 |
|  |
 |
|
Ted Striker
|
 |
United States of America
Jan 1970 time: 21:17
|
|
I think DanS and Lefty are onto it.
Definatley a trial balloon that's been leaked out to gauge public opinion and then they can fine tune how they want to play this out later.
It probably looks better for all parties involved if the discussion is ambiguous, so that nobody really understands who asked who to go and that we just kinda leave quietly. If we announced we were leaving, that kinda looks like we are going with our tails between our legs and that's a political victory for Bin Laden.
The US has invested a tremendous amount of money into Saudi Arabia, modernizing it.
Personally, I am opposed to how we sell our technology, especially our fighters, to foreign governments. If we someday have to oppose one of those governments, and our guys take some losses because the enemy was in F-16s, firing sidewinders at us, that would be tragic. There had better be some safeguards or countermeasures that only we have access to, to defeat those weapons.
I'm all for it. Long as we have an adequate staging area left over to deal with Iraq. I think the Saudi bases were mostly defensive in nature, they can protect themselves and I don't see Saddam offering them any threat.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
kolpo
|
|
Some people seem to forget that the current opposition in Saudi Arbia is very anti-american. If they come to power would that be a disaster for American politics in the region. Also Saudi Arabie is the biggest Oil friend in the region who the USA can use to keep the oil price stable, without them with it soar up dramatically.
It is in the best intrests of the USA to keep the current Saudi regime in power and to avoid anything that could destablize it, including a troops on there soil. If the Americans stays is there a chance that radicals will become so popular that they can take over the goverenemt and create a second Afganistan, so they better leave if asked but keep supporting the Saudis with all other means, it's in there best intrests.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Guynemer
|
|
quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I never liked Alberta anyway...
Can we have Washington& Oregon in trade? |
Will you take Michigan instead? Please?
We're practically Lesser Ontario to begin with.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Roland
|
 |
Auf'm Jahrmarkt :(
May 1999 time: 06:17
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Saint Marcus
The Saudis are certainly conservative, but in no way extremists. They kicked out Bin Laden for being an "extremist". And yes they are quite backward socially, and way too conservative, but that doesn't make them extremists like the Taliban. Saudi Arabia has no terrorist camps on their soil, and don't hate the west (as much). |
They are extremists. Not as bad as the Taliban, but not far away. Saudi Arabia has no terrorist camps on its soil because the regime (incredibly rotten and corrupt, btw) relies on western namely US support. To counterbalance, they at least tolerate support of extremist activities elsewhere, like the Taliban. And Osama's problem was not being a radical, but being a radical opposed to the regime.
The Taliban's Islamism seems to be related to Wahibism, but I don't know how strong the link is. Vulgar theology (for european parallel, see witchhunts) and Pashtun traditions might have played a similarly important role.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17. Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|