Senate overwhelmingly votes to override Obama veto on 9/11 bill

As long as Obama still gets paid for that veto he doesn't care.

I can see the commercials now...

"Been injured in a drone attack - Your town leveled in an anti terrorist raid - we'll get you the money you deserve

Remember, we get a cut of the cash so we'll battle to get as much as possible"

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I think I'd prefer them as allies rather then enemies.

Keep your enemies closer?
I personally feel the relationship between America and Saudi Arabia needs to end. Our cultures and ideologies are in direct conflict with one another. They only put up with us because we buy their oil and pay in military equipment. We only put up with them because they hold one of the biggest oil reserves on the planet.

We should not ally ourselves with a nation for economic reasons alone. Especially when they support an ideology and do things we consider barbaric and inhuman.

This documentary is a good glimpse at what happens when the cameras go off.

a reply to: cynicalheathen

From my understand we and Japan became such great allies due in part to how much we put into helping them recover from the war.

Is possibly my history is way off though.

a reply to: JAY1980

Like I said. I'm not fans of them as a country, but them as an ally is more beneficial all around versus as an enemy. Without SA, we'd have a much harder time staging military operations in the Middle East. Plus there could potentially be another nation targeting us with terrorism. All around it is just a bad situation. I'd rather work and try to change them peacefully rather than force them to change unwillingly.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I'm still not entirely sure this is a good idea... I feel like it has a good chance to undermine our treaties. While I'm not a big fan of being allied with Saudi Arabia, and highly distrust them I think I'd prefer them as allies rather then enemies.

What's the difference? The US has in one shape or another broken every treaty over the last 100 years! Like other members comments, the US is vulnerable to lawsuits now too because of our equal protection under the law maxim.

This may very well expose certain networks worldwide, unless they seal the proceedings under the national security clause. I think that'll be the case. However, whoa unto us when SA sells off our Treasuries.... whoa unto us unless the FED absorbs it like they're already doing. Just saying, it doesn't help the situation should they decide to liquidate their holdings.

Pop your corn...this is going to get terribly interesting.

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: Jonjonj

The sad fact is that party affiliation has become so entrenched that members almost always vote the party line, regardless of whether that is actually a good or a bad thing for the country as a whole.

That's the number issue with the US Congress followed closely by lobby money to effect legislation.

I think they are both related. There is no doubt that lobbyists go after the influential members, who in turn influence other members through their own devices, which results in party politicking.

a reply to: AboveBoard

Might make our government think twice about a war based economy though. Not 100% sure it's a bad thing.

originally posted by: EternalShadow

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I'm still not entirely sure this is a good idea... I feel like it has a good chance to undermine our treaties. While I'm not a big fan of being allied with Saudi Arabia, and highly distrust them I think I'd prefer them as allies rather then enemies.

Pop your corn...this is going to get terribly interesting.

I agree, but I'm not entirely excited for it. Oh well. It's out of my hands at this point. Pass the corn.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Without SA, we'd have a much harder time staging military operations in the Middle East.

I am not sure that really is a bad thing, if countries such as my own had refused to back American foreign policies without question over the last two decades the world would probably not be in the shape it is in right now.

Terrible thing really, realising that your own country really was not the good guy all along.

a reply to: Jonjonj

Terrible thing really, realising that your own country really was not the good guy all along.

I figured that out in 2005 when I went to Iraq and couldn't for the life of me figure out why I was there and was being told I was defending my freedoms.

a reply to: shooterbrody

68 civilian casualties versus 80,000 minimum?

I understand that the victors write the history, but anyone who can't objectively see that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the two largest acts of terror ever perpetrated is blind.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Jonjonj

Terrible thing really, realising that your own country really was not the good guy all along.

I figured that out in 2005 when I went to Iraq and couldn't for the life of me figure out why I was there and was being told I was defending my freedoms.

I also worked it out a long time ago, but saying that means absolutely nothing at all.

It all boils down to this: Accept, apologise, reset.

Will we? Nah, we would rather run the risk of extinguishing almost all species on the planet than accept our failures, apologise for our mistakes, and reset our goals.

Make no mistake about it, there is currently a massive ramp up in the cold war, and we may never get the chance again to stop the madness.

Edit to add: Our leaders owe you and millions of people an apology for having to be in that situation.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
I get the principle of this bill, and in a vacuum I agree with its passing but I do agree this opens a can of worms.

But we will see what happens.

I like cans of worms

originally posted by: thesaneone
Let's open this can of worms and maybe the powers that be will straighten their # up.

Exactly!

Its only buy createing a stink and shaking things up you will get change.

a reply to: Jonjonj

I actually look at it like this. Yes mistakes were made, but I can't say that everything we've done were also mistakes. We've done QUITE a bit of significant nation building since 9/11 too. And I'm not talking about JUST the Middle East. China and India have prospered greatly with our help. Japan saw new resurgence in their economy after their terrible 90's. It's easy to look at the past and lament about all the negative thing, but it take a true man to be able to objectively identify the positives too.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Jonjonj

I actually look at it like this. Yes mistakes were made, but I can't say that everything we've done were also mistakes. We've done QUITE a bit of significant nation building since 9/11 too. And I'm not talking about JUST the Middle East. China and India have prospered greatly with our help. Japan saw new resurgence in their economy after their terrible 90's. It's easy to look at the past and lament about all the negative thing, but it take a true man to be able to objectively identify the positives too.

But nobody is asking for, nor requires an apology, a reset or even an admission of guilt for the good things, are they?

Isn't that the real point?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Without SA, we'd have a much harder time staging military operations in the Middle East

And that is a bad thing.......why?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
. Plus there could potentially be another nation targeting us with terrorism.

Last i checked they pretty much already are. The 911 hijackers were not swiss.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
All around it is just a bad situation. I'd rather work and try to change them peacefully rather than force them to change unwillingly.

Why change them full stop?

Let the barbarians have there patch of desert.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I'm still not entirely sure this is a good idea... I feel like it has a good chance to undermine our treaties. While I'm not a big fan of being allied with Saudi Arabia, and highly distrust them I think I'd prefer them as allies rather then enemies.

That will only be a matter of time IMHO. When the House of Saud falls, many people will be puzzled by the wave of Sunni extremism that sweeps into government. We have made a habit of backing the wrong leaders for all the wrong reasons. Iran, Egypt, Iraq, we are like the compulsive gambler we cannot help ourselves.

I for one am glad the Congress overrode this veto. No doubt those members seeking re-election have an incentive to vote in this fashion as it plays well in the home districts.

I doubt the money will flow anytime soon. This would/will take decades Im sure.
The House of Saud may not even be here in that time frame.
Alot of the Saudi investments while notionally part of the Government is tied up around Royal Family members which im not clear if they can be tied to not just 911 but the other attacks.
I also wonder if the Saudi government can be held liable, what about thier paid US surrogates?

I do agree with one Senator who stated that it opens up a HUGE can of worms

a reply to: cynicalheathen

You are daft.
Japan attacked the USA. In the course of winning the war atomic weapons were used. Japan could have surrendered; they chose not to.

Oh and your civilian arguement.....

From the invasion of China in 1937 to the end of World War II, the Japanese military regime murdered near 3,000,000 to over 10,000,000 people, most probably almost 6,000,000 Chinese, Indonesians, Koreans, Filipinos, and Indochinese, among others, including Western prisoners of war.

www.hawaii.edu...

The Japanese were horrible at that time. Take your empty excuses elsewhere.