SUING THE SAUDIS?...& OTHER STATE-SPONSORED TERROR SUITS

[HairOfTheDog]

I don't want to do anything that can come back and bite us in the ass. Is that asking for too much?

I'm not kidding when I say I long for the good ol' days when our biggest problem was a Prez who couldn't keep it in his pants.

I know what you mean.

But, when we take action, or don't take action, outside our own borders, there's always something that can bite the U.S. in the ass. We will never please everyone.

We have to consider a lot of factors, some of which are conflicting: allegiance to our allies (which aren't always our allies' allies), what we think is 'right' (from our western point of view), effects on domestic opinion and economics, the uncertainty of even good intelligence...

What bothers me about ⁹⁄₁₁ specifically is that there was no credible intelligence pointing to Iraq as the culprits, and the Taliban in Afghanistan didn't pull off the attacks. There was at least circumstantial evidence very early on to support suspicion of Saudi Arabia though. Yet, we took action against Iraq and Afghanistan and, in my opinion, intentionally turned a blind eye to Saudi Arabia.

We invaded Iraq, helped usher in a new President, praised his more "secular" policies while he was actually discriminating against large segments of the population as much or more than Saddam, watched as ISIS emerged and took over key areas of the country, watched as the Iraqi soldiers we'd trained to uphold a more 'democratic' society joined or ran away from ISIS, helped kick to the curb the corrupt leader who we'd ushered in.............and here we are 15 years later trying to quash actual terrorists that emerged during the U.S. occupation.

And, the situation in Afghanistan is starting to look very much like that in Iraq. US-trained Afghani soldiers defecting to the re-invigorated Taliban (which is taking over key portions of the country), the US-backed more 'democratic' government is faltering, we're scheduled to finally bring the last several thousand of our soldiers home, but will probably instead have to send more over...

When we defended Kuwait against Iraq, it was justified. When we joined forces with our allies in World War I and II, it was justified. When we were struck at home on 9/11, retaliation by the U.S. and its allies was justified. I understood Afghanistan, being that al-Qaeda training and safe havens were reportedly located there. But, Iraq was just plain bullshit and it has bitten us in the ass big time. Since 9/11, the U.S. and our western allies have not succeeded in deterring Islamic terrorism or promoting our idea of democracy in Iraq or Afghanistan, but we have managed to kill and die in great numbers.

Now, Hillary Clinton is telling us that taking Gaddafi out was the right thing to do for Libya -- that even though Libya is now plagued with terrorists, it's on the path to a more democratic society. Why the hell should I believe that? Just like Yemen's Arab Spring was a true success story only two months before another tribal/civil war broke out, right? Just like the people of Iraq are so much better off without Saddam, right? Just like we should have armed the Syrian 'rebels' (many of whom are affiliated with 'terrorist organizations') because they're less a threat to Syrians and our allies in the region than Assad, right?

I don't have answers and I know there are no easy ones. But, using the same failed strategies over and over, trying to convince people that they were successes, and expecting different results is arrogant and delusional. In my opinion.

Tis all.