I think you may have missed my point..... You are betting your life that the Saudi government wasn't involved when you think it's OK to sell them deadly weapons that can be used against us in the future. .
You said: So what is it? They were? They were not? Lets hope they were not? I obviously did miss your point as it seems to be changing
I'll try one more time: If the Saudi government was involved and we sell them weapons; they might use those weapons against the West in the next attack. By selling them weapons that could be used against us, we are betting our lives that they were not involved in the first attack. You do have to admit that the U.S. has a pretty dismal record on who we sell weapons to. If I had to bet one way or the other, based on past experience, I would have to bet that those weapons will kill Americans at some point in the future. Can't be any clearer. .
I'll paraphrase, but I think I'll still be accurate: You first said 19 men from Saudi Arabia attacked America (I don't think they were all from SA, but I'll not quibble about that)...and then said if (I think that was the only if you used) the US gives SA XYZ weapons they (The SA government) will have their own weapons to attack America, and won't have to rely on commercial airlines etc (Like they did for 9/11). This does seem like you were saying the SA government were involved in 9/11. Then when I said the government was not involved, you agreed. Now you are saying if they were involved rather than they were... ...I got that. It just seems you have changed your mind. I'm pretty sure some of the weapons will find their way onto the black market and into the hands of terrorists, and those terrorists might just come from SA. You might have unintentionally accused the SA government of 9/11 when you were trying to condemn the US for selling SA weapons...because you needed a reason why not to sell SA weapons. I think this was what the US government were accused of doing regarding Saddam and 9/11...talking about them both in the same breath while not mentioning there was a connection. But you fucked it up a bit this time, sir.
one of the problems with selling weapons to saudi arabia goes back to the very reason of osama bin laden's anger saudi arabia is a holy place, and the saud involvement with america is seen by fundamentalists as a defilement so we and they are just pushing buttons
So everything should be dictated by islamic fundementalists? Yeah, lets give Osama some credance for his crazy logic.
it's not just bin laden and if the sauds are thrown out you'll wish whoever does it didn't have all that hardware . . .
if you think he's the only person - and al qaeda the only group - angry at the west, then you have no business commenting in this thread i know you're smarter than that . . . [besides, i said "fundamentalists", that's plural]
I thought your initial point was pissing off Islamic fundamentalists like OBL. I thought your second point was how it might effect the country if the "Saud's" are thrown out. I guess if you are saying OBL or groups like his are the ones throwing the "Saud's" out the two points are connected. I do appreciate there are more groups like OBLs and people like OBL about...
the muslim brotherhood, for example, are fundamentalists like obl they are active in saudi arabia, and a problem, and the saudi government actively buys them off with one hand . . . btw, when i use the term 'saud' i am specifically referring to the house of saud, the royal family which rules saudi arabia
of course it is. but honestly, i think we should stop selling weapons and hardware to everybody. we should also kick the foreign lobbies out of washington dc, this crap has gone on far too long. third, let's stop meddling in everyone else's affairs. the last one would certainly make our popularity improve.
what the hell's wrong with you, i've found myself agreeing with 3 posts you've made now in 3 different threads they change your medication? meddling though, hmm, sometimes others' affairs need meddling of course sometimes our affairs need meddling, what's fair is fair . . .
sometimes . . . still, why does the u$ need to poke hornets' nests? sorry, i misinterpreted your use of quote marks as sarcasm