Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

We Aren't We At War With Saudi Arabia?

jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2012 10:50:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Saudi Arabia heavily sponsors and funds terrorism through jihadist organizations. 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 are from there. Its government is an evil, repressive dictatorship and theocracy. Women have no rights there - they must always have a male guardian, can't vote, and sometimes are punished for being raped (with lashes).

If the arguments for the Iraq, Afghanistan, Libyan, and possible Iran war are valid - primarily "promoting democracy" and taking down governments that sponsor terrorism - why are we not at full scale war with Saudi Arabia? Saudi Arabia's government is literally the antithesis of democracy, and they have previously funded and continue to fund terrorism.

I'm not promoting war with Saudi Arabia. I favor a non-interventionist foreign policy and only resorting to military intervention when a) diplomacy has been thoroughly tried and failed b) we face legitimate threat of attack. I'm just questioning the logic of the U.S. government.

So, according to the official justifications for every American war of the 21st century, why are we not waging war with Saudi Arabia? Also, what are the real reasons that we're not at war with them, behind the empty slogans and propagandist platitudes perpetuated by the government?
imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2012 11:00:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/15/2012 10:50:10 AM, jat93 wrote:
Saudi Arabia heavily sponsors and funds terrorism through jihadist organizations. 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 are from there. Its government is an evil, repressive dictatorship and theocracy. Women have no rights there - they must always have a male guardian, can't vote, and sometimes are punished for being raped (with lashes).

If the arguments for the Iraq, Afghanistan, Libyan, and possible Iran war are valid - primarily "promoting democracy" and taking down governments that sponsor terrorism - why are we not at full scale war with Saudi Arabia? Saudi Arabia's government is literally the antithesis of democracy, and they have previously funded and continue to fund terrorism.

I'm not promoting war with Saudi Arabia. I favor a non-interventionist foreign policy and only resorting to military intervention when a) diplomacy has been thoroughly tried and failed b) we face legitimate threat of attack. I'm just questioning the logic of the U.S. government.

So, according to the official justifications for every American war of the 21st century, why are we not waging war with Saudi Arabia? Also, what are the real reasons that we're not at war with them, behind the empty slogans and propagandist platitudes perpetuated by the government?

someone go ahead and take this
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2012 11:01:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/15/2012 10:50:10 AM, jat93 wrote:
Saudi Arabia heavily sponsors and funds terrorism through jihadist organizations. 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 are from there. Its government is an evil, repressive dictatorship and theocracy. Women have no rights there - they must always have a male guardian, can't vote, and sometimes are punished for being raped (with lashes).

If the arguments for the Iraq, Afghanistan, Libyan, and possible Iran war are valid - primarily "promoting democracy" and taking down governments that sponsor terrorism - why are we not at full scale war with Saudi Arabia? Saudi Arabia's government is literally the antithesis of democracy, and they have previously funded and continue to fund terrorism.

I'm not promoting war with Saudi Arabia. I favor a non-interventionist foreign policy and only resorting to military intervention when a) diplomacy has been thoroughly tried and failed b) we face legitimate threat of attack. I'm just questioning the logic of the U.S. government.

So, according to the official justifications for every American war of the 21st century, why are we not waging war with Saudi Arabia? Also, what are the real reasons that we're not at war with them, behind the empty slogans and propagandist platitudes perpetuated by the government?

Because the United States does not care about democracy and terrorism. Saudi Arabia is a U.S. ally, so we do not wage war with it.

We also need oil.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2012 11:01:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Saudi Arabia has nearly all of the world's oil. Going into a full out war with them would be disastrous for the economy.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2012 2:16:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What people said already. Besides that, don't even think of a scenario where Saudi Arabia stands on its own. It's more than capable, but much of it being holy land means rage would flow through the Muslim world.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2012 2:35:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/15/2012 2:16:54 PM, Mirza wrote:
What people said already. Besides that, don't even think of a scenario where Saudi Arabia stands on its own. It's more than capable, but much of it being holy land means rage would flow through the Muslim world.

That would be REALLY bad...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2012 2:50:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/15/2012 10:50:10 AM, jat93 wrote:
Saudi Arabia heavily sponsors and funds terrorism through jihadist organizations. 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 are from there. Its government is an evil, repressive dictatorship and theocracy. Women have no rights there - they must always have a male guardian, can't vote, and sometimes are punished for being raped (with lashes).

If the arguments for the Iraq, Afghanistan, Libyan, and possible Iran war are valid - primarily "promoting democracy" and taking down governments that sponsor terrorism - why are we not at full scale war with Saudi Arabia? Saudi Arabia's government is literally the antithesis of democracy, and they have previously funded and continue to fund terrorism.

I'm not promoting war with Saudi Arabia. I favor a non-interventionist foreign policy and only resorting to military intervention when a) diplomacy has been thoroughly tried and failed b) we face legitimate threat of attack. I'm just questioning the logic of the U.S. government.

So, according to the official justifications for every American war of the 21st century, why are we not waging war with Saudi Arabia? Also, what are the real reasons that we're not at war with them, behind the empty slogans and propagandist platitudes perpetuated by the government?

It would be economic suicide. War is not just guns and bombs, the winner is who ever can last longer. Hitler for example hired master counterfeiters inflate the British economy. The economic capability of a country is a vital part of winning a war. We would lose because we are dependent on their oil, and our economy is a wreck. Oil is also crucial for the War machine to properly function.

On top of this, Saudi Arabia are our allies, and that would be a Foreign Affairs disaster. None of our allies would trust us, if we turned on a ally. It makes forming alliances harder, and it makes Arab countries less trusting of the US. Also Saudi Arabia has allot of pull in the Arab world.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
baggins
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 2:36:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
IMO it is just a question of time. When the Biritish invaded India, they attacked and destroyed allies once they had taken care of rivals. They were incapable of facing Tipu Sultan. So they allied with brave Maratha rulers to defeat Mysore. Once Tipu Sultan was martyred, the British decimated the Maratha.

In a way, the Afghans, the Iranians and other countries are extending the life of the Saudi monarchy at there own expense. I hope the Saudis realize this before it is too late.
The Holy Quran 29:19-20

See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it: truly that is easy for Allah.

Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 10:44:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
-__- We have oil too, just become less dependent then, BOMB THEM! Actually no that would be retarded but I had to add that part.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 11:18:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 2:36:26 AM, baggins wrote:
IMO it is just a question of time. When the Biritish invaded India, they attacked and destroyed allies once they had taken care of rivals. They were incapable of facing Tipu Sultan. So they allied with brave Maratha rulers to defeat Mysore. Once Tipu Sultan was martyred, the British decimated the Maratha.

In a way, the Afghans, the Iranians and other countries are extending the life of the Saudi monarchy at there own expense. I hope the Saudis realize this before it is too late.

Absurd, that would be suicide =O
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2012 12:23:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/15/2012 2:35:28 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 3/15/2012 2:16:54 PM, Mirza wrote:
What people said already. Besides that, don't even think of a scenario where Saudi Arabia stands on its own. It's more than capable, but much of it being holy land means rage would flow through the Muslim world.

That would be REALLY bad...
Yes Mr. Sarcasm, it would. If you think that spilling pure hatred and anger on a great fraction of 1.5 billion(+) people isn't really bad, then skim the pages of a few political books. You'll come to know what it could lead to.
Mimshot
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2012 1:06:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Saudi Arabia is a brutal regime that supports the interests of Western corporations. We only overthrow governments that interfere with the profits of Western corporations (like the democracy in Iran prior to 1953, or in Haiti prior to 1893). The list is much longer than that: Hawaii, Philippines, Iraq, Haiti (again), Panama (twice), Cuba, Grenada, Vietnam, etc. You're kidding yourself if you think preventing American citizens from getting killed was ever a goal of U.S. foreign policy.
Mimshot: I support the 1956 Republican platform
DDMx: So, you're a socialist?
Mimshot: Yes
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2012 6:09:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/18/2012 12:23:30 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 3/15/2012 2:35:28 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 3/15/2012 2:16:54 PM, Mirza wrote:
What people said already. Besides that, don't even think of a scenario where Saudi Arabia stands on its own. It's more than capable, but much of it being holy land means rage would flow through the Muslim world.

That would be REALLY bad...
Yes Mr. Sarcasm, it would. If you think that spilling pure hatred and anger on a great fraction of 1.5 billion(+) people isn't really bad, then skim the pages of a few political books. You'll come to know what it could lead to.

^^Nuclear War. No joke, pakistan has nuclear weapons and is very much islamic, saudi arabia is THE holy land of islam(mekkah and medinah). If you think the entire middle east(islamic countries) wil just sit there playing
thumb-wrestling while their holy land is attacked? And those 1.5 bil+ will deff have somethin to say about it too...
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2012 7:12:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 2:36:26 AM, baggins wrote:
IMO it is just a question of time. When the British invaded India, they attacked and destroyed allies once they had taken care of rivals. They were incapable of facing Tipu Sultan. So they allied with brave Maratha rulers to defeat Mysore. Once Tipu Sultan was martyred, the British decimated the Maratha.

On the other hand, the British unified the country, gave them a common language, built railways and undertook numerous other large infrastructure projects, introduced a functioning judicial system: basically enabled them to become one of the most economically successful developing nations in the world.

We did similar things in Singapore, Malaysia and Hong Kong - from I returned this morning: Hong Kong is very like Britain in many ways: English is widely used, the cars drive on the left, the road markings and signs are the same design as British ones - but more importantly, the civil liberties and economic freedoms the British introduced remain intact: the Chinese government were sensible enough to protect these after the hand-over - indeed, they have now replicated Hong Kong's successful formula in Shanghai and Beijing.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2012 7:40:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/15/2012 10:50:10 AM, jat93 wrote:
Saudi Arabia heavily sponsors and funds terrorism through jihadist organizations. 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 are from there. Its government is an evil, repressive dictatorship and theocracy. Women have no rights there - they must always have a male guardian, can't vote, and sometimes are punished for being raped (with lashes).

If the arguments for the Iraq, Afghanistan, Libyan, and possible Iran war are valid - primarily "promoting democracy" and taking down governments that sponsor terrorism - why are we not at full scale war with Saudi Arabia? Saudi Arabia's government is literally the antithesis of democracy, and they have previously funded and continue to fund terrorism.

I'm not promoting war with Saudi Arabia. I favor a non-interventionist foreign policy and only resorting to military intervention when a) diplomacy has been thoroughly tried and failed b) we face legitimate threat of attack. I'm just questioning the logic of the U.S. government.

So, according to the official justifications for every American war of the 21st century, why are we not waging war with Saudi Arabia? Also, what are the real reasons that we're not at war with them, behind the empty slogans and propagandist platitudes perpetuated by the government?

Because we are already in enough unnecessary and unwinnable wars currently. Let's not add another one. Wastes Government money.
baggins
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2012 11:36:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/18/2012 7:12:14 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
At 3/17/2012 2:36:26 AM, baggins wrote:
IMO it is just a question of time. When the British invaded India, they attacked and destroyed allies once they had taken care of rivals. They were incapable of facing Tipu Sultan. So they allied with brave Maratha rulers to defeat Mysore. Once Tipu Sultan was martyred, the British decimated the Maratha.

On the other hand, the British unified the country, gave them a common language, built railways and undertook numerous other large infrastructure projects, introduced a functioning judicial system: basically enabled them to become one of the most economically successful developing nations in the world.

We did similar things in Singapore, Malaysia and Hong Kong - from I returned this morning: Hong Kong is very like Britain in many ways: English is widely used, the cars drive on the left, the road markings and signs are the same design as British ones - but more importantly, the civil liberties and economic freedoms the British introduced remain intact: the Chinese government were sensible enough to protect these after the hand-over - indeed, they have now replicated Hong Kong's successful formula in Shanghai and Beijing.

Proud of the empire, I see.

While estimates vary (and the figures varied with time), before the arrival of British, India's share in world's GDP was ~25%. Moreover a quarter of world trade was held rough India. The only real rival (rival - not enemy) we had was China, whose share was another one fourth of trade as well as GDP. Standard of living in Mughal as well as Maratha ruled areas was much higher than England.

British finished of the trade in India - except for the loot which traveled to Britain. They destroyed India's agriculture, India's local industries, Indian village economy, India's excellent education system. The British introduced major man-made famines and followed policies which lead to drastically reduced life spans. Before the English came here, we used to export everything and import nothing. During British rule, Indian raw materials were carted of to Britain for the sake of British industries and the end products were brought back and sold in India. Worst of all, they destroyed India's social fabric. Large scale communal riots were the British gift to India.

When the British left, India had negligible industries. The country was ravaged by conflagrations as a result of bloody partition through India's heart. They left it in a condition where the consensus was that India would divide into number of countries within few decades. It was the wisdom of Indians that India continues to be a single united country.

The railways were constructed by British as a tool to take away India's products and to enable them to maintain effective control. The introduction of English did help us in competing internationally, but English was not introduced in India to benefit the Indians. It was introduced as a tool to get better clerks to manage India's plunder. Moreover English has done extreme harm to many local languages. The legal system was a plus. On other hand there was nothing fundamentally wrong with our legal system.

Imperialist apologist would have us believe that India's recent progress is because of colonialism. India is one of the oldest civilization in the world. We have a glorious history of art, science, literature and most notably - in trade. Before the British we did not have a single ruler. But Indians have always been a single people.

On other hand we were no match to the English in sheer thuggery and vandalism.
The Holy Quran 29:19-20

See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it: truly that is easy for Allah.

Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.
baggins
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2012 12:05:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Reading through my post again, I should not have written the last line. Please ignore it. Apart from that, everything is fact.
The Holy Quran 29:19-20

See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it: truly that is easy for Allah.

Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2012 12:19:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/15/2012 11:01:21 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
oil.:

That about sums it up.

Resolved.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2012 1:38:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/18/2012 7:40:20 AM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 3/15/2012 10:50:10 AM, jat93 wrote:
Saudi Arabia heavily sponsors and funds terrorism through jihadist organizations. 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 are from there. Its government is an evil, repressive dictatorship and theocracy. Women have no rights there - they must always have a male guardian, can't vote, and sometimes are punished for being raped (with lashes).

If the arguments for the Iraq, Afghanistan, Libyan, and possible Iran war are valid - primarily "promoting democracy" and taking down governments that sponsor terrorism - why are we not at full scale war with Saudi Arabia? Saudi Arabia's government is literally the antithesis of democracy, and they have previously funded and continue to fund terrorism.

I'm not promoting war with Saudi Arabia. I favor a non-interventionist foreign policy and only resorting to military intervention when a) diplomacy has been thoroughly tried and failed b) we face legitimate threat of attack. I'm just questioning the logic of the U.S. government.

So, according to the official justifications for every American war of the 21st century, why are we not waging war with Saudi Arabia? Also, what are the real reasons that we're not at war with them, behind the empty slogans and propagandist platitudes perpetuated by the government?

Because we are already in enough unnecessary and unwinnable wars currently. Let's not add another one. Wastes Government money.

He isn't advocating war with Saudi Arabia. He's asking why we aren't at war with them, but are with others.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2012 1:49:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
He isn't advocating war with Saudi Arabia. He's asking why we aren't at war with them, but are with others.:

Yeah, it's a rhetorical question geared towards analyzing U.S. foreign policy.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2012 2:06:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Justification and motive are two different things.
To go to war, decision makers need to find both find it morally acceptable and practically likely to be useful.

It is not thought likely to be useful to make war on Saudi Arabia.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2012 2:20:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/18/2012 2:06:32 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Justification and motive are two different things.
To go to war, decision makers need to find both find it morally acceptable and practically likely to be useful.

It is not thought likely to be useful to make war on Saudi Arabia.:

It would have disasterous consequences if we did. As much as I dislike the notion, the blood of all advanced nations is oil. Until we can figure out a way to come up with a cheap, clean, and efficient alternative that is easily mass produced, our dependency on oil is simply a reality.

But, again, the question by the OP was rhetorical.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2012 2:23:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
We actually get more oil from Canada than Saudi Arabia...
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2012 2:31:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/18/2012 2:20:39 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 3/18/2012 2:06:32 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Justification and motive are two different things.
To go to war, decision makers need to find both find it morally acceptable and practically likely to be useful.

It is not thought likely to be useful to make war on Saudi Arabia.:

It would have disasterous consequences if we did. As much as I dislike the notion, the blood of all advanced nations is oil. Until we can figure out a way to come up with a cheap, clean, and efficient alternative that is easily mass produced, our dependency on oil is simply a reality.
I doubt THAT's the reason, Iraq had oil too, as did Libya. Usually people posing questions like OP's ask why we aren't invading some place that DOESN'T have oil.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2012 2:46:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/18/2012 2:23:15 PM, Contra wrote:
We actually get more oil from Canada than Saudi Arabia...:

The Oil Sands has a sh*t ton of oil, but separating the sand from the oil has thus far been a b*tch. I'd like to see us move away from fossil fuels entirely, but in the meantime, waging war with Saudi Arabia is not in the best interests of either nation.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)