It seems clear to me that Saddam Hussain's tyrannism, and the weapons of mass destruction (Right or Wrong) were really an excuse for George Bush to gain a foothold in the Middle East.
Whether he was attempting to stabilise the region, or just gain control of an important source of Oil production I don't know.

After 9/11, and the declaration of intent by Al Quaeda to destabalise the US economy, it must have been made clear to him that the majority of the world oil reserves were in areas that favoured, if not supported the network.

The recent attacks on compounds in Saudi Arabia are an attempt to damage the ability of the country to continue to ensure production of a large portion of the supply of this very important commodity.

I find it difficult to believe in the ability of the Saudi's to fight against these attacks alone. - - - How is it that the some of the terrorists always seem to manage to escape from what appear to be totally surrounded positions?
If the Saudi Royal family are deposed, would we then have the same situation as in pre-war Iraq? With no ex-pats, the industry would rapidly decline, and world supply would be much reduced.
Would steps have to be taken to ensure this does not happen?

Originally posted by sheffco
I find it difficult to believe in the ability of the Saudi's to fight against these attacks alone. - - - How is it that the some of the terrorists always seem to manage to escape from what appear to be totally surrounded positions?

And there was me thinking that most of them had been killed during or after the seige. :loopy:

You have to think about the Saudi's, and their attempts at showing they are in control.
Two guys shot in the desert, can't explain how they ecaped from a secure and surrounded compound.
Previous bombs etc. had been blamed on western organised illicit booze wars. "Illicit ? ?" Every compound in the country has a bar or "still" room.
They dare not invite western help into the country with Mecca and Medina, or there would be widespread condemnation.

I don't understand your point mate... is there one? Or are you Saudi-bashing (seeing as we are already a major force within their country, and they've not blamed anything on drinking)?

I don't see any major force there, apart from the thousands of ex-pats that keep the hospitals and Saudi Aramco running.
The Saudi's are very sensitive about western forces being on Saudi soil.

If by "We" you mean Britain, I'm afraid you'r wrong.

The recent flurry about oil supplies would seem to point out the concern about the problems there.

the house of Saud has some serious restructuring to do.

Talk about power mad dictators, if we are to go by the moral code of liberating the opressed, then Saudi would be a good place to start.

However the saudis have been such good customers of British military and torture equipment and US F16 fighter aircraft, that the best we can do is probably leave the internal dissent to foment against the oppression and corruption, whilst the militant islamists recognise a fertile recruiting ground, and institute an Islamic revolution.

After the new Islamic Republic of Arabia emerges, and nationalises all the oil and associated industries, then the US and the UK will once again have to invade to "protect national interests".

Hopefully this will take another 10 years, allowing us to sell the Sauds lots more weaponry to quell "islamic rebels" before we give up on them and start stockpiling some cruise missiles before the inevitable attack.

Or maybe not. But The House of Saud's days are numbered unless they act fast.

The picture of Three Day working Week - power cuts - fuel rationing etc. - painted by the recent leaked memo, could be a lot closer than ten years.

Originally posted by sheffco
I find it difficult to believe in the ability of the Saudi's to fight against these attacks alone. - - - How is it that the some of the terrorists always seem to manage to escape from what appear to be totally surrounded positions?

Maybe because the US told the Saudis to let the Al-Qaida gunmen escape (http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3014134)

Saudi authorities gave safe passage to three al-Qaida gunmen after the they killed 10 of the hostages they were holding at a hotel in the oil hub of Khobar, a senior security official said.

The Saudi official said upon hearing hostages had been killed, US officials advised the Saudis that letting the militants go would avert a bigger catastrophe.

The US embassy in Riyadh did not have immediate comment on the Saudi official’s account, which dovetailed with witness accounts.

<snip>

Many are wondering how the militants could have slipped away in an area bristling with hundreds of troops.

One reason the Saudi government has given a sketchy account of what happened is that it does not want to be seen as negotiating with terrorists.

The official said Saudi authorities at first turned down the gunmen’s request for safe passage. But then the militants started killing hostages, the official said. He said the Americans, who were in consultation with the Saudis, advised them to let the men go.

PA, Thu 3rd June 2004

Her goes another attack - - and not very convincing replies from the Saudi envoys.
Can they control the situation? Or should british nationals be told to leave?
It's a mercanary situation, their life style and income could not be replicated in UK.
What is the decision in the event of outright attacks and hostage situations?

I guess most of the 11 September hijackers were Saudi's, so this time Bush and Blair won't be lying when they say they are invading to fight terrorism. The odd thing is that immediately after 11 September, Bush sent a private plane around the country to pick up lots of Bin Laden's relatives and send them back to Saudi Arabia.

Not really worth replying to - - never mentioned them mate

eh?

Originally posted by garrence
I guess most of the 11 September hijackers were Saudi's, so this time Bush and Blair won't be lying when they say they are invading to fight terrorism. The odd thing is that immediately after 11 September, Bush sent a private plane around the country to pick up lots of Bin Laden's relatives and send them back to Saudi Arabia.

Its not odd, it's just that as President, GWB decided to bus his brothers in business (The Bin Laden Family) out of the country before the feds wanted to start asking them awkward questions.

The Bush and the Bin Laden family go way back it seems, right back to when Bush snr was CIA chief, conducting an undeclared war in Afghanistan.

The Bin Ladens are Saudi's, and the original aims of the Al Quaeda network was to remove "Infidels" from Saudi's "Holy" soil.

It looks like he has gone back to his original intentions.
The oil terminals and processing plants are well guarded, but the ex-pats have to travel around the country.
Apart from the obvious points of entry, most of the borders can be crossed at will.
Attacks in the interior would be ridiculously easy to organise, and an exodus of ex-pats would seriously harm the Saudi oil industry.