2007-10-04 00:20:26 · 13 answers · asked by Darrell 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
We shouldn't have invaded anyone.
2007-10-04 02:47:52 · answer #1 · answered by punxy_girl 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Well, clearly the House of Saud isn't playing for the long-game, they appear unfortunately to be playing the reactionary game without foresight - it seems. It won't last forever - of that much we can be sure. I think - unfortunately , that we will eventually have to occupy at least the northeast region of Saudi Arabia to secure our access to the Gawhar oil/gas fields, not so much for our benefit so much as to keep the oil flowing generally so that prices do not skyrocket. The regime currently is fighting a suppression war against Al Qaeda and non-aligned Wahabi fundamentalist militant elements who want to overthrow the House of Saud. To that end, should the Saudi family continue to be ruinously decadent in it's extended familial expenditures and despotic towards it's citizenry, then eventually, they will fall. If ever there was a clear unambiguous reason to get solar or high efficiency cars/trucks or microbially generated fuel, or anything but gas and oil working for mitigating our dependence on oil for transportation 9/11 should have been it. When (as most strategic thinkers don't talk about IF anymore) one or more of the major cities of the US experience a low-yield nuclear attack or a significantly successful biological weapons attack, we won't have a choice any longer, but until that time, our politicians can continue to coddle up to corporatist interests and blame "evil people" rather than finding specific sympathizers and agents and destroying their networks and bases of operations etc. Using the wrong tools for the wrong problem and fighting unnecessary wars is possible for the moment, but when the next attack comes, people will be forced to take a very hard look at what exactly we are doing in Iraq.
2016-05-20 09:11:53 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Just because the 9/11 terrorists were mostly Saudi, does not mean that all Saudis are terrorists.
2007-10-04 00:33:19 · answer #3 · answered by barbwire 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
yes they should have. i cant work out why they didn't?....they would have been wholly justified in the attack, more so than Iraq. actually!! its about time the world realised that America showed remarkable restraint after 9/11. i would have nuked the entire middle east after seeing my country attacked like that. personaly i think the western world should take out the middle east completely. either that of find a replacement for oil and stop letting them hold the world to ransom.
2007-10-04 01:10:15 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
no, there is no reason to. saudi did not plan 9/11, and al-qaeda is not based in saudi arabia. al-qaeda is in fghanistan where osama bin laden and his parteners are.
2007-10-06 08:45:02 · answer #5 · answered by lomatar1186 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, but the US gov't should have cut off all military and economic aid to the Saudi royals.
2007-10-04 02:53:33 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes and the UK should Attack the USA for IRA Bombings and we should Attack Italy for allowing the Mafia into America.
2007-10-04 01:09:38 · answer #7 · answered by ThorGirl 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
the 911 terrorist were all from Saudi.
2007-10-04 00:24:40 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
No
This question is getting old and the answer is always the same.
2007-10-04 00:26:47 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
No. We should have nuked Mecca.
2007-10-04 11:08:11 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋