“We Shoulda Attacked The Saudis”

I don’t like writing about politics in general, let alone ‘polarized’ topics, but could someone please tell me what they mean when they refer to Saudi Arabia as being a “better candidate” than Iraq on the "war on terror"? Should the U.S. military be in Saudi Arabia now instead of in Iraq? Why? To get rid of terror once and for all? To set a model for democracy? And would the Saudis have welcomed American soldiers with rose petals, too? If choosing Iraq was a tragic miscalculation; then on a scale of 1 to 10, what would have choosing "The Cradle of Islam" been?

Already, thousands of Muslim youths are flocking to Iraq against incredible odds just to attack "The Great Satan"; could we begin to imagine what the situation would be if the democracy-building, rose-seeking, freedom-defending soldiers were scattered between Mecca and Medina? And would it be politically possible, then, to ban 'foreigners' from entering "occupied Mecca" even if it was realistically impossible to do so? Two million yearly pilgrims (many of whom wait a lifetime) would just have to postpone their ‘hajj’ until the conflict is over.

Or maybe they don’t mean a better “military” candidate. Maybe they’re talking about attacking the Saudi money that’s “fueling terrorism”. But then when they say "Saudi money"; are they referring to the Saudi government, or the Saudi people (of whom a fraction is donating their money, to whatever cause, anyway)? For the former; I doubt very much that the Saudi monarchy has anything to do with even the thought of it. As for the latter; that would, indeed, raise some very interesting questions. Should the actions of ordinary citizens (let alone unlawful citizens or even renegades) make a whole nation liable? Would the United States be liable if some of its citizens did incredible "terror" damage to, say, Nicaragua, for example.