Should the United States consider military action against terrorist sponsoring states Saudi Arabia & Pakistan?

Answer 1

SA should have been the first!! Its Osamas home country, and where most of the terrorists were from. They are also the most radical Islam of the whole bunch!!

Answer 2

Wouldn't it make more sense to target the source? Prior to 9/11 Bin Laden had base in Saudi Arabia.. and now most people believe he resides in Pakistan.. not to mention both Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have access to nuclear power... while theu harbor terrorists...

It amazes me how hypocritical people are, the same people say that we should be posing sanctions on Iran... when the country can barely fund it's military.. and they don't even pose an imminent threat... yet we shouldn't do anything about the two most dangerous countries in the world.. one which Bin Laden is located in and the other where the GOVERNMENT FUNDED HIM!!


The United States at this point should not be considering military action against anyone at this point.. We don't have the economy or troops to execute such an action.. but I would prefer our government officials targeting the root of the problem.. not countries like Iran and Iraq.. which have absolutely nothing to do with 9/11

Answer 3

The United States undertook military action against Saudi Arabia and Pakistan by invading Iraq and Afghanistan. That's what the general population fails to understand about the motivation for invading Iraq. The U.S. military projects force in furtherance of U.S. national policy, and the whole point of projecting force into the Middle East is to influence the region. Saddam Hussein and his missing WMDs were red herrings with respect to the invasion of Iraq.

Answer 4

i just went to the Pigglly Wiggly and Mike Savage said Bomb Iran and bring our troops home. He explained that it would cut off aid to the Hezbollah they already have over here. I don't understand it either, we had 20,000 in SA and could have had all that oil. A friend that was in the Marines was stationed over there 20 years ago. I asked him why do they need us over there to protect them. He told me he was installing the phone system there and went down to their navy,

The navy is five PT boats. Anyway he said a 16 year old kid handed him his M16 to open the gate and that is why. He also said the phone system kept breaking down and he could not figure it out. Finally he checked it out and all the generals had the panic button on the phone dialed to the snack shop. So he had to go back and install a new system to the snack shop.

Some of the talking heads logically thought that would be our move since most of the terrorist where from there.

Back to Savage he said we should pray more. Lincoln did.

Answer 5

Saudi Arabia...if there were actually wars on the premise of countries harboring terrorists they should have been first on the list to invade.

Answer 6

Why would the united states wage war against two of its most important allies in the region?

Answer 7

Sure, if we didn't already spend $1 Trillion on Iraq, I think it wouldn't be a bad idea. But since we went to war in Iraq, we really can't start another Middle Eastern war without concluding that we will go to war with the whole region.

Answer 8

They are our "allies" in fact OBL has huge problems with the Kingdom there. Musharaff Is still in power, but the fire is getting hotter there.

Answer 9

Are you telling me WE ARE NOT???

I'd have taken out every Saudi that ever lived if only it would bring "World Peace"

Answer 10

How many countries do you expect us to invade?! And when are you going to restart the draft, because we don't have enough to do more than one right now!