George does the smart thing

Hashasheen

Banned
US President does the smart thing

what if after nine eleven, and discovering that most of the hijackers were saudis, bush/macain/al gore invades saudi arabia instead of iraq, though i'm not sure about the hejaz(mecca and medina), though that area could be given to the hashimite kingdom of jordan, which is a US ally, and a moderate islamic country. would iran partcipate in the gulf portion?
discuss
 
Last edited:
Erm, you do realise how close the Bush family and the Saudis are, don't you? And the fact that Saudi is already an ally of the US? And that it buys shit loads of western defence equipment? And all the other reasons that make this wildly improbable?
 

Hashasheen

Banned
1. Erm, you do realise how close the Bush family and the Saudis are, don't you? 2. And the fact that Saudi is already an ally of the US? 3.And that it buys shit loads of western defence equipment? And all the other reasons that make this wildly improbable?

cant i hope?

and yes i do realise, that they were close friends, so if you want we could change it. maybe macain wins, or gore wins
2. allies can get screwed over, and saudi is an ally only in name,
3. saudi has a small army compared to iraq, should be a walkover, and disables the AQ at home
 
You know the quality of discourse on the MIddle East when invading Mecca and Medina with a Western military is contrasted to the government's policy as 'the smart thing'.

Godawful idea. Perhaps the only idea worse than OTL's. Needless to say, Osama would love it.
 

Hashasheen

Banned
You know the quality of discourse on the MIddle East when invading Mecca and Medina with a Western military is contrasted to the government's policy as 'the smart thing'.

Godawful idea. Perhaps the only idea worse than OTL's. Needless to say, Osama would love it.

i see your point, though to be fair, it would undercut AQ a bit in Afganistan
 
i see your point, though to be fair, it would undercut AQ a bit in Afganistan


It wouldn't. US troops in the Hejaz? The result is a huge upsurge of violence. As if more arguments of a 'crusade' wasn't needed by those who are claiming the current war on terror is one.

US forces in Mecca and Medina would set the Middle East ablaze.
 
Avoid the Hejez and take the Eastern provinces, the ones with the oil, away from the Saudis. This would cut additional funding to the 30K+ plus princes. The Saudis can live off the pilgrim traffic.

The problem is that just about every mid east power supports terrorism. Syria supports Hamas and Iran Hezibollah. Saddam Hussein's Iraq did support terrorism by giving cash awards to the murderers of Israelis, suicide bombers. Although the Egyptian state no longer supports terrorists as in the days Nasser Egyptians are the intelligentsia/cadre of many transnational terror groups. The Problem is that Al Queda was shared creation, it was/is funded by Saudi individuals and charities, it was lead/officered/cadre by Egyptians, and its troops were poorly educated Pakistanis, Saudi volunteers, other motivated types, and it had the cooperation of the ISI.

Dealing with Al Queda effectively means offending Saudi princes, Pakistani Army Officers and spooks and Egyptian intellectuals. Going after Saddam was easier.
 

Hashasheen

Banned
It wouldn't. US troops in the Hejaz? The result is a huge upsurge of violence. As if more arguments of a 'crusade' wasn't needed by those who are claiming the current war on terror is one.

US forces in Mecca and Medina would set the Middle East ablaze.

not in the hejaz, like i said that area could be given to the hashemite kingdom of jordan, who do actually have a claim, seeing as they ruled there before the saudis kicked them out. i meant the gulf area, and the najd which is were the hardcore islamists are
 

Hashasheen

Banned
1.The problem is that just about every mid east power supports terrorism. Syria supports Hamas and Iran Hezibollah. 2.Saddam Hussein's Iraq did support terrorism by giving cash awards to the murderers of Israelis, suicide bombers. .
1 not every power does so, jordan? lebanon? the gulf emirates? yemen ? oman?
2. i think saddam gave money to the FAMILIES of the Sucicide bombers
Dealing with Al Queda effectively means offending Saudi princes, Pakistani Army Officers and spooks and Egyptian intellectuals. Going after Saddam was easier.
true, and if you do attack, the country will split, between hejaz, the shia gulf areas, who will look to iran, and the hardcore extremists,
 
1 not every power does so, jordan? lebanon? the gulf emirates? yemen ? oman?

I operative term is "just", "just about every power in the Mideast supports terrorism". The ones that don't have their own citizens, NGOs, support terrorism. Or They are the states are being attacked terrorist groups. Or some combination of the of all of the above.

Supporting terrorism and terrorist groups are one of the popular things that governments in the middle east do. When they don't they are accused of being "zionist toadies of the great satan" or some other piece of overheated rhetoric.
 
Hold on, most countries have citizens who support terrorism, whether in their on country or someone elses; by the same basis you could argue supporting terrorism is popular in many countries of the world.

I operative term is "just", "just about every power in the Mideast supports terrorism". The ones that don't have their own citizens, NGOs, support terrorism. Or They are the states are being attacked terrorist groups. Or some combination of the of all of the above.

Supporting terrorism and terrorist groups are one of the popular things that governments in the middle east do. When they don't they are accused of being "zionist toadies of the great satan" or some other piece of overheated rhetoric.
 

ninebucks

Banned
The fact that most of the 9/11 plotters were Saudi subjects is pretty much irrelevent. Saudi Arabia, although it has complete control over its commoners can do very little to control its nobles.

Invading Saudi Arabia would be completely counterproductive.
 
Hold on, most countries have citizens who support terrorism, whether in their on country or someone elses; by the same basis you could argue supporting terrorism is popular in many countries of the world.

Yup
however I said in the Mid East terrorism is popular and there are some complex interactions. The PLO tried to takeover Jordan but many in Jordan still have a high regard fro the PLO and its aims. Also in Jordan Al-Zarqawi was popular while fighting in Iraq and but his cause became less popular after a wedding in Amman was bombed. The initial instinct in Jordan despite its past was at least lip service not condemnation.

Like the African liberation movements with wide popular support across Africa governments and populations. Or the popular front/communist revolutionary groups that were supported by the people and government of the Soviet Union. Many times groups are supported for their "aims" and not their methods.
 

Hashasheen

Banned
Yup
however I said in the Mid East terrorism is popular and there are some complex interactions. The PLO tried to takeover Jordan but many in Jordan still have a high regard fro the PLO and its aims. Also in Jordan Al-Zarqawi was popular while fighting in Iraq and but his cause became less popular after a wedding in Amman was bombed. The initial instinct in Jordan despite its past was at least lip service not condemnation.

the reason the PLO are supported in jordan, is A. they support the ideal of palestine happening, B. theyre palestinian, as for Al-Zarqawi arabs dont like the US much, seeing as we get screwed by them a lot, so when he attacked fellow arabs, that went over the line for the jordanians, and they got pissed
(being jordanian/lebanese myself)
 
It wouldn't. US troops in the Hejaz? The result is a huge upsurge of violence. As if more arguments of a 'crusade' wasn't needed by those who are claiming the current war on terror is one.

US forces in Mecca and Medina would set the Middle East ablaze.

Couldn't they be declared open, or neutral cities of some sort? Some arrangement where the US forces agree not to violate the sanctity of the holy sites: in return, the local authorities hand over whoever they are 'asked' to.
 
Hilarous!

It is freakin hilarious when you hear what people would do instead of that "idiot" Bush.

Invade Saudi Arabia? Instead of attacking an enemy who was failing to live up to treaty obligations attack an long standing ally of the US.

THis would be better?!:eek:
 
Couldn't they be declared open, or neutral cities of some sort? Some arrangement where the US forces agree not to violate the sanctity of the holy sites: in return, the local authorities hand over whoever they are 'asked' to.
They could, but it would make no difference - the propaganda in pretty much every Islamic country would be that the Crusades have returned
 
Top