Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Before we put troops on Saudi soil, how many Islamic attacks on US?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
keithyboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-04 10:15 AM
Original message
Before we put troops on Saudi soil, how many Islamic attacks on US?
Can anyone answer this question? I think that terrorism can be laid right at the feet of the neocons who have been operating since the late 60's.

Osama gave two reasons for 9/11: (1) get US military off holy Islamic lands (Saudi Arabia) (2) get Israel out of Palestinian territories. Obviously, we didn't want to take him at his word...that was just too simple.

Saddam gave two reasons for invading Kuwait: (1) Kuwait historically was a part of Iraq territory that the Brits lopped off to get oil. (2) the Kuwaitis were "slant-drilling" (stealing Iraqi oil) and he wanted to stop them. Obviously we didn't want to take him at his word..that was just too simple. And besides, our oil friend the Saudis wanted the US military to protect the royal family from their own people who hate them.

Saddam told us over and over again that he wanted the sanctions lifted because they were causing harm to the Iraqi people and he told us that he had no WMDs as we were claiming. Obviously we didn't want to take him at his word either.

These are just three bits of info that upon examination and understanding should have the entire world enraged and marching in the streets of their respective homelands. Coupled with the new evidence of the US role in the Haiti coup, and what we are doing in Venezuela and to Cuba...my question is: Why isn't the world enraged at US?
What am I missing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
keithyboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-04 10:44 AM
Response to Original message
1. Just kicking until someone answers.
This is a very important question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mistress Quickly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-04 10:56 AM
Response to Original message
2. troops first put into Saudi Arabia
in late 1990:
>>> snip

The troop withdrawal is further justified by the recognition that the Saudi bases were completely superfluous in the Iraq War. Saudi Arabia first agreed to the deployment of U.S. forces in the kingdom in late 1990, following Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, on the understanding that the troops would be removed.

But the troops remained. The risk, and the evidence of widespread resentment towards the American presence, was revealed when the Khobar Towers barracks in Dahran were bombed in 1996, an attack that left 19 Americans dead, and another 372 wounded. American forces were then redeployed to more secure locations elsewhere in the country, but they have become virtual prisoners in closely guarded enclaves.
<<< snip

source: http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-01-03.html

Bushie I (who put them there, with the compliance of Saudi Arabia, blame back to them AGAIN!!) or Clinton should have gotten the troops out
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
keithyboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-04 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Thank you. this proves my point.
Osama gave the real reasons for 9/11. It was not about how much "they hate our way of life." The so-called "terrorists" are more honest with people than the "lovers of freedom and democracy." Both Osama and Saddam told the world the truth...only the coalition leaders have lied to the world. Now who do you believe about anything that is going on now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
keithyboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-04 12:40 PM
Response to Original message
4. These are the facts of which most Americans are ignorant.
This excerpt from the above link is very telling:

"But American forces in the Middle East are not just unnecessary, they are demonstrably harmful. In late February 2003, before the start of the war, Wolfowitz admitted that the price paid to keep forces in the region had been "far more than money." Anger at American pressure on Iraq, and resentment over the stationing of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia, Wolfowitz conceded, had "been Osama bin Laden's principal recruiting device." Looking ahead to the post-Hussein period, Wolfowitz implied that the removal of Hussein would enable the United States to withdraw troops from the region. "I can't imagine anyone here wanting to . . . be there for another 12 years to continue helping recruit terrorists."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-04 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
5. Smells like bait...but I'm biting
"Osama gave two reasons for 9/11: (1) get US military off holy Islamic lands (Saudi Arabia) (2) get Israel out of Palestinian territories. Obviously, we didn't want to take him at his word...that was just too simple."

Osama has given a litany of grievances not limited to the above. In fact your #2 should read no Israel not Israel off Palestinian lands... "Let the whole world know that we shall never accept that the tragedy of Andalucia (ph) would be repeated in Palestine. We cannot accept that Palestine will become Jewish."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/attacked/transcripts/binladen_100801.htm

"Saddam gave two reasons for invading Kuwait: (1) Kuwait historically was a part of Iraq territory that the Brits lopped off to get oil."

So was the Sudetenland. Not to compare the two in scale of their evil but the above reasoning is dubious at best.

"(2) the Kuwaitis were "slant-drilling" (stealing Iraqi oil) and he wanted to stop them. Obviously we didn't want to take him at his word..that was just too simple."

Yeah it had nothing to do with Saddam's ambition.

"And besides, our oil friend the Saudis wanted the US military to protect the royal family from their own people who hate them."

Huh?

"Saddam told us over and over again that he wanted the sanctions lifted because they were causing harm to the Iraqi people"

Saddam could give a toss about his people. See any human rights organization report on Iraq. See how he dealt with the Shia and Kurds.

"and he told us that he had no WMDs as we were claiming."

A bit of a simplification, no?

This stinks like bait. I imagine it will be appearing on FR any second now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
keithyboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-04 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. What is FR? And what are you saying?
What is "bait?" And what is your point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ksec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-04 01:47 PM
Response to Original message
7. The Saudis must be forced to stop the Islamist schools
that say you must be Muslim or you are the enemy. I see alot of people on the left who give Islam a free ride while bashing any other organised religion. I say we make all religions answer for their fkups.

Right now we have people blowing themselves and women and children up all over the world and most of that mindset comes from Islamists and teaching of same. You gotta wonder about why some give these bastards a free ride.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-04 05:22 PM
Response to Original message
8. Kuwait claims to autonomy predate British influence
and massively predate the discovery of oil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Kuwait

~1752, Shaikh Sabah bin Jaber formed the al-Sabah dynasty, and, in 1776, was succeded by Shaikh Abdullah bin Sabah. The al-Sabahs were considered by the Ottoman sultans to be semi-independent regional officials of Ottoman Iraq, although the Kuwaiti government repeatedly argued that Kuwait was a fully independent nation-state.

Between 1775-1779|79 the British Persian Gulf-Aleppo Mail Service was diverted through Kuwait, from Persian-occupied Basra, Iraq. Also during this period, the British East India Company established a base in the region. The British became increasingly interested in Kuwait, and the Middle East in general, as the Germans made plans to extend their proposed Berlin-Baghdad railway into Kuwait, where they intended to locate a coaling station.

Although Kuwait was, technically, part of Basra, the Kuwaitis had traditionally maintained a relative degree of independence. In the late 19th Century, Iraqi officials were demanding that Kuwait totally submit to Iraqi rule. In May 1896, Shaikh Muhammad bin Sabah was assassinated by his half-brother, Mubarak al-Sabah (the Great) who, in early 1897, was recognized, by the Ottoman sultan, as the qaimmaqam (provincial sub-governor) of Kuwait.
It is commonly believed that Mubarak's coup was assisted by the British government.
...
Despite the Kuwaiti government's desire to either be independent or under British rule, in the Anglo-Ottoman Convention of 1913, the British concurred with the Ottoman Empire in defining Kuwait as an "autonomous caza" of the Ottoman Empire and that the Shaikhs of Kuwait were not indepenent leaders, but rather qaimmaqams (provincial sub-governors) of the Ottoman government.
The convention ruled that Shaikh Mubarak had authority over an area extending out to a radius of 80km, from the capital. This region was marked by a red circle and included the islands of Auhah, Bubiyan, Failakah, Kabbar, Mashian, and Warba. A green circle designated an area extending out an additional 100km, in radius, within which the qaimmaqam was authorized to collect tribute and taxes from the natives.

Oil was first discovered in Iran in 1908, Iraq in the 1920s, and Kuwiat in the 1930s.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 09:59 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC