Comments on: Protection racket?

By: BadTux

BadTux — Thu, 27 May 2004 02:11:27 +0000

Bull: As the saying goes, if you got a man who has a job to do, and he ain’t doing the job, you might as well hire the next guy in line even if you’re not sure he’ll be any good either. Bush ain’t been doin’ the job. ‘Nuff said. I don’t know ‘nuff about Kerry to know whether Kerry can do the job, but he’s the only other guy in line, so …. – BadTux the Pragmatic Penguin

By: q

Wed, 26 May 2004 20:11:47 +0000

Wouldn’t the War on Terror STILL look rather peculiar in the way it leaves Saudi Arabia almost completely out? Peculiar?… The whole War on Terror is indeed a curious and very peculiar animal in which may be consigned to the annals of history very soon. It provides wonderful essay material for future generations of history students.

By: Zizka

Zizka — Wed, 26 May 2004 19:07:46 +0000

First, while I’m not sure I was sneering in my original post, I do think that sneering is a very good thing when done properly and appropriately. Second, imagine that George W. Bush, his family, and the Republican Party had not been mentioned. Wouldn’t the War on Terror STILL look rather peculiar in the way it leaves Saudi Arabia almost completely out?

By: q

Wed, 26 May 2004 13:50:28 +0000

I don’t think “sneering” is a good thing in general. I don’t think “sneering” helps in the understanding of the political and economic relationships of Saudi Arabia, Israel and the USA.

By: pepi

pepi — Wed, 26 May 2004 12:17:21 +0000

The rule is, if you locate a problem but can’t come up with a solution, then you’re not allowed to sneer at anyone currently beset by the problem Bull, may I remind you that members of elected governments are elected precisely for that reason – they are representatives, and they hold the mandate to govern, so it’s up to them to offer solutions and plans which will be discussed in the parliamentary arena and on which people will also vote, discuss, criticise, vote again, talk, write, joke, and are also allowed to use sarcasm, whether those forms of expression of one’s opinion are complemented or not by a visit to the election polls. That’s the democratic system in a nutshell. What an amazing thing, isn’t it. Thomas – I’m not interested in tarring anyone, it was simply an observation that it’s rather paradoxical for the president in charge during 9/11 to have had direct personal dealings with the family of the man who claimed responsibility on those attacks. You’ve never had that close a risky relation with the most dangerous elements associated to the Saudi regime. Those US-Saud relations were ambiguous enough in the past, but post-9/11 they’ve become surreal. And the speedy exit of Osama’s relatives is the least relevant instance, what matters is the blocking of investigations that led back to Saudi Arabia. That’s rather huge and I’m not aware of anyone else taking that kind of decision. You can’t pin that onto anyone else but the current administration, otherwise, you’re just avoiding facts. It’s not a matter of personal opinions on Bush or his opponents affecting observation of facts, it’s the other way round. I doubt the Saudi and bin Laden connections are exclusively a concern of Bush’s political adversaries. They seem to bother some of his supporters too. And for instance, they completely infuriate the Israelis, especially right-wingers. So I’d guess it’s more of a cross-party issue. As is only normal. It’s such a huge one and it just stands out.

By: Ruth Hoffmann

Ruth Hoffmann — Wed, 26 May 2004 10:34:42 +0000

y81, There are also a few trifling matters like, say, Bush showing our plans for attacking Iraq to Prince Bandar before he showed them to our own Secretary of State. Or the fact that Bandar and his family have already donated millions of dollars to Bush pere and fils, for their “presidential libraries.” That’s gotta be one expensive copy of The Very Hungry Caterpillar.

By: Zizka

Zizka — Wed, 26 May 2004 04:29:39 +0000

When visa restrictions were tightened after 9/11, Saudi Arabia was about 18th in sequence to have the tightening, along with Armenia. They were about a year late (I can document this.) Despite the fact that 9/11 was a Saudi event. The US has not succeeded in getting Saudi cooperation in investigations of the many Saudi-based attacks on Americans. And doesn’t seem to be trying. Yes, they’ve annoyed them some. Talking about democracy is annoying. The Saudis ahve always tolerated out support for Israel, and (unsurprisingly) they DO realize that their position right now is weak. Hamdi is an AMERICAN citizen. To my knowledge Bush has done nothing to bring the fight to the Saudis. I didn’t say anything about Israel at all, much less a joint Saudi-Israeli conspiracy. Your pointless use of the c-word, y81, justifies my pointing out to the assembly that you are a demagogic piece of shit. It is not conspiracy theorizing to mention that 9/11 was funded, led, and manned almost entirely by Saudis. My point has been that the war on terrorism should be directed at the actual terrorists. That means al Qaeda per se (not mentioned so far by me) and the Saudis and also the Pakistanis. I.E., the agents and their enablers. Once it is realized that the actual problem is there, options can be examined. There are other options than nuking Riyadh. Why is what I have said so difficult to understand? Are there no options between nukes and nothing? Jesus.

By: y81

y81 — Wed, 26 May 2004 00:59:22 +0000

Zizka asks: “Is there any evidence that Bush in not in the Saudis’ pocket?” Uh, the fact that he supports Sharon’s policies in the West Bank and Gaza, which annoys the Saudis? The fact that the administration imposed more stringent visa requirements on Arab visitors to the US, which annoys the Saudis? The fact that, in what Kerry supporters claim is an indefensible human rights abuse, the administration is holding a Saudi citizen incommunicado in a naval brig in Virginia? (Doesn’t this last point prove that it’s really the New York Times, which wants Hamdi released, that is really in the Saudis’ pocket?) The fact that the administration keeps talking about democracy in the Middle East, which is kind of inconsistent with the Saudi system of government? What do you want Bush to do, nuke Riyadh? You know, if you want to believe that it’s all a joint Jewish-Saudi conspiracy, go ahead. I just don’t think it will sell.

By: Max

Max — Tue, 25 May 2004 22:35:33 +0000

I just wanted to make one point and ask for some clarification on another. Re: Saudi Arabia. The importance of protecting Saudi Arabia above everyone (except maybe Israel, but they do a good job themselves with US money/arms) else in the Middle East was shown in the first Gulf War. Iraq invades Kuwait and the US has no existing plan for how to respond (the invasion of Kuwait was either unexpected or not deemed high enough priority to devise a plan). So the US puts works with the seemingly strange plan it already had—Operation Desert Shield, protecting Saudi Arabia. Re: Syria. After the US embargo on Syria has there been any other indication that Syria is pipping North Korea for the number one slot on the axis of evil league table? I ask because I’m supposed to be going there for two and a half months in 4 weeks time.

By: q

Tue, 25 May 2004 21:49:26 +0000

zizka- So you are advocating military action against Saudi Arabia. -What would be the goal? -Once the current regime is destroyed, what would you put in its place? -Would you send troops into Makkah? -Would you expect help from the regimes in Iraq or Iran?

By: Zizka

Zizka — Tue, 25 May 2004 21:34:04 +0000

bull—as I said, something changed in 9/11. Shouldn’t we have stopped ignoring the problem at that point? Shouldn’t we be trying to figure out what to do? Shouldn’t we at least acknowledge what the problem really is? Considering the amount of huffing and puffing even about France, Germany, and the UN we’re hearing, shouldn’t we be looking hard at the Saudis who are the actual source of the problem? There are all kinds of jokes about this. “I lost my billfold over that way, because I’m looking here because the light’s better”. “My son’s very sensitive; if he does something wrong, spank the boy next to him and that will be enough”. If it’s true that we have no way of pressuring the Saudis, what does that mean? Isn’t that very, very bad? Is there any evidence that Bush is not in the Saudis’ pocket? McManus’ response was pretty reasonable. The Saudis are strictly collecting rets—we don’t need their labor. They are also militarily weak, and they are completely dependent on their oil sales since they have almost no economy otherwise. So I do believe that a non-passive approach is possible. I’m not equipped to spell it out in detail, and why should I? There’s no evidence that anyone is interested.

By: q

Tue, 25 May 2004 20:54:07 +0000

bob- Why would the the Wahabbist Saudi’s have to go for full religious tolerance now?

By: bob mcmanus

bob mcmanus — Tue, 25 May 2004 20:44:22 +0000

Oh. And the ultimate idea, is that since the Saudi Sunnis are taught it is better to preach than work(remember bin Laden’s daddy, the builder was from Yemen), they are dependent on those Shia and other outside workers. I think the Saudi Shia could shut the oil down. The Iran-Iraq War and Gulf War I, and not going on to Baghdad the first time, were not necessarily about direct military threats to the oil fields, but about limiting external Shia influence on the Saudi Shia population. They are scared to death.

By: bob mcmanus

bob mcmanus — Tue, 25 May 2004 20:34:24 +0000

“What effect it will have on Saudi Arabia?” Well, who really knows? But Iran has never been able to export its revolution. Why not? Because it is Shia not Sunni, because the Clerics hold a lot of land (wealth)and power, because Iran’s Shia is strong on Sharia. Because Iranians are not Arabs. On the right across the border from those Saudi Oil workers we have Sistani and the Ulemma, who has prospered in a secular state, is used to a low level of Sharia and a high level of tolerance, is Arab, is educated to the point of issuing his fatwa’s via his web site etc etc. If the Wahabbist Saudi’s have to go for full religious tolerance and some kind of representation for their Shia population, their regime is in deep trouble. Their foundation is Sunni and Saud control of the Holy sites.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Tue, 25 May 2004 20:30:59 +0000

Pepi—before tarring the Bush administration with the bin Laden exit from the US, please recall that it was Richard Clarke—Clinton administration holdover, Bush administration critic, opponent of the war in Iraq, Democratic donor, media darling Richard Clarke—who approved the bin Laden exit.