> Sam wrote: > We were in Saudi Arabia because of Iraq. Wouldn't that have made Iraq > Bin Laden's problem and not the US? Yet they were trying to work > together to destroy the US. Now that Saddam Hussein is gone we're no > longer in Saudi Arabia. Blows apart your whole theory. >
1.) It's the theory of Bush administration that I agree with. 2.) The US wants a centralized ME presence which, originally, was Saudi. Now it's Iraq. 3.) The US would respond from Iraqi bases if Saudi was attacked. No change. We protected Kuwait and Saudi just fine from Saudi bases. Why do you think the Saudis are allied with us in the first place? They want security from ANY enemy and they know the US will provide it as long as they keep the oil flowing. We don't need to be sitting on their territory to do it. Now, let's talk about why we left Saudi: because for the last 40 years members of the royal family have been teaching violent extremism to a population that doesn't have much to do and little economy. Those chickens came home to roost on 9/11. Remember that? That attack on the US that was PRIMARILY SAUDIS? The Saudis realized that they had to get rid of US or they were going to be overthrown. So Bush did the same thing for his Saudi buddies he's always done: their bidding. He pulled out so that the Royal Family can stay in power. No democracies for Saudi Arabia. Do you really not understand any of this? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Create robust enterprise, web RIAs. Upgrade & integrate Adobe Coldfusion MX7 with Flex 2 http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;56760587;14748456;a?http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=LVNU Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:224656 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
