Invade Saudi Arabia?

[Zocra]

Yeah because...

"Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb them!" never works.

[Ganos Lao]

I say no because the migrant crisis is bad enough and if we invade guess what for refugees going to the EU.

I don't know why they call it a migrant crisis. It has yet to even hit crisis levels. But give the Western/Middle Eastern politicians time, though, and they'll damn sure make it one.

[Latlandia]

Should the West (or the world) invade Saudi Arabia?

NO, no way! USA already messed up the Middle East, we can see the result of that today! Iraq, Lybia, other places...Thanks to the west, a democratic government was overthrown just to be replaced by sheikh...
The west should STAY OUT those countries now.

[Arvenia]

Should the West (or the world) invade Saudi Arabia?

NO, no way! USA already messed up the Middle East, we can see the result of that today! Iraq, Lybia, other places...Thanks to the west, a democratic government was overthrown just to be replaced by sheikh...
The west should STAY OUT those countries now.

No, the West should mess up the Middle East even more by secularizing it and treat them like post-WW2 Japan.

[Latlandia]

Should the West (or the world) invade Saudi Arabia?

NO, no way! USA already messed up the Middle East, we can see the result of that today! Iraq, Lybia, other places...Thanks to the west, a democratic government was overthrown just to be replaced by sheikh...
The west should STAY OUT those countries now.

No, the West should mess up the Middle East even more by secularizing it and treat them like post-WW2 Japan.

I agree that their religion is too much influental there, but I`m Not sure if it`s worth invading Saudi Arabia. An invasion would be very expensive, plus a lot of people (mostly civillians) dead in the previous war. Plus it will make people around the world hate the USA even more, much like after the Iraq war.
The U.S. war in Iraq has cost $1.7 trillion with an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans.
174,000 Iraqis reported killed between 2003 and 2013, with between 112,000-123,000 of those killed being civilian noncombatants.
I don`t think it is a sane idea to invade Saudi Arabia.

[Escanthea]

The Saudis and their buddies Bahrain and Qatar are the reason it is volatile. They were the ones that helped get the disgusting Wahhabis to spread their influence everywhere.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar and absolutely not 'buddies'; they're instead rivals for influence among different conservative Muslim factions. The Saudis didn't have an ambassador in Qatar from 2002-2007 because they were irritated with Al Jazeera. As recently as March 2014 the other GCC countries withdrew their ambassadors from Doha following a dispute over Qatar's support for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

Bahrain is a bit more complicated. The Sunni royal family are propped up in a majority Shia country by Saudi support, but the Bahrainis are not Wahhabis or Salafists; instead Bahrain is widely known as the 'liberal' Gulf country (though these things are relative) - it's where Saudis and Qataris typically go to booze up and find themselves a prostitute.

Qatar will simply take SA's place if Riyadh falls, nay, we must ensure that both are adequately neutered. As for Bahrain, it seems we might be inclined to relieve them of those royals.

[Novus America]

Saudi Arabia and Qatar and absolutely not 'buddies'; they're instead rivals for influence among different conservative Muslim factions. The Saudis didn't have an ambassador in Qatar from 2002-2007 because they were irritated with Al Jazeera. As recently as March 2014 the other GCC countries withdrew their ambassadors from Doha following a dispute over Qatar's support for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

Bahrain is a bit more complicated. The Sunni royal family are propped up in a majority Shia country by Saudi support, but the Bahrainis are not Wahhabis or Salafists; instead Bahrain is widely known as the 'liberal' Gulf country (though these things are relative) - it's where Saudis and Qataris typically go to booze up and find themselves a prostitute.

Qatar will simply take SA's place if Riyadh falls, nay, we must ensure that both are adequately neutered. As for Bahrain, it seems we might be inclined to relieve them of those royals.

Who is going to pay the cost of doing so? Are you willing to die for it?

And the Bahraini royals are not nice. But useful stooges rather than extremists. Get rid of them and Bahrain becomes Hezbollahstan.

[Escanthea]

Qatar will simply take SA's place if Riyadh falls, nay, we must ensure that both are adequately neutered. As for Bahrain, it seems we might be inclined to relieve them of those royals.

Who is going to pay the cost of doing so? Are you willing to die for it?

And the Bahraini royals are not nice. But useful stooges rather than extremists. Get rid of them and Bahrain becomes Hezbollahstan.

Well, I suppose we'll simply have to do with to crushing any influence they might have through sneaky means then.

[Southern Knight]

No.

[Digital Planets]

Yeah because...

"Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb them!" never works.

You sure?

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

No, the West should mess up the Middle East even more by secularizing it and treat them like post-WW2 Japan.

I agree that their religion is too much influental there, but I`m Not sure if it`s worth invading Saudi Arabia. An invasion would be very expensive, plus a lot of people (mostly civillians) dead in the previous war. Plus it will make people around the world hate the USA even more, much like after the Iraq war.
The U.S. war in Iraq has cost $1.7 trillion with an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans.
174,000 Iraqis reported killed between 2003 and 2013, with between 112,000-123,000 of those killed being civilian noncombatants.
I don`t think it is a sane idea to invade Saudi Arabia.

$ 3 trillion, actually.

[Seraven]

Yeah because...

"Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb them!" never works.

You sure?

USA won't going to bomb Middle East with atomic bomb/nuclear. Because their oil is just too profitable.

Japan, on the other hand, has a minimal amounts of resources that USA needed, and even then, they have their own, larger, pool of resources.

[Novus America]

You sure?

USA won't going to bomb Middle East with atomic bomb/nuclear. Because their oil is just too profitable.

Japan, on the other hand, has a minimal amounts of resources that USA needed, and even then, they have their own, larger, pool of resources.

No. We do not profit from their oil. Their corrupt regimes profit, and we have our own oil. Their oil industry is money removed from, not contributed to our economy.

We do not nuke them because we do not want to kill huge numbers of people.

Nuclear weapons do not destroy oil anyway.

[Digital Planets]

Nuclear weapons do not destroy oil anyway.

It turns them into sentient scorpion people.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

No, Don't invade Saudi Arabia

Turn that entire terrorist-funding country into a 830,000 sq mile piece of glowing radioactive glass.

Committing one of the worst war crimes in history (if not the worst) and causing a catastrophic environmental disaster as a result is totally a reasonable course of action

[Uncircumcised Porcines]

Just blockade them. Their oil isn't very useful when they don't have a market to sell to, and just let them try to grow their own food without being able to import things like machinery, fertilizer, etc.

[Seraven]

And beside, USA bombing Saudi Arabia and if it hits Mecca, the whole Muslims in the world will angry...

[Seraven]

Just blockade them. Their oil isn't very useful when they don't have a market to sell to, and just let them try to grow their own food without being able to import things like machinery, fertilizer, etc.

They have market beside USA.

What, you think USA is the only country in the world who use oil?

[Belhorizon]

No need to invade.
How about:
Condemn Saudii Arabia with sanctions for its flagrant human rights abuses, its massacre of civilians in Yemen, and its funding terrorism across the middle east.

But wait! Silly me!

Human rights don't apply to the US and friends! The corrupt UN wanted to rub that point in so much, they made Saudii Arabia head of the human rights council. Have we forgotten when Saudii Arabia, O Beacon of Virtue, condemned Norway over its human rights record? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/saudi ... 01796.html

What about massacring civi--- Wait. The massacring is done with U.S weapons? I...I see. Did the U.S..stop selling these weapons? They're selling /MORE/!? Err..Moving on.

Funding terrorism! Yes! That's i--- No? No sanctions? Asset freezes? WARNINGS? NOTHING!?

Hmm.
See, the problem isn't the Al-Saud house. It's the #%*^$*!)$ in the U.S that support them. Want to fix it, I advise you topple your regime first.

Those who still patronize Putin, Al-Assad and other non-US friendly rulers for their 'Human Rights Abuses' should remember that the only difference between Saudii Arabia and other abusive ruler is that Saudii Arabia is the US' lapdog.

[Vistulange]

No need to invade.
How about:
Condemn Saudii Arabia with sanctions for its flagrant human rights abuses, its massacre of civilians in Yemen, and its funding terrorism across the middle east.

But wait! Silly me!

Human rights don't apply to the US and friends! The corrupt UN wanted to rub that point in so much, they made Saudii Arabia head of the human rights council. Have we forgotten when Saudii Arabia, O Beacon of Virtue, condemned Norway over its human rights record? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/saudi ... 01796.html

What about massacring civi--- Wait. The massacring is done with U.S weapons? I...I see. Did the U.S..stop selling these weapons? They're selling /MORE/!? Err..Moving on.

Funding terrorism! Yes! That's i--- No? No sanctions? Asset freezes? WARNINGS? NOTHING!?

Hmm.
See, the problem isn't the Al-Saud house. It's the #%*^$*!)$ in the U.S that support them. Want to fix it, I advise you topple your regime first.

Those who still patronize Putin, Al-Assad and other non-US friendly rulers for their 'Human Rights Abuses' should remember that the only difference between Saudii Arabia and other abusive ruler is that Saudii Arabia is the US' lapdog.

While I do agree with your points, I should point out that Saudi Arabia does not buy arms from the US exclusively. I believe Germany, Canada, the United Kingdom and France are also engaged in arms deals with the Kingdom.

[Belhorizon]

No need to invade.
How about:
Condemn Saudii Arabia with sanctions for its flagrant human rights abuses, its massacre of civilians in Yemen, and its funding terrorism across the middle east.

But wait! Silly me!

Human rights don't apply to the US and friends! The corrupt UN wanted to rub that point in so much, they made Saudii Arabia head of the human rights council. Have we forgotten when Saudii Arabia, O Beacon of Virtue, condemned Norway over its human rights record? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/saudi ... 01796.html

What about massacring civi--- Wait. The massacring is done with U.S weapons? I...I see. Did the U.S..stop selling these weapons? They're selling /MORE/!? Err..Moving on.

Funding terrorism! Yes! That's i--- No? No sanctions? Asset freezes? WARNINGS? NOTHING!?

Hmm.
See, the problem isn't the Al-Saud house. It's the #%*^$*!)$ in the U.S that support them. Want to fix it, I advise you topple your regime first.

Those who still patronize Putin, Al-Assad and other non-US friendly rulers for their 'Human Rights Abuses' should remember that the only difference between Saudii Arabia and other abusive ruler is that Saudii Arabia is the US' lapdog.

While I do agree with your points, I should point out that Saudi Arabia does not buy arms from the US exclusively. I believe Germany, Canada, the United Kingdom and France are also engaged in arms deals with the Kingdom.

And these same countries bend over and listen to the US when it comes to sanctions.
Germany lost a lot of business with Russia.
France lost the sale of two warships.
Britain has very close financial ties with Russian elites.

Yet they all threw that to the wind when the U.S demanded sanctions.
If we're ascertaining that the U.S can't organize near-global sanctions against Saudii Arabia, you're mistaken.
Even Russia would gladly comply.

The U.S is protecting Saudii Arabia, not France, the UK, or Canada.

[Vistulange]

While I do agree with your points, I should point out that Saudi Arabia does not buy arms from the US exclusively. I believe Germany, Canada, the United Kingdom and France are also engaged in arms deals with the Kingdom.

And these same countries bend over and listen to the US when it comes to sanctions.
Germany lost a lot of business with Russia.
France lost the sale of two warships.
Britain has very close financial ties with Russian elites.

Yet they all threw that to the wind when the U.S demanded sanctions.
If we're ascertaining that the U.S can't organize near-global sanctions against Saudii Arabia, you're mistaken.
Even Russia would gladly comply.

The U.S is protecting Saudii Arabia, not France, the UK, or Canada.

I am afraid you are both mistaking the influence the US has over the UK, France and Germany; as well as the nature of my post.

For one, the US doesn't "protect" Saudi Arabia. Just like all American allies, they will be tossed away when they have fulfilled their purpose for American interest. There is nothing more natural for a country to support a regime, no matter how abhorring they may be, as long as it is in their national interest. To expect anything else is to live in a land of dreams and delusion.

Two, Saudi Arabia, while abhorring, is a relatively stable country in a land of instability. We would all like to see it gone, but not today. Saudi Arabia collapsing today means there is a huge power vacuum, allowing ISIS to takeover as the dominant Sunni radical power. Out of the two evils, I prefer the one which is the lapdog of the United States, instead of the loose cannon.

[Belhorizon]

And these same countries bend over and listen to the US when it comes to sanctions.
Germany lost a lot of business with Russia.
France lost the sale of two warships.
Britain has very close financial ties with Russian elites.

Yet they all threw that to the wind when the U.S demanded sanctions.
If we're ascertaining that the U.S can't organize near-global sanctions against Saudii Arabia, you're mistaken.
Even Russia would gladly comply.

The U.S is protecting Saudii Arabia, not France, the UK, or Canada.

I am afraid you are both mistaking the influence the US has over the UK, France and Germany; as well as the nature of my post.

For one, the US doesn't "protect" Saudi Arabia. Just like all American allies, they will be tossed away when they have fulfilled their purpose for American interest. There is nothing more natural for a country to support a regime, no matter how abhorring they may be, as long as it is in their national interest. To expect anything else is to live in a land of dreams and delusion.

Two, Saudi Arabia, while abhorring, is a relatively stable country in a land of instability. We would all like to see it gone, but not today. Saudi Arabia collapsing today means there is a huge power vacuum, allowing ISIS to takeover as the dominant Sunni radical power. Out of the two evils, I prefer the one which is the lapdog of the United States, instead of the loose cannon.

I fully agree.
However, if you've been following regional politics, you'll see the U.S is facilitating Saudii Arabia's transformation into a loose canon.
If it's an unintended side effect of Obama's less interventionist posture in the Middle East, or deliberate; no one can tell for sure.

But I do know one thing. Saudii Arabia is trying to sink the U.S oil fracking ship. I doubt all of this is unintended.
The U.S is leading Saudii Arabia down the same path they led Saddam.

[Novus America]

While I do agree with your points, I should point out that Saudi Arabia does not buy arms from the US exclusively. I believe Germany, Canada, the United Kingdom and France are also engaged in arms deals with the Kingdom.

And these same countries bend over and listen to the US when it comes to sanctions.
Germany lost a lot of business with Russia.
France lost the sale of two warships.
Britain has very close financial ties with Russian elites.

Yet they all threw that to the wind when the U.S demanded sanctions.
If we're ascertaining that the U.S can't organize near-global sanctions against Saudii Arabia, you're mistaken.
Even Russia would gladly comply.

The U.S is protecting Saudii Arabia, not France, the UK, or Canada.

Actually it is the opposite. The Europeans sanctioned Russia as Russia is a much greater direct threat to Europe than to the US. It is the US helping out Europe. The US did not demand sanctions. Poland and Eastern Europe were the most vocal supporters. And the sanctions are very weak.

Losing some bussiness can be better in the long run. Big bussiness care only about their own profits, not what is best for the country.

France sold those warships to Egypt anyway.

And no, the US could not organized near global sanctions. Or strong ones. We tried and failed to do so on North Korea and Iran.

Russia sells weapons to Saudi Arabia, but the real issue is China. Who would gladly fill in the gaps. Not that the Europeans often do what we say. See Iraq. The 2% thing. Etc. But Russia does do what China tells them to do. Russia has NOT called for an Embargo on Saudi Arabia.

[Uncircumcised Porcines]

Just blockade them. Their oil isn't very useful when they don't have a market to sell to, and just let them try to grow their own food without being able to import things like machinery, fertilizer, etc.

They have market beside USA.

What, you think USA is the only country in the world who use oil?

That's why it would be a blockade not just an embargo.