Gulf War II - Punishment of Saudi Arabia

Beck Reilly · Jun 21, 2004

Okay. It's September 12, 2001. How best could the United States (ignoring personal ties between the President and the Saudi Royal Family) punish Saudi Arabia for the acts committed by its citizens?

Would there be a full-scale invasion?
Would the US simply support a coup of some sort?
Would the US prop up a new government, led by a harsher ruler?
Would the US simply occupy the nation for an extended period of time?
Would the US get any international support for such an operation?

How best could the US punish Saudi Arabia?

aktarian · Jun 21, 2004

Walter_Kaufmann said:
Okay. It's September 12, 2001. How best could the United States (ignoring personal ties between the President and the Saudi Royal Family) punish Saudi Arabia for the acts committed by its citizens?

Would there be a full-scale invasion?

Impossible. Can't invade country where you have troops already.

Besides infidel country occupying country where Mecca and Medina are?

Walter_Kaufmann said:
Would the US simply support a coup of some sort?

Made by who? Chances are you'll get worse.

Walter_Kaufmann said:
Would the US prop up a new government, led by a harsher ruler?

Probablly not. Harsher means more pro-Wahabbi and that's more troubles for US.

Walter_Kaufmann said:
Would the US simply occupy the nation for an extended period of time?

See first point.

Walter_Kaufmann said:
Would the US get any international support for such an operation?

No.

Walter_Kaufmann said:
How best could the US punish Saudi Arabia?

Unofficial embargo on sales. Invade Iraq and significantlly lower prices of oil.

Dave Howery · Jun 21, 2004

No to all. The US isn't going to bomb SA because some Saudis took part in 9/11. Although some wealthy Saudis are guilty of financing terrorism, the majority of the rulers (and the people, for that matter) don't want anything to do with terrorists, even if they dislike America. You wouldn't get this scenario unless you get a situation where the vast majority of both royals and commoners are actively and openly funding and practicing terrorism.....

BRT · Jun 23, 2004

Walter_Kaufmann said:
(ignoring personal ties between the President and the Saudi Royal Family)

I don't think it's possible to ignore the personal links between Bush and the Saudi Royal family. That's probably a bigger deterrant to US attacking Saudi Arabia than even the risk of offending the muslim world by attacking the land of their holiest places.

Abdul Hadi Pasha · Jun 23, 2004

Walter_Kaufmann said:
Okay. It's September 12, 2001. How best could the United States (ignoring personal ties between the President and the Saudi Royal Family) punish Saudi Arabia for the acts committed by its citizens?

Would there be a full-scale invasion?
Would the US simply support a coup of some sort?
Would the US prop up a new government, led by a harsher ruler?
Would the US simply occupy the nation for an extended period of time?
Would the US get any international support for such an operation?

How best could the US punish Saudi Arabia?

I think the Saudis are a canny lot - they will have to adapt to survive, and we should do whatever we can to quietly direct this.

Dave Howery · Jun 23, 2004

whatever ties there are between Bush and the royals are kinda irrelevant. THe big problem with this premise is that it has us 'punishing' SA for the acts of a handful of it's expatriate citizens. If the whole SA govt. was actively financing and planning terrorism, that would be grounds for action, but that isn't the case.....

MerryPrankster · Jun 23, 2004

Read Bob Baer's "Sleeping with the Devil." Though you cannot brand the entire Saudi royal family as bin Laden groupies, huge amounts of $$ flow into al-Qaeda from the government and various "charities" and the country's domestic policy vaguely resembles that of the Taliban.

Grey Wolf · Jun 23, 2004

Abdul Hadi Pasha said:
I think the Saudis are a canny lot - they will have to adapt to survive, and we should do whatever we can to quietly direct this.

I agree entirely. It is like that with Musharref in Pakistan - because he is a secular and canny politician he realises the world has changed. Whilst it served his strategic interests to support the Taliban there was no reason not to. Once the USA jumped into his backyard he had no choice but to adapt to a changed realpolitik. The Saudis have always struck me as along the same lines - if something was advantageous in year 1 then in year 3 not so, then they will calmly and cooly change. Take active emnity to Israel as an example

Grey Wolf

Ian the Admin · Jun 24, 2004

Matt Quinn said:
Read Bob Baer's "Sleeping with the Devil." Though you cannot brand the entire Saudi royal family as bin Laden groupies, huge amounts of $$ flow into al-Qaeda from the government and various "charities" and the country's domestic policy vaguely resembles that of the Taliban.

According to the 9/11 commission at the height of Al Qaeda's funding they only brought in 20-30 million a year, the majority of which was given to the Taliban. Actual terrorist operations were pretty cheap and they've never made "huge amounts of $$".