allthumbs Posted October 27, 2003 Share Posted October 27, 2003 Mark Steyn, in his usual inimitable fashion, has written a column directed to exposing some of the duplicity from the Saudis. His examples are many and chilling. They include suspicious access by a SA Cabinet minister to the 9/11 perps the night of 9/10, SA funded Wahhabi mullahs training or selecting our Islamic chaplains, SA funded Wahhabi mosques next door to you, SA funded ex-ambassadors and State department flunkies such as Joseph C. Wilson IV (the NYT forgot to tell us this fact), and much more. http://www.suntimes.com/output/stey...dt-steyn19.html It has been my observation here that more than a few of W's vehement critics cry that we have attacked the wrong Arabs and insist that SA is the right one. Let's say for the purpose of discussion that W is not so stupid or corrupt as to let this slide, and part of his strategy is as I postulated before, to move our base of operations next door, secure an alternate world oil supply, and then move on SA when that oil supply is secured. If that is the strategy, then what should we do when the Iraqi oil is loosed on the world? Should we merely apply pressure on the Wahhabi rulers of SA to change their ways? Should we militarily attack them, the seat of Moslem traditions, and take over the country? Should we seek to depose the Saud family and replace it with other indigenous rulers? I would suggest that the last example is a non-starter as the replacements would all be Wahhabi, and probably more militant than their predecessors. The first is a poor choice as the Saud family has already shown its stripe, and to leave them in charge still leaves the Wahhabi true believer problem intact. Therefore, by process of elimination we are left with invasion and forcible imposition of new standards in control with the certain risk of Moslem mayhem. Of course, another choice is to do nothing with the hope they will change on their own or go away. Fat chance. Any other suggestions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lummox Posted October 27, 2003 Share Posted October 27, 2003 mego. i went sport climbing yesterday and had fun. yeah! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hakioawa Posted October 27, 2003 Share Posted October 27, 2003 Flood the market w/ really cheap oil, thus making OPEC irrelevant. The Saudi's will no longer be able to placate the masses with onrimental mosques and pay the salary's of the secret police. We can beat 'em the same way we beat the Ruskies. With $$$$ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scrambler Posted October 27, 2003 Share Posted October 27, 2003 Revolution or evolution? Slow change is almost inevitable with the effect of spreading technology, for example, the free flow of information from the Internet. Despotic governments are now seeking to limit the introduction of social effects due to exposure to the Internet. Consequently, information available to the masses is censored. I’ve read reports that the Saudi kingdom is on the verge of bankruptcy. That sounds preposterous but supposedly spending by the rulers is grossly excessive. If this is true, then the ruling government may collapse much as it did in the former USSR. Also, I heard a troubling development. Saudi Arabia recently entered a military alliance with Pakistan as a nuclear deterrent to attack. Personally. I believe that the current rulers are using religion as their pawn to control people especially since the most holy sites in Islam (Mecca and Medina) are located in the kingdom. The idea of mixing fundamentalist religion and nuclear weapons is frightening. I see small chance of sudden change imposed by external forces such as a US invasion. Again, the land is the center of their religion and that action would be the worst thing to do. In many cases, self-determination and resolve are only strengthened by attack. Covert action is undesirable. 'Blowback' from covert action is the reason many in the world direct their hatred toward the United States. 'Blowback' is a term first used by the CIA regarding the overthrow of the government of Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran in 1953. The most reasonable action seems to be to develop alternative sources of energy. If the energy companies (petroleum, etc.) do not lead development and implementation, then ‘the People’ should take the lead to force the issue. This, I think, will be the truly positive result of Gulf War II for Americans. This should be the impetus to direct our thinking to free ourselves from our self-imposed imprisonment to Middle East oil and their troubles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted October 27, 2003 Author Share Posted October 27, 2003 Great post, scrambler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted October 27, 2003 Share Posted October 27, 2003 pretty much what scrambler said. do you have any proof that s.a. funded wilson? i don't think so. this steyn guy sounds like a wacko. still trying to do control damage on nigergate by smearing the opposition. and of course don't forget: http://www.palmdigitalmedia.com/excerpt.cgi/0759508070 which is probably a lot more relevant than s.a. funding for the m.e. institute! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.