I mean you guys... use that argument that the majority of hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Does that imply we should have attacked Saudi Arabia instead?
I know you are all against war and all...so I thought I hold your feet to the fire. Should we have attacked Saudi Arabia?
And please don't use 'We could have used sanctions!'
Because my response would be...'Yeah sanctions...great counter attack for the death of 3000 people'
2007-12-27 12:39:54 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Crystal S!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
god-damn woman...I want you for President!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2007-12-27 12:54:50 · update #1
I'm a Democrat. I say that yes, we should have held the Saudi gov't responsible. I also say that Bush was wrong when it came to Afghanistan. Sending troops was not the ticket, it was sending nukes. I think if we reacted that way, it would have put a huge dent in this war against terrrorists and would have saved us loads of money.
2007-12-27 12:44:57 · answer #1 · answered by Crystal S 4 · 7⤊ 5⤋
Saudi involvement in terrorism and extremism needs to be addressed, yet why does it consistently could want in the beginning bombs? Bombing Saudi Arabia is the final thank you to start a brilliant conflict. Mecca and Medina are located in that usa, so an attack there could fairly much quite be considered as an attack on Islam. do we actual want yet another conflict between the faiths? have not we had sufficient of them? Have any of them ever actual solved something? many countries have huge oil reserves. do we get sufficient oil from something of the international and pass away the Saudis out? that should have an consequence (if it rather is accessible).
2016-10-02 10:50:54 · answer #2 · answered by lindholm 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO WAY, This would have played right into Bin Laden hands.
He hoped that by identifying the attackers as Saudis we the American populace would have been angered and invaded them instead.
This is at the forefront of why he attacks the US, our troops on Saudi soil.
We in stead should have gone straight into Iran and bombed the shiite out of them.
This would never have happened as we prefer to choose wars we think we can win as opposed to the wars we need to fight.
I have always felt and still do that we should have backed the Shah of Iran in 1979, what would the world be right now if radical Islam did not take a foothold there?
2007-12-27 15:07:03 · answer #3 · answered by Jack L. W. 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Why not? and since you mention the death of 3000 people, how about if Iraq would try to get even for the death of some 3/4 million innocent civilians by the forces of the United States, when in fact the Iraqi's did nothing to the US and did not present a danger to this country.
Why is it alright for us to continue to kill innocent people, yet we condemn the people that caused the attack on 9/11?
And as to your question, yes, we should have attacked the Saudi's, as they are not our friends anyway, or don't you remember them throwing us out of their country in 1967, and nationalizing the oil fields that we had a contract to build and run. Once they were up and running, the Saudi's cancelled our contract and we were thrown out, and our money gone.
Friends? I dont think so.
2007-12-27 12:53:32 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
If we were going to attack any country then Saudi Arabia which provides most of the money for Al Quada and is the home of Osama Bin Laden would be the country to bomb.
Of course, we might have to stop using oil and gasoline for a few years and suffer a major financial collapse when they withdrew all of the money they have in American banks.
So, we attacked Iraq which had nothing to do with 9-11 instead.
2007-12-27 12:52:00 · answer #5 · answered by Citizen1984 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Actually... Yes. I do. Had I been in charge on 9/11, the first official response would have been to initiate military action against Saudi Arabia.
After the war I believe we should have imprisoned the entire Saudi royal family until such time they spilled the beans on where OBL was.
It's patently obvious that the Saudis were behind 9/11 and that the royal family had its hands all over Al-qaeda in terms of planning, training, and funding. There is and was WAY more of a link between them and Al-qaeda than Hussein ever had.
2007-12-27 12:47:35 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
If the US invaded Saudi Arabia, the entire one billion plus Muslims in the world would immediately be against the United States. The US can win a war against one or two countries, but it would be impossible to win a war against every Muslim country in the world at once, and that's what it would certainly end up being.
We know how much terrorism has increased in response to the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. If the US ever attacked Saudi Arabia, even if it wasn't particularly against the Holy cities, it would be so much worse.
2007-12-27 12:45:31 · answer #7 · answered by Somebody else 6 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Well, at least we would be in the ball park in the "War on Terror", or whatever joke slogan you would like to give the klusterfuck that is Iraq.
I am not so much against war in general - the realist in me knows that war is inevidible at times. But what kills me is that even after Iraq was found to have NO connection with 9/11, and it was found out through intelligence that Saudi Arabia harbors more known terrorists and terrorist cells than any other nation in the Middle East, we still invaded Iraq to fight the "War on Terror". IT MAKES NO SENSE!!!!
There is no defense on invading Iraq. The military advised against it, as did all of the other advisers. So I don't get why it was done. Actually, it appears that Bush went in as a personal vendetta, like everyone accused him of doing. And since he can't really reason it all, I would conclude that the role of "Commander and Chief" was not the proper role for him.
2007-12-27 12:50:42 · answer #8 · answered by volleyballchick (cowards block) 7 · 0⤊ 4⤋
The assumption is that Iraq was the only way to go.
Well...I guess the alternative is that we let the mass murderer of 3 thousand Americans on September 11th, Osama bin Laden, walk free.
Oh wait...we already did that.
Everybody believed we should have been in Afghanistan.
But Bush likes bin Laden walking free so he can hold the bin Laden threat over America's heads when congress won't cooperate. He's either "irrelevant" or an "imminent threat," depending on what's politically expedient for the Bush administration.
2007-12-27 15:41:13 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Actually, I think it's ridiculous to attack an entire nations for the rogue acts of certain individuals.
The point people are making when they mention the Saudi hijackers is that there wasn't much to connect Iraq to 9/11.
2007-12-27 12:46:14 · answer #10 · answered by Priscilla B 5 · 4⤊ 3⤋
The hijackers may have been Saudi, but they lived and trained in Afghanistan. Mamy were in fact kicked out of Saudi Arabia, so you can't blame the Saudis for what they did. The real reason we should invade them is because they nationalized (i.e. stole) the oil wells that we and the British owned.
2007-12-27 12:45:27 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 4⤋