• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Saudi Arabia warns Yemen violence could threaten global security

Getting lost in the details and missing the point is clearly what you're doing. Want to talk about how we've been supporting the Saudi regime since the 50's and helped them institute Wahhabism is something I've read all about, but don't care to go into detail. Trying to debate the reasoning for their disputes and internal conflicts is meaningless.

Keep it short and simple about how we've been playing one religion, sect and region against the other, to keep things in check for energy resources.

We didn't help them institute 'Wahhabism'. Mohammed ibn al-Wahhab did that in the 18th Century when he began his clerical campaign against lax religious practice and formed the crucial political-religious pact (1744) with the House of Saud which remains in force to this day. Saudi efforts to support transnational Islamist thought, schools, ideology, etc have their genesis in the existential confrontation with Nasser's Arab Republicanism and the subsequent decision to absorb preachers and thinkers from the Muslim Brotherhood after his crackdown. You can discount the details all you want but it just exposes that you aren't on familiar ground.
 
Why is everything always one extreme or the other? You offer two polar opposites eliminating all the rational choices in between, which has become the typical response of our gov't.

I don't need to travel the world to have a political opinion. And I surely wouldn't go to that region.





That's all I try to do, is keep a light on areas of neglect and privileged position. The real trouble is usually not what we hear of as the causes, but a PR job by the powers to be.

They say, the 2008 Recession was caused by the banks and they shouldn't be too big to fail. Now, the top 5 are larger than ever and definitely too large to fail, so the question begs, why the cover-ups? A very wise person once told me, follow the money for the root of problems.




McCain is a war monger and damaged goods from his prisoner of war experience. Helix put it in a proper context, that we should apply pressure for an alliance from the oil rich nations in the area that have a larger stake in the outcome than even us.
I offer a factual representation of what that region is like. You want some fairy tale based on the population of your local bowling league.
 
We didn't help them institute 'Wahhabism'. Mohammed ibn al-Wahhab did that in the 18th Century when he began his clerical campaign against lax religious practice and formed the crucial political-religious pact (1744) with the House of Saud which remains in force to this day. Saudi efforts to support transnational Islamist thought, schools, ideology, etc have their genesis in the existential confrontation with Nasser's Arab Republicanism and the subsequent decision to absorb preachers and thinkers from the Muslim Brotherhood after his crackdown. You can discount the details all you want but it just exposes that you aren't on familiar ground.

Saudi Arabia's internal discord and tensions over ISIS can only be understood by grasping the inherent (and persisting) duality that lies at the core of the Kingdom's doctrinal makeup and its historical origins.

One dominant strand to the Saudi identity pertains directly to Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab (the founder of Wahhabism), and the use to which his radical, exclusionist puritanism was put by Ibn Saud. (The latter was then no more than a minor leader -- amongst many -- of continually sparring and raiding Bedouin tribes in the baking and desperately poor deserts of the Nejd.)

The second strand to this perplexing duality, relates precisely to King Abd-al Aziz's subsequent shift towards statehood in the 1920s: his curbing of Ikhwani violence (in order to have diplomatic standing as a nation-state with Britain and America); his institutionalization of the original Wahhabist impulse -- and the subsequent seizing of the opportunely surging petrodollar spigot in the 1970s, to channel the volatile Ikhwani current away from home towards export -- by diffusing a cultural revolution, rather than violent revolution throughout the Muslim world.

OIL WEALTH SPREAD WAHHABISM

With the advent of the oil bonanza -- as the French scholar, Giles Kepel writes, Saudi goals were to "reach out and spread Wahhabism across the Muslim world ... to "Wahhabise" Islam, thereby reducing the "multitude of voices within the religion" to a "single creed" -- a movement which would transcend national divisions. Billions of dollars were -- and continue to be -- invested in this manifestation of soft power.

It was this heady mix of billion dollar soft power projection -- and the Saudi willingness to manage Sunni Islam both to further America's interests, as it concomitantly embedded Wahhabism educationally, socially and culturally throughout the lands of Islam -- that brought into being a western policy dependency on Saudi Arabia, a dependency that has endured since Abd-al Aziz's meeting with Roosevelt on a U.S. warship (returning the president from the Yalta Conference) until today.

You Can't Understand ISIS If You Don't Know the History of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia | Alastair Crooke


Wahhabism is a bunch of extremism that was supported by Saudi oil wealth and our governments blessing. They were the originator's of this Muslim fundamentalism. You talk about details when you don't even really understand the causes of the Saudi duality. There's a whole page of details, so dig in and see what you think.



I offer a factual representation of what that region is like. You want some fairy tale based on the population of your local bowling league.

I guess your factual understanding is leading to policies of how to resolve the issues? No, I didn't think so.
 
How was AL-Qaeda so well established in Saudi Arabia before to accomplish such an attack? And why did they recruit so many of the attackers from there? Those questions have never really been asked or answered.

And why haven't the Saudi's had more involvement in helping with Iraq? It seems to me they just sit back and rake in trillions of petrol dollars, while we clean up all the surrounding messes.

I can't understand why we have people on this board defending the worlds chief sponsor of terrorism and the attackers of 9/11!

Let’s be clear: Al Qaeda, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, Boko Haram, the Shabab and others are all violent Sunni Salafi groupings. For five decades, Saudi Arabia has been the official sponsor of Sunni Salafism across the globe.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/23/o...-with-saudi-support-for-salafi-hate.html?_r=0


After the 9/11 attacks, the public was told al Qaeda acted alone, with no state sponsors.
But the White House never let it see an entire section of Congress’ investigative report on 9/11 dealing with “specific sources of foreign support” for the 19 hijackers, 15 of whom were Saudi nationals.
It was kept secret and remains so today.
President Bush inexplicably censored 28 full pages of the 800-page report. Text isn’t just blacked-out here and there in this critical-yet-missing middle section. The pages are completely blank, except for dotted lines where an estimated 7,200 words once stood (this story by comparison is about 1,000 words).
A pair of lawmakers who recently read the redacted portion say they are “absolutely shocked” at the level of foreign state involvement in the attacks.
Reps. Walter Jones (R-NC) and Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) can’t reveal the nation identified by it without violating federal law. So they’ve proposed Congress pass a resolution asking President Obama to declassify the entire 2002 report, “Joint Inquiry Into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001.”

http://nypost.com/2013/12/15/inside-the-saudi-911-coverup/
 
Last edited:
I can't understand why we have people on this board defending the worlds chief sponsor of terrorism and the attackers of 9/11!

Let’s be clear: Al Qaeda, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, Boko Haram, the Shabab and others are all violent Sunni Salafi groupings. For five decades, Saudi Arabia has been the official sponsor of Sunni Salafism across the globe.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/23/o...-with-saudi-support-for-salafi-hate.html?_r=0


They learn just enough of PR spewed nonsense, to glam onto the gov't narrative, and pat themselves on the back. It's an oil/money game that has been playing out for nearly a century, with us confusing the issue for ulterior motives.
 
Im beginning to think that the Saudi princes have secret damning pictures of the last 4 US presidents since everytime they start clamoring for an armed intervention the US comes over and fights as their lapdog. We're being used by these fanatical Wahhabists time and time again and yet we keep doing it.
 
Im beginning to think that the Saudi princes have secret damning pictures of the last 4 US presidents since everytime they start clamoring for an armed intervention the US comes over and fights as their lapdog. We're being used by these fanatical Wahhabists time and time again and yet we keep doing it.

They've got too much in resources, money and power that have created political influence in our gov't. And they've been playing duplicitous games, with their own hypocritical ideology of living like western capitalists but supporting fundie groups.
 
They've got too much in resources, money and power that have created political influence in our gov't. And they've been playing duplicitous games, with their own hypocritical ideology of living like western capitalists but supporting fundie groups.

Saudi Arabia cannot get involved directly in Yemen with being torn apart by the same sectarian violence typical of the region.
 
Saudi Arabia cannot get involved directly in Yemen with being torn apart by the same sectarian violence typical of the region.

Saudi Arabia apparently can't get directly involved with anything that might cost them? But, if they don't straighten up their A game, we'll be increasing our own petrol resources and booting them to the curb. Then their reign of subversive fanaticism and money control will start to fade away.
 
They've got too much in resources, money and power that have created political influence in our gov't. And they've been playing duplicitous games, with their own hypocritical ideology of living like western capitalists but supporting fundie groups.

If its all about the oil then what I dont understand is why doesnt the US spend billions on developing our own oil wells instead of spending trillions (and losing our soldiers) on fighting proxy wars for Saudi Arabia. US shale oil estimates state that we have more oil potential than the entire middle east combined- its baffling that we have to pay high gas prices because the Arabs set the price of oil when we could easily start drilling our own and become energy independent.
 
If its all about the oil then what I dont understand is why doesnt the US spend billions on developing our own oil wells instead of spending trillions (and losing our soldiers) on fighting proxy wars for Saudi Arabia. US shale oil estimates state that we have more oil potential than the entire middle east combined- its baffling that we have to pay high gas prices because the Arabs set the price of oil when we could easily start drilling our own and become energy independent.

I would be curious to see what would be the the reaction of the United States if terrorist organizations in the Middle East started setting fire to the oil wells in middle eastern countries.
 
If its all about the oil then what I dont understand is why doesnt the US spend billions on developing our own oil wells instead of spending trillions (and losing our soldiers) on fighting proxy wars for Saudi Arabia. US shale oil estimates state that we have more oil potential than the entire middle east combined- its baffling that we have to pay high gas prices because the Arabs set the price of oil when we could easily start drilling our own and become energy independent.

Originally, we did tap our own resources in the southwest and Gulf, but as the drilling became more difficult and existing wells ran dry, we had to use alternatives and struck deals with the Saudi regime early on to support them for their compliance with us (50's thru 90's). One of the reasons Russia and China didn't keep up with us in the economic race. Now with the new technologies, deregulation's and need for increased natural resources, because of those Wars, we're able to produce more of our own again. Fracking, shale, tar sands and side ways drilling were either too expensive or impossible before.

You got to remember the whole modern world operates on energy, especially from oil and gas. The electric companies, utilities, transportation, computers, lights, manufacturing and appliances all run on it. Even a halt or big disruption in production could theoretically stop the global economy, and put modern civilization in jeopardy.
 
Saudi Arabia's internal discord and tensions over ISIS can only be understood by grasping the inherent (and persisting) duality that lies at the core of the Kingdom's doctrinal makeup and its historical origins.

One dominant strand to the Saudi identity pertains directly to Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab (the founder of Wahhabism), and the use to which his radical, exclusionist puritanism was put by Ibn Saud. (The latter was then no more than a minor leader -- amongst many -- of continually sparring and raiding Bedouin tribes in the baking and desperately poor deserts of the Nejd.)

The second strand to this perplexing duality, relates precisely to King Abd-al Aziz's subsequent shift towards statehood in the 1920s: his curbing of Ikhwani violence (in order to have diplomatic standing as a nation-state with Britain and America); his institutionalization of the original Wahhabist impulse -- and the subsequent seizing of the opportunely surging petrodollar spigot in the 1970s, to channel the volatile Ikhwani current away from home towards export -- by diffusing a cultural revolution, rather than violent revolution throughout the Muslim world.

OIL WEALTH SPREAD WAHHABISM

With the advent of the oil bonanza -- as the French scholar, Giles Kepel writes, Saudi goals were to "reach out and spread Wahhabism across the Muslim world ... to "Wahhabise" Islam, thereby reducing the "multitude of voices within the religion" to a "single creed" -- a movement which would transcend national divisions. Billions of dollars were -- and continue to be -- invested in this manifestation of soft power.

It was this heady mix of billion dollar soft power projection -- and the Saudi willingness to manage Sunni Islam both to further America's interests, as it concomitantly embedded Wahhabism educationally, socially and culturally throughout the lands of Islam -- that brought into being a western policy dependency on Saudi Arabia, a dependency that has endured since Abd-al Aziz's meeting with Roosevelt on a U.S. warship (returning the president from the Yalta Conference) until today.

You Can't Understand ISIS If You Don't Know the History of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia*|*Alastair Crooke


Wahhabism is a bunch of extremism that was supported by Saudi oil wealth and our governments blessing. They were the originator's of this Muslim fundamentalism. You talk about details when you don't even really understand the causes of the Saudi duality. There's a whole page of details, so dig in and see what you think.





I guess your factual understanding is leading to policies of how to resolve the issues? No, I didn't think so.
Im sorry...which issues were they that you were itching to resolve?

Saudi Arabia is a convergence of cultures and classes. You would have to be the worst kind of idiot to want to see the royal rule in Saudi overturned. You think Egypt is ****ed up today? Libya? Syria? It would be nothing compared to what you are clamoring for. Best leave world affairs to people that can actually find the place on a map without an assistance from Google. Its not your bowling league.
 
Saudi Arabia cannot get involved directly in Yemen with being torn apart by the same sectarian violence typical of the region.

They haven't built new refineries in decades because of costs and environmental regulations. So producing a lot more oil, wouldn't necessarily translate into cheaper gasoline right away. All oil around the world is priced on a global aggregate, so if one area loses output, some others can pump more. But it's only to a point and the profiteers would quickly play with reserves trying to make enormous profits.

The administration could wave off a lot of current regs to allow the Canadian pipeline to be built quickly, deep water offshore wells could be licensed and certain gov't protected areas in the Yellowstone Park, Yukon and Alaska could be drilled. There's a lot more here than we utilize, because it's a balancing act of trying to preserve some natural landmarks and nature, since oil production can be ruinous to the surrounding area.



Im sorry...which issues were they that you were itching to resolve?

Saudi Arabia is a convergence of cultures and classes. You would have to be the worst kind of idiot to want to see the royal rule in Saudi overturned. You think Egypt is ****ed up today? Libya? Syria? It would be nothing compared to what you are clamoring for. Best leave world affairs to people that can actually find the place on a map without an assistance from Google. Its not your bowling league.

Resolve, have you've really missed that much of the conversation?

I'm the worst kind of idiot, because I don't agree with you? Nice debating skills there. The royal rule in Saudi Arabia doesn't have to be removed just brought under some control. There you go again with your 'all or nothing' reasoning, that nobody has even remotely suggested.

Ok Vance, I'll leave world affairs to the likes of knowledgeable you, since you don't need a Google map and apparently I do? Your sarcasm is so far from a legitimate refutation of my earlier post #53 that it's laughable. Sorry if I don't consider your opinion alone as hard facts about the situation and history of the Saudi's. ;)
 
Saudi Arabia has got to be one of the sorriest nations, for their leaders being involved, in the world. Since the 1950's, we've been supporting them and buying their oil, making them one of the richest countries per capita on the globe, and they contribute little to nothing in fighting the extremism in their region. If nothing else, they've actually supported some of it with covert funds, and only get involved in anything that directly affects them.

Now that Yemen, their back door neighbor is being destabilized, they cry again for help but use none of their massive wealth, military or support to fund and fight themselves. What a bunch of dummies we are for not forcing them to take more action, but we're too busy being their protector, since they controlled so much of our energy needs.

We need the Saudis. We will come to their assistance.
 
I don't see what anything that may have been done to help Saudis leave the U.S. after 9/11 has to do with establishing that most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi citizens. It's been suggested that the Bush administration suspected that part of Al Qaeda's strategy was to make Saudi Arabia appear to be responsible for the attacks. If so, I think that suspicion was reasonable, considering that it was known that one of Osama bin Laden's goals was to undermine the Saudi government by stopping the U.S. from supporting or cooperating with it. It seemed to gall him to see an American presence on the same peninsula where Mecca and Medina are located.

My opinion: the Saudi Royal Family knew they were rolling in huge amounts money thanks to America's oil dependency and to a lesser extent, the world' soil addiction. They enjoyed that condition immensely. However, they were the ruling family and really were not interested in sharing it with the citizens of Saudi Arabia, at least not to any major extent. To keep the public focus on what they considered to be the spiritual and not concerned with the material, pre-9/11 is they incorporated the most devout form of religion into their education system never imagining it would produce anything other than keeping the public content with the basics of life so the ruling class could live their lives of luxury with no complaints. That most devout form of religion was Wahabism. Yes, it worked in keeping their subject satisfied with living in relative poverty but it also helped foster intense hatred for the west for entanglement in their affairs and especially US troops stationed their sacred land to enforce the Southern No-Fly Zone; something we needed to do to ensure uninterrupted access to their oil reserves based on our system of oil monopoly status on transportation.
 
They haven't built new refineries in decades because of costs and environmental regulations. So producing a lot more oil, wouldn't necessarily translate into cheaper gasoline right away. All oil around the world is priced on a global aggregate, so if one area loses output, some others can pump more. But it's only to a point and the profiteers would quickly play with reserves trying to make enormous profits.

The administration could wave off a lot of current regs to allow the Canadian pipeline to be built quickly, deep water offshore wells could be licensed and certain gov't protected areas in the Yellowstone Park, Yukon and Alaska could be drilled. There's a lot more here than we utilize, because it's a balancing act of trying to preserve some natural landmarks and nature, since oil production can be ruinous to the surrounding area.





Resolve, have you've really missed that much of the conversation?

I'm the worst kind of idiot, because I don't agree with you? Nice debating skills there. The royal rule in Saudi Arabia doesn't have to be removed just brought under some control. There you go again with your 'all or nothing' reasoning, that nobody has even remotely suggested.

Ok Vance, I'll leave world affairs to the likes of knowledgeable you, since you don't need a Google map and apparently I do? Your sarcasm is so far from a legitimate refutation of my earlier post #53 that it's laughable. Sorry if I don't consider your opinion alone as hard facts about the situation and history of the Saudi's. ;)
The worst kid of idiot if you believe placing the global economy at risk by destabilizing Saudi Arabia makes sense. If you think you can run THAT country with its demographics like your bowling league or local PTA. If you think creating another destabilized Middle Eastern country and one run by fundamentalists makes sense.

There is a delicate balance of power that is maintained in Saudi Arabia today. You have to UNDERSTAND it to understand why it is run the way it is. You also have to understand likely outcomes before you start advocating for stupid decisions and actions that would make the place far worse.
 
The worst kid of idiot if you believe placing the global economy at risk by destabilizing Saudi Arabia makes sense. If you think you can run THAT country with its demographics like your bowling league or local PTA. If you think creating another destabilized Middle Eastern country and one run by fundamentalists makes sense.

There is a delicate balance of power that is maintained in Saudi Arabia today. You have to UNDERSTAND it to understand why it is run the way it is. You also have to understand likely outcomes before you start advocating for stupid decisions and actions that would make the place far worse.



Stupid decisions like removing Saddam Hussein, and supporting countries that work counter to our "alleged war on terror"!

Documents Back Saudi Link to Extremists

By ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: June 23, 2009
WASHINGTON — Documents gathered by lawyers for the families of Sept. 11 victims provide new evidence of extensive financial support for Al Qaeda and other extremist groups by members of the Saudi royal family, but the material may never find its way into court because of legal and diplomatic obstacles.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/world/middleeast/24saudi.html?_r=0
 
Stupid decisions like removing Saddam Hussein, and supporting countries that work counter to our "alleged war on terror"!

Documents Back Saudi Link to Extremists

By ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: June 23, 2009
WASHINGTON — Documents gathered by lawyers for the families of Sept. 11 victims provide new evidence of extensive financial support for Al Qaeda and other extremist groups by members of the Saudi royal family, but the material may never find its way into court because of legal and diplomatic obstacles.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/world/middleeast/24saudi.html?_r=0
Al Gores son has been arrested numerous times on drug charges. I guess having corrupt family members means he should be disqualified from government service and that the US system of government should be replaced.

Yes...Saddam should have been replaced. No...they should not have worked to impose a US style democracy there. i have said for 10 years now that they screwed the pooch on their post war ops by not working with successful middle eastern government like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, etc to help establish an effective ruling party in Iraq. But...

You would REALLY rather see Saddam in power still? Do you have any idea as to the atrocities he committed not just on his neighboring countries but also his own people? Of the entire villages of men women and children he gassed because some dared to oppose him? Thats AWESOME...
 
Saudi Arabia's internal discord and tensions over ISIS can only be understood by grasping the inherent (and persisting) duality that lies at the core of the Kingdom's doctrinal makeup and its historical origins.

One dominant strand to the Saudi identity pertains directly to Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab (the founder of Wahhabism), and the use to which his radical, exclusionist puritanism was put by Ibn Saud. (The latter was then no more than a minor leader -- amongst many -- of continually sparring and raiding Bedouin tribes in the baking and desperately poor deserts of the Nejd.)

The second strand to this perplexing duality, relates precisely to King Abd-al Aziz's subsequent shift towards statehood in the 1920s: his curbing of Ikhwani violence (in order to have diplomatic standing as a nation-state with Britain and America); his institutionalization of the original Wahhabist impulse -- and the subsequent seizing of the opportunely surging petrodollar spigot in the 1970s, to channel the volatile Ikhwani current away from home towards export -- by diffusing a cultural revolution, rather than violent revolution throughout the Muslim world.

OIL WEALTH SPREAD WAHHABISM

With the advent of the oil bonanza -- as the French scholar, Giles Kepel writes, Saudi goals were to "reach out and spread Wahhabism across the Muslim world ... to "Wahhabise" Islam, thereby reducing the "multitude of voices within the religion" to a "single creed" -- a movement which would transcend national divisions. Billions of dollars were -- and continue to be -- invested in this manifestation of soft power.

It was this heady mix of billion dollar soft power projection -- and the Saudi willingness to manage Sunni Islam both to further America's interests, as it concomitantly embedded Wahhabism educationally, socially and culturally throughout the lands of Islam -- that brought into being a western policy dependency on Saudi Arabia, a dependency that has endured since Abd-al Aziz's meeting with Roosevelt on a U.S. warship (returning the president from the Yalta Conference) until today.

You Can't Understand ISIS If You Don't Know the History of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia*|*Alastair Crooke


Wahhabism is a bunch of extremism that was supported by Saudi oil wealth and our governments blessing. They were the originator's of this Muslim fundamentalism. You talk about details when you don't even really understand the causes of the Saudi duality. There's a whole page of details, so dig in and see what you think.





I guess your factual understanding is leading to policies of how to resolve the issues? No, I didn't think so.

Copy and pasting from a Huff Post article is cool and all but it doesn't address my response in the slightest. Your conclusions aren't supported by the evidence those "details" you seem to find so annoying. You are out of your depth.
 
The worst kid of idiot if you believe placing the global economy at risk by destabilizing Saudi Arabia makes sense. If you think you can run THAT country with its demographics like your bowling league or local PTA. If you think creating another destabilized Middle Eastern country and one run by fundamentalists makes sense.

There is a delicate balance of power that is maintained in Saudi Arabia today. You have to UNDERSTAND it to understand why it is run the way it is. You also have to understand likely outcomes before you start advocating for stupid decisions and actions that would make the place far worse.

Copy and pasting from a Huff Post article is cool and all but it doesn't address my response in the slightest. Your conclusions aren't supported by the evidence those "details" you seem to find so annoying. You are out of your depth.


I'm going to give you the equivalent response I'm getting, neither one of you know what you're talking about. :argue

I suggest you two discuss the details about how you've got ALL the answers but none of the solutions. :lol:
 
Al Gores son has been arrested numerous times on drug charges. I guess having corrupt family members means he should be disqualified from government service and that the US system of government should be replaced.

Yes...Saddam should have been replaced. No...they should not have worked to impose a US style democracy there. i have said for 10 years now that they screwed the pooch on their post war ops by not working with successful middle eastern government like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, etc to help establish an effective ruling party in Iraq. But...

You would REALLY rather see Saddam in power still? Do you have any idea as to the atrocities he committed not just on his neighboring countries but also his own people? Of the entire villages of men women and children he gassed because some dared to oppose him? Thats AWESOME...

Don't know what Al Gore's son has to do with the corrupt Saudi government run by an authoritarian family dynasty that supports its own brand of terrorists, including the ones that have shed Americans blood?

No, Saddam Hussein shouldn't have been removed, and finally a majority of Americans now consider the Iraq war (which removed him from power) was a MISTAKE!

April 24, 2008
Opposition to Iraq War Reaches New High
Sixty-three percent say U.S. made mistake in sending troops.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/106783/opposition-iraq-war-reaches-new-high.aspx
 
Last edited:
Don't know what Al Gore's son has to do with the corrupt Saudi government run by an authoritarian family dynasty that supports its own brand of terrorists, including the ones that have shed Americans blood?

No, Saddam Hussein shouldn't have been removed, and finally a majority of Americans now consider the Iraq war (which removed him from power) was a MISTAKE!

April 24, 2008
Opposition to Iraq War Reaches New High
Sixty-three percent say U.S. made mistake in sending troops

Al Gores son is as relevant as 'members of the royal family'.
 
I wonder if the Saudi "royal family" would agree with that bull hockey?

study the history of the country and see if you can figure out just how many members of the 'royal family' there are.
 
Back
Top Bottom