Monday, January 12, 2004


WHY NOT ATTACK SAUDI ARABIA?
Some things written as comments to other posts should be read, so I'll post here this response from Jeff to the earlier question from John: When is the Saudi invasion, Colin?
I think the Saudis have a lot of things to answer for (Its stone age punishment of criminals and its inhuman treatment of women to begin with), however it is a completely different matter than the Iraq situation and I am sure you know that. The government is guilty of allowing extremist activities to occur because it is afraid of an islamic revolution. The rulers of Saudi Arabia are somewhat west-friendly (mostly because that's where they get their wealth and power through oil) but they must appear to be good Wahabis and anti-west. The alternative to this behavior would probably be the kind of genocidal acts that we KNOW Saddam has done. I don't think you would find half a million bodies buried in mass graves in Saudi Arabia. If you know of something like this, I would truly like hear about it.

If the Saudis are guilty of genocide; making war on its neighbors; using WMDs and continuing to research, build, and hide them; harboring terrorists like Abu Nidal; training terrorists to hijack airliners; Shooting Scud missiles into civilian populations in Israel; ignoring dozens of UN demands; shooting missiles at American Fighter Jets adhering to UN rules; committing torture and rape on an industrial scale; and planning and attempting to assassinate a former US President then, by God, let's take Saudi Arabia down. If not, I think it is a feeble attempt to equate Iraq and Saudi Arabia and other tactics are called for. Like Iran and North Korea, Saudi Arabia is begin dealt with in a different way than Iraq. This shows that, in fact, Bush isn't the wild cowboy moron the left wants to portray him as. The Libya [capitulation] shows that as well.
Excellent response.

|
Post to Del.icio.us