Jason Kallini:The Kallinis are pretty swift.
It would be nice if we could all just snap our fingers and make the world a better place, but unfortunately, reality breaks in on us occasionally. Well, some of us.
My point exactly, Saudi is number one on my personal shit list. But GW just does not have the BALLS. Maybe Wesley Clark does, he did want to go the russians and they had nukes..
The president put his entire political career on the line to go after Afghanistan and Iraq, and he doesn't have the balls to go after SA? Maybe that's because it would have been stupid. SA can be brought around much more effectively with diplomacy. Once we get Iraq secure, and industry privatized and running there, Saudis won't have the corner on the ME oil market that they do right now. That lets the world put pressure on them. Since their king is not a mad tyrant like Saddam, that means he'll likely attempt reforms over chemical weapons.
We also had military bases in SA. I guess we should have declared war on them and let them kill all our soldiers stationed there. That would have been brilliant. Thankfully, our President has opted for removing our military presence, pulling lots more money away from the Saudis. Not a bad move.
SA has just signed an agreement to with Russia to try and crack down on terrorism. The crown prince is trying right now, according to MEMRI, to give women full and equal rights, including removal of the bhurka, driver's licenses, etc.
All these reform attempts, without a shot fired by us. God knows if they'll be successful, but they deserve a chance to try.
The US cannot feasably go after every single country on the planet and make them better. In fact, you are using the same idiotic argument that the libs have been screaming about for over a year now. Apparently, we need to reform the whole world, or nobody, or we're not doing it right.
I'm afraid it doesn't work like that, and thankfully the president can see it even if you don't. So go ahead, vote for Clark instead. I'm sure that fuckwit will do a wonderful job as president. Maybe he can get rid of all of our smart weapons, our javelins . . . hell, any weapons that weren't around since he was a lieutenant, since he hates this "new" warfare that won us Iraq so quickly.
And sure, he has no stance on ANY other issue except that he doesn't like Bush. But he's rabid to start wars, so he must make a good president.
[[[ My point exactly, Saudi is number one on my personal shit list. But GW just does not have the BALLS. Maybe Wesley Clark does, he did want to go the russians and they had nukes.. ]]]
Enough of this fucking idiocy. The Kingdom is also #1 on my list, and I would love to see it vaporized via a nuke, but lets be real here. We (teeth gritted) have to deal with Saudi Arabia in a different way than we can deal with Iraq. We attack Saudi Arabia, the uprising in the arab street people always talk about would probably actually happen. Arabs would go nuts! Especially if Mecca or Medina took any accidental damage. Sorry, we can't risk it.
We can do what we're doing- slowly moving our troops out of Saudi, put political pressure on them, watch the new Iraq put pressure on them, and watch as Al Qaeda keeps making problems for them...
Amazing. Bush attacks, and he's a unilateral cowboy warmonger. Now you're mad because he's not attacking another country. Idiot. Iraq is NOT Saudi Arabia is NOT N. Korea and different methods for each.
Then we attacked the WRONG country. Lets see, September 11th, Planned by Osama and El Quada (Suadi Arabia), perputrated by terrorists (the majority of whom were from Suadi Arabia), funded by Suadi Arabia...
If you can't see the strategic importance of turning Iraq into a stable, capitalist, representative republic (you know, something that has never before existed in the Middle East), then I really don't know what to say to you. The importance of Iraq to me is so blindingly obvious that I need sunglasses to look at a world map.
Found on Right-Thinking