Yep, you said it....
No, I didn't.
I looked back, and here is what I said about Saudi Arabia in response to someone's comment along the lines of "I guess we should take out the House of Saud next?"
The Saudi government isn't the best regime by many standards, but they haven't misbehaved for 20 years running around terrorizing their neighbors, getting the entire world pissed off at them and gassing their own population. A regime has to be pretty awful for outsiders to make the case for "taking them out". Zimbabwe and North Korea come to mind as a the "next candidates", and even then it should be following a decade or so of external pressure. External pressure worked on South Africa, so in some cases it can be successful.
My words sound to me like an argument for "first use diplomacy, and when that fails consider military options", which is what just happened in the real world in Iraq. In looking at trying to improve the political system in Saudi Arabia I'd say the world should put in a decade or so of diplomacy, as in "Hey, let women leave the house without a male relative, alright? And while you're at it - so called royal family - how about an election?", and if that diplomacy fails, take it from there.
Your interpretation (below) of my words is pretty misleading as well as inaccurate. I'd say you owe me an apology :-)
You, however, in a supreme expression of hypocrisy have stated that wars of liberation are still sufficient cause for military invasion "except" in cases you deem unnecessary of liberation, such as the case of Saudi Arabia (home of Al-Queda).
"Supreme expression of hypocrisy" - ? Seem a bit over the top. Go take a writing class. You may get better at expressing yourself.
Elroy |
