Israeli deputy PM says bombing Iran is "unavoidable"

[CelticAtheist]

I would like to see you think like that with a gun in your face.

What rationally? You already claim that YOU wouldn't think like that, so is that such a leap?
No, I claimed I do not know what I would do in that situation.

Furthermore, the probabilities of whether or not the contract workers would die in the event of assault is variable.

Sometimes its like communicating with a brick wall. Firstly their would be no 'assault'. The planes that they service would target just as much targetted on the ground as they would in the sky. So assuming that they have a plane to work on, there's still living near and operating on targets...
True, but you're against assuming that the staff are in the hangers 24/7..

[quote:3cvkbnwe]Hell, their very presence might even be enough to halt full daytime aerial assaults on the bases.

Unlikely.
If the US is as all-powerful as you seem to believe, they wouldn't have to do full assaults anyway.

SF operations would be a preferable alternative to annoying your suppliers/allies by killing their skilled employees/citizens.

And your exprience is? Special Forces Operations into a functioning IADS, at a heavily defended Air bases? . Good one. As for annoying your suppliers? Well since its a buyers market, and the 'suppliers' get their highly trained workers from the military who gave them their training in the first place, I doubt they would be too annoyed.
Afterall the contract would have terminated in the event of hostilities wouldn't it?
SF Ops have operated in worse conditions before, and I failed to mention the size of said operations...
I assume you were thinking that I was talking about a small team or some BS movie-style rescue?

And of course, there's the point of killing your own citizens...

Which happens all the time. When you're at a major target in a warzone, you will be termed collateral (if unfortunate) damage, and one of the risks of working for the Military, even if its a Foriegn one.
Sure, you may write it off like that, but the public rarely accept it.

Frankly, I don't know.

So basically you don't know anybody in the situation? And yet you catergorically state that they would do something. Wel if your not speaking from personal opinion then you must either have a pretty poor opinion of anybody who isn't you it seems.
No, that statement was about what I would do in that situation, not about the staff.
Do you happen to know any staff? Have you watched them get held at gunpoint for real?

And that changes things how?

Well at the risk of sounding patronising, if you can't service your own rcce car, you don't threaten the Mechanic. They do complex jobs which only they can do. Perhaps you think the vast majority could be coecered, but the fact is doing so will result in either a complete stop, or such a drop off in servicability rates you'd be better off not operating that equipment anyway.
I'm not saying that ALL the staff will be coerced into the Saudis bidding, I'm saying that a reasonable number of them will.
Besides, if they're smart people, they'll do something a bit more subtle than plainly make things go boom immediately, rather than put complete and immediate suspicion on them.

You've just pointed out publicly known information that the Saudis can use if they do their homework.

You mean I've just pointed out the obvious? Why yes I have. Everybody with even a rudimentry knowledge knows this. . You can even work out what frequencies are most and least effective in the variius applications. But at the end of the day - its the application of technology that counts, on both sides.
So, you're saying it's possible?

Where are those cities? In the desert.

You were talking, if I'm not wrong, about the Suadi's hiding in the vastness of the Arabian Desert, were you not? The fact that Saudi is one huge desert, doesn't change the fact that the Saudi Military is tied as much to 'Cities' and garrisons. And these by defintion are known positions... So they won't exactly be 'hiding'.
True, I guess "hiding" is the wrong word.

Saudi Arabia is much larger than Iraq.

It might be. But Riyadh is bang smack in the middle.
But still farther from the border than Baghdad was. Admittedly, not by much though.

Actually, they would just pull the 7th fleet and USMC Pacific Forces from Japan most likely.

Really? And why not use the the 5th fleet arleady in situ? But yes should they need 'reinforcements' which are anything other than existing Arm divisions being shipped to Saudi, then yes.
You think that would be enough? I don't.

The 6th Fleet in Europe would be unable to participate immediately if the Red Sea were cut off,

And why would the 6th Fleet be cut off from the Red Sea?

as would the 2nd Fleet.

Unlikely to be required.

They would need to go around the Cape.

Why? Are you suggesting that the Saudis will some how close Suez?
No, I'm saying the Egyptians might, in the event of Saudi Arabia being invaded

And the problem with moving the 7th Fleet is that the Chinese and North Koreans are unguarded.

Well its looks like Taiwan, South korea and Japan will have to look after themselves for a while wouldn't they? North Korea isn't a conventional threat & China will have issues porjecting power beyond its borders.
And Taiwan, South Korea and Japan could most likely look after themselves, but it might give the Chinese and the North Koreans some ideas.

Ok, say the US have captured Riyadh. What then?

Game over.
For the conventional war part of it, maybe.
But the pot is still going to be boiling hot.

Where will the remaining resistance rally?

Your assuming there would be resistance. Notice how quickly the IRG evaporated? One of the most exprienced formations in the Middle East?
Oh yes, the Saudi army will dissappear and peace will come... Not.
The IRG's elimination didn't halt violence in Iraq, why would you think the same would happen in Saudi Arabia?

Where would the Saudi Government flee?

Who cares. Just because Churchill would have gone to Halifax in the event of a successful invasion of Britian in WWII (extremely unlikucky, but I digress) wouldn't change the fact that Britian would have lost...
A government of some description gives a regime legitimacy, and a way of organisation. Saudi Arabia may lose the inital war, but the result if the US didn't capture or kill the government would create a thorn in the side. Of course, if the US captured most of the government, then this wouldn't be a problem, and a situation like Iraq would occur. Which is much more managable in comparison to organised resistance.

Where is the most natural place in the mind of any Saudi to make a last stand?

Well considering by that time they would be a disorganised rabble, who cares?
Muslims, anti-war people, people who don't like to see military casaulties.

There's only two answers, Mecca and Medina. I doubt even the some of the military commanders of Saudi Arabia would be willing to give them up in favour of a more strategically viable place of operations, and if they were, the political leadership would be DEFINITELY unwilling.

Let them. There's no infrastructure to support anything there. Thats why they buillt KAMC, KKMC & KFMC etc.
I'm not saying the US couldn't destroy them, I'm saying the consequences would be dire.

Also, destroying Jerusalem, more specifically the Wall, would cause MASSIVE actions by Israel.
If the Wall were destroyed by the Lebanese, and it was the legitimate Lebanese Government that did it, Israel would be at war with them in minutes! The same applies to the US and Saudi situation.

You're unintentionally or intentionally missing the point I was making.

But its not the Political capital. Just like Destorying Jursealem won't affect Israel much, Riyadh is were the power is. You take Riyadh, you control control Saudi. Saudi's know it. The Iraqi Republican Guard knew it, We know it. The only person who doesn't is you. As for a Rallying point for Saudi Forces? Great. You take your forces to a place where don't have the infrastructure to support those forces. Again things have moved on somewhat from 1916.

Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel. You take or destroy Tel Aviv, Israel ceases to exist as a functioning entity. Which is why to destroy or control Israel you destroy or control Tel Aviv, not Juresaelm. Same reasoning behind Riyadh.
Again, that reasoning hasn't halted violence in Iraq, what would make it true here?

You think that goodwill and economic reasoning would stand up to American, mostly Christian soldiers blowing up sections of the Islamic holy cities?

Since you're the only one claiming that, I'm not really going to consider that.
So you're saying you won't consider it because I said it.
Despite previous experience of Muslim people being angry at their prophet being drawn. ..
What do you think blowing up their spiritual capital would do?

Sure, the governments might recognise the importance of the US to their respective countries, but the people certainly would not be, nor would large sections of the militaries in all probability.

Right...
No comeback?

The US is capable of defeating any conventional force in the Middle East? True.
The US is capable of holding the areas won from said victories? Hell no.
And that's the point. If you want the oil, you need to be able to secure the oilfields and pipelines unmolested after the conflict.

Prove it!
So you're saying that you can effectively pump oil resources while the fields are being attacked?

The fact of the matter is this.
The US might have the ability to defeat the Saudi Military, but it couldn't secure the country AND would cause the following.

Doesn't have to secure the country - it just has to secure the areas of power.
Yes it does have to secure the country. To not do so would mean a politically and militarily unacceptable outcome: Civil war.

- Defeat in the War Against Terrorism, as the populations of Islamic countries turn against the US due to the taking of Mecca/Medina, creating a situation where extremism is justified.

Listen - harping on about Mecca & Medina is a pretty poor attempt at distraction. Securing the oil supplies and the power bases in Saudi Arabia do not soley reside if at all with Mecca or Medina. Get over it.
The issue is far bigger than Saudi Arabia with Mecca and Medina's presence.
You can talk about securing the powerbases of Saudi Arabia all you want, if you don't capture the two holy cities, you effectively create a rallying point for every crazy pissed off Saudi in the country. If you do take them, you add to a worsening international situation.

- Economic crippling of the WORLD, including the US, as oil prices spike far past what is now. A situation that could not be recovered for a long time as insurgency in other Middle East countries would increase a hundredfold.

Not the US, because the US gets comparatively little Oil from the Middle east. But hey, whose going to make the Oil prices spike any different to that in 1973? If Hypothecially speaking Saudi, Kuwait and Iraq are already in Coalition control, just who else produces large amounts of Oil?
Demand for oil is far higher now than it was in 1973, and the US had more internal oil resources left back then.

- Creation of far more internal social problems.

Right...
No comeback?

- Downfall of the responsible administration as the US would not be able to win the war without creating politically unacceptable casualties.

Right .
Again, no comeback?

Only direct military involvement of the entire EU would be enough to avert most of these outcomes.

Right... In effect Britian.
The US may be able to beat the Saudis on their own, but can they beat possibly, the entire Muslim world on their own?
Hell no.

10.

It appears I made the mistake of taking a Middle East oil report as the world one.
My mistake.

What report is this? Surely you should have actually researched into US Oil useage instead of looking at 'Middle East Exports', or which only Kuwait (a small amount), Iraq (middling) and Saudi (large) and failing to realise the bleeding obvious that the US a) produces its own oil, b) gets the vast majority of its imported oil from other regions than the middle east.
So it does boil down to being a liar or being a moron for not bothering to do even a simple piece of research. What is it to be?
No, it's me being a moron for not reading the damn title

However, it doesn't change my point that supply and price would be massively effected.

Anymore massively than now?
Considerably more.

But hey, lets not forget that you've gone from the US couldn't do it, to the US wouldn't do it (true, because Saudi is unlikely to do an Iran.
The US couldn't do it, because it doesn't have enough troops to secure the country, it can't deal with the very possible hostility of other Islamic countries, it can't deal with the crippling of the world economy due to oil prices, and it can't justify the human cost.

Saudi Arabia, an easy target?
It's the only real military power amongst the Arabic nations with the exception of Egypt.[/quote:3cvkbnwe]
There was no real military power amongst the Arabs except Iraq. Then the Iranians who aren't Arabs.
Is Iraq a military power at the moment? No.
Who else is there?
Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

Your understanding of military strategy is misguided. All the Saudis have to do is hide in the desert and the Americans will be completely miffed.

How about you actually stick with what you orginally argued for? Because all you're doing is giving reasons why the US wouldn't do it, compared to like you initally made out - couldn't.
Does the US have the ability to win a conventional war against Saudi Arabia? Yes.
Can the US secure the country to the point that a state of war doesn't exist? No.

[Conor the Bold]

No, I claimed I do not know what I would do in that situation.

You claimed you would fight to the death to prevent Israel joining the EU... Now you claim when faced with the prospective of helping an enemy kill your countrymen or facing death, you claim you don't know what you do. Interesting! .

Nice to see what priorities you have.
.

True, but you're against assuming that the staff are in the hangers 24/7...

Against? Doesn't really make much sense. If there is nothing to service, then theres no point in shooting them. If theres nothing to service the equipment, then there no point shooting them. If the planes are being serviced whilst on the ground then they get hit, well thats just acceptable collateral daamge.

If the US is as all-powerful as you seem to believe, they wouldn't have to do full assaults anyway.

Not on airbases to resuce contractors on the first day of war, no.

SF Ops have operated in worse conditions before, and I failed to mention the size of said operations...
I assume you were thinking that I was talking about a small team or some BS movie-style rescue?

Really and what would those be? The SAS quickly vetoed a strike Mission on Mainland Argentina on grounds that it was a suicide mission. Eagle Claw didn't exactly go as planned. Son Tay was a raid on an Prison camp.

So I would like to know which 'SF Ops' have been conducted in what would be an unpermissive air enviroment on heavily defended airbases? You failed to mention size of said operations? Well feel free to expand on whatever plan you've thunk up. I'm all ears.

Sure, you may write it off like that, but the public rarely accept it.

Really? I'm sure people are up in arms when a British citizen with the French Foreign Legion or Australian Army dies... .

No, that statement was about what I would do in that situation, not about the staff.
Do you happen to know any staff? Have you watched them get held at gunpoint for real?

No. But then again I'm not the one calling them cowards or saying they could be co-erced by gun point. I've even pointed out why they wouldn't be co-erced. It's YOUR point, so YOU support it.

I'm not saying that ALL the staff will be coerced into the Saudis bidding, I'm saying that a reasonable number of them will.
Besides, if they're smart people, they'll do something a bit more subtle than plainly make things go boom immediately, rather than put complete and immediate suspicion on them.

Yes you did, whats the point in lying. You catergorically stated that all the Saudi's had to do is put a gun to somebody head, problem solved. Stop back pedaling. As for your second point, thats exactly why do you dont go to war when the people who service your equipment are citizens of the power who you are going to war with and why you don't want to go to war with them... Or are you saying the Arabs are stupid?

True, I guess "hiding" is the wrong word.

So what word, would you use? You said all the Saudi Armed Forces had to do is hide in the desert and the Americans would be 'miffed' (its not as if the US has never fought a war in the desert before is it). So what now? Are you conceeding that they would be annihilated?

But still farther from the border than Baghdad was. Admittedly, not by much though.

So what exactly is your point? Was the logisitcal systems of the US Army stretched to Breaking point in the advance to Baghdad? Not really, but if they were all they would do is slow down so the trip took a day longer.

[/quote]You think that would be enough? I don't.[/quote]

I've think we've established that what you think and what happens in the real world is not neccesaryily on the same page. Yes I think that would be enough because a) the airbases could be pretty much shut down just by Tomahawks, the RSAF isn't much cop and they don't have the sytems or training at even attempting to destroy a CVBG. The Suadi Military is located in central points. There's USAF planes from Deigo Garcia & Kuwait. More than enough to handle Saudi.

No, I'm saying the Egyptians might, in the event of Saudi Arabia being invaded

Right. What happened when the Eygptians last closed the Suez Canal? Closing it is an act of war in itself.

And Taiwan, South Korea and Japan could most likely look after themselves, but it might give the Chinese and the North Koreans some ideas.

What ideas? What ideas could the North Koreans possibly have? The country is starving, relying on massive chinese aid. The South Korean forces vastly overmatches North Korea. And China still hasn't got the ability to project sizeable power beyond its borders. So what ideas could they possibly have?

And there is no doubt, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea for the near future can look after themselves.

For the conventional war part of it, maybe.
But the pot is still going to be boiling hot.

Maybe, but I thought this war was about oil? Just sieze Riydah and the Oil fields, let the rest rot.

[/quote]Oh yes, the Saudi army will dissappear and peace will come... Not.
The IRG's elimination didn't halt violence in Iraq, why would you think the same would happen in Saudi Arabia?

Yes the Saudi Army will disappear. 'Peace' might not come, but thats no reason to go around trying to pacify Mecca & Medina because they aren't important except in religous sense.

[quote:3tuapbbf]A government of some description gives a regime legitimacy, and a way of organisation. Saudi Arabia may lose the inital war, but the result if the US didn't capture or kill the government would create a thorn in the side. Of course, if the US captured most of the government, then this wouldn't be a problem, and a situation like Iraq would occur. Which is much more managable in comparison to organised resistance.

Well to be honest i think the current government in Saudi Arabia is going to have trouble if ever it is ousted from Riydah in any shape or form. Its not exactly well liked.

Muslims, anti-war people, people who don't like to see military casaulties.

And all you're telling me is reasons not to go the Mecca & Medina... which I do believe is my point/

I'm not saying the US couldn't destroy them, I'm saying the consequences would be dire.

You've changed your tune.

Your understanding of military strategy is misguided. All the Saudis have to do is hide in the desert and the Americans will be completely miffed.

Did you, or did you not say this?

Again, that reasoning hasn't halted violence in Iraq, what would make it true here?

Because a democracy is trying to be instilled in Iraq. If this a simple war of agression to snatch Oil, then you simply partition the country. It won't stop the violence but it would prevent the all out escalation that you advocate by repeatedly and tirelessly suggest that US Forces must go the Mecca and Medina, despite acknowledging that it would make issues worse? Just what is your point?

So you're saying you won't consider it because I said it.
Despite previous experience of Muslim people being angry at their prophet being drawn. ..
What do you think blowing up their spiritual capital would do?

Its quite hard not being rude. I'm not considering it, because the only thing I'm advocating in this hypothecial is taking Riydah and leaving Mecca and Medina alone for the above reasons. Like I've already said, YOU"RE the one who is rabbitting on about Mecca and Medina and why they must be taken, when anybody with an ounce of common sense would leave them well alone as they aren't worth that much to anybody but Muslims and it would make any situation a helluva lot worse.

So why exactly are you saying 'Must go to Medina'?

No comeback?

No, the point needed no more comment as the remark it was refering to was self evidently stupid.

So you're saying that you can effectively pump oil resources while the fields are being attacked?

And how are they going to attack them? On Camels? I do hope those Saudi's are friends with the bedouin.

Yes it does have to secure the country. To not do so would mean a politically and militarily unacceptable outcome: Civil war.

Right... another self evidently stupid comment. Securing the country means it erupts in 'civil war'. Not securing all the country results in civil war. Only securing the areas of power results in 'civil war'. So if the aim is to get Oil, then the easiest, quickest and what is by its very defintion, a acceptable political and military outcome, by securing the areas which need to be secured and let the rest rot...

The issue is far bigger than Saudi Arabia with Mecca and Medina's presence.
You can talk about securing the powerbases of Saudi Arabia all you want, if you don't capture the two holy cities, you effectively create a rallying point for every crazy pissed off Saudi in the country. If you do take them, you add to a worsening international situation.

Again you are arguing at cross purposes! If you dont capture Medina and Mecca you effectively create a 'rallying point'? SO ************************************G WHAT?!?!?!?!?!? Really, so ************************************g what? Like you rather condensingly said, Saudi Arabia is a vast country. Why bother trying to pacify it? You've got what you want and if anybody approaches, they'l have to trek hundreds of miles across the desert. There will be no army, no airforce, nothing.

I'd rather have every man and his AK-47 present at Medina and Mecca and My troops hundreds of miles away, rather than every Man and his IED in Mecca & Medina with my troops in side it for no particular reason other than CelticAethist said so!

Demand for oil is far higher now than it was in 1973, and the US had more internal oil resources left
back then.

And? According to this Hypothecical situation, they have all the Oil they need. China might need to be worried. Still doesn't change the fact either that US gets the vast majoirty of its Oil from anywhere other than the Middle East.

No comeback?

No need.

- Downfall of the responsible administration as the US would not be able to win the war without creating politically unacceptable casualties.

Right .

Again, no comeback?

Again, no need - How many casaulties died in Iraq and how and when? The Vast majority are from peacekeping of Iraq. If the area is kept to a minimum in Saudi, the population overall is much less, the casualties will be much less.

The US may be able to beat the Saudis on their own, but can they beat possibly, the entire Muslim world on their own?
Hell no.

Of coure they could. The biggest Military Power in the Middle East was destroyed not once, but twice in a frightening short period. Israeli managed to routed the combined forces of Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq. If this is a war of resource aggression, then forget about giving democracy to anybody in the middle east. its not part of the mission.


10.

No, it's me being a moron for not reading the damn title

Fair enough.

Considerably more.

Why? The US at the end of this scenario already 'controls' most of the Oil in the Middle east...

The US couldn't do it, because it doesn't have enough troops to secure the country, it can't deal with the very possible hostility of other Islamic countries, it can't deal with the crippling of the world economy due to oil prices, and it can't justify the human cost.[quote:3tuapbbf]

1. It doesn't need to 'secure the country'. Everything apart from Riydah, the Military cities, Ports and oil fields are irrelevant.

2. It can more than deal with the Hostilty from other Islamic countries.

3. Since the US would be controlling the Oil prices they would be less affected compared to anybody else - a Net gain.

4. Justify the Human cost? When at the moment there is a friendly government to all effects in Saudi, you are right. In ten years you very well could probably be wrong.

raq. Then the Iranians who aren't Arabs.
Is Iraq a military power at the moment? No.
Who else is there?
Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

I don't think either actually meets the defintion of a 'Military Power'. All might have Militaries, possibly the largest or well equipped in comparison to others, but that does not mean 'Military Power'. Iraq was a Military Power. Iran was a military Power. Israel is a Military Power. In the Middle East, thats it.

[quote:3tuapbbf]Does the US have the ability to win a conventional war against Saudi Arabia? Yes.
Can the US secure the country to the point that a state of war doesn't exist? No.

[/quote:3tuapbbf][/quote:3tuapbbf][/quote:3tuapbbf]

Again, I thought the whole point of this excercise was to ensure Oil supply. To do this it doesn't need to secure the entire country. It just means it secure the areas needed... Thats all.

[CelticAtheist]

You claim[quote:lc94rjnz]

ed you would fight to the death to prevent Israel joining the EU... Now you claim when faced with the prospective of helping an enemy kill your countrymen or facing death, you claim you don't know what you do. Interesting! .

Nice to see what priorities you have.[/quote:lc94rjnz]
My statement about Israel and the EU was exaggerated for effect.
I do believe I said that to you..... Might want to go read my reply.

Really and what would those be? The SAS quickly vetoed a strike Mission on Mainland Argentina on grounds that it was a suicide mission. Eagle Claw didn't exactly go as planned. Son Tay was a raid on an Prison camp.

So I would like to know which 'SF Ops' have been conducted in what would be an unpermissive air enviroment on heavily defended airbases? You failed to mention size of said operations? Well feel free to expand on whatever plan you've thunk up. I'm all ears.

Unpermissive air environment?
Come off it, the US would knock chunks out of the Saudi Airforce regardless of if their planes are serviced or not.
As for the particular unit, I'd recommend the Rangers.

Really? I'm sure people are up in arms when a British citizen with the French Foreign Legion or Australian Army dies... .

The difference between a British citizen dying with the Legion and a British citizen dying while maintaining aircraft is the fast that the guy maintaining aircraft is a non-combatant....

No. But then again I'm not the one calling them cowards or saying they could be co-erced by gun point. I've even pointed out why they wouldn't be co-erced. It's YOUR point, so YOU support it.

Also, I'm not calling the staff cowards. I'm saying they value their lives.
There is a considerable difference.

Yes you did, whats the point in lying. You catergorically stated that all the Saudi's had to do is put a gun to somebody head, problem solved. Stop back pedaling. As for your second point, thats exactly why do you dont go to war when the people who service your equipment are citizens of the power who you are going to war with and why you don't want to go to war with them... Or are you saying the Arabs are stupid?

No I didn't say all of them would be coerced, I said that pointing a gun at them would solve the problem.
Undoubtedly a few of them would cooperate unless they all have some sort of pact that I'm unaware of..

So what word, would you use? You said all the Saudi Armed Forces had to do is hide in the desert and the Americans would be 'miffed' (its not as if the US has never fought a war in the desert before is it). So what now? Are you conceeding that they would be annihilated?

I never said they wouldn't be annihiliated.
The Saudi Army isn't a major reason why they'd lose the war by defacto.
At the very least, it would be a Pyrrhic victory.

So what exactly is your point? Was the logisitcal systems of the US Army stretched to Breaking point in the advance to Baghdad? Not really, but if they were all they would do is slow down so the trip took a day longer.

The logistics of the US Army are already stretched taking care of Iraq...

I've think we've established that what you think and what happens in the real world is not neccesaryily on the same page. Yes I think that would be enough because a) the airbases could be pretty much shut down just by Tomahawks, the RSAF isn't much cop and they don't have the sytems or training at even attempting to destroy a CVBG. The Suadi Military is located in central points. There's USAF planes from Deigo Garcia & Kuwait. More than enough to handle Saudi.

Again, the Saudi military is of little consequence..

Right. What happened when the Eygptians last closed the Suez Canal? Closing it is an act of war in itself.

Yes, the Suez Crisis blah blah blah, my point is that the Egyptians MIGHT if Mecca and Medina are threatened, and I've already explained why it would be necessary to take them.... You state otherwise because the war is about oil. Again, the conscience of the people back home won't allow you to ignore the mess you've made.

What ideas? What ideas could the North Koreans possibly have? The country is starving, relying on massive chinese aid. The South Korean forces vastly overmatches North Korea. And China still hasn't got the ability to project sizeable power beyond its borders. So what ideas could they possibly have?
And there is no doubt, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea for the near future can look after themselves.

North Korea, as you've said, are in a bad way at the moment.
The lack of US presence could cause a "use it or lose it" mentality.

Maybe, but I thought this war was about oil? Just sieze Riydah and the Oil fields, let the rest rot.

Again, the REAL world won't let you do it that way.
You can't sell a war to your people by saying "We're going to get the oil, and to hell with the rest of them!"

Yes the Saudi Army will disappear. 'Peace' might not come, but thats no reason to go around trying to pacify Mecca & Medina because they aren't important except in religous sense.

Again, have you not paid any attention to the Mohammed cartoon incidents or the fights over Jerusalem at all?
Religious importance = political importance in the Middle East.

Well to be honest i think the current government in Saudi Arabia is going to have trouble if ever it is ousted from Riydah in any shape or form. Its not exactly well liked

Have you got opinion polls from Saudis? Perhaps you should share them with us.
If there's a place that their leaders can go, a place with significance, then they can and will set up again...

And all you're telling me is reasons not to go the Mecca & Medina... which I do believe is my point/

And my point about Mecca and Medina is that you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't.

You've changed your tune.

No, I haven't. Military victory alone in modern terms is not real victory at all.
If you win every battle, but your country goes down the toilet as a result, that cannot be considered a victory in real terms..

Because a democracy is trying to be instilled in Iraq. If this a simple war of agression to snatch Oil, then you simply partition the country.

Again, you can't sell a war on Saudi Arabia to your people from an oil perspective.

Its quite hard not being rude. I'm not considering it, because the only thing I'm advocating in this hypothecial is taking Riydah and leaving Mecca and Medina alone for the above reasons. Like I've already said, YOU"RE the one who is rabbitting on about Mecca and Medina and why they must be taken, when anybody with an ounce of common sense would leave them well alone as they aren't worth that much to anybody but Muslims and it would make any situation a helluva lot worse. So why exactly are you saying 'Must go to Medina'?

Again, you're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't.
If you go into Mecca, you create increased worldwide Islamic hostility.
If you don't go in, you create a hotbed for terrorism and resistance.

And how are they going to attack them? On Camels? I do hope those Saudi's are friends with the bedouin.

Eh, no. Vehicles of any description I would assume.

Right... another self evidently stupid comment. Securing the country means it erupts in 'civil war'. Not securing all the country results in civil war. Only securing the areas of power results in 'civil war'. So if the aim is to get Oil, then the easiest, quickest and what is by its very defintion, a acceptable political and military outcome, by securing the areas which need to be secured and let the rest rot...

No, as letting the rest rot is a politically unacceptable outcome..
That's my point, you can win the conventional conflict, but it'll take decades to sort out the aftermath.

And? According to this Hypothecical situation, they have all the Oil they need. China might need to be worried. Still doesn't change the fact either that US gets the vast majoirty of its Oil from anywhere other than the Middle East.

Didn't you say that the second biggest supplier to the US was Saudi Arabia?
Besides, if the rest of the world is crippled by the oil prices, and the US relies on the rest of the world to do business with.....
See what I'm getting at now?

Again, no need - How many casaulties died in Iraq and how and when? The Vast majority are from peacekeping of Iraq. If the area is kept to a minimum in Saudi, the population overall is much less, the casualties will be much less.

Unless you can make the public not give a crap, then you can't do that.

Why? The US at the end of this scenario already 'controls' most of the Oil in the Middle east...

By then, the world's already slid into recession...
The situation would be even worse if the Saudis pulled a Saddam on it and set a few wells alight in their desperation.

1. It doesn't need to 'secure the country'. Everything apart from Riydah, the Military cities, Ports and oil fields are irrelevant.

2. It can more than deal with the Hostilty from other Islamic countries.

3. Since the US would be controlling the Oil prices they would be less affected compared to anybody else - a Net gain.

4. Justify the Human cost? When at the moment there is a friendly government to all effects in Saudi, you are right. In ten years you very well could probably be wrong.

1. I've already explained about that...
2. Half the US military is already tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan, the other half are resting from the exact same.
You're saying that the US is going to draft people in to put down Islamic countries, and therefore creating even more hostility to the wars?
The US haven't got enough troops to deal with anything else, and that's a fact.
3. Yes, but as the US trades with everyone else, and they'll be screwed economically, that net gain will be more than lost.
4. As much as I'd like to see Saudi Arabia in flames, with the current situation in Iraq, I don't view it to be possible...
If the US are out of Iraq in 10 years (Obama plz ), then they could easily do it.
My arguments stem from today's circumstances however.

I don't think either actually meets the defintion of a 'Military Power'. All might have Militaries, possibly the largest or well equipped in comparison to others, but that does not mean 'Military Power'. Iraq was a Military Power. Iran was a military Power. Israel is a Military Power. In the Middle East, thats it.

I concede on that point, Saudi Arabia and Egypt aren't "powers" persay.
What I meant was that they're the best out of the remaining Islamic countries in the Middle East (With the exception of Turkey?).

Again, I thought the whole point of this excercise was to ensure Oil supply. To do this it doesn't need to secure the entire country. It just means it secure the areas needed... Thats all.

Ignoring the political reality at the moment doesn't help..