Posted on 07/15/2007 10:39:20 AM PDT by CHEE
BAGHDAD — Although Bush administration officials have frequently lashed out at Syria and Iran, accusing it of helping insurgents and militias here, the largest number of foreign fighters and suicide bombers in Iraq come from a third neighbor, Saudi Arabia, according to a senior U.S. military officer and Iraqi lawmakers.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
If SA had no oil would our gov’t policy towards it be different?
Our good friend and ally, Saudi Arabia, supporting terrorism? I’m SHOCKED! SHOCKED, I tell ya.
I’m positive that you mean something like the billions of dollars in foreign aid we do not send to Iceland.
Middle East Forum
Conclusion
With the end of the Cold War, the most persuasive reasons for maintaining the marriage of convenience with Saudi Arabia disappeared. With the September 11 attacks, the returns on this partnership went from zero to negative. The Saudis have become the friends of our enemies and the enemies of our friends. Bin Laden is an extension of Saudi foreign policy. To be fair, the Saudis don’t quite know how to deal with the monster they’ve created – so far they’ve avoided tough choices. As long as the benefits of sponsoring terror are enormous and the costs of sponsoring terror are negligible, they will not take decisive action. The US must therefore make the costs of funding Wahhabi extremism terribly high, while making the benefits slim pickings
No, I’m thinking more along the lines of: Would we really welcome our oil money recycled in building and staffing Wahabbist mosques unless we really wanted the oil to be produced?
They’re scum from top to bottom. I’d like to see the whole royal family publicly beheaded.
Saudi ragheads haven’t paid a dime to the 9/11 victims.
The way I see it, they owe us for 2 skyscrapers and about 20,000 killed and wounded since 2001.
They need to cut the price of oil in half as reparations or we should just take it from them.
Why in Christ’s name we gave it to them in the first place is beyond me.
These subhumans would be digging for oil with picks and shovels if it wasn’t for us.
Another attack on US soil and all bets are off.
The Saudis won’t have their buddy Bush around much longer to protect them .
Thompson will bomb them back into the stone age
Saudis in Iraq ping
With the end of the Cold War, the most persuasive reasons for maintaining the marriage of convenience with Saudi Arabia disappeared. ...
I don't agree with your analysis and I'm no Saudi fan. Here is my take:
Long ago, the Saudi Royal Family sold out to the Wahhabis making another marriage of convenience that established Wahhabism as the dominant branch of Islam in Saudi Arabia. This was a don't make waves marriage. The Royal Family let the mullahs have their way with the population and the mullahs promised to let the Royal Family continue to soak up the oil money and "rule" the country.
This makes Saudi Arabia a rich source of jihadists with or without the support of the Royal Family. I personally don't think there is much support for bin Laden within the Royals but there is certainly some. Nevertheless, it is certain (at least IMHO) that the dominant leadership of Saudi would not be happy with an American defeat in Iraq. This would lead certainly to an Iranian domination of Iraq and make them even more dangerous than they are now. What we know as Iraq, Syria and Lebanon would effectively become just a part of a region dominating Iran. This would not be good for Saudi Arabia, it would not be good for Israel and it would certainly not be good for the United States of America.
The Koran dictates that end result as part of its theology.
I believe that the jihad is approved and financed by the super rich in SA...especially the Royal Family...They promote jihad to show their “street” and Shia Iran their Islamic “purity”.
Nevertheless, it is certain (at least IMHO) that the dominant leadership of Saudi would not be happy with an American defeat in Iraq. This would lead certainly to an Iranian domination of Iraq and make them even more dangerous than they are now. What we know as Iraq, Syria and Lebanon would effectively become just a part of a region dominating Iran. This would not be good for Saudi Arabia, it would not be good for Israel and it would certainly not be good for the United States of America.
Ironic...such a statement would seem to make Saddam seem to have been a bulwark against chaos in that region. That was the C.I.A.-NSA assessment of the political situation there in 1988. Reagan operated under that analysis...The arrival of GHW Bush on scene signaled a dramatic shift in U.S. policy in the region, and toward Saddam. I now believe that the rapid rise of neoconservatism in the Executive began in earnest at that time.
The Koran dictates that end result as part of its theology.
Well that is probably all too true.
I'm not saying that the Royal Family made a good deal. They have been on shaky ground for a long time. But that does not infer a real sympathy for the Mullahs. I think they like their jets, their alcohol, their women and their lifestyle way too much to actually believe that the Mullahs are anything but an enemy - unfortunately for them, an enemy that must be held close and pampered. It is the classic rock and a hard place.
So my basic position is this: The Mullahs in Saudi Arabia are the bad guys. The Royals are as close to a friend as we can get and we know what happens when you toss out the friendly ruler and let the Mullahs take over - that was a lesson that Jimmy Carter taught us. At least we don't have the Saudis developing nuclear weapons and aiming missiles at Israel.
In other words, we too are between a rock and a hard place.
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.