudi Arabia are heavily mined and with the world drawing a large amount of oil from there, it would throw the world into a deep economic depression. Saudi's give money to AlQuida in the same manner that our corporations keep giving money to both political parties, they need the advocates for their side. Invading Iraq would not only remove Saddam hussein from powwer but a friend in the middle east would ensure a supply of oil through the gulf into the US and Great Britain. The political clout of the Saudi's would diminish and we would have a base of operations from there. A large part of the problem is there is not enough in the way of gainful employment to go around currently and setting up a democracy would encourage the expansion of new business and lower the unemployment rate. Providing a means of employment and economic opportunity for a youger generation of men in particular would give them an option for not going into a fanatically religious organisation like Alquida in the first place. Look at the Al Anbar province in Iraq. Once the bloodiest place in Iraq is now one of the safest zones, not just because we are helping to keep the peace, but because of the economic stimulation there. shop owners and new businesses are moving into the area. Employment is at an all time high and there is little violence because of other opportunities for growth and expansion. New businesses not based on oil revenues are opening at an all time high as well. Now the Iraqi's have something to protect!

Answer 3

The difference is that the Saudi Royal Family turns a blind eye to Osama's actions and always have. Plus, Saudi Arabia and many other Muslim nations have governments that support terrorism!

The American Government doesn't support the destructive activities of Greenpeace or any of the abortion bombers.

As usual, you look at things from a very narrow-minded point of view. I suppose you still believe the war in Iraq can be "won."

LMAO.. Can I interest you in a few bridges in NYC? Or perhaps a time share in Florida?

Answer 4

I'm not sure I have ever heard anyone say we should have attacked Saudi Arabia - On the other hand, many people including myself, feel invading Iraq as a result of 9/11 has been one of our worst blunders in American history.

I still think that Afghanistan should have been our main target and then selective strikes on any “groups” who pose a threat to our nation after that.

Answer 5

I never thought we should attack Saudi Arabia. Sure, most of the hijackers were Saudis, but that doesn't mean that the attacks were orchestrated by the Saudi government.

Answer 6

Your point is correct except you leave out a few important things.
1. Saudi Arabia is not a friend nor is Turkey. Both our Government side with on many issues that is counter to many facts.
(A) Saudi Arabia is the main country that founds terrorist from the top down. The Wahid sect of Islam is a Shari law that is about converting all to Islam and under Islam. Which is why they support terrorist all over and we turn our head to this fact on the House of Saud.
(B) Turkey committed Genocide on Christians Armenians using the WWII to eradicate a entire people and religion. Our Government side with this as GWB who I support any many issues except this and the amnesty issue. Said in 200 he would support the HR 106 and has fought hard to keep it down.
2. Both of these country’s have very hard line nationalist Islamic governments in control and pay for and support schools in the USA under names that hide their true indent such AS " Horizon scientific School" and many others that do not denote there Islamic Shari a teaching. They bout pay support and build these schools which undermines the fabric we are built on with Separation of Government and religion.
(A) and the irony is the left here cries about the separation of and yet pays and supports these even in public places such as rec Halls and school systems as seen in NYC now.
So do we turn our head to many facts that relate to these issues or deal with them with strength.
Yes we need oil but f we are going to be the leader than lets act like it and make Turkey face up to the issue of Genocide and Saudi Arabia start to reform as they do not want to fall to Iran which would behead them as the do to the Shiites.
It is time to triangulate them as they and our left has been doing to us.

Answer 7

Earnest...Apparently your explanation of things went right over their heads....Let me try...


OK - 9/11 was NOT orchestrated by ANY government....It WAS orchestrated by Bin Laden's Al-Qaeda network of terror. Now...being that Bid Laden and his band of terrorists were, AT THAT TIME, being sheltered by the pseudo-government in Afghanistan, the Taliban....there's the target for an attack. Now...granted...we did give the Taliban an option to NOT be attacked...if they just handed over Bin Laden and his pals.

Now, as far as Iraq is concerned.....They were in VIOLATION of the terms ending the first Gulf War....IF this has been dealt with by the President AT THE TIME OF THE VIOLATIONS, we would NOT have had to deal with this AFTER 9/11. But since it wasn't POPULAR for the then President Clinton to deal with Saddam....here we are today...

And Yes...WE KNOW AND ACCEPT THE IRAQ WAS NOT INVOLVED WITH 9/11....But they were in Violation of the Terms of their surrender from 1991!!

Answer 8

There's one major flaw in the logic of your scenario. It assumes that the Brits acted on their own, without the knowledge or support of the British government. If they were involved it would change the dynamics of the situation dramatically. There are still questions about who in the Saudi family knew what about the actions of the hijackers. I'm not saying that we should have invaded Saudi Arabia but there is more evidence of Saudi complicity in 9/11 than there is Iraqi involvement.

Answer 9

The most logical assumption I can make here is that if you feel it would have been unwise to attack Saudi Arabia following 9-11 when 14 of the 19 high jackers were from there, you must really, really be pissed that we attacked Iraq who had absolutely zero to do with 9-11.

thanks for helping many of us point out that we should have NEVER attacked Iraq.

Answer 10

Indeed, Afghanistan was run by Terrorists (one way or another), while Saudi Arabia wasn't and still is not run by terrorists.