Posted on 07/28/2006 3:32:53 PM PDT by Rednail
A poster on another thread said that the Saudi statement was "ambiguous," but it sure seemed pretty clear to me.
Sounds like a plan!
Saudi Arabia will attack Iran if Iran attacks Saudi interests, either directly, like seizing the Ghawar, or indirectly, like closing the Gulf.
Rough relevent cronology:
Abdullah says Hezb started this, let Hezb clean up their own mess.
Top level meeting, some Iranian and Faisal, Iranian says, we will not allow Hezbollah to be disarmed, period.
Abdullah sees potential ugliness for SA, says Israel needs to back off.
Olmert putzes around, taking three weeks to do one tenth of what israel did in 1973.
Muslim street, desperate for any kind of win since 1947 declares Hezbollah godlike, since they have so far, "defeated Israel".
Iran, smelling blood, steps ups rhetoric and threats, Muslim streets respond with yet more ululation.
Abdullah now faces two threats, Iran and his own street.
Abdullah issues dire warning of what he sees coming, for two reasons. One he sounds like he's against Israel hard, re-directing his own street outwards.
Two, he might scare Israel into backing off, resolving both threats.
The ball is in Olmert's court.
The Cubans (Syria and hezb) have allowed Russian (Iranian) nukes to be placed too close to America (Israel) to have a reasonable chance of being defended against.
If Olmert doesn't buck up and soon, make a "live free or die" decision, then Israel will have to live with Cuban nukes right next door, for the forseeable future.
Under Cuban nukes, comes terrorism at will.
For some reason I just can't get it out of my mind that 15 of the 19 hijackers on 911 were Saudi. Just like I can't get it out of my mind that Iran committed an act of war by taking (and keeping) our embassy.
Imho, there is much revenge that has been denied. Maybe now is time the dish is served...very cold.
5.56mm
This was issued four days ago. It is just applying pressure on the US to push for an immeidiate ceasefire. No big deal.
Out of Saudi Arabia. Or at least far enough away from Mecca and Medina that we don't lose any in the blast. We are at war with a Religion - with a built in political system. Destroy Mecca and Medina and you neuter Islam.
We would kick their butts.
We are not at war with Islam, but rather, radical, militant Islam. It has been the strategy of Khomeini and bin Laden to radicalize the world's billion plus Muslims. If we declare a war against Islam, we are aiding that strategy. We need to differentiate between a small group of radicals and the rest of the religion.
Attacking Mecca and Medina would be a colossal mistake and would not "neuter" Islam any more than destroying St. Peter's or the Church of the Holy Sepulchre would neuter Catholicism or Christianity. If anything, it would strengthen the faith and resolve of the believers.
don't know, but it was a couple days old before it was posted on FR, so it was kind of a pre-emptive before the visit with Pres. Bush the other day.
This looks very bad to me.
Exactly.
"Hey, hey, hey now! Don't disparage the women!"
My appolologies to any women I offended. Perhaps I should have written "Cries like a little girl when punched in the nose".
Not forgetting that at all. Saudi Arabia doesn't need to impress anyone, and I don't see them risking themselves for Hezbollah. By the time they entered the fight, their efforts would be meaningless. They're talking now because they see the inevitable coming, and once it's over they can say "Hey, look, we offered to help." It's a win-win for them, with no losses.
The Global war on terrorism knows no "fronts".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.