Time for US and SA to go separate ways?

[Aaron Brachowitz]

Y'all must be studying 'cause it sure is quiet around here.

WSJ today published an excellent editorial questioning the viability of continued US-Saudi relations. You can probably view it online if you're willing to register.

"...the strains of the war on terrorism are revealing that the long-standing US-Saudi bargain can't hold. In return for oil and the occasional pro-American vote at the UN, Washington has looked the other way at Saudi Arabia's precarious politics."

The Saudis "have declined to participate in an international consortium of more than 80 nations that have agreed to block the assets of terrorist groups."

"US support for the House of Saud has now yielded Saudi support for those waging war on the US homeland. If a more radical regime is going to take hold in Saudi Arabia, better to face that fact sooner rather than later. Coping with an overtly hostile Saudi government would at least have the virtue of clarity that doesn't exist today."

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Aaron Brachowitz on 2001-10-30 09:57 ]</font>

[Anonymous]

Yes, let's alienate and make enemies of more Arabs on the advice of pro-Israel fanatics like you. Maybe we can bomb Saudi children also?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Voice of Reason on 2001-10-30 12:47 ]</font>

[Dr T Non-Fan]

Problem is that SA has something that we want. And it influences a lot of other countries who have the same thing.

Israel has something the politicians want.

I wish it were easier to understand. Then some of us wouldn't have to resort to poor debating tactics.

[Enough Exams Already]

I say that if Saudi Arabia wants to keep having it both ways, then let's take the opportunity to cut back our involvement and dependence on them.

After the direct operation in Afghanistan is over:

1.) Withdraw from and phase out Prince Sultan AFB. Instead, build up the base in Bahrain. In fact, it might be possible to build a Joint Theater Operations base in Qatar, much like TANGO in Korea.
2.) Heavily fund technologies that eliminate our dependence on Arabian oil.
3.) Phase out foreign aid to Saudi Arabia, including paying off any deficits to them and calling any loans extended. (I'm not sure if they're a creditor of the US or a debtor--does anyone know?)
4.) Avoid any involvement in foreign affairs on their behalf. So when Iraq goes on the march again, when they ask for help, we say, "Sorry, we decline to participate." I'm not saying take up action against them--no bombing involved, VoR--just don't help them out of a jam.

If they don't want to help us, they they must not want our money, either. Seems like simple enough solution to me.

(Edited for spelling)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Enough Exams Already on 2001-10-30 13:25 ]</font>

[Anonymous]

Is Turkey a country we could be building up as a counterweight in the region? I don't know much about them (other than they go well with a nice Zinfindel), but my not-very-well-informed impressions are: They are both Muslim and are culturally well-tied-in to the West. (They're in NATO!) They have a reasonably functional republican democracy.

Do I have it more-or-less right? Heck, why not go whole (metaphorical) hog and bring back the Ottoman Empire? Could it be worse?

[Enough Exams Already]

On 2001-10-30 13:28, Choam Nomsky wrote:
Is Turkey a country we could be building up as a counterweight in the region? I don't know much about them (other than they go well with a nice Zinfindel), but my not-very-well-informed impressions are: They are both Muslim and are culturally well-tied-in to the West. (They're in NATO!) They have a reasonably functional republican democracy.

Do I have it more-or-less right? Heck, why not go whole (metaphorical) hog and bring back the Ottoman Empire? Could it be worse?


They are in NATO, and Ataturk did manage to Westernize them somewhat. But their economy has fits of hyperinflation at times. (Maybe a military base would help? Who can say?)

Strategically, I think we'd still need a base closer to the Indian Ocean. And I'm not sure whether Turkey is experiencing the same wave of fundamentalism that most of Arabia has been feeling in the recent past.

Zinfandel? With turkey? Isn't Zinfandel really heavy and tannic, like a Barolo? Doesn't the flavor of the meat get lost?

[Anonymous]

Original WSJ piece, no reg required, is available at their website: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95001394

The Zin's I've had have all been full and fruity, not tannic at all. Haven't had a barolo, so I can't make that comparison. Good Zin's can often been had cheap, too.

[Guerilla poster]

How involved would we be in the Middle East if it was not for oil?

My guess is that it would be treated like Africa. The one weight against that is the amount of political influence the Jewish voice has in America due to the political system (I should say campaign contribution system as less 5% of the population is Jewish and most of that is centered in New York)

[Anonymous]

Before the creation of Israel, did the US have any problems with the Middle East?

I don't remember Sirhan Sirhan's grandfather trying to assasinate Roosevelt.

[Enough Exams Already]

On 2001-10-30 14:40, Voice of Reason wrote:
Before the creation of Israel, did the US have any problems with the Middle East?

I don't remember Sirhan Sirhan's grandfather trying to assasinate Roosevelt.


You mean besides the Ottoman Empire's joining Germany at al. in World War I?

[Anonymous]

Before the invention of skyscrapers, did the US have any problems with the Middle East? I don't remember OBL's great-grandfather ordering planes crashed into 3-story buildings.

[Jowler Nojsen]

On 2001-10-30 14:40, Voice of Reason wrote:
Before the creation of Israel, did the US have any problems with the Middle East?

I don't remember Sirhan Sirhan's grandfather trying to assasinate Roosevelt.


More of the "It's all the fault of US support for Israel" argument.

[Aaron Brachowitz]

On 2001-10-30 12:41, Voice of Reason wrote:
Yes, let's alienate and make enemies of more Arabs on the advice of pro-Israel fanatics like you. Maybe we can bomb Saudi children also?

Alienate? I think we're past that. Our two cultures (Judeo-Christian West and Muslim Middle East) view things so differently that maybe it's best if we just agree not to interact too much. Obviously this is a long-term objective with a lot of short-term obstacles.

As an example of the cultural divide, the current Atlantic Monthly has an article about the investigation into the crash of Egypt Air 990, where all evidence (voice, flight data, radar data, ground simulations)showed that one of the pilots deliberately plunged the jet into the ocean after taking off from New York. The NTSB took the lead with Egyptian consent and conducted a typical fact-based (Western) investigation. The only logical evidence-based conclusion was that the pilot had deliberately crashed the plane. No other conceivable explanation could produce the same data. The Egyptian team absolutely refused to accept this result and embarked on a bizarre (to Western eyes) attempt to come up with a more palatable explanation that would somewhat conform to the data. In the process they insulted and called into question the integrity of the NTSB, Boeing, the air traffic controllers, and others, all in a vain attempt to disprove the obvious.

So what? Well, I would maintain that cultures that do not deal in facts and evidence (i.e. science) ought not to be operating large, sophisticated machinery such as airliners, and we shouldn't be selling or maintaining them for them.

[Anonymous]

The Ottoman empire? That's Turkey, currently an ally of Israel and the US (although their people don't like the US).

The Muslim and Arab world had no problems with the US before pro-Israel fanatics like AB forced the US to help them fight the Arabs.

Every act of terrorism done by Arabs in the last 50 years, from Sirhan Sirhan's assasination of Kennedy (for wanting to sell jets to Israel) to the WTC was because of Israel.

What's sad is the Arabs were the only people on the Earth, along with Americans who weren't anti-semitic. China, Japan, European countries, Mexico etc. have virulent anti-semitism embedded in their culture. Why do you think the pro-Israeli lobby can't influence their governments?

Now two billion Muslims are on the anti-semitism bandwagon and they're probably never getting off. The last and only friend Jews have in the world is the United States. I predict Americans will slowly join the anti-semitic bandwagon once they realize they're being used.

Jewish leaders need to adopt a new strategy which doesn't make enemies with the world.

The future's not looking good for the Jewish people if you want my analysis.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Voice of Reason on 2001-10-30 15:37 ]</font>

[Enough Exams Already]

On 2001-10-30 15:31, Voice of Reason wrote:
The Ottoman empire? That's Turkey, an ally of Israel and the US.



The Ottoman Empire stretched from Turkey down the Arabian Peninsula and into parts of North Africa and Persia. Turkey was the last imperial seat of a long-standing Islamic empire that crumbled into rubble after WWI, an empire that comprised most of the Islamic world, let alone the Arab world.

[Anonymous]

Last thing, AB, if you think the Muslim world is going to crumble just because they lose American support you're deluded.

Iran, one small country, which would seem easy to isolate has rendered US sanctions ineffective. If the US sanctioned and separated from the whole Muslim world it would be a disaster for the US.

This is such a bad argument. The whole thing about Afghanistan is that the US can't push Muslim nations any more. With Iraq, Lybia, Iran, Israel etc., one more and it could break the camel's back leading to a disastrous backlash. In this environment you're pushing to split from the only ally left?


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Voice of Reason on 2001-10-30 16:09 ]</font>

[Matoro]

Voice of Reason: Have you ever considered changing your handle to "Voice of Delusion"?

[Mr. Grim]

That would be Voice of Dellusion! Oh you caught your spelling error VOR.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: grim on 2001-10-30 16:13 ]</font>

[Aaron Brachowitz]

On 2001-10-30 15:31, Voice of Reason wrote:
The last and only friend Jews have in the world is the United States. I predict Americans will slowly join the anti-semitic bandwagon once they realize they're being used.

But no one will ever accuse VOR of being a bandwagon-jumper, right?

[Anonymous]

AB I hope YOU aren't accusing anyone of racism. I don't hate anyone and am looking for a solution in which everyone wins, including Arabs and Muslims.

You, on the other hand, are someone who probably has pictures of dead Arab children in your wallet (a well known practice of Israeli soldiers.)


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Voice of Reason on 2001-10-30 16:15 ]</font>

[Aaron Brachowitz]

On 2001-10-30 15:44, Voice of Reason wrote:
Last thing, AB, if you think the Muslim world is going to crumble just because they lose American support you're deluded.

No, they won't crumble, they'll just revert to where they were about seventy years ago -- living in tents, raising sheep, and occasionally raiding the neighbor tribe. I'm not criticizing this culture, on the contrary, it seems better-suited for all parties. They do without the hated Western culture and modernity and we get a break from Islamic terrorists.

[Anonymous]

AB, the reason Arabs modernized has nothing to do with the US. Most of it was done without US help. They modernized (at an commendably fast pace IMO) because they had to in order to fight their modern enemy, Israel.

There's no way Arabs are going to go back to peaceful tent life as long as Israel's there. AB you're insanely deluded. Arabs aren't as incompetent as your racist propoganda would make you believe.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Voice of Reason on 2001-10-30 16:24 ]</font>

[Anonymous]

"They modernized because they had to in order to fight their modern enemy, Israel."

Sounds like they owe Israel a big favor, then. How about a nice bouquet of flowers, plus maybe not blowing up their pizza parlors?

[Anonymous]

This gets into another argument about how your enemies are in many ways your friends.

[G. Ringo]

Muslims attacked US shipping in the early days of the US (long before Zionism). That's why the US sent the marines to the shores of Tripoli. But attacking the US itself from the Middle East required airplanes.

I don't think that Coca Cola, McDonald's, and Mickey Mouse are needed to fight the State of Israel.

[independent]

I'll agree that the US support of Israel reduces our flexibility in the middle east. But I'd like to get back to the original post in this thread..

Let's not forget the other factor. The US (and our trading "partners") are so dependent on imported oil that we find ourselves supporting any arab government that seems likely to maintain a steady flow of oil. That means we cozy up to people like the Shah of Iran or the House of Saud.

We don't need a lot of fancy new technologies to reduce our use of oil. We already know how to build very efficient 4 cylinder engines that are fine for pulling small cars. We just haven't figured out a way to convince Americans that if they used less oil we would find it much easier to "disengage" from the region.

[Anonymous]

On 2001-10-30 19:23, Gregor Grub wrote:
Muslims attacked US shipping in the early days of the US (long before Zionism). That's why the US sent the marines to the shores of Tripoli. But attacking the US itself from the Middle East required airplanes.

I don't think that Coca Cola, McDonald's, and Mickey Mouse are needed to fight the State of Israel.


It's times like these when history teachers are appreciated. As I learned in 10th grade, those were pirates who disrupted shipping for money, not for Islam.

You definitely didn't hear Muslim leaders saying the way to stop these pirates was to address the root cause of pirating.

The Muslim world didn't have an opinion on the US pre Israel.

On the McDonalds/Coke, those are American companies trying to make money. I don't think Arabs would care if Coke and McDonalds left.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Voice of Reason on 2001-10-31 12:01 ]</font>

[42]

On 2001-10-30 23:49, independent wrote: We don't need a lot of fancy new technologies to reduce our use of oil. We already know how to build very efficient 4 cylinder engines that are fine for pulling small cars. We just haven't figured out a way to convince Americans that if they used less oil we would find it much easier to "disengage" from the region.

I agree, and I would certainly like to see the trend toward bigger vehicles reversed. (I long for the old days when I could actually see ahead of the vehicle in front of me!) And I think that many Americans could be convinced to do so if our leaders would encourage them to do so and explain how it would help in the war effort.

However, I think the underlying problem is that our automakers currently get most of their profit from sales of their gas-guzzlers. If the trend shifts suddenly, there would be some serious ramifications, not just for the auto industry, but for the economy as a whole. I still think it's a good idea, but it needs to be a gradual shift, and unfortunately it will probably result in higher prices for economical cars.

[G. Ringo]

Although they were called pirates because they attacked ships, the Barbary Pirates were forces of a Muslim country that demanded a poll tax of members of certain tolerated religions, including Christianity. They tried to extend their taxing authority to the high seas by attacking ships of Christain countries. It was no secret that the conflict was a Muslim/Christian conflict. The US sent a Jewish legate to argue that the US is a secular country. When diplomacy did not work, the US sent the marines.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Gregor Grub on 2001-10-31 17:58 ]</font>

[Anonymous]

It's amazing what depths you, AB and EB sink to.

Those pirates were like a thousand people at most, from the insignificant country of Lybia. They didn't receive moral or financial backing from other Muslim leaders or nations. That's what I learned in my highschool, maybe it depends on who does the teaching?

Question for you. Do you feel ashamed, guilty about your people's role in the 6000 deaths? I know if I constantly egged a friend into a fight that didn't serve his interests, and he got a bloody nose, I would feel bad. It's called a conscience. I'm guessing you don't understand this concept. Actually I would never egg a friend into a fight which didn't serve his interests. Only people like you, AB and EB could sink to such depths.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Voice of Reason on 2001-10-31 18:14 ]</font>

[Dr T Non-Fan]

EB: I'm beyond that, and have been since post #1.

[Damn, Dirty Ape]

Careful there, VoR. Other 15 year-olds get banned for much less.

[Macroman]

The widespread dislike of the US in the arab world is a reaction to US support of Israel. To many of thier number, they see the actions of 9/11 as justified, pointing to many precedents including some of the founders of Israel and US actions in WWII. We are not going to agree with this point of view, but niether are we likely to change these points of view.

As long as the Israeli's and Palestinians try to live together on thier tiny strip of land it does not appear that they will get along peacefully. Some in the arab world have evidently decided that they cannot destroy an Israel which has the benefit of American support. These people have now decided to try and undermine that support. I believe that they have seriously misjudged the US in this matter. If anything, recent actions will most likely only further entrench US support for our only solid friend in the region.

[Aaron Brachowitz]

On 2001-11-04 00:52, Macroman wrote:
The widespread dislike of the US in the arab world is a reaction to US support of Israel.
I think this is a huge oversimplification. To say that the only reason they hate us is because of Israel is to overlook the vast differences in our cultures and the resentment of Arabs over the many failures of their societies. Rather than look inward to correct these failures, they have looked to blame outside forces, with the encouragement of their governments who would obviously like to avoid any blame.

Here's a question: How much anti-Western hatred would there be in these countries if they were served by a free and fair press that focused on the corruption and failures of their governments, as our press does?

[Anonymous]

On 2001-11-01 14:43, d*mn, Dirty Ape wrote:
Careful there, VoR. Other 15 year-olds get banned for much less.

Hey! Not banned here, I have been good. No "spam downs" and no questionable emoticons. I agree that some of what I have seen here is a lot more offensive than the emoticon thing.

Now, this fly will go back to sitting quietly on the wall.

[Spectrum]

A few comments on Saudi Arabia. Back in the gulf war, they didn't want the US on their soil and had to be strong armed into accepting an American staging area for attacks on Iraq. They are a unstable country ruled by the king and his 5,000 princes. They rule and profit in an uneasy peace. Population growth is 3% per year and unemployment is currently 15%. The 20 million subjects have strong reason to be discontent. Each prince has a national monopoly on some product(s). The problem is all economics. Oil cost $3 a barrel to extract out of the Saudi desert. It costs $18 a barrel to get out of Alaska. Isreal is a democratic and capitalist society. The dictator regimes that drape themselves in religous authority are everything America is opposed to. We will continue to prop up anyone who can provide us with steady supplies of cheap energy. We will also continue to prop up Isreal who provides the middle east with a steady supply of what the future looks like.

Islam is not some unified force across the globe. That would be like saying christianity is the same. There are splits between orthodox and liberal, caste, race, etc. The severe limits on freedom placed by the rulers in the mostly islamic middle east is the problem. The USA should take over Afganistan just like Japan or Germany after WWII. We should write their new constitution for them. We keep a military force there for 25 years. Screw the coallition building. They killed 6,000 people and caused $100 billion in damage to us. Don't trust them to screw it up again. Especially the king in exile. The last thing we need is another Kingdom of Afganistan.

[Aaron Brachowitz]

On 2001-11-05 14:11, Spectrum wrote:
A few comments on Saudi Arabia. Back in the gulf war, they didn't want the US on their soil and had to be strong armed into accepting an American staging area for attacks on Iraq.

Schwartzkopf recalled this event quite differently in his autobiography, and he was in the room with the king, Cheney, Powell, etc. Far from being forced into it, the king immediately agreed to a hasty deployment of US troops when Cheney and Powell gently brought it up. This left their jaws hanging, as they had anticipated putting US troops on Saudi soil (sand?) to be a touchy issue.

So bin Laden's anger is misdirected, but the Saudis have taken steps to see that his aggression is directed externally, not internally. Such friends.

[ACCtuary]

On 2001-10-30 12:41, Voice of Reason wrote:
Yes, let's alienate and make enemies of more Arabs on the advice of pro-Israel fanatics like you. Maybe we can bomb Saudi children also?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Voice of Reason on 2001-10-30 12:47 ]</font>


They may already be our enemies. It is just a matter of time before we figure it out, and stop supporting them.

Nobody is advocating alienating anybody. It is only your anti-Israel hatred that makes you see that. A re-assessment of a relationship of dubious strategic value is not tantamount to 'Bombing Arab Children'.

You are not supporting your name of 'Voice of Reason' if you resort to such hyperbole in your rhetoric.

[Aaron Brachowitz]

Why are you running down VoR? He's so last week.