I'm proud to have the privilege of exchanging views with someone so active in expressing strong concerns over our liberties and the ethics of our international policy. Please keep up the good work. When you indicate that you believe something has been immoral in our foreign policy, you're walking in the footsteps of Henry David Thoreau.
Anti-Saudi propaganda by the neocons is a false flag. The House of Saud is a lot friendlier to both the US and Israel than any alternative, and the neocons know it. I think that their goal in phony "protests" over weapons sales to the Saudis is to make it look as though AIPAC and the neocons don't have full sway over mideast policy, when in fact they do. Mubarak in Egypt and the House of Saud are partners with the US and Israel in the NWO plan to carve up the middle east, not opponents.
The notion that anyone in this country is an "Islamofascist" is ridiculous on its face and will only be bought by the 30 percenters who are hopeless idiots anyway.
Anyone who even takes the word "Islamofascist" seriously is too stupid for words.
The word was coined by the Trotskyist Christopher Hitchens, who has now become the darling of the neocon "right wing" because he shares their views on war in the Middle East. That tells you how principled GOP "conservatives" are when they start using the catch phrases of Bolshies.
Our military strategy in the Mideast continually benefits the Saudis. Consider the war in Kuwait, and the Iraq war now. Consider our support of Sunnis during the Iran-Iraq war. We provide them with high-tech military hardware. Quote: The Saudi foreign minister said Saudi Arabia is a peaceful country in an area of tremendous threat and upheaval. “So it is not strange that it is trying to acquire a posture of defense that will protect the interests and safety of the people of Saudi Arabia.” — Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al Faysal at a press conference in 2007 announcing a large portion of $20 billion in sales to the region. Remember the complex B.C.C.I affair, which is rumored to have helped funnel money from Saudi Arabia and the CIA to Pakistan for nuclear weapons development. Consider the strategic implications of The 1979 Siege of Mecca and our CIA's involvement in directing the operations against the zealots. Yaroslav Trofimov argues that this is one of the major elements of bin Laden's anger toward the United States. The Saudis are a massive source of Wahhabi propaganda. Trofimov also states that the royal Saudis had to make a deal with the clerics before the attack on the zealots to spread Islamic extremism around the world. The Bush family's links to the Saudis are legendary. The Saudi Lobby in DC is legendary. Lindsey Williams argues that America has a deal with OPEC to buy their oil in dollars in exchange for securities purchases. It is no secret that the Saudis lobby to keep oil denominated in dollars, and do own a sizable portion of our national debt. I could go on but this should illustrate some of the influences the Saudis have had on the United States over the years. Since the allies helped establish its borders after WWI, the Saudis have had a very close relationship with Americans.
For all your dust-up about the Saudis, you are either purposely or naively missing the elephant in the room - the nation whose lobby is #2 most powerful in DC; the nation we send $3+ Billion foreign aid per year; the nation we protect from numerous UN resolutions and censure; the nation that is a paraiha on the world's stage due to its brutal occupation of land it has stolen; a nation that refuses to sign a mutual defense treaty with us or anybody else but whose heads of state prod us to start wars to benefit it - Iraq and now Iran.
The Saudis' negative influence on our nation is peanuts as compared to Israel's. The Saudis lobby is a laugh if that's what you mean by "legendary" - in fact American Jews speak derisively about the Arab lobbies' lack of organization and lack of influence and support from the general public. Even major US corporations ( apart from oil companies) do not support the Arab lobbies for fear of retaliation from the Israel Lobby. I suggest you read the article at the following url:
As for Yaroslav Trofimov's information, I would suggest to you that due to Mr. Trofimov's tribal membership, he writes with a purpose and with a particular slant. I noticed via Google hits that he is embraced by IsraelFirst journals and organizations and blogs.
We don't need Trofimov's biased judgement of what constitutes "a major element" of Bin Laden's anger towards the USA. We only need to listen to Bin Laden's words. OBL himself has reiterated the 4 reasons why he hates us - our resolute unyielding support of Israel in spite of its brutal treatment of the Palestinians ( that's the biggie most important one in OBL's eyes) - our occupation ( and desecration) of Islamic Holy places - in Iraq and formerly in Saudi Arabia - our support of several brutal strongmen in Muslim lands like Mubarrek in Egypt, the Saudi Princes in S.A., Musharref in Pakistan, the Prince Abdullah of Jordan - our excessive use and abuse of Muslim oil resources paid for at minimal prices - so our economies flourish while Muslims live in poverty
Our fealty to Israel come hell or high water is the main sticking point with OBL and other fundies. End of story.
With regards to the "complex" B.C.C.I affair you forget to include the name of Israeli Iran-Contra merchant, Adnan Khashoggi, and primo legal advisor Robert Altman. Regardless of who was involved, the BCCI affair was in the main about money laundering from drugs and illegal weapons sales with so many interests participating so it's hard for me to understand your claim that the Saudi Arabian gov't used BCCI to furnish nukes to Pakistan. That's a stretch.
With regards to weapons, the US is a major weapons manufacturer and seller on the world scene, like it or not. The Saudis are just one of our nation's creepy clients. What's your beef? At least the Saudis pay top dollar for our weapons. They don't free-load like Israel. And the Saudis don't use the weapons to bully its neighbors ( like Israel does to Lebanon) or to steal land from others ( like Israel does to the Palestinians 24/7). Moreover Israel doesn't care if the US sells weapons to the Saudis because Israel gets to whine and get more foreign aid as a result. Also Israel doesn't fear attack from Saudi Arabia. In the article url about Arab and Israel lobbies, it clearly states that there is little conflict between the 2 sides because the Israel lobby could care less about the US selling Arab nations arms.
The war in Iraq had all to do with the USA protecting its oil interests in the ME. The US did not need any urging from Saudi Arabia to beat back Uncle Saddam. And Bush Sr. got a UN resolution supporting Gulf War I - it wasn't like the Saudis were the only ones wanting Saddam cut down to size. One of the biggest financial backers of Gulf War I was Japan. Also, it was due to pressure from the Gulf nations that Bush Sr was not allowed to invade Iraq. The Saudis and other Arab nations PREVENTED a full scale invasion of Iraq during Gulf War I. They did not want a de-stabilizing ME war in their backyards ( unlike Israel who enjoys Arab states being de-stabilized and Muslims offed by the kazillions).
As for the madras - so what? - you think these schools cause hatred for us? Hello, it's our governments aggression in the ME and our gov'ts stalwart defense of Israel inspite of its war crimes that is the major source of Muslim hostility to us. It's our flawed foreign policy that's damaging our credibility far more than any madras cleric teacher could hope to achieve.
If you have not already read Drs. Mearsheimer's and Walt's book "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy" I suggest you do. Read pages 141 - 146 wherein the 2 scholars make it very clear that Saudi Arabia specifically, the oil industry, and the Arab lobbies are modest if not trivial influences on our nation's foreign policies.
Keep this quote in your mind when you consider negative influence of a lobby group:
"Real Insiders: A pro-Israel lobby and an F.B.I. sting"
... aipac’s leaders can be immoderately frank about the group’s influence. At dinner that night with Steven Rosen, I mentioned a controversy that had enveloped aipac in 1992. David Steiner, a New Jersey real-estate developer who was then serving as aipac’s president, was caught on tape boasting that he had “cut a deal” with the Administration of George H. W. Bush to provide more aid to Israel. Steiner also said that he was “negotiating” with the incoming Clinton Administration over the appointment of a pro-Israel Secretary of State. “We have a dozen people in his”-Clinton’s-“headquarters … and they are all going to get big jobs,” Steiner said. Soon after the tape’s existence was disclosed, Steiner resigned his post. I asked Rosen if aipac suffered a loss of influence after the Steiner affair. A half smile appeared on his face, and he pushed a napkin across the table. “You see this napkin?” he said. “In twenty- four hours, we could have the signatures of seventy senators on this napkin.”...
I only meant that we give the average Arab more reason to hate us because of our support for governments like the Sauds. Funny thing, it Osama bin Laden and the other fundy nuts that want oppressive laws like those found in SA.
"Most of the trouble in this world has been caused by folks who can't mind their own business, because they have no business of their own to mind, any more than a smallpox virus has." - William S Burroughs
For all your dust-up about the Saudis, you are either purposely or naively missing the elephant in the room...
I don't think I'm missing anything at all. I'm interested in eliminating all types of foreign interference withing our government, not just the Zionist lobby.
I would suggest to you that due to Mr. Trofimov's tribal membership, he writes with a purpose and with a particular slant.
Are you denying that the CIA participated in the hostage crisis? What is your specific objection to the basic facts I'm citing here?
With regards to the "complex" B.C.C.I affair you forget to include the name of Israeli Iran-Contra merchant . . .
You asked for examples of Saudi involvement in our government and I gave them to you. I'm confident that you can provide all of us with a long list of Jewish and Israeli interference.
The Saudis are just one of our nation's creepy clients. What's your beef?
I think we should disengage with the entire region. I hope those are Ron Paul's intentions. I would start the disengagement by cutting weapons sales off completely to the region.
As for the madras - so what? - you think these schools cause hatred for us?
It's part of the radicalization of the Islamic world, yes. I especially object to the Saudi mosque construction here in the United States. We've had hundreds going up around the country since the 1979 grand mosque incident.
If you have not already read Drs. Mearsheimer's and Walt's book "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy" I suggest you do. Read pages 141 - 146 wherein the 2 scholars make it very clear that Saudi Arabia specifically, the oil industry, and the Arab lobbies are modest if not trivial influences on our nation's foreign policies.
Trivial? I would hardly call the past 35 years of our petrodollar based economy trivial.
"Real Insiders: A pro-Israel lobby and an F.B.I. sting"
Once again, you asked for a list of Saudi interferences, and I gave them to you. You dispute them, fine but the longstanding and close ties between the American Establishment and the Saudis is of public record. You come up with Israeli counter-examples, and I say no doubt.
well I think youve missed something important here.. they are linked..you need to peel back a few layers.. the Saudis and the Israelis .. and throw in the Turks as well all linked for the same reason.. have you ever researched the Saudi royal family? .. that might be a place to start
I failed to mention the Saudi connection to 9/11.. google PTECH & PROMIS & the Saudis..
No doubt, Zipporah. The truly radical Islamists point this out every day, from what I understand. They identify the royal Sauds with Zionism. All the more reason to back out of the region and let nature run its course. If Americans want to donate their money and blood Lincoln-brigade style, they can join either side. They may not be welcome to come home, though.
We have our own interests — and borders to defend.
I agree.. I edited my post and you may not have seen my reference to PTECH & PROMIS and the Saudis.. The Turks too had a hand in all this.. read what Indira Singh had to say on this.. very disturbing.
Thanks for the pointers. I don't know where to start looking for information on these terms, plus the Singh commentary, but I'll search for them when I get a chance.
The tale begins almost right after the 9/11 attack, when, in October of 2001, handful of ex-Ptech employees alerted the FBI to evidence indicating that the firm had Saudi terror connections.
Saudi terrorists, Saudi money, and JP Morgan Chase
Almost a year later the Boston FBI had still done nothing about it. They had, in fact, shut down their cursory investigation and taken no action.
Thus Ptech was still operating at the highest levels of American society in the Spring of 2002, when the firm showed up hustling business at the door of Wall Street’s JP Morgan Chase. The question is “why?”
On its surface, the answer appears to be “money.” Lots and lots of Saudi money.
Indira Singh, who later became a whistleblower, was an unwitting eyewitness to the “train wreck.”
“I invited Ptech to come down and give a presentation and a customized demo to JP Morgan Chase,” states Singh, who was a consultant to the bank on “risk architecture,” an arcane software specialty which calculates enterprise risk. In one of the story’s many ironic twists, Singh was at the time designing a system to help JP Morgan Chase detect terrorist money laundering.
When Ptech showed up, Singh quickly realized that she was witnessing her worst fears about compromised security come true. “Within half an hour on the premises, I knew something was up,” she says. “They had almost immediately raised about six of my red flags, to the point where I walked over to my desk and picked up the phone, and began making phone calls.”
She talked with a respected industry figure who had once worked at Ptech. “He was shocked to learn that I had invited Ptech on the premises. He told me the company belonged to Yasin Qadi.”
In the course of what would otherwise have been just another day at the bank, Indira Singh made the amazing discovery that the firm in front of her at the moment was owned by Saudis, including Yasin Qadi, with suspected as well as proven ties to the terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attack.
All this left her feeling more than a little surprised."
I don't think I'm missing anything at all. I'm interested in eliminating all types of foreign interference withing our government, not just the Zionist lobby.
Are you denying that the CIA participated in the hostage crisis? What is your specific objection to the basic facts I'm citing here?
You asked for examples of Saudi involvement in our government and I gave them to you. I'm confident that you can provide all of us with a long list of Jewish and Israeli interference.
It's part of the radicalization of the Islamic world, yes. I especially object to the Saudi mosque construction here in the United States. We've had hundreds going up around the country since the 1979 grand mosque incident.
Trivial? I would hardly call the past 35 years of our petrodollar based economy trivial.
Once again, you asked for a list of Saudi interferences, and I gave them to you. You dispute them, fine but the longstanding and close ties between the American Establishment and the Saudis is of public record. You come up with Israeli counter-examples, and I say no doubt.
Let's eliminate both.
Your initial harangue against the Saudis' so-called interference in our national affairs in message #47 and #32 said nothing about eliminating all lobby groups including the "leviathan" one ie. the Israel Lobby. This is the first I've read of your desire to eliminate all lobby groups. I would agree with you that would be a fine goal. But I'd also qualify that goal by saying that we should start with the biggest and most influential one first ie. AIPAC. Would you agree?
With regards to some of your new points about the Saudis - I disagree with most of them particularly the ones regarding the start of AQ linked to the Mosque hi- jacking and the Saudis insisting that OPEC use the greenback and the Saudis funding the construction of mosques stateside.
a. AQ had its beginnings vis-a-vis our meddling in the Soviet -Afghan War. - Brezinski and Carter gave the go-ahead to the CIA to train the mujahideen to fight the Russians. OBL himself was trained in that stupid CIA project and it was in Afghanistan that OBL suddenly realized how the Muslims were being used as proxy fighters/as pawns in the Cold War that existed between the Soviets and America. AQ's formation was an unintended consequence of the CIA training of and financial aid to the mujahideen.
Zbigniew Brezinski brags about the project. He told an interviewer in 1998 that the U.S. began funnelling aid to the mujahideen terrorists six months before the Soviet Union intervened, with the intention of drawing the Soviets into their own Vietnam.
Robin Cook, who was Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of the United Kingdom from 1997 to 2001, is quoted as saying on 07/08/05:
"Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west."
Our government created the monster called AQ and that monster has come back to bite its master.
b. As for the Saudis insisting that oil industry use petro dollars - I think you have things switched around regarding who benefits from this system. It's in America's interests that all OPEC oil purchases continue to be denominated in US dollars and in fact this dollar hegemony over global oil markets was a result of an agreement between the USA and Saudi Arabia in the 1970's. In fact, Saudi Arabia at an OPEC meeting this past week prevented discussions about formally switching to a basket of currencies due to the diminishing value of the greenback. Get it? Saudi Arabia argued on our nation's behalf.
Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states are experiencing record high inflation rates due to their sticking to the US $ peg. However, Israel looked out for itself recently - Israel demanded that US foreign aid be sent to it in Euros not US dollars. Nice.
Here's a decent article describing our US dollar dominence and how we extracted an agreement from OPEC in the 70's to use peg their oil sales to the greenback.
"US dollar hegemony has got to go" By Henry C K Liu 04/11/02
c. As for mosques being built in the USA - so what? Last I heard freedom of religion is a guaranteed right stateside. Ours is a tolerant pluristic society. Are you worried about those eeeevil "Islamofacsists" in our midst who might congregate in mosques funded by the Saudis? I have no doubt there are a number of FBI divisions specifically assigned to monitoring what goes on in the mosques here so you can sleep better that no AQ are hiding there.
d. As to the madras and spread of Wahabiism - it was at the direction of the Carter Admin that Saudi Arabia fuel the Afghan Islamic fundie screed. But like our CIA arming and training the mujahideen, the Saudis funding the madras came back to bite us and them. The Saudi Princes are illegitimate rulers in the eyes of fundie Islamists, btw. From a BBC article on the beginnings of "Jihad":
..."Bernard Haykel, professor of Near East studies at Princeton, believes the Saudis set in motion a process over which they lost control. The Saudis' funding of militant Islam reached a new pitch in the 1980s when, with the United States and others, they bankrolled the jihad against Soviet troops occupying Afghanistan.
The Afghan war was the crucible from which emerged al-Qaeda.
"The genie came out of the bottle," says Professor Haykel, "and the Saudis could no longer put it back in." ...
e. Btw, I have never disputed that there is a long standing relationship between Saudi Arabia and our government. What I have said is that the pluses of that relationship out weighed any minuses. Ideally it would be great if our economy was not oil based because then we would not need to involve ourselves with OPEC and the Saudis. But until be can become self-reliant in energy we will continue to need the assistence of the House of Saud.
However, I believe are in the driver's seat with regards to the Saudis and they play a beneficial role by running interference for us at OPEC. That is not the case with Israel. Israel is a financial parasite and a political burden of enormous proportions and its lobby groups and individuals have negative influences on our nation's ME foreign policy.
But I'd also qualify that goal by saying that we should start with the biggest and most influential one first ie. AIPAC. Would you agree?
It's a false dilemma. We don't have to choose which, since we can eliminate both by electing a non-interventionist, Constitutional candidate who is focused on the needs of the American people first and foremost.
Brezinski and Carter gave the go-ahead to the CIA to train the mujahideen to fight the Russians.
I'm familiar with that. It does not contradict my point of view at all. In fact, it supports my point of view that western involvement in Arab dictatorships encourages extremism. We should disengage, specifically because our role has thus far been to prop up the house of Saud instead of letting the Arab people decide their own destiny there. I will not agree with you that the extremism would not have existed without Establishment ties. From Indonesia and Afghanistan to Kososvo and Chechnya, the factions were there. CFR think tankers simply realized that they had a natural ally in the pro-Islamic fighters.
What I have said is that the pluses of that relationship out weighed any minuses.
Leaving the individual Arabs out of this, I see the relationship between Saudi Arabia and the United States as having been dominated by the Establishment. As a strong critic of the Establishment's tendencies toward global government and the sacrifice of American sovereignty and cultural integrity on the altars of international commerce, I would be willing to concede that much of what I continue to think of as an unhealthy relationship has been brought on by our own reliance on the Council on Foreign Relations and before that, the Round Table Club.
With military disengagement with the region, we could rethink our ties to factions within Saudi Arabia. I suspect that the Saudis are going to face one crisis after another regardless of what we do next. As those problems mount, I would like to see the American involvement in them reduced or eliminated so that we have fewer chances of incurring additional blow back.
As for mosques being built in the USA - so what? Last I heard freedom of religion is a guaranteed right stateside. Ours is a tolerant pluristic society. Are you worried about those eeeevil "Islamofacsists" in our midst who might congregate in mosques funded by the Saudis? I have no doubt there are a number of FBI divisions specifically assigned to monitoring what goes on in the mosques here so you can sleep better that no AQ are hiding there.
One of us is seriously confused.
I presume you are being facetious with this paragraph, my friend?
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
The House of Saud had zero to do with 9/11. It's a false canard that is used as a distraction from the real culprits.
That the majority of 9/11 terrorists had Saudi citizenship does not mean that the Saudi government sponsored 9/11. The Saudi intel agencies can barely keep the Princes safe - they are in a word incompetent and completely incapable to help plot 9/11.
That Saudi family members were allowed to fly out after 9/11 means what exactly? It merely illustrates a well known fact of life in DC -the Saudi Family has pull with the White House as it always has for eons. Big deal.
Did you know that the Saudi government actually argued that redacted passages of the 9/11 Commission report be allowed to see the light of day to the general public because they were concerned about what the redaction implied. Their requests fell on deaf ears with the Bush Admin and the 9/11 Commission.
Furthermore regarding the Ptech thingie - like the guy wrongly dragged through the mud for allegedly sending anthrax through the mail - big todo about nothing.
"Ware-Withal: Wrongly suspected Ptech, CEO bounce back slowly"
If you feel that there were "insiders" to 9/11 event, a more fruitful focus might be on an Israeli-run private telecom company called Comverse Infosys per the 4 part series of Carl Cameron:
I presume you are being facetious with this paragraph, my friend?
Yes and no.
That there are mosques in the USA is a function of our immigration policies. What do you expect to happen when Muslims are allowed to immigrate here? Do you think new Muslim-Americans are suddenly going to convert to Catholicism and pray to Allah in churches? Get real.
But truthfully speaking, I don't feel any more threatened by mosques than I am by synogogues or by Hindu temples appearing in American cities. Why should I? Or more importantly - why are you concerned?
I presume you are being facetious with this paragraph, my friend?
I realize we have freedom of religion here, for Americans. When foreign Saudis spend millions building mosques here, it's a cultural invasion. Ron Paul would permit this, and I am supporting Ron Paul. It is also one aspect of his campaign that I disagree with.
a. It's a false dilemma. We don't have to choose which, since we can eliminate both by electing a non-interventionist, Constitutional candidate who is focused on the needs of the American people first and foremost.
b. I'm familiar with that. It does not contradict my point of view at all. In fact, it supports my point of view that western involvement in Arab dictatorships encourages extremism.
c. As a strong critic of the Establishment's tendencies toward global government and the sacrifice of American sovereignty and cultural integrity on the altars of international commerce, I would be willing to concede that much of what I continue to think of as an unhealthy relationship has been brought on by our own reliance on the Council on Foreign Relations and before that, the Round Table Club.
d. With military disengagement with the region, we could rethink our ties to factions within Saudi Arabia.
a. It's not a false dilemna. It's called being realistic. Electing a constitutionalist President Paul is just one step on a long road ahead of us to set our nation straight constitutionally speaking. Changes are not going to happen overnight. There's still Congress that needs to be cleaned out of all its incumbent sold out bought out punks so constitutionalists can be installed in their places.
Therefore eliminating ALL lobby groups is not going to happen right away. Eliminating the biggest one regarding our mis-directed current foreign policy would be a realist goal for starters. And in that regard, the Israel Lobby would be my pick as being the most noxious one to our nation's interests. Would you agree?
b. Whatever. You say white and I say black. At least I recognize that you and I disagree. You pretend that my arguments support your position. They do not. The Israel-Palestinian situation and our blind faith backing of Israel's war crimes is the single most attraction of Muslims to AQ. The major hatred for America is not our supporting Mubarrek, the Saudi princes, the King of Jordan. If we became fair peace brokers in the Israeli-Palestinian situation, it would diminish 60% of the Muslim hatred directed at America today.
c. I don't understand what point you are trying to make. You have 1 sentence that ran 6 lines. Whatever floats your boat.
d. We can disengage from propping the Saudis AFTER we figure out a cheap fossil fuel alternative for running our industries and cars. Until then, the Saudis are a necessary vice to keep our economy from running into the gutter overnight.
We can disengage from propping the Saudis AFTER we figure out a cheap fossil fuel alternative for running our industries and cars.
Are you sure we don't have as much or more oil than the Saudis do? Lindsey Williams says that we have enough to last more than 200 years in Alaska, but it's being held under wraps to prop up our securities deal with OPEC.
I'm against America's involvement in the United Nations and I would not support a presidential candidate who promised to pressure Israel regarding the Palestinian issue. For me, disengagement is not about retreating from Islamic anger. It's about maintaining our own territorial boundaries and cultural integrity.
a. Are you sure we don't have as much or more oil than the Saudis do? Lindsey Williams says that we have enough to last more than 200 years in Alaska, but it's being held under wraps to prop up our securities deal with OPEC.
b. I'm against America's involvement in the United Nations and I would not support a presidential candidate who promised to pressure Israel regarding the Palestinian issue. For me, disengagement is not about retreating from Islamic anger. It's about maintaining our own territorial boundaries and cultural integrity.
a. Is Lindsey Williams an oil expert? Is Lindsey a geological engineer?
I'm not an oil expert but I doubt there's 200 years of oil resources in Alaska or if there is vast quantities it would be expensive to extricate much like the oil from the tar sands of Alberta. The beauty of the ME oil resources is that it is so inexpensive to get and use. It almost literally spouts out of the sands.
b. I could care less whether we're in the UN or not. It's not a biggy issue to me apart from the fact that US tax dollars are wasted in the support of Third World thugs and thieves.
With regards to Israel, I could care less whether it survives or dies on the vine. America's survival is not contingent on what happens to Israel. Countries need to defend themselves to survive and earn nationhood longevity. African nations have come and gone as long as they could or could not support themselves financially and defend their sovereignity. So it should be for Israel. However it would be in Israel's interest of survival to back off to 1967 borders and make strong neighbors of the Palestinians peoples. In the near future the population explosion of Muslims in nearby nation states will over run the Israelis. It's a demographic fact of life. No walls or tanks or rockets will prevent Israel from being swamped in the future by very very angry Muslim tribes.
We made a mistake of supporting a UN resolution to create Israel out of thin air. We shouldn't double that mistake by giving Israel a false sense of security that it can do whatever war crimes it wants to the Palestinians and Lebanese and we will support it forever. We will not support Israel forever especially if it is over run by Muslim hordes. Americans will not knowingly put American soldiers in harm's way to protect and defend Israel regardless of what our political punks yammer to the media and especially if 40 Million Mexican illegals get US citizenship and play a dominent role in future US elections. Mexicans identify with the down-trodden brown skinned Palestinians not the Israelis. So if Israel wants to survive, it needs to redress the wrongs it has committed over the years against the Palestinians.
The Muslim wrath against the Israelis regarding its ill-treatment and land thievery of Palestinian land is well founded. I don't see that we would "retreat" from Muslim anger by trying to honestly broker a fair resolution to the unfair situation that exists today. But if we can't be fair and honest brokers for peace, then we should bow out completely from the Israeli-Palestinian crisis and let other powers intervene.
The Israeli-Palestinian situation has nothing to do with "maintaining our own territorial boundaries and cultural integrity" that I can see.
"Ware-Withal: Wrongly suspected Ptech, CEO bounce back slowly"
b. As I said, the Saudis are incapable of doing anything except what the US tells them to do. They are not the sharpest knives in the ME intel drawer. I don't think they are capable of putting together a 9/11 insider intel company. The Saudi are fat greedy illegitimate rulers. They have more than enough $ from oil. All they care about is leading their decadent life styles and ruling over their unhappy people. The Saudis are not so sophisticated that they are into plotting 9/11 events or front companies. How would they benefit from 9/11? It makes no sense whatsoever.
There's only one ME nation that would benefit from 9/11. Buy a clue yourself and look into Comverse Infosys and the nation that fronts it.
It does make perfect sense.. if you connect the dots.. what has more than one 9/11 whistleblower mentioned? Drugs and illegal arm sales.. it's about $$$ for some and a few other things for that matter..
If you research the names.. who they are .. what groups they're connected with.. the muslim brotherhood and the CIA.. read about all the whisteblowers the ones w/connections to 9/11 and the picture will become more clear.
And I dont have to buy myself a clue Im not a dolt I already know about Infosys issue for quite some time.
The beauty of the ME oil resources is that it is so inexpensive to get and use.
Williams says it costs us $3/barrel to get in Alaska. Even if he's wrong, we've cut back on our oil refineries and exploration here, and every CFR member politician opposes drilling in ANWR, in the Everglades, and on California's coastline. This puts OPEC at a distinct advantage. It puts Saudi Arabia at a distinct advantage. Their purchases of our treasury securities, even if not secretly quid pro quo, only serve to prop up our increasingly socialist and interventionist system of government.
I could care less whether we're in the UN or not. It's not a biggy issue to me apart from the fact that US tax dollars are wasted in the support of Third World thugs and thieves.
It's a huge issue for American nationalists. We typically supply foreign aid directly to our favorite dictators rather than going through the UN. These are separate issues. Our sovereignty is diminished by pressures to adhere to international court rulings and treaties signed with the UN, as well as to send our troops to war. UN resolutions were invoked as we bombed Serbia and invaded Iraq, for example. We occupy Kosovo because of NATO agreements. The list of problems caused by our participation in international organizations is long and dreary, but it adds up to lost American freedoms.
We made a mistake of supporting a UN resolution to create Israel out of thin air. We shouldn't double that mistake by giving Israel a false sense of security that it can do whatever war crimes it wants to the Palestinians and Lebanese and we will support it forever.
Participation in the UN a problem? In any case, I have no objections to the actions the Allies took in the former Ottoman empire and Palestine, as these steps proved strategic during WWII and the Cold War. In 1973, we could have walked away from Israel and never gone back as far as I'm concerned. Certainly I agree that we do not need to take another action to ensure its survival at this time. A hundred years of manipulating the region's boundaries and cultures have caused us more than enough trouble. But the most serious aspects of it were from the Nazis and the Soviets. Now that those threats are diminished, we can walk away. I don't expect you to agree with me, I'm just letting you know where I stand.
The Muslim wrath against the Israelis regarding its ill-treatment and land thievery of Palestinian land is well founded
But if we can't be fair and honest brokers for peace, then we should bow out completely from the Israeli-Palestinian crisis and let other powers intervene.
As of 1973, it works for me. In fact, we're more likely to get along with our former Russian rivals in the region if we disengage militarily with all of these countries.
The Israeli-Palestinian situation has nothing to do with "maintaining our own territorial boundaries and cultural integrity" that I can see.
None of this does, which is why we should disengage militarily with all nations in the region and go back to talking and trading. I am confident that nature will run its course with us or without us.
a. I very much doubt that low $3 figure for getting oil from ANWAR. I've read that Saudi Arabia's old oil wells are damaged due to over pumping and infiltration of salt water. So the House of Saud may soon outgrow its usefulness for cheap oil in the near future anyways. The CFR needs to work with public opinion and even if oil were 2 cents per gallon off the cpoast of California and ANWAR, there's no politician stateside who is going to buck public opinion regarding protection of our ecology and coastline. Sorry I don't buy that CFR machination at all.
b. We control the UN through our permanent Security Council along with the UK. We entered Kosovo because we wanted to - BillyJeff needed a distraction from Monicagate. We use the UN for cover when it suits us and we act pre-emptively when it suits us. I don't see the UN having any effect on our sovereign rights or choices. It's simply a gang bang of the US taxpayer that's all, a mandated waste of our tax dollars on thugocracies, a not so subtle Marxist re- distribution of wealth from have countries to non-have Third World rulers' pockets.
c. If you refer to the Balfour Declaration as raison d'etre for Israel's formal creation in 1948 - come on, that was the Zionists' bribe requirement ofBritain to excert their considerable influence stateside to get America involved in WWI. The 1948 UN resolution was a result of Europe's guilt. Truman got on the same page at the last minute due to Zionist pressure - future votes hung in the balance after all.
d. We would not have had a problem with Russia in the 1950's if we had not allied ourselve with "Uncle Joe" and had let the Naziis and Commies duke it out to point of death in Russia. FDR could have prevented Pearl Harbor - he wanted us in WWII and we sold out 20 Million Eastern Europeans in the end to good old Uncle Joe whose power and influence grew substantially due to our WWII alliance with him. There would have been no "Cold War" if we had let Stalin go down in flames along with Hitler in WWII. WWII was NOT a good war imo. Nor was WWI or Korea or Vietnam or Kosovo or Iraq. American lives have been wasted for lies the past 200 years.
Lots of what if's and maybes in there. We've done what we've done, and we should learn from it. What I've learned from it is that we should now take a good opportunity to walk away from the Mideast while we've got it.
I'll believe we need their oil when we've pumped the last drum out of the ground on our own soil.
Here's a bit I posted "over there", quite a while back.
No nation that enforces sharia can be "modern".
Agreed, and virtually every ME nation, given the opportunity of Whorge's imposition of "democracy" on them, will choose sharia, IMO.
There is only one sensible policy with reference to the God forsaken ME:
1) Cease the ill conceived "crusade", SAP.
2) Listen to the advice of Srdja Trifkovic, Chronicles Magazine contributor, who urges quarantine of the ME nations, i.e, strengthen the security of our borders, severely and very selectively limit immigration of Muslims to our county, and strengthen our weakened C.I.A.
Anything less and we will go the way of Great Britain and the rest of Europe that has failed too long to impose such logic, thus placing them in very precarious positions.
While searching for (and failing to find) Trifkovic's fine article on this topic, I found and offer this by Jim Pinkerton. I found it thought provoking.
Lots of what if's and maybes in there. We've done what we've done, and we should learn from it. What I've learned from it is that we should now take a good opportunity to walk away from the Mideast while we've got it.
I'll believe we need their oil when we've pumped the last drum out of the ground on our own soil.
I like RP's position which is trade with all, be friendly in our dealings with everyone, AND MIND OUR OWN BUSINESS and put our own house in order which cries for attention - say bridges anyone?
With regards to ME oil, realistically in the short term ( the next 10 years) we need their black gold. We should expect to pay more $ for it and why not? It's their only resource - it's non renewable and we've been buying it on the cheap for many many years to boost our economy and life style. Fair is fair.
However, in the interim I think we should re-direct all the $ we have given to MIC and the DOD the past 60 years and focus it on research at our fine universities to developing petro substitutes ( realistic ones not corn I'm sorry) and fuel efficient auto engine designs as well as construction of nuclear power plants.
Frankly, Anwar and CA coast drilling will be so tied up in the courts we'd never see any positive outcome in our life time even if we assume there's vast quantities of cheap oil deposits in both areas ( I'm doubtful).
A multi-pronged investment in becoming self-sufficient and independent of ME oil within the next 10 years is the way to go in my opinion.
Our immigration levels of Muslims are pawltry as compared to the Europeans. Our cheap labor has been from Mexico by the millions. The Europeans have used labor from Muslim nations who were in some cases former colonies. Also we have done a much better effort to assimilate the Muslim immigrants we have taken in than the Europeans have. Fyi the Iranians for example are the most upwardly mobile of all immigrant groups we have taken in the past 30 years.
I don't fear the religion of Islam whatsoever. Muslims don't try to convert me. They have their beliefs and I have mine. The fundie Christo nutters are far more annoying for evangelizing. And the Jews are far more aggressive with regards to having Christianity wiped off the historical place marks of our nation by submitting legal court challenges and intimidating municipal departments regarding a their interpretation of separation between church and state.
What MSM has Americans all worked up about ( and falsely so I believe) relates to the small subset of Islamics - the fundies. Every religion has the same extremist minority. Mainstream Islam itself calls for tolerance and acceptance. In fact prior to Israel being established, the ME Muslims were far more tolerant of Jews than the Christians in Europe were. As for cultural social concerns, I think you have more to fear from La Raza and its illegal Hispanic foot soldiers who want to claim southern border states for Azetlan. When you call gov't departments your choice of language is English and Spanish not English and Farsi.