1. The Saudi Government is 'friendly', we should try to keep it that way.... It's about oil...
2. Maybe, by playing it quiet, they are getting farther along, then going around yelling....
3. Do we have all the facts??? Say you were an informant and gave away some info, that really only you could give.... Would you want the people you gave the info to to blurt it out, ending your life???
4. It could be 'home-grown' terrorism, there also could be a group working quietly on this.... Laying low and quiet works for any number of predetors in the wild.... Could this work in a man against man crisis also......
5. OIL, it is all about oil.... Since the 'greenpeacers' through such a fit about everything, and threaten 'home-grown' terrorism on such projects we are tied up there..... I worked as a security guard at a dump site in Standish, MI, where people calling themselves 'greenpeace' wrecked fences, bulldozers, and front-end loaders in the name of protecting the land.... Yes, they are a mild group of people....
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
The only one of those questions that hasn't been answered already is #4.
1. Everybody knows that the Saudi fundies support terrorism, and the Saudi leadership is compelled to listen to them because they threaten to overthrow the government otherwise. Basically, we're nice to the Saudis because the alternative would be worse. Plus, the greenies won't let us drill enough to become self-sufficient, and nobody's willing to fund large-scale solar development, so we're kind of caught in a bind.
2. We know who did it. We know why. We know how. What more do you want?
3. All those who can remember the last time ANY war was carried out primarily for 'legal' reasons, raise your hand... *crickets chirp* what're you gonna do, SUE 'em to death?
5. Considerably less than the people who actually did it. Who are known, yet somehow escaping all that much blame, while you look for a politically convenient scapegoat. Mea culpa, we didn't say "don't do that." Inaction, however, is not generally considered a crime.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Unless, of course, one happens to be God, yes? Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
This should be good.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
It just warms my heart to read the simplistic answers proffered by our members of the right.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I liked the way Jon Stewart put it. The US and Saudi Arabia have a special relationship: that of addict and dealer.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
Can Bush count to 5 maybe you should have made it 3 questions.
Posted by Alpha Centauri (Member # 338) on :
quote:It just warms my heart to read the simplistic answers proffered by our members of the right.
But what more can be said?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Simplistic or no, Rob's quite right. What more do you want?
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
"I'm not here to nuance" - George W. Bush
Turns out simplistic don't cut the mustard.
Ok class, what I want you to do is explain how the Bush Doctrine which states if you or any other state that supports terrah, harbors terrahists, sells terrah at local Wal-Marts or has anything to do with terrah, then you are evil and against us freedom loving types and we're a' coming after ya...explain why this isn't being enforced against countries like, oh, Saudi Arabia?
[ May 10, 2002, 17:02: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by YrdMehc (Member # 417) on :
Last I knew I was a fence sitter..... I do believe that I am on record here, someplace, that I am not a fan of young Bush...
But somethings just need to be said....
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Ok class, what I want you to do is explain how the Bush Doctrine which states if you or any other state that supports terrah, harbors terrahists, sells terrah at local Wal-Marts or has anything to do with terrah, then you are evil and against us freedom loving types and we're a' coming after ya...explain why this isn't being enforced against countries like, oh, Saudi Arabia?
*Raises hand* OOH! I can do that, teacher! I can even use small words, so you're sure to comprehend! *
It's like in real school, you know? If there's a group of unpleasant kids messing with you, and you take one of the nastier ones and beat the snot out of him, the other ones reconsider messing with you? And if they don't, you beat the snot out of the next nastiest one? And so on?
Well, Afghanistan and Iraq are the nasty kids, and Saudi Arabia is the 'toadie' kid who's hanging out with them, not really fighting beside them, but not yet convinced that he'd be better off behaving. But if you beat the snot out of the ringleaders, generally you don't have to beat the snot out of the toadie.
If you know this going in, you can limit the number of fights that you get in.
Because fighting a 23-front war, as you would presumably have us do, is stupid.
*Well, I had to do that with REAL teachers, so why not?
[ May 11, 2002, 07:23: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the kingdom of an idiot would fight a war on twelve fronts." -Londo Mollari
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:*Well, I had to do that with REAL teachers, so why not?
Woohoo! He's bragging again.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Again, for review, simplsitic just doesn't do it.
The Bush Doctrine is black and white. It's simple. All the folks on the right wet their pants about how simple it was. Now it's us vs. them.
For review the Doctrine goes 'if you or any other state that supports terrah, harbors terrahists, sells terrah at local Wal-Marts or has anything to do with terrah, then you are evil and against us freedom loving types and we're a' coming after ya.'
You're for us or again' us.
It didn't say, cause it's the simple beauty of the thing you see, that if you support terrah but we like you a bit cause we get oil from you then you're ok and we aren't going to say a word about you. No, Bush didn't say that because that would complicate the world. He doesn't like the world complicated, so he lumped everyone together.
He is bound by that simplicity to say something about Saudi Arbia. He wanted it simple and this is where that simplicity has gotten him.
Now he can make additions to his ideas, but that would make the world more complicated, and he doesn't want that, so he is stuck in this duplicitous corner of his own making.
Furhter, I'm sure in these times you've been reading what's going on since you're going out in public and making all these arguments and all. Clearly Mr. Bush doesn't give a crap about your many fronts arguments. You remember while he was giving that State of the Union speach, he added Iran, Iraq and North Korea to an Axis of Evil.
Let's review.
Iran (1), Iraq (2) and North Korea (3).
quote:Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts.
Ok, then Mr. Bush is an idiot plus one. That is until he had Undersecretary of State John Bolton add Cuba, Syria and Libya to the list.
Let's review.
Cuba (4), Syria (5) and Libya (6).
That then makes Mr. Bush and idiot plust four.
And it puts your argument that he doesn't believe that we should fight, at least in rhetoric, on several fronts at the same time, back on the trash heep from which it came.
Which brings up another point. A point that in reading your posts, I see you missed it. This, despite Mr. Bush's readiness to invade Iraq, is a fight in rhetoric and not in fact.
So, like much of what comes out of the duplicitous mouth of Mr. Bush, and the mouths of the right, the black and white the world is simple ain't it, Bush Doctrine, that stricture about terrah, is crap.
Posted by Alpha Centauri (Member # 338) on :
I agree that it would be consequent if Bush declared Saudi Arabia evil. But an industrialized country like the US depends on oil. Demonizing Saudi Arabia would collapse a huge part of the US economy. It should be accepted that at some points you'll have to be inconsequent. Otherwise, the US will dig their own grave.
However, there are still huge oil reserves on US territory just begging to be exploited. The oil from this fields can sustain the United States for decades, if not a couple of centuries. Thus, the US can become self-dependant, and no hypocritical policy against Saudi Arabia needs to be executed. It's just that the environmentalists stand in the way.
I don't see problems with maintaining an Axis of Evil. Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Syria and Libya do have hostile attitudes against the United States, so their placement on a 'black list' didn't worsen any things. The Axis of Evil will be dealt with using words, not bombs, I'm confident in that (well, minus Iraq perhaps).
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:'if you or any other state that supports terrah, harbors terrahists, sells terrah at local Wal-Marts or has anything to do with terrah, then you are evil and against us freedom loving types and we're a' coming after ya.'
More small words for Jay to look up:
"rhetoric" The words above are rhetoric, not doctrine, silly person.
quote:Iran (1), Iraq (2) and North Korea (3) Cuba (4), Syria (5) and Libya (6)
Have we sent any troops to any of these countries, or are you just pretending to be ignorant for the hell of it?
We are currently fighting a war on ONE front: Afghanistan. We're not done there yet. What is this bizarre insistence on attacking all of your enemies simultaneously? Do you do this in real life? You must get beaten on a lot, then.
Just declaring someone your enemy (or a potential enemy) does NOT mean that you're going to fight them ALL RIGHT NOW.
Spiderman vs. the Sinister Six only happens in comic books.
quote: I don't see problems with maintaining an Axis of Evil. Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Syria and Libya do have hostile attitudes against the United States, so their placement on a 'black list' didn't worsen any things.
Yes. What a lot of the drones fail to know (or recall, or something that means it just doesn't penetrate the thick fog of poo around their craniums) is that these countries have already been on our 'enemies' list as 'sponsors of terrorism' for... 30-odd years, in some cases. The "Axis of Evil" is new in name only.
[ May 11, 2002, 11:47: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Well, Afghanistan and Iraq are the nasty kids, and Saudi Arabia is the 'toadie' kid who's hanging out with them, not really fighting beside them, but not yet convinced that he'd be better off behaving. But if you beat the snot out of the ringleaders, generally you don't have to beat the snot out of the toadie."
The rest of the analogy being that, while we sit back declaring the bullies and all their supporters to be the worst people in the world, we're still going to the toady on the playground and buying smack from him. And then supporting him when he tells everyone else on the playground what a good friend he is to us.
Posted by YrdMehc (Member # 417) on :
KISS = Keep It Simple Stupid
After all the bashing he got during the compaign he subscribed to this.....
Do you require longer words? A hugh post with names, dates and places added, with footnotes and all???
It is really that simple, OIL, it makes the world turn, for I have seen the big ass engine....
Posted by Nim Pim (Member # 205) on :
Your name looks like YardMech, making me think of those smurfs that fly around the Enterprise Refit Yard doing somersaults and being l33t 3n61n33r5...
Posted by YrdMehc (Member # 417) on :
mmmm, not a good image..... Yes, a change is now needed.....
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
Oh my, back from law school, and things are still all good and controversial here. I miss the days of undergrad when I could keep up with everything here. The real world isn't nice that way. I thought I would contribute my own answers to Jay's questions culled from the creme of the columns I read every day.
1. As far as I know or have read in the punditry rumor mills, there is probably no connection between the events and the upper echelons of the House of Saud. However, there still exists a great deal of discontentment with the US in many quarters of the upper class there that can influence policy at the middle level (e.g. fundraisers for suicide bombers despite official declarations at the horror of terrorism). The reason for the lack of pursuit of Saudi perpetrators on the part of the State Department is that to come in like cowboys would only inflame the population out of which many of the terrorists came (remember the most fanatical soldiers in the Taliban were the ones who had come from Saudi Arabia). The US also need the country as a stagig point for the war against Iraq that is almost certainly coming. While there are certainly some bad apples there, pragmatism dictates that we choose our battles (i.e. no 26-front conflicts).
2. The Executive has always been opposed to much second guessing of intelligence operations (this goes for chief executives of both parties). To do so would undermine the administration's legitimacy as the protector of the country, and no one would allow Bush to drag Bill Clinton, Warren Christopher, George Tenet, and Louis Freeh infront of Congress when it would really not do any good except blame and shame. All that said, however, the blame game is important because it can spur change. As Peggy Noonan said in her most recent WSJ commentary, blame is good to keep the intelligence community on its toes, but what really needs to happen is to use that blame to get Congress to question long held presumptions about the balance between civil liberties vs. an open society, and what systemic changes need to happen (e.g. a dedicated American MI5 or just a department of homeland security that reallocates existing functions).
3. Legal basis? International law is not really something that you can haul dictators into court for breaking. It plays far more like (to be blunt) the dynamics of cave men and how they resolved conflict (there is more to this than the stereotype I used; try reading some game theory on the role of deterrence and punishment between players and it all makes a lot of sense). I think Saddam's stated intent to go after the US or the other democracies (especially Israel) is reason enough to preemptively strike against him (fewer people killed by a few stray smart bombs than waiting for a batch of smallpox he could easily have obtained from the shores of the Aral Sea while the Russian guards aren't looking).
4. From what articles I have read, the FBI pretty much knows who the anthrax killer is, but does not have the physical evidence to nail him. They are waiting for more and continue to keep an eye on the person (they say, through leaks, that they have interviewed the likely culprit twice, I think).
5. Hell if I know. I doubt we'll ever learn everything from that except when we are all old and gray.
If had unlimited time, I would have put hyperlinks for all my points to back them up, but that isn't the case, though if anyone has Lexis-Nexis it's not hard to find where I got my information. Hope maybe I contributed something useful to all this. Good to visit my old friends. See you all later!
Posted by The BWC (Member # 818) on :
I like Bush. He mught be better than ROnald Reagan, my 11 year hero. Probably not.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)