The House of Saud is coming down.

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-05-20 06:16pm

Sea Skimmer: it wasnt the USSR who beefed up the iranian military, it was the good ole US of A who supplied them with massive amounts of military equipment

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-05-20 07:19pm

NapoleonGH wrote:Sea Skimmer: it wasnt the USSR who beefed up the iranian military, it was the good ole US of A who supplied them with massive amounts of military equipment

Hmm, I dunno. Iran has T-72's, BMP's, and SA-2's, among other such Soviet/Russian equipment. Last I checked (and I've a little experience with the US Army), we don't have equipment like that in our inventory: link[/url]

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-05-20 07:51pm

hmm, well we WERE talking about 1979 iran not 2003 iran, see back then, their military was the same military as the shah's military which contained not a single soviet thing considering their staunch alliance with the states and entirely US and western military supplies, as we had been giving them them for decades.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-05-20 07:55pm

NapoleonGH wrote:hmm, well we WERE talking about 1979 iran not 2003 iran, see back then, their military was the same military as the shah's military which contained not a single soviet thing considering their staunch alliance with the states and entirely US and western military supplies, as we had been giving them them for decades.

Point.

They're certainly Soviet/Kraznovian in nature now though...

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-05-20 08:06pm

I think it is noble for us to try and make the world the safer place, but even if we operate under the best intentions, we must realize that we can't do it all, and many times we create more problems than we solve. Saudi maybe one problem that the United States simply cannot fix.

XPViking · Post by **XPViking** » 2003-05-20 09:13pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:I think it is noble for us to try and make the world the safer place, but even if we operate under the best intentions, we must realize that we can't do it all, and many times we create more problems than we solve. Saudi maybe one problem that the United States simply cannot fix.

Agreed, but I think the USA will act if its interests are threatened by way of the House of Saud collapsing. If some form of intervention takes place, then it's just a matter of finding an appropriate pretext. I don't think the US will do it for "moral" reasons.

XPViking

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-05-20 10:21pm

Wicked: i seriously doubt there is a single noble intention behind our actions towards the rest of the world. it is almost certainly primarily powered by greed. We didnt oppose communism for the sake of the people living under it, we opposed it becuase it threatened our way of life, and our profit margins.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-05-20 10:29pm

NapoleonGH wrote:Sea Skimmer: it wasnt the USSR who beefed up the iranian military, it was the good ole US of A who supplied them with massive amounts of military equipment

Gee you really think? I mean I thought the Soviets produced Chieftains and Phantoms and Rapier and TOW?

My mention of the Soviets building up was related to what they where doing with there own army. Meanwhile the first M1's didn't reach Germany until 1980. The priority had to be beating the Soviet Union and that meant finishing the rebuilding of the American armed forces. Invading Iran wasn't on the sanity table.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-05-20 10:32pm

NapoleonGH wrote:Wicked: i seriously doubt there is a single noble intention behind our actions towards the rest of the world. it is almost certainly primarily powered by greed. We didnt oppose communism for the sake of the people living under it, we opposed it becuase it threatened our way of life, and our profit margins.

Ah, of course, the eternal scapegoat; corporate profit.

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-05-20 10:37pm

not only corporate durran, but seriously do you actually believe that foreign policy has anything to do with doing something with altruism at heart? If that was the case american foreign policy would be almost 180degrees from our current stances on most issues. We care, as all countries in the end do, about our own best interest, not the best interest of some random group of people somewhere else. Why do you think that people care more about how many americans were killed in iraq than iraqis? becasue our national interests are what actually matter in our foreign policy, and however much you want to pretend it isnt the case, politics IS economics and vice versa.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-05-20 11:08pm

NapoleonGH wrote:not only corporate durran, but seriously do you actually believe that foreign policy has anything to do with doing something with altruism at heart? If that was the case american foreign policy would be almost 180degrees from our current stances on most issues. We care, as all countries in the end do, about our own best interest, not the best interest of some random group of people somewhere else. Why do you think that people care more about how many americans were killed in iraq than iraqis? becasue our national interests are what actually matter in our foreign policy, and however much you want to pretend it isnt the case, politics IS economics and vice versa.

Corporate profit is not the sole interest, or even the primary interest, of U.S. foreign policy. Of course the U.S. acts in its own interests. We shouldn't be expected to act otherwise.

PrinceofLowLight · Post by **PrinceofLowLight** » 2003-05-21 12:46am

Solauren wrote:
However, this might be extreme

Another option would be to tell Saudi Arabia to inact a law where if you commit a suicide bombing or other terrorist style act, your ENTIRE FAMILY can be punished for it. Parents, siblings, children, cousins, niece and nephews. And I'm not talking fines or jail terms, I'm talking about execution.

First, that might stop some of the bombers. Alot of would-be bombers, or bombers that are successful and leave notes, claim they are doing it for there family and country. Now doing it is counter productive. Why blow up a building for your kids future if doing so is going to get the kid executed?

Especially since there are many groups (even the rather irreligious Hussein) that give money to the families of suicide bombers. If you're poor and in a situation where you really can't move up, and you could secure 72 green eyed virgins in eternal paradise, AND a small fortune for your family, why would you pass that up? This creates a bit of incentive. While the would-be martyr sees himself as answerable only to no mortal power once he does the deed, he'll realize that his family still is. Mortal powers with tear gas and assault rifles.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-05-21 07:07am

we opposed it becuase it threatened our way of life

I fail to see how this is such a horrible sin.

Posbi · Post by **Posbi** » 2003-05-21 11:22am

NapoleonGH wrote:Wicked: i seriously doubt there is a single noble intention behind our actions towards the rest of the world.

Noble intentions don't pay out. And as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions...

*looks at Marina's last post*
Clap clap clap