What's with the Saudis and Bin Laden?

[lendaddy]

Thanks, that's what I figured. Was there any real US ground force there or pretty much AF? Thanks again, I like to get things first hand.

[Purrybonker]

US troops in Saudi Arabia to help prop up the Saud royal family? That's just bogus - military advisors is what they are everyone knows that. Just like the early days of Viet Nam - no wait, forget that, what I meant was...

Yep - no worries Len, just like cops just like to hang out under overpasses to stay outta the sun while they eat their donuts.

Go ahead, blast right on by - no worries Len. They're not there to nail speeders - that's just another pile-o-liberal lies...

[joeclarke]

The US presence in Saudi Arabia is largely AF today (close to my own heart), but it has included significant numbers of ground forces in recent past (100's of thousands). The stated purpose of these forces for the last decade or so (and I wont even argue this even though it is pretty lame for a number of reasons) has been to "protect Saudi Arabia from Saddam Hussien.

Uh huh, sure. But, like I said I wont argue that point. Ground troops are down to a smaller number, but then the main contingent is kinda close in Iraq/Kuwait, dontcha think? But notwithstanding actual numbers, even a token presence serves as a significant indicator of US military support.

[lendaddy]

Purry,

If I ever get completely bombed on special brownies, I'm gonna come back and read your last post hoping it will then make sense.

Joe, when you say 100's of thousands, I assume you mean in the region. To my knowledge the most we ever had there was right at 100k and that was for a short period before the war. The average was 50k. I honestly don't see what you are using to prove your theory that the US exist(ed) in SA as an enforcer for the Royals. You give no evidence of it ever happening, or even the royals claiming such. You throw out a theory (no prob there) but you say it as FACT so far as you claim to "teach us if we'll listen". It's your opinion, fine, but I like a little evidence. Do we guard the palaces? Protect the oil supply? Anything???? And one more time we have pulled out! We have no need to be there any longer (unless you accept your theory).

[turbocarrera]

I have no idea how many US troops were in Saudi in the 80's or the 90's or since 2000. I know there has been some, at times huge numbers. The fact that they were/are stationed on holy Muslim ground to launch attacks on a Muslim nation is what makes Osamas blood boil, among other things. Thats' why he attacked the US Army barracks, the US embassy, etc. The only reason he has not killed Saudi Royals is that they were paying him to leave them alone, and might still be.

That is/was the point of this thread - the Saudi Royal family and the Bin Laden's funding of al-Qaida. Over 4000 people in the same trillion dollar lawsuit say the same thing. But they have been given a free pass, it seems, as far as terrorist investigations go..

[350HP930]

Originally posted by turbocarrera
I sure wish I could find the quote from an American General who, when asked why he retired early, replied, "I was tired of being a bully for Wall Street.." or something very close to that.

You are thinking of Major General Smedley Butler and his book 'War is a Racket'.

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

[joeclarke]

As I've said before Len, I envy some people that peaceful place where they live (in their minds). It's very patriotic of them to demand "smoking guns" and hard, irrefutable evidence in response to any hint that the US government (particularily Republican administrations) has transgressed. I agree that we should always err on the side of giving the benefit of the doubt (so to speak) to the home boys, but come on, sometimes you just know in your brain-of-brains that 2+2 can't equal 5.

Sometimes wrong is still wrong. That it was done under the shadow of a US flag doesn't always make it right.

Many of the ilk of GWB on the other hand, prefer to allow their heart-of-hearts to dominate their brain-of-brains to the extent that anything American is righteous and blessed by God where and whenever that thing clashes with anything non-American.

Think about it - the US invaded a sovereign nation against the will of the UN (and about 90% of the population of the planet), killing thousands of their number and at least hundreds of our number (and wasting billions of our dollars) on the basis of hint and innuendo about WMDs and terrorist links that have all subsequently proven to be in error. (CIA directors don't resign on a whim).

It does seem irrational that you and George seem comfortable with US driven death and mass destruction on the basis of mere suggestion, yet demand irrefutable evidence of any trangression purportedly conducted by the US. I'm willing to bet that George could now deny that the US ever invaded Iraq and many members of the Republican party would accept the argument.

Yeah, I know that I come across as being condescending Len - but that's because I'm basically a hard-hearted redneck. I've just been "enlightened" in a few areas - that's all. Try it - you might like it.

Whatever gets us through the night, I guess...

[lendaddy]

I do NOT believe the US is innocent in all regards. We have been making back door sometimes underhanded deals for 100's of years. Sometimes with the best of intentions, sometimes not. Tabs actually said it pretty good.

The idea that the world would just settle out to a peaceful nirvana if we kept the hell out of everyones business seems aweful pollyanna to me. I mean even with all our implied deterence Sadaam STILL tried to acquire Kuwait via force! What the hell was he thinking? Now imagine the balls these dictators would grow if the implied deterence were gone. You may say "so what, let have at it". But again I feel that is woefully short sighted. Different strokes,....

[turbocarrera]

No one is saying that brutall dictators should "have at it" , they are asking for the US to abide by their own laws, not to mention the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions.