There are plenty of ways to attack Riyadh - militarily is probably least effective... Hell, a series of "contracts" to the world's freelance hitmen seems like a good plan. It would only take 25-30 well chosen targets, who are poorly defended from a professional attack. Economically attacking would involve short term pain for the US, but could also be effective (as well as helping maintain other middle east allies who stand to benefit enormously*). Even stopping much of the technology the US sends to Saudi would have a significant impact. Politically, there are a lot less Saudis living in the US than Iraqis, so the heat would be less, and Riyadh's links to Al Queda are more easily sold to the American people than Iraq's links (who seem to be supporting Hezbollah etc more than Al Qaeda).
Dr Brin, you have previously indicated to this List that you consider a major risk from this war the possibility of inflaming ordinary Mulsims and Arabs against us. Out of curiosity, how do you reconcile this previous fear of yours with your suggestion that we should, "be attacking Riyadh?" Do you believe that the risks of creating this inflammation in attacking Iraq are greater than or less than the risks of creating this inflammation by attacking the guardians of Mecca and Medina.
Cheers Russell C.
* Though they would only benefit in the short term, and politically a Saudi family collapse would darken their long-term hold on power, they seem to think short term...
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
