PDA

View Full Version : U.S. fears prospect of Saudi coup, weighs invasion plans



Hardrock69
11-03-2005, 09:47 AM
Just as I mentioned in another thread to a disbelieving and drooling Short Bus 3, the U.S. is still drafting plans to invade Saudi Arabia.....after 30 years...

SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Tuesday, November 1, 2005

WASHINGTON � The United States has raised the prospect of a military invasion of Saudi Arabia.

The House Armed Services Committee considered the possibility of a Saudi coup and U.S. response during a hearing on Oct. 26.

Saudi Arabia, with 200,000 military and National Guard troops, is the largest oil producer and exporter, with an output of nine million barrels of oil per day, according to Middle East Newsline. The Arab kingdom is the third largest supplier of oil to the United States, with more than 1.55 million barrels per day.

The scenario was outlined by Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow of the Brookings Institution, who cited a Saudi coup as one of several threats to the United States.

"How should the United States respond if a coup, presumably fundamentalist in nature, overthrows the royal family in Saudi Arabia?" O'Hanlon asked. "Such a result would raise the specter of major disruption to the oil economy."

The response could include the deployment of three U.S. Army divisions backed by fighter-jets and airborne early-warning and alert aircraft. In all, the U.S.-led mission could include up to 300,000 troops.

Congressional sources said the House hearing, which focused on future threats in the Middle East and other regions, marked increasing U.S. concern of Saudi instability. They said the open hearing echoed a series of briefings on Saudi and Gulf Arab instability given by non-government analysts to the State Department, Defense Department and National Security Council since 2002.

The House committee was told that U.S. concern of a Saudi coup appears greater than ever. O'Hanlon said such a coup would also destabilize Pakistan, a nuclear power since 1998.

"This type of scenario has been discussed for at least two decades and remains of concern today � perhaps even more so � given the surge of terrorist violence in Saudi Arabia in recent years as well as the continued growth and hostile ideology of Al Qaida along with the broader Wahabi movement," O'Hanlon said. In his testimony, O'Hanlon envisioned a Saudi coup as resulting in the emergence of what he termed a fundamentalist regime intent on acquiring nuclear weapons. Another prospect was that the new regime would seek to disrupt the oil market.

"Indeed, it might be feasible not to do anything at first, and hope that the new regime gradually realized the benefits of reintegrating Saudi Arabia at least partially into the global oil economy," O'Hanlon said. "But in the end the United States and other western countries might consider using force."

O'Hanlon envisioned a U.S.-led military operation designed to seize Saudi oil wells, located along the eastern coast. Washington and its allies would place the proceeds from Saudi oil sales into escrow for a future pro-Western government in Riyad.

A U.S.-led military force of 300,000 would be required to secure the entire Saudi Arabia, O'Hanlon said. He said about 10,000 troops could capture eastern Saudi Arabia, which contains virtually all of the kingdom's oil wells. But more than 100,000 additional troops would be required to protect the wells and other vital infrastructure.

"An operation to overthrow the new Saudi regime and gradually stabilize a country of the size in question would probably require in the vicinity of 300,000 troops, using standard sizing criteria," O'Hanlon said. "So in fact a coastal strategy, while easier in some ways and perhaps less bloody in the initial phases, could be fully half as large and might last much longer."


http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2005/ss_saudi_11_01.html

FORD
11-03-2005, 02:23 PM
If you want to piss off all one billion Muslims world wide, invade the land where Mecca & Medina are.

Hardrock69
11-03-2005, 03:06 PM
Yeah that was what I mentioned as well.

This is most likley why they decided on Iraq. Right Next to Saudi Arabia, but not taking over the Muslim Motherland.


Funny isn't it....how all you had to do back in the old days was proclaim yourself a prophet, claim that you alone are in direct communication with God, and then have a bunch of your followers run around screaming "IT'S A MIRACLE! IT'S A MIRACLE!"

Then you can have your own religion....

:rolleyes:

Actually when it comes down to it, Judaism has a far greater claim to the land of Israel than any Muslim Arabs do, as it is a religion that is 2,000 years older than Islam....

ODShowtime
11-03-2005, 08:29 PM
islam is just a pile of horseshit

BITEYOASS
11-03-2005, 09:30 PM
Fuck, is it that hard to take emergency government action in order to accelerate research and commercialization of alternative energy replacments to the point which results in an embargo on saudi oil. Oh wait, it won't happen. I forgot who was president.

FORD
11-03-2005, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by BITEYOASS
Fuck, is it that hard to take emergency government action in order to accelerate research and commercialization of alternative energy replacments to the point which results in an embargo on saudi oil. Oh wait, it won't happen. I forgot who was president.

And that's exactly the problem. Energy crisises are nothing new. A couple of them might have even been real. But when the same cabal of oil industry embedded assholes have controlled every Republican administration since WWII (and LBJ who was also a Texas oilman) then it's easy to see why alternative energy and better fuel efficiency standards aren't anywhwere near top priority.

It's fucking disgraceful.

ODShowtime
11-03-2005, 09:52 PM
no Ford, it's just a coincidence

Nickdfresh
11-04-2005, 09:28 AM
You mean we're going to invade an Arab country with a tyrannical government not to spread freedom, but to capture it's oil reserves? Shocking!

Hardrock69
11-04-2005, 09:44 AM
:eek:


Our Government would NEVER do that!!

:rolleyes:

knuckleboner
11-04-2005, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by ODShowtime
no Ford, it's just a coincidence

i think it is. unless the same oil cabal controls the entire world. (one can make the argument, but that means you do need a hell of a lot bigger coincidence.)

there's a reason why other countries aren't that much ahead of us, if at all, in alternative energy.

Phil theStalker
11-04-2005, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by FORD
If you want to piss off all one billion Muslims world wide, invade the land where Mecca & Medina are.
If you want t2o piss off a billion Muslims and spark unrest in the Middle East have your "Jeff Gannons" and your propaganda machine "catapult the propaganda [GW quote Oct. 2005]" and drag out 30 YEAR OLD PLANS so it can be used f4or that purpose.

"NOTHING in politics happens by accident."

If the press doesn't seize the moment with the TREASON of a WHITE HOUSE outing Ms. Plame's of the U.S. CIA over fake yellow cake "intelligence" used in a Presidential state of the union speech and a UN (Colin Coolieo) speech t2o take America t2o a war in Iraq then...polish your guns so they work when you need t2o defend yourself.

Listen t2o this Americans, the WHITE HOUSE is a CRIME SCENE.

Now go t2o work...if you have a job and don't - worry - aboot - a -thingy. ok

Everything's fine.

No kidding.

Would I lie t2o you? huh;)


:spank:

Phil theStalker
11-04-2005, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by knuckleboner
i think it is. unless the same oil cabal controls the entire world. (one can make the argument, but that means you do need a hell of a lot bigger coincidence.)

there's a reason why other countries aren't that much ahead of us, if at all, in alternative energy. Yes, there is a reason:

ROCKEFELLER(S)


:spank:

Phil theStalker
11-04-2005, 10:31 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
You mean we're going to invade an Arab country with a tyrannical government not to spread freedom, but to capture it's oil reserves? Shocking! We're not spreading freedom. We're spreading THEOCRACIES!

How would YOU like to live in a country under Catholic Christian sectarians?

Or any other religion?

That's what a THEOCRACY is.

And, Afganistan just VOTED themselves a MUSLIM THEOCRACY constitution and not a DEMOCRACY (or better, a republic based on democratic principles).

DID AMERICAN TROOPS DIE IN VAIN?

Yes.

And the puppet government of Iraq has currently approved a national vote on the SAME Muslim theocracy, which they'll approve and the U.S. (Bush, republicans, WAR CRIMINALS) will have nation built another THEOCRACY in the Middles East.

DID AMERICAN TROOPS IN IRAQ DIE IN VAIN?

Yes.

Look ---- SUPERFICIAL Americans soldiering in Iraq see "schools open and smiling children."

Look ---- the children are in school, because their parents WANT them in school whether it's Saddam, the Taliban, the Vietnamese commies, SCHOOLS WILL OPEN AND KIDS WILL GO TO SCHOOL...AND SMILE.

And with a THEOCRACY no DEMOCRACY or OTHER OPINIONS that go against Islam and CRITICS of the Muslim religion can be taught. In other words, JIHAD CUNTINUES.

Did U.S. soldiers die in Iraq in vain?

Yes!

And ALL the U.S. troops who fought and DIED f4or these THEOCRACIES in Afganistan and Iraq have indeed DIED IN VAIN.

But look at their boss.

Look ---- it's a human being named George Bush. LOOK at him. He's a failure as a man...and he's been INSTALLED (Supreme court) in the WHITE HOUSE...which is a CRIME SCENE now.

This forum blog is t2oo small.

Those of you here who have got the message don't need me anymore.

And the very few others here who never get the message, you know who you are and so do we, you are going down with your superficial lives and there's nothing more I can say or do to help you.


:spank:

Nickdfresh
11-04-2005, 11:31 AM
"'This type of scenario has been discussed for at least two decades and remains of concern today ? perhaps even more so ? given the surge of terrorist violence in Saudi Arabia in recent years as well as the continued growth and hostile ideology of Al Qaida along with the broader Wahabi movement,' O'Hanlon said. In his testimony, O'Hanlon envisioned a Saudi coup as resulting in the emergence of what he termed a fundamentalist regime intent on acquiring nuclear weapons. Another prospect was that the new regime would seek to disrupt the oil market."


Hmmmm...sounds like he may have been talking about IRAQ.

Phil theStalker
11-04-2005, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
"'This type of scenario has been discussed for at least two decades and remains of concern today ? perhaps even more so ? given the surge of terrorist violence in Saudi Arabia in recent years as well as the continued growth and hostile ideology of Al Qaida along with the broader Wahabi movement,' O'Hanlon said. In his testimony, O'Hanlon envisioned a Saudi coup as resulting in the emergence of what he termed a fundamentalist regime intent on acquiring nuclear weapons. Another prospect was that the new regime would seek to disrupt the oil market."


Hmmmm...sounds like he may have been talking about IRAQ. What do you mean, Nickdfresh?

Who in Iraq was trying a coup against Saddam and could disrupt any oil markets?

Saddam wasn't trying to aquire nuclear weapons and couldn't with all the sanctions and inspections since 1991.

I don't see how his words you've quoted can be compared to what is happening in Iraq over the past 20 years up to today.

If you replace the Q in your named country to an N maybe you might have a serious assumption, but it really doesn't matter what nation is named as the target of U.S. strategic national security interests to go to war.

Iraq has been just one big lie about national security and there was no strategic threat to Iraqs flow of oil with Saddam in power with UN sancitons and with only British and U.S. jets flying over two thirds of the country.

It doesn't sound like Iraq at all, Nick.

Never mind.

I don't want to know what you meant.

I'm tired.

My head hurts.

The time I waste typing here I could be making more shells. It's hunting season.


:spank:


LAME DUCK HUNTING SEASON

BITEYOASS
11-04-2005, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by knuckleboner
i think it is. unless the same oil cabal controls the entire world. (one can make the argument, but that means you do need a hell of a lot bigger coincidence.)

there's a reason why other countries aren't that much ahead of us, if at all, in alternative energy.

Not so, Denmark is the more advanced than we are when it comes to alternative energy.

Phil theStalker
11-04-2005, 06:52 PM
Originally posted by BITEYOASS
Not so, Denmark is the more advanced than we are when it comes to alternative energy.
And Denmark controls the world.

So wot's yer point? huh


:spank:

ODShowtime
11-04-2005, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by knuckleboner
i think it is. unless the same oil cabal controls the entire world. (one can make the argument, but that means you do need a hell of a lot bigger coincidence.)

there's a reason why other countries aren't that much ahead of us, if at all, in alternative energy.

I'm pretty sure energy resources are the axis the world turns on right now. And people who have power are always afraid to lose it.

At the very least, there's no real social and political will to just pour money into alternative energy research and implementation like we should be doing. If we poured all the money from these bullshit wars into research, it wouldn't be long before we enjoyed the dividends.

We would enjoy the dividends. That's the problem.

BITEYOASS
11-04-2005, 09:01 PM
Originally posted by Phil theStalker
And Denmark controls the world.

So wot's yer point? huh


:spank:

Well they're expensive whores in Copenhagen are raising funds to do just that! LOL

Phil theStalker
11-06-2005, 12:34 PM
A world ruled by whores.

We've got that ALREADY!


:spank:

Phil theStalker
11-06-2005, 12:34 PM
A world ruled by whores.

We've got that ALREADY!


:spank: