Not a bad idea, but in parctise…
Who’s right, who’s wrong?

It would be much better for the US to stay out of the fighting, moce away from the cities, and only give humanitarian aid to reugees, imho.

Well, the royal famil is the government, and some of them supported terrorist groups until this became public…

While vehemently opposed to being in this war I see leaving it as an impossibility.

I asked where are these weapons coming from is the main question to be asked. Its obvious that Anyone with an interest in this region is getting involved.

Our forces need to be more like umpires then players and just let it sort out while keeping it manageable is about the best scenario I can come up with.

Saudi’s funnel cash to Iraqi Sunni’s, as do Syrian’s, Jordanians, Egyptians, while Iran funnels cash to Shiites in Iraq. Anyone with an IQ above 3 knows they are all in on this, just remove brain from CNN/Fox for awhile and think about it. That money buys black market arms from Africa, surplus Soviet stuff from ex-commie countries Bulgaria, Romania so on. It’s probably shipped into Iraq from every single country with a border with Iraq (all coviently unguarded by the US military except Syria to a small degree), and probably the leakiest border is the Saudi Arabian border with a wink and a nod from the US government.

But if you want believe the guys that gave us “Saddam has WMD’s, and mushroom clouds LOL.

Btw the Iraqis have tons of leftover AA-AAA weapons most probably 23mm cannon in use by the Soviets from WW2 as AAA and mounted on aircraft to this day. Oerlikon cannons are German WW2 era, and very hard to come by on the black market. Btw be wary of China testing out new weapons in Iraq…hey we did in Afghanistan in the 80′s.

Kritter, I totally agree. Whether GOP or Democrats are in charge, the Saudis are treated with kid gloves. This has been going on for decades. I admit I don’t see it changing.

Davebo, the Saudi government may not officially approve of everything, but the country is based upon a deal that was made between Ibn Saud and the Wahhabi sect back in the 1920s. The House of Saud rules because it supports the Wahhabi view around the world with oil money.

The Saudi royal house is far from puritanical, but for its survival it must turn a blind eye to Wahhabi extremism and, in fact, fund it.

According to a study I read in the early 2000s, approximately 80% of the mosques in the United States have been recipients of Saudi grants.

There are clearly a lot of reasons why the Bush administration might prefer seeing Iran behind these missiles than the Saudis.

And on a related note, our idiotic TSA and customs folks could actually be exacerbating the situation by endlessly and needlessly harrassing Saudis who might be in a position to help track down funding sources. A note to US customs and TSA, the terrorists aren’t likely to arrive in the US in a 150 million dollar custom Boeing aircraft. But the folks that do arrive in that aircraft run the biggest bank in Saudi Arabia and could be in a position to provide some good tips. Now, perhaps no matter what they just won’t be inclined to do so, but making them sit on the flightline next to their 150 million dollar aircraft for hours why you count how many pairs of shoes are in their luggage isn’t going to convince them to.

Marlowe- I don’t really know what the Democrats would do differently, and for once, it wasn’t an attack just on Bush, but on our whole convoluted history there. Its outrageous to think that Americans may be arming terrorism when we fill up. I do think we need to wean ourselves off of Saudi oil, but that relationship may be helping to repress even more attacks against us.

I will say that by removing a Sunni leader that provided stability in Iraq, Bush is responsible for destabilizing the region and thereby inviting the interference of the surrounding countries. It was naive of him to think that democracy would flourish overnight after the experience that the British had in the 1920′s.

I agree. But would the Democrats be different?

Saudi puritanical Wahhabism has warped contemporary Sunni Islam thanks to grants to mosques and Islamic schools around the world from Saudi oil money.

Yesterday the British media were up in arms about a school in the UK where student textbooks praise the killing of Jews and infidels.

Guess whose money funded the school and the textbooks?

If you consider the recent history of Islam, the current wave of puritanism – particularly with regard to the treatment of women – has its roots in Wahhabism. Prior to Saudi oil grants, much of the Arab world was focused on modernization a la Nasser etc.

And the Saudis are our allies?!!

I’ve always had this secret suspicion that OSB was not detained by Bush or Clinton because both families were close to King Abdullah.

Several bloggers who cover the Middle East have noted that the U.S. has tied itself in such knots over the war that it is supporting a Shiite regime in Iraq while its closest allies (Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia) are Sunni regimes.

Something’s got to give, right? Right.

Then why aren’t we vilifying the Saudis?

Its black viscous and rhymes with spoil.

there is a growing danger that the Saudi leadership will try to protect its interests by supporting Sunni radicals in their fight against Iranian-backed Shiites, even though these same fighters are also rabidly anti-American.