Well the duplicitous Saudis are at it again

[allthumbs]

They have said that even with a UN sanctioned attack on Iraq that we could not use their bases. Well, let me tell you what I would do if I had the power:

 

1. Declare Saudi Arabia as a terrorist state. God only knows we have enough proof to make it stick.

2. Declare a complete embargo on Saudi Arabia - no goods in - no goods out. We have enough oil reserves to get us through this.

3. Require mandatory evacuation of all Americans in Saudi under threat of loosing their citizenship.

4. Put our allies on notice that we will be considering Saudi Arabia a hostile state, and that in the event of hostilities we will not be able to guarantee their safety in that country from our weapons.

5. Put everyone else on notice that anything that crosses the Saudi border in either direction WILL die.

 

We'll see how long those snotty ass desert dwellers last. Do you all know what would happen without outside support?

 

1. Oil wells would cease to operate.

2. The Saudi National Guard would drift off into the desert on camels. Their billions of dollars worth of equipment would rot and rust in the desert.

3. Their economic status would be nothing less than bankrupt.

4. The country as they know it would shut down. No phones, no oil, no cars, no nothing.

 

They think they have us over the proverbial barrel of oil. Pun intended. I think we need to show them that we are not some lacky on a leash and that we do have BIG TEETH!!!

[RobBob]

That's a brave one, trask. Maybe we have the reserves, maybe we don't...it'd be political suicide for Bush. And this strategy practically implies an eventual active war against Islamists in general.

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

 

Bush's oil-vampire cronies wouldn't stand for that for a second! We can only blow people up if no one's stock portfolio takes a hit.

 

And where'd you learn a big word like "duplicitous"?

 

[ 11-04-2002, 10:44 AM: Message edited by: Dr Flash Amazing ]

[RobBob]

As a Bush supporter and voter, I continue to be disappointed by Bush's lack of control of Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld is a high-ranking version of a Patton. Every once in awhile you've got to rare back and jerk his choke-chain until he gasps for breath, just to remind the sumbitch that you're the boss, not him. Bush isn't doing it.

 

I see this weekend that pundits are starting to notice this, finally. It's the reason we are coming off so jerky in our Iraq policy, etc. There's CIA intel, then there's Rumsfeld's own concocted mini-CIA, and it's intel to support his machinations.

 

Nancy Reagan controlled Don Regan. Who's going to control (or fire) Rumsfeld?

[freeclimb9]

trask,

you've got no clue as to what's going on behind the scenes. In the Middle East, what is said can differ dramaitcally from what's happening on the ground. The house of Saud has a weakening grasp on power. Lip service to the Saudi people is what I interpret Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al Faisal's comments as. His statement made on Sunday was probably okayed by US diplomats weeks, or months, ago. You think anyone in the US State Department was suprised? Why do you think the facility improvement in Qatar has been going on for so long?

[Off_White]

RobBob, I agree Rumsfeld is a big problem, but if Bush can't reign in or discipline his own appointees, whats to support about the man? You as much as admit that Bush is a puppet, and ask which unelected power behind the throne will save us. We can only hope that Colin Powell might be up to the job, but isn't he bowing out of the administration because it hasn't listened to him?

[RobBob]

Off, I guess I'm mumbling to the gods, hoping that Bush will do it himself. I think he's capable of it, but doesn't realize to what degree he's allowing Rumsfeld to wield power in a way that usurps his authority.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think Rumsfeld was a good choice for Defense, and handled Afganistan well. But just like Patton, or Don Regan, or 'Alexander the Haig,' he has a history of power-grabbing and mischief-making when there's a lull. Bush needs to draw him up short ASAP. Then Bush needs to articulate an overarching middle east policy that everyone can understand and expect the US to follow.

[Gary_Yngve]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RobBob:

Don't get me wrong, I think Rumsfeld was a good choice for Defense, and handled Afganistan well.

---

The key word is "handled." Afghanistan is still a festering wound infected with fundamentalists. We need to get that entire area calm and peaceful so we can go climbing for cheap in the Hindu Kush, Karakorum, etc.

[allthumbs]

 

 

[ 11-04-2002, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: trask ]

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Greg W:

P.S. DFA, blow a goat you liberal wanker; may tree-hugging militants drag you from your yuppie Outback and braid your entrails into climbing rope.

---

Greg,

 

DFA is spoken for, and you know better than to be hitting on him like that.

 

Shame, you horndog!

[chucK]

Trask,

Brilliant idea! If we publicly pledge SA is up for grabs, then maybe Saddam will invade them, then we finally have good reason to invade Iraq again!!!

[Greg_W]

You guys are all wet. Bush needs a bulldog in Defense; this way Bush can look like the calming influence. It's classic good-cop bad-cop. I think you guys have a incorrect perception of Patton (by the nature of the posts I've seen). Rumsfeld's job is to be a hard charger: he's oversees WARRIORS. I am disappointed in Colin Powell; he's soft. There is a time to be a diplomat and there is a time to stiffen up and hold the line and back your boss (the president). He needs to remember his roots as a warrior.

 

Greg W

 

P.S. DFA, blow a goat you liberal wanker; may tree-hugging militants drag you from your yuppie Outback and braid your entrails into climbing rope.

[freeclimb9]

The topic has drifted way off from the original thread. Why don't y'all start another labeled "Chickenhawks in Washington"?