Would you have approved war with Saudi Arabia after 9/11?

[dhinojosa]

Would you have approved war with Saudi Arabia after 9/11?

Saudi Arabia seems to be the people that we have a beef with. They finance terrorism, they allow terrorist in and out of their country. Most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi. Unfortunately, they also own us, and a war would hurt our economy, and forget about running our vehicles anymore. This could also inevitably cause other Muslim nations to get into war.



So with all this, and some other reasons of your own, would you have approved war with Saudi Arabia after 9/11?

[realisticphish]

1. i would be happy

if they would just withdraw support for them. that alone would at least be a step in the right direction

[Deep13]

2. If the Saudi state was financing terrorism ...

...or allowing it to be prepared in their country without intervening, then it would be necessary. If not, there could be no justification for it. Unfortunately, even if the Saudis paid for the 9/11 attacks, it is pretty hard to make war on your own landlord.

[bluestateguy]

3. Let's put it this way

I wouldn't take to the streets in opposition.

[norml]

4. I was advocating for it in political chat rooms.

I'd say "Do what the Rand study suggested!" "Freeze their assets!" "Seize their oil fields!" Upon further reflection I'd say just withdrawing our support might be enough, along with higher fuel efficiency standards, so that less of the world's money goes their way.

[judy]

5. Of course not...

Since when has war been a cure against terrorism?

[dkofos]

6. Tough call

They deserve it more than Iraq.

[mitchum]

7. I approve of CIVIL war in Saudi Arabia

Up against the wall with all 30,000 of the lying pigs of the house of Saud

[ArkDem]

8. War is harmful to children and other living things.

[ComerPerro]

9. I honestly don't think it would ever have come to that

They completely own Bush.

I will say thought that, from the revenge standpoint (which I don't quite agree with) at least attacking Saudi Arabia would have made more sense then attack Iraq.

Hard to say whether or not I would have supported such a war.

Depends on how it was carried out.

[bennywhale]

10. If America wasn't in charge

of the conflict and it was an international effort, unanimously supported and under UN command

America would bomb the innocent to peices before entering as in Iraq, and would steal the oil, so i couldn't have supported that.

[Tinoire]

11. Of course not. & certainly not when the biggest terrorist country

of the modern world is the United States of America. It finances terrorism, allows terrorists in and out of the country, sends its military to bomb poor natives all over the world to force them into economic slavery and "Free trade" aagreements.

Since when is the US so pure that it can be judge, jury and executioner?

I have no beef with Saudis. The people I have a beef with are those who think the entire world owes them a living and had better do it subserviently.

The only war that needed to be waged after 9-11 was a war against PNAC but we had too many collaborators in our midst telling people it was all a conspiracy theory and that the only reason people hate us is for our freedom.

No America. People hate us because of the price, to them, of the materialism we confuse with freedom.

[Ian David]

12. Wouldn't we have frozen their assets to pay for the war?

[dhinojosa]

15. Wow...........

I feel like the biggest idiot, wait who's president?, 2nd biggest idiot in the world for not thinking that.

[allemand]

13. No. But the country is certainly in need of urgent and serious reforms.

How to achieve this is one of the most interesting and dangerous problems the world is facing right now.

[kevsand]

14. I didn't support the invasion of Afghanistan.

Why would I support invading Saudi Arabia? War rarely brings criminals to justice. The best it can ever hope to accomplish is to prevent a greater evil, and that has to be clear cut enough that a limited engagement can achieve the goal.

The Taliban wanted to talk, and asked to see our evidence about Bin Laden. We would never turn someone over without at least the appearance of due process, so why did we expect them to? Of course, it can probably be argued that they were just stalling, playing for time, and had no intention of handing him to us. That may very well be true.

In any event, I think we would have had a better chance of catching Bin Laden if we'd sent twenty, or even two hundred, agents after him instead of tens of thousands of troops. What have we done for Afghanistan lately, btw?

[paula777]

16. No, and I wouldn't have supported war with Oklahoma City after what

Timothy McVeigh did to their federal building

[AntiCoup2K4]

17. I'd be leaning in favor of that option, pending conclusive evidence.

According to the "official story" of 9-11 it's the Saudis who should bear most of the blame. 15 of 19 hijackers were Saudis, not to mention Bin Laden himself. All of them practiced the extremist Wahabbi form of Islam which is endorsed by the House of Saud. And the ties between the Sauds and the Bin Laden family are very close.

Only problem is that the official story has as many holes in it as a 5 pound block of swiss cheese. If the evidence actually proved it beyond all reasonable doubt, I would say invade Saudi Arabia, annihilate the royals and the Bin Ladens and keep Bush & Halliburton away from the oil fields.

Problem is that none of this will ever happen with the Bush Criminal Empire in charge. Their ties with both the Sauds and the Bin Ladens would prevent it.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

18. No, but I wouldn't have been all palsy-walsy with them in the first place

The first oil embargo of 1973 should have been a wake-up call for the U.S., a signal that we had to reduce our dependence on oil.

For decades, successive U.S. governments have given the Saudis a pass on their terrible human rights situation and their financing of radical Islam, all because we're addicted to their oil.

If we had gotten started in 1973, we could have discovered alternative fuels, built mass transit and intercity rail, put in strict land-use laws to prevent urban sprawl, and funded intensive research into substitutes for plastics.

Long before 2001, we would have been able to free ourselves from dependence on Middle Eastern oil, and we would not be meddling in the Middle East or coddling dictators.

[CJCRANE]

19. No, but...

in a logical review of the facts that would have been an option.