ON TUESDAY, June 7, Sen. Arlen Specter took an action that may substantially improve the difficult--some might say despicable--state of U.S.-Saudi relations. Specter dropped the Saudi Arabia Accountability Act of 2005 into the hopper; the text was designated Senate bill 1171. Its cosponsors, so far, are Sens. Evan Bayh, Susan Collins, Tim Johnson, Patty Murray, Russ Feingold, and Ron Wyden.
The legislation is concise. The bill's text stands as an indictment of Saudi Arabia, since it is mainly an inventory of evidence against the kingdom and the role of its rulers in enabling terrorism. S. 1171 summons the rulers of the Saudi kingdom to comply with United Nations resolution 1373, calling on states to refrain from supporting terrorism, to combat terrorism, and to deny safe haven to financiers and planners of terrorism. As the home of Wahhabism, the state cult and Islamist ideology underpinning al Qaeda and its allies, Saudi territory is a rich field of targets for serious counter-terrorism.

When American soldiers raided jihadist hideouts in northeastern Iraq this week, they found a number of foreign passports, including two from Saudi Arabia. Several weeks ago the Syrians arrested 300 Saudis before they could cross into Iraq and join the jihad against America. These are just two more bits of evidence that loyalties continue to be divided in Saudi Arabia — underscoring the urgency of the Saudi Arabia Accountability Act of 2005, which was introduced in the Senate recently. The Saudis have been playing a double game since 9/11, maintaining their alliance with the U.S. while aiding the jihad worldwide; this Act tries to stop the duplicity.

That being said....
Questions for Debate:

1. If the US gov't was cognizant of the fact that Saudi Arabia sponsors terror (as has been even reported in the NY Times as far back as 9/2003), why haven't we cut diplomatic ties or issued ultimatums before now?

2. Why does there have to be an Act for the world to hold them accountable to a UN resolution? Where is the UN on this one?

After reading this post I forwarded the information of the bill to all my friends with a big fat "I told you so!". Sometimes I hate being right....



1. If the US gov't was cognizant of the fact that Saudi Arabia sponsors terror (as has been even reported in the NY Times as far back as 9/2003), why haven't we cut diplomatic ties or issued ultimatums before now?
We've been aware of this fact way before 2003. When 15 of the 19 hijackers are Saudi's, you'd think the administration would get a clue. But we knew they sponsored terror before 9/11 even. The fact of the matter is, both Bush Sr. and Jr. have extensive relationships with Saudi Arabia. I'd highly suggest reading Craig Unger's "House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties." If you look at what Bush says on a daily basis about freedom, ending human right's abuses, ending terrorism, and put it in the context of Saudi Arabia, you'll quickly realize it's all just fluff. This bill is calling for pretty much the same thing as the Saudi Arabia Accountability Act of 2003 (maybe the problem with Congress is they're not creative enough ) which also had no teeth. Hopefully some people in Congress are finally starting to come around and hopefully the American people will to and then they'll ask "Why are we still supporting the Saudis?" Until then, Saudi Arabia's puppet strings are too tight on Bush and I don't think any Senate bill will be able to cut them.


2. Why does there have to be an Act for the world to hold them accountable to a UN resolution? Where is the UN on this one?
Seems you're taking a quick stab at the UN here, not sure what you're getting at
I think the world is holding Saudi Arabia accountable, it's the US that isn't. We need our own bill because, well, when did the US start listening to the UN? (Outside of when it benefited us of course )

Not really stabbing at the UN, but more asking about the effectiveness of this resolution and why, if the US is "under Saudi Control", the UN hasn't done anything???? If they've supported HAMAS/terrorism globally so extensively, where are the stopping this gravy train of terrorism???

It seems as if you're the one pulling the partisan punches here:
Hopefully some people in Congress are finally starting to come around and hopefully the American people will to and then they'll ask "Why are we still supporting the Saudis?" Until then, Saudi Arabia's puppet strings are too tight on Bush and I don't think any Senate bill will be able to cut them.

Are all of the Democrats in Congress powerless???? Craig Unger is by no means an objective and non-biased author. Most conservatives lump him into the same pile as Micheal Moore... whom, frankly, isn't taken particularly seriously by anyone worth mentioning.

A few objective points to mention to stop the Bush bashing and move this back to objective debate about the gov't as a whole;
1. American interests were attacked by Al Qaeda during Clinton's terms multiple times, of which all had links to Saudi financing.

2. Saudis have been financing Palestinians for decades; of which was documented officially even in 1994. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...s/saudipal.html

3. The financing of terrorists apparently spans at least Bush and Clinton, and possibly even Bush Sr.

My point is that there are undoubtedly people in our national leadership that have addressed this issue. Why not publicly? ? ? As divided as the nation is politically, you'd think that if there weren't complicit democrats, there'd be someone on CNN....

Secondly, just like in Rwanda, the UN proves to be completely ineffective without US intervention. This is a UN resolution that apparently everyone is turning a blind eye to... surprise, surprise.

Ahh, the joys of oversimplification. This is an oft repeated statistic, which is worth further discussion. First, this was discussed with the Saudi Ambassador shortly after 9-11. His response...that Bin Laden is a very intelligent person, he had thousands of terrorists to choose from to carry out 9-11, and he chose Saudis precisely because he wanted to damage US Saudi relations. It is difficult to argue against this, isn't it? Second, consider the ramifications if this is an accurate representation of the prevalence of Saudi terrorists willing to do harm to the US. Consider further that this same group is just as against the current Saudi regime as it is the US. How much pressure do you think the Saudi government can place on this group before things get worse, not better? Do we want the Saudi government replaced by this group? I would think not. Do we want active rebellion in Saudi Arabia, fomenting yet more terrorism? Again, I would think not. This is simply not a situation that lends itself to simplistic solutions. If that is the desire, why not simply nuke the whole area, and be done with it? After all, the Middle East is where ALL the terrorists come from, isn't it? Yes, let's just nuke them all, and forget about the consequences. Or is something more measured called for?

Note: I am not negating the evidence that the Saudis support terrorism. They do. But what would happen if they just stopped doing so? There would probably be a revolution. There is a lot of discontent in Saudi Arabia, and the Saudi use the situation in Palestine, etc. as a way to deflect internal criticism. Close that valve suddenly, and that flow of discontent has to go somewhere. Redirect the stream, and you will probably cause a flood. I don't think a flood is what we need in that area. Better to work behind the scenes to create greener pastures first, letting the stream then go there on its own. Same result, without the flood.

1. If the US gov't was cognizant of the fact that Saudi Arabia sponsors terror (as has been even reported in the NY Times as far back as 9/2003), why haven't we cut diplomatic ties or issued ultimatums before now?
The US government has been very aware that Saudi Arabia has been a sponsor of terrorism for better than 50 years. The simple answer is one single word OIL. They have it, we want it. Just what are we going to do short of invading? The United Kingdom is now their main weapons providers, not the US.

2. Why does there have to be an Act for the world to hold them accountable to a UN resolution? Where is the UN on this one?
Oh this one is even easier, there are 58 Muslim countries in the UN. Sure the UN is actually going to do anything worth while, I don't think so!

Like the UN has ever held any Arab nation accountable for terrorism. Once they start they would have to go from the Atlantic to the Pacific since that is were the sponsors are. Any this is were nearly all the oil in the world lies. From countries that are our "allies" Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia to our enemies like Sudan, Iran, Pakistan, etc.

Again, the US isn’t holding Saudi Arabia accountable (outside of rhetoric) and the US is a major player in the UN. So unless it’s a UN resolution that benefits us or we agree with, it’s not going to happen.



I’m not trying to point the finger at the Republicans or Democrats on this one. Upon re-reading what I wrote I can see how it was an attack on Republicans. While the only Senator that seems to be speaking out on the connections is Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) I’m placing the blame on the American people. Why have they let the US keep such close ties to the Saudis when they have been found of supporting terrorism? Why did they elect a President that has such close ties to the House of Saud? When we speaking of the atrocities of Iraq, don’t we talk about hands being cut off in Riyadh? Why do we ally ourselves with such people? Bush isn’t going to do cutting of ties due to his extensive relationship with the House of Saud, so Americans are going to have to start electing officials who will.


I agree! Where is the outrage?!



Well, the UN doesn’t have an army so what do you want them to do? The US will continue to support Saudi Arabia (until the American public wakes up and elects officials that wont support them) and a UN resolution isn’t going to change our mind (for right or for wrong).




Why meddle in the affairs of Saudi Arabia at all though? I can’t believe I’m actually agreeing with loreng59 but the only reason I can gather is oil. There is extreme discontent in Saudi Arabia not just for the US but for the regime in place as well. The anger of Muslims in Saudi Arabia toward the US come from their idea that we are supporting and keeping alive an oppressive regime which ignores the teachings of Islam, and which without the US’s support would fall. That we are exploiting the people of Saudi Arabia and supporting the regime in order to obtain lower oil prices. And, for some such as Bin Laden and his ilk, that we have non-Muslims troops in some of the most holy places to Islam. (There are others of course). Does Bin Laden want to damage US-Saudi relations? Yes, absolutely. But maybe it’s time we re-examine these relationships anyways.

This part confuses me. How will this improve the state of our relations?
To quote our own State department: Currently, Saudi Arabia is an important partner in the campaign against terrorism, providing assistance in the military, diplomatic, and financial arenas. Counterterrorism cooperation between Saudi Arabia and the United States increased significantly after the May 12, 2003 bombings in Riyadh.


I've seen no evidence that the Saudi government is playing a double game here. I don't see any in this paragraph either. I don't hold the Italian and German governments (or, heck, our own state governments) accountable for the terrorist networks living within those populations...so long as there is a concerted effort to work with us to find them and stop them. Saudi Arabia does this, though it has numerous radical elements within it's population. To quote the 911 Commission: “At the level of high policy, Saudi Arabia’s leaders cooperated with American diplomatic initiatives aimed at the Taliban or Pakistan before 9/11. At the same time, Saudi Arabia society was a place where Al-Qaeda raised money directly from individuals and through charities. It was that society that produced 15 of the 19 hijackers".

1. If the US gov't was cognizant of the fact that Saudi Arabia sponsors terror (as has been even reported in the NY Times as far back as 9/2003), why haven't we cut diplomatic ties or issued ultimatums before now?
We had a similar topic a while back, and I said about everything I then that I'd say now. I've seen no evidence that the Saudi government sponsors terror (ignoring the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for the purpose of this discussion). And on that note...the New York times reported it? Let me guess, did it cite "numerous unnamed sources"? It must be true!

Did you also forward the information of the Saudi Arabia Accountability Act of 2003 a year and a half ago (also started by Specter)? Is it the same? Is it different? I don't know.

Well, well, well, I think I'll have to second psyclist's "I told you so" here. Also, thanks Mrs. P for digging out the Saudis and the US Relationship topic that I was looking for

1. If the US gov't was cognizant of the fact that Saudi Arabia sponsors terror (as has been even reported in the NY Times as far back as 9/2003), why haven't we cut diplomatic ties or issued ultimatums before now?

That is a really excellent question, something that myself and many others have been asking for quite some time - welcome to the liberal ranks aevans! I bet you didn't think you'd ever find yourself agreeing with us.

This administration has maintained close ties with the Saudi government and it really surprises me to see a proposal like this coming from a Republican. I really wonder what is at play here that has prompted this.

2. Why does there have to be an Act for the world to hold them accountable to a UN resolution? Where is the UN on this one?

No good reason. We are a big part of the enforcement arm of the UN and without our blessing there nothing gets done, period. Clearly the UN hasn't enforced this resolution in the past because it hasn't been in our government's best interests to do so.

Israel also has numerous resolutions against them currently, you don't see the US jumping to enforce them do you?


As I stated in the previous thread Mrs P, there is a double game and there is proof, we as a government chose to ignore it. Please (re-)consider what I wrote there:



Also....



There are numerous links in that old thread (linked above) supplied by posters there which I won't copy here that support this statement. There most certainly is evidence Mrs. P you just didn't choose to look into it in that thread.


Of course they cooperated with us, it would have been incredibly stupid to have done otherwise at that time in history. Plus, we weren't threatening to attack their country, why not build a little goodwill? Anyone that has picked up and read a copy of Sun Tzu's Art of War could easily have come to the same strategic conclusion.

This money raised from charities in many cases came directly from members of the royal family and/or important people in the country. This is documented and proven and there is much evidence to that effect presented in the other thread.

Finally, the reason why this society produced 15 of the 19 hijackers is because of their adherence to Whabism as a society which I discussed above.

By quoting the 9/11 commission you have simply made my point.

I didn't know we pick and choice which types of religion countries were permitted to follow? Now practicing a certain religion is a terrorism too? Groovy. By the way, the Muslim Brotherhood, which was kicked out by Nassar in Egypt, were responsible a lot of the spread of radical ideas through that area. The real birth place of Al Qaeda was not Saudi, either. It was the Sudan....and its government DID nurture grandiose plots to kill us.

Some history is appropriate here, I think. The Saudi government was an ally in the Cold war. During the cold war, the policalization of religion was considered worth the risk to us. Carter’s Security Advisor Brzezinski said this about Afghanistan: “What was more important in the world view of history, a few stirred up Muslims or the liberation of central Europe and the end of the Cold War?” Saudi actions in the past (the spread of Wahhabist Islam) took place within a context that was part of a global strategy, which we permitted, to fight the communists. Ergo, I don’t think we can now say that because prior to 911 Saudi “funded religious institutions and the literature they distribute teach a message of hate and intolerance that provided an ideological basis for anti-Western terrorism”, is a reason to ostracize the Saudi government today, considering we basically sanctioned the practice for decades. We can expect changes now (and they are happening), but they won't happen overnight when we're speaking of changing a relgion that has been ingrained in the culture. And again, how would punishing the Saudi government, which helps us, improve the situation?

Al-Qaeda has always hated the kingdom’s rulers, and have taken steps to attack them since they have doubled their commitment efforts to help us combat them. In May of 2003, they launched a terrorist campaign against the Saudi government, and security forces have been fighting those elements with guns, new laws, and strong political messages. These are not "token gestures" by any measure. As for friends...no, they aren't friends. They are associates.



We've already been through this. If you think that the Saudi family back Al-Qaeda, you don't know the way that society is run. The radical factions within Saudi society that wish to kill us are against the Saudi government as well. The Saudi government has been helping us, and they have ended the open-box style charitible contributions in mosques which they permitted before 911. Now, charitable donations are accounted for. They are watching the money, and fighting the terrorists. Their security forces have suffered casualties for aiding us.

I didn't? As I mentioned above, references to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict I won't get into in this thread. It isn't practical, because to do so an be consistent we'd have to sanction the entire Middle East, and some of Europe.

Maybe I should have emboldened the words Saudi Arabia’s leaders cooperated with American diplomatic initiatives aimed at the Taliban or Pakistan before 9/11. What time in history are you refering to?

Who isn't reading links? Here's a refresher. What matters is what they are doing NOW, and their willingness to work with us...not mistakes that were made in the past.

Answered this above. Do we permit Whabists to worship in this country, or is this now an internationally outlawed religion?

Are you sure about that? Strangely I don't see it that way. I'll quote some more and keep proving your point

9-11 Commission: .."We have found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded the organization (of Al Qaeda)."

9-11 Commission:..."The CIA learned in the spring of 1998 that the Saudi government had quietly disrupted Bin Ladin cells in its country that were planning to attack U.S. forces with shoulder-fired missiles. They had arrested scores of individuals, with no publicity."

"Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah... promised... an all-out secret effort to persuade the Taliban to expel Bin Ladin so that he could be sent to the United States or to another country for trial." Saudi intelligence coordinated with CIA Director George Tenet to get Taliban leaders to hand over bin Laden. According to the 9-11 Commission report: "Yet in September 1998, when the Saudi emissary, Prince Turki, asked Mullah Omar whether he would keep his earlier promise to expel Bin Ladin, the Taliban leader said no. Both sides shouted at each other, with Mullah Omar denouncing the Saudi government. Riyadh then suspended its diplomatic relations with the Taliban regime.

I recommend this article.

Because a group of individuals with guns and a ticked-off demeanor does not speak for an entire nation. I could go into Japan and break something in a technology store valued at U.S. 3 million, I am detained and kept in a Japanese prison. Is that enough for Japan to cut ties with America because we are all clumsy?

Just because a group of Arabs are terrorists does not mean that all Saudi Arabians are terrorists. In light of this fact to end diplomatic ties with a sovereign nation with a stable government is just plain crazy.

That is like going on a vendetta against all ants everywhere in the world because one slipped into your home and made its way onto your kitchen counter.




A sign in the UN lobby: "At lunch, back in five minutes..."


Rocks!

Mrs. P why?

Is terrorism against Israel some how different than terrorism against anybody else? Are there victims of terrorism less worthy than others due to their religion or nationality? Did the victims somehow do something to 'deserve' to be killed or maimed?

When you have more than one standard for terrorism, then you are excusing terrorism and declaring that the one group or another is just not quite 'human'.

Funny that you keep adding in "this administration", CJ, but as numerous posts, including my own have shown... this is an ongoing problem!!!! .Come on CJ, it happens with GW, happened with Clinton and Bush sr, and may have even been happening during the Reagan administration.

I agree that many liberals and conservatives alike, after they come to understand these facts, should be appalled!.

Another question I have, is why is this not grounds for an NBC special? You want to know something else funny... ???? Know where I got this information???
From an article in Human Events! It's one of the most conservative sites/periodicals that I can think of.
CJ, this one transcends all party lines..! ! ! !

This isn't a republican vs democrat debate, this is what the

EDITED TO REMOVE ATTEMPT AT BYPASSING PROFANITY FILTER

debate!!!

Because the situation between Palestine and Israel is complex, as you know. We, and much of the western world, consider Hamas and Hezbollah to be terrorist organizations, but basically the entire Muslim world does not. Even Europe has been hesitant to back a ban on these organizations. I am a pragmatist, and believe the best way to combat that problem is to make slow, progressive changes. Ostracizing the entire Middle East (with the exception of Israel) wouldn't help anyone.

Think you could use a few more exclamation points? THey are compelling. You started this topic, so I would assume you are interested in this subject, but you haven't addressed any of the points or questions I've made. I suppose I'm wasting my time. Most incredibly, you seem to maintain that this is fantastical new information (warranting an "NBC special"). As has been indicated, Specter came out with another bill (which looks basically identical, to my knowledge) in 2003. Here is a rundown of some of the related problems with that one.

Edited to add: This thread is basically nothing but a bi-partison 'high five' session.. See! I told you the Saudis were evil! That’s right, man! No discussion whatsoever of even if the allegations are true or false. No discussion of solutions. No discussion or acknowledgement of changes made in the Saudi government since 2003.

I see so it is open season on Israelis. That's not pragmatism, that's outright racism. Either it is terrorism or it isn't, you can not say it's terrorism to murder one group, but not another. Even the UN disagrees with that statement.

Who does it help? The entire world thats who, because we say to the world everybody has the same right to live. No if's, no but's, no terrorism, because the moment you say okay there's an exception some people deserve to be murdered, you have just opened a Pandora's box because there is no putting terrorism back it is here to stay because it works.

No Mrs. P it is not complex, either it is okay to walk into a hospital with your pants filled with explosives and murder as many people as you can, or it's wrong. A very black and white issue. The problem is neither slow or progressive neither works. Cut off all funds, and those that continue acquire a new designation - TARGETS.

Mrs. P's bandwagon is usually a good one, so I'll jump on as well!



As I have stated in many other threads, I think foreign policy in an area where one has to be a pragmatist. Global policy is simply too complex to handle any other way. As I stated initially, I agree that Saudi Arabia does bad things. Those calling for a cutting of ties, though, are ignoring the likely ramifications of that. Without our support, the House of Saud could quite possibly be removed. Who do you think it would be replaced by? Groups such as Al Queda. Now, does anyone here actually think that would be a good thing? I would hope not. So, the question then becomes how to get them to change their behaviours in such a way so as to still maintain a stable government. Numerous things have been going on behind the scenes, and changes have been happening. The real problems in Saudi Arabia are the same as they are in the other hotbeds that foment radical Islamic terrorist groups everywhere....economic and political frustrations which are then used by the imams to generate anger and action. The Saudis have been addressing the situation of Imams prosletizing terror....that is a very big step. This is similar to what has been going on in Pakistan.

Further, I would like to address the comments made that this is all about cheap oil. As with all things in the Middle East, that probably does have some play in the situation, but I strongly believe it is far from the driving issue. Again, simplistic views such as these fail to address the real complexities of the issue. Do those supporting this view honestly believe any of our leaders really want to risk revolution in the Middle East just to get temporary cheap oil? If so, I don't really see how any debate on the issue would be fruitful.

Things must have changed since I read the news last, because I thought we were actively arming Israel and have cut all funding for organizations that act against them, as well as were working actively to encourage other nations to do the same. Now, we've declared it's open season on Israel? Interesting.

We are saying that everybody has a right to live. We don't support these organizations. According to the Muslims, many of the Palestinians will die without the aid money they receive from these organizations. They say that the money funds needed hospitals, schools, and food. I'll drop this issue here, because I'm not so knowledgeable as to continue on with that course of debate, and it would start to delve off-topic.

Not the US - you are saying it is open season. Funny thing is that no hospitals are being built they instead use Israeli hospitals then attempt to destroy them, none of the money is for food or schools because the UN is funding them, instead they are buying munitions to commit more terrorism.

Once there was another person who was told to be pragmatic - don't push the envelope so to speak, he of course refused. And went down in history as one of the greatest statesmen in world history. He didn't call it pragmatism he called appeasement. Luckily for the world Sir Winston Churchill was made of sterner material than our current crop of so-called statesmen.

Terrorism is still terrorism and yes Saudi Arabia is neck deep in sponsoring it around the world, and that is on-topic.

I don't think so (at least I hope not, I didn't intend for it to come out that way), I am trying to say that it's counterproductive to ostracize Saudi for its stand in the Palestinian/Israel conflict. Israel once worked with Iran (as did we) in covert cooperation. Wasn't that an issue of pragmatics as well? The "sterner" Churchill you mention worked in cooperation with the Soviets to combat the Nazis.

I will agree with you that Wahhabism is not the root cause of the Saudi discontent with the US. Nor do I believe the US should attempt the Saudi’s to limit or suppressed the teachings of Wahhabism as it would be more than detrimental to us. I will also agree that the terrorist organizations in Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Middle East dislike the Saudi Kingdom. And yes, the House of Saud has recently implemented measures to counteract terrorism in Saudi Arabia. That being said, I don’t think the Saudi Royal family is doing this to help us. They are acting on their own accord in order to protect themselves and stay in power.

By continuing to ally ourselves with the House of Saud, we are swating at the bees while not going for the hive. As I stated earlier, some of the main motivating factors for the terrorist organizations in Saudi Arabia are summarized nicely by the CATO handbook for Congress:



1. Get the US forces out of Saudi Arabia, the home of Mecca and Medina, and for some the rest of the Arabian Peninsula.
As I’m sure you know, Bin Laden offered to take up arms against Saddam’s Iraq in the Gulf War and protect Saudi Arabia using Arab irregulars. He met with Royal family and insisted that the US forces did not need to be in Islam’s most holiest of land and warned them that after the war, we’d stick around. Not surprisingly, the kingdom opted to go with U.S. jet fighters offered by Dick Cheney instead and we’re still there today. Our continued presence is seen by Arabs as necessary to ensure the House of Saud remains in power, which is detailed next.

2. The US is supporting/ keeping alive corrupt, apostate, and tyrannical regimes.
First off, it’s regimes, but obviously I’ll limit it to Saudi Arabia. Here’s where Wahhabism does come into play a bit. Wahhabism’s teachings are considered by outsiders “anti-Western” and “anti-Modern.” It is intolerant of other interpretations of Islam and suspicious of non-Muslims. As the US calls for reform in Saudi Arabia and pressures the royal family to distance itself from conservative Wahhabist clerics, the backlash comes back to hit not just Saudi Arabia, but us as well. Furthermore, while most of the Saudi population follows Wahhabism to some degree, the Royal family seems to have lost touch with the teachings. Bin Laden’s perverted version of Wahhabism (not necessarily the main stream version) wants to return Islam to its “pure” form and wants the Royal family removed and views the US as the ones keeping them in power so the West can continue to have lower oil prices. Keep in mind, Hobbes, that this is not the mainstream view and wouldn’t necessarily happen if the US were to stop their support of Saudi Arabia.


The “real problems” of “economic and political frustrations” you speak of Hobbes spawns from the Royal family following through with America’s policies. Now the question is, are we willing to continue pursuing policies with the Saudi’s that will continue to the promote the discontent among Arabs for reasons above, thus legitimizing Bin Laden’s claims, fueling the flames of terrorism, endangering our troops and citizens at home, and continue to pour money into fighting terrorism in Saudi Arabia? If so, what benefit do these policies give us and is it worth it?



Well, what is it then? What is the “driving issue” and is it worth keeping the status quo in American policy? If not oil, then what? A strategic location to hit other Middle Eastern countries? Their is plenty of evidence out there that supports the claim that our policies with Saudi Arabia are linked with oil so I’m anxious to see evidence to the contrary.




If we do decide the money and death is not worth the driving force and cut ties, then what happens? (Note: “cutting ties” isn’t a black and white issue. This isn’t some ex-girlfriend we can never call or do business with. We need to cut ties to the point that Muslims aren’t willing to take up arms for against us for reasons above.)

What leads you to believe a group such as Al-Qaeda would come to power? I don’t think the Royal family is going to let that happen. By simply saying that the House of Saud will fall without our support, you’re agreeing with point number 2 above. Yes their will be political ramifications, but the U.S. will be devoid of any violent backlash because we’re not the ones keeping them in power any more. Those wanting reform in Saudi Arabia will only deal with the Royal family. We do know what continuing support of the Royal family will lead to though.