Bush's foreign policy really is paying off.

<a href='http://www.sfexaminer.com/article/index.cfm/i/061504b_saudiarabia' target='_blank'>http://www.sfexaminer.com/article/index.cf...04b_saudiarabia</a>

I wonder what the "better" US policy would be. Even if we had not occupied Iraq, is the idea there that Americans would be safe and happy in Saudi Arabia for very long but for Iraq? The regime in Saudi Arabia is unstable. There is going to be serious trouble there for that reason. Beyond this, due to our slavish and frankly hypocritcal policy with respect to Israel (we demand enforcement of UN sanctions against Iraq, yet curiously forget UN orders with respect to Israel), we are and will have troubles in the Middle East anyway. Bush may well come up snake eyes with this gamble in Iraq, but we fool ourselves if we think that a day of trouble would have been avoided if only we had not invaded and occupied Iraq.

The "better" US policy would have been to have avoided any interest or involvement in the Middle East. But on account of our need for oil and on account of the internal political necessity of supporting Israel, a country that otherwise would be of no interest to us, this cannot be. We can blame the invasion of Iraq as the immediate cause for our need to withdraw our people from Saudi Arabia, but it is a delusional thing to suppose that the invasion is the only reason, or the only reason we would ever have to do so.

And they are going to suddenly love us if John Kerry is president? Yeah right.

Skipuno Wrote:And they are going to suddenly love us if John Kerry is president? Yeah right.

Bush misled the American people into going to war with Iraq -- and in doing so delivered al Qaeda a stupendous recruiting tool in.

The man needs to be fired.

I know conservatives love Bush because he seems resolute, tough and strong.

But he's resolutely stupid. But the man has no ****ing clue what he doing.

We need to fire him.

Schadenfreude Wrote:

Skipuno Wrote:And they are going to suddenly love us if John Kerry is president? Yeah right.

Bush misled the American people into going to war with Iraq -- and in doing so delivered al Qaeda a stupendous recruiting tool in.

The man needs to be fired.

I know conservatives love Bush because he seems resolute, tough and strong.

But he's resolutely stupid. But the man has no ****ing clue what he doing.

We need to fire him.

I haven't seen anything on this thread but a bunch of journalists making comments like that.

But, these are freakin' journalists. You talk about people who have no clue...what exactly do they get done?

The war in Iraq has very little to do with what is going on in Saudi Arabia.


The Saudi regime will survive or fall based on how quickly it institutes political reforms. Honestly, it may be too late.

In Saudi, you have a country where there are more foreign workers than there are Saudi nationals. Nobody works, the government always just gave people a big fat check every month. The check did two things...kept people living at a high standard, and kept them quiet about the lack of control they had over their own affairs.

Its feudalism.

These systems are not sustainable. When the economic S*** hits the fan, as it has over the last 7 years, the checks get smaller and the peasants start to see the unfairness of the system. Then they start looking for people to blame.

This process started way before 9/11. This process is RESPONSIBLE for 9/11. So its a little misleading to suggest that there is a causal relationship between Iraq and the unrest in Saudi.

The Saudi regime is unsustainable. Having a decent and even relatively democratic Iraq will rapidly increase the pressure on the Saudis to reform politically, thus helping to prevent a broader uprising. The events are related, but not in the way you think.

OUGwave Wrote:The war in Iraq has very little to do with what is going on in Saudi Arabia.


The Saudi regime will survive or fall based on how quickly it institutes political reforms. Honestly, it may be too late.

In Saudi, you have a country where there are more foreign workers than there are Saudi nationals. Nobody works, the government always just gave people a big fat check every month. The check did two things...kept people living at a high standard, and kept them quiet about the lack of control they had over their own affairs.

Its feudalism.

These systems are not sustainable. When the economic S*** hits the fan, as it has over the last 7 years, the checks get smaller and the peasants start to see the unfairness of the system. Then they start looking for people to blame.

This process started way before 9/11. This process is RESPONSIBLE for 9/11. So its a little misleading to suggest that there is a causal relationship between Iraq and the unrest in Saudi.

The Saudi regime is unsustainable. Having a decent and even relatively democratic Iraq will rapidly increase the pressure on the Saudis to reform politically, thus helping to prevent a broader uprising. The events are related, but not in the way you think.

You don't know how right you are. ...and the people to blame, as far as the royalty in Saudi is concerned, is the US. They are NOT our allies. They are playing us AND their people. Of course, the poverty blame is negated by the Dr., and the several US and western educated terrorists that we have had. Face it, it's fanaticism. Islam is 600 years younger than the other religions and, right now, it is NOT a peaceful religion. If it is, and I address this to Liberals, then damnit, bring me some Peaceful Muslims to negate my claim. There is a man about to be killed tomorrow and he isn't being killed because the people are impoverished, he's being killed because he's a westerner.

Islam is not a peaceful religion. I would LOVE to see someone negate that with facts. I WANT the religion to be peaceful so prove me wrong.

OUGwave Wrote:In Saudi, you have a country where there are more foreign workers than there are Saudi nationals. Nobody works, the government always just gave people a big fat check every month. The check did two things...kept people living at a high standard, and kept them quiet about the lack of control they had over their own affairs.

Its feudalism.

This is humorous on many levels.

First, b/c the situation is exactly what the bi-coastal elite liberals in the US want. A few rich people w/ the "divine right" of the correct ideology...the mid-westerners to keep working and farming...and everyone who toes the party line can collect compensation from the gov't.

It's what the Europeans want, and in many cases have. Why do you think that so many N. Africans and Turkish are in W. Europe? To do the work, b/c 30 hr weeks and 6 weeks of vacation doesn't get anything done.

Now this system, which is supposed to work in a purely secular environment, is shown not to work even when strengthened by a rigid and forceful religion.

Even more ironic (or perhaps simply indicting on the true state of man) is that the new boss is the same as the old boss in SA. They don't want reforms to move to a system that works...the unrest comes from people who just want a bigger piece of the pie! AND they blame the US for the unrest!

DrTorch Wrote:This is humorous on many levels.

First, b/c the situation is exactly what the bi-coastal elite liberals in the US want.&nbsp; A few rich people w/ the "divine right" of the correct ideology...the mid-westerners to keep working and farming...and everyone who toes the party line can collect compensation from the gov't.

And *that* is humorous on even more levels.

You are being played.

Who do you think benefits from:

-- Eliminating the inheritance tax?
-- Cutting tax rates for rich people?
-- A flat tax?
-- Gutting programs like Medicare and Social Security?

It isn't the middle class families and small business owners of Ohio.

It is those bicoastal elites you speak of -- who are laughing all the way to the bank as they vote Republican right along with you.

The country club elites of the Republican Party are playing you like a fool. They have you so hung up on guns, abortion and gays that you aren't voting in your best interest.

Democratic policies are designed to protect and grow the middle class.

Republican policies are designed to protect the rich.

It's as simple as that.

These look like elites to you?

Let's see... we were led to believe Iraq had WMDs despite the fact Colin Powell failed to present any proof to the UN.

Our esteemed* President believes Saddam harbored fugitives based on the fact some Al Queda folks were spotted in Iraq -- therefore Bush is right. Based on his reasoning, hell, the US harbored Al Queda terrorists. Hey, they were in our country, right?

If Bush presented his evidence before a jury of his peers, they'd laugh his country a$$ out of court.

Next, the conservative folks will now claim that the world's a better place now that Saddam is gone (despite the fact Saddam was not the reason) the U.S. invaded Iraq. However, now instead of Saddam's people torturing prisoners, we are, so I don't know how folks can claim the world is a safer place.

This whole operation has been a failure from the word "go", and had Clinton been the one moving the chess pieces, the elephants would be calling for his head.

I admire that Bush is resolute and stands behinds his people and ideals. That's a nice trait. However, he's flat wrong here and must go.

---

* - using the term very loosely.

Schadenfreude Wrote:These look like elites to you?

Looks like the bar scene from Starwars to me.

Schadenfreude Wrote:Democratic policies are designed to protect and grow the middle class.

Ah the Dems and their beloved "Rob from the rich, give to the poor" motto.

You know, Robin Hood was still just a common theif.

RebelKev Wrote:

OUGwave Wrote:The war in Iraq has very little to do with what is going on in Saudi Arabia.


The Saudi regime will survive or fall based on how quickly it institutes political reforms. Honestly, it may be too late.

In Saudi, you have a country where there are more foreign workers than there are Saudi nationals. Nobody works, the government always just gave people a big fat check every month. The check did two things...kept people living at a high standard, and kept them quiet about the lack of control they had over their own affairs.

Its feudalism.

These systems are not sustainable. When the economic S*** hits the fan, as it has over the last 7 years, the checks get smaller and the peasants start to see the unfairness of the system. Then they start looking for people to blame.

This process started way before 9/11. This process is RESPONSIBLE for 9/11. So its a little misleading to suggest that there is a causal relationship between Iraq and the unrest in Saudi.

The Saudi regime is unsustainable. Having a decent and even relatively democratic Iraq will rapidly increase the pressure on the Saudis to reform politically, thus helping to prevent a broader uprising. The events are related, but not in the way you think.

You don't know how right you are. ...and the people to blame, as far as the royalty in Saudi is concerned, is the US. They are NOT our allies. They are playing us AND their people. Of course, the poverty blame is negated by the Dr., and the several US and western educated terrorists that we have had. Face it, it's fanaticism. Islam is 600 years younger than the other religions and, right now, it is NOT a peaceful religion. If it is, and I address this to Liberals, then damnit, bring me some Peaceful Muslims to negate my claim. There is a man about to be killed tomorrow and he isn't being killed because the people are impoverished, he's being killed because he's a westerner.

Islam is not a peaceful religion. I would LOVE to see someone negate that with facts. I WANT the religion to be peaceful so prove me wrong.

I disagree with some of what you are saying here.

1) The Saudis are our allies. They've dug themselves (and us) a huge hole largely because they didn't know they were digging it. They've dramatically stepped up their cooperation with us on intelligence and military matters, and provide more cooperation than anyone else in the region. The next step though is about that hole. They need to stop digging it. That means reforming education, opening up the media and the political process, and changing their public diplomacy, particularly with regard to their export of Wahabbism. Look, most elements in the Kingdom recognize that its time to stop digging, but you have to realize that there are like 1,000 princes and no clear ruler now that Fahd is veritably comotose. Abdullah governs with a consensus. There are some princes that have indulged in terrorism over the years, funding al-Qaeda and other militant groups. They don't want to humiliate these elements at a time when the House of al-Saud is under such threat.

Though they know they have to reform, they're a bit lost at the moment, and it would behoove us to help them with the reform process in a constructive way instead of piling on. I think Bush is doing this. In the long term, the Iraq war helps us here, but in the short term it actually might be making things more sticky. A stable and free Iraq will go along way towards greasing the wheels of Saudi reform. One thing we don't want to be wishing is the collapse of the Saudi regime out of spite. The only institutions that could fill the power gap in the Kingdom after a collapse are religious institutions, and that would be an unmitigated disaster for the United States.

Things are very complicated right now.

2) I think its foolish to deny the religious element to the threat we face. To say Islam is not a peaceful religion is perhaps a bit too strong though. In fact, there are elements in the Qu'ran that support both a peaceful and a confrontational interpretation of it. The problem more comes in with how arab cultural notions of resistance (to change, to outsiders, etc), heightened by arab nationalism (like that of Saddam, Nassar) has led to a FOCUS on the CONFRONTATIONAL aspects of the Qu'ran, and how the radical Wahabbist interpretation from Saudi has been intentionally spread throughout the Muslim world by the Saudis as a means to further their Hajj revenue and increase their sphere of influence throughout the Muslim world. Its worked for the Saudis of course, but there have been unintended consequences (which both Riyadh and the rest of the world are currently dealing with).

A religion is not inherently good or bad, its what people make of it. It is how that religion is lived by its followers that makes the difference. Christianity and Judiasm have been surrounded and influenced by cultural reforms within their spheres that lead to an emphasis on their tolerant and peaceful natures. Islam has yet to go through that maturation process. That has to be a critical part of our war on Islamic extremism (I hate the expression "war on terror", because it obscures the threat we really face. We're fighting an ideology, not a method). With a change in how Islamic CULTURE interprets Islam, it could easily be called a religion of peace. Right now, the meaning of Islam is definitely in the eye of the beholder.

T-Monay820 Wrote:You know, Robin Hood was still just a common theif.

So is Dick Cheney, but people are apparently too stupid to do anything about it.

T-Monay820 Wrote:

Schadenfreude Wrote:Democratic policies are designed to protect and grow the middle class.

Ah the Dems and their beloved "Rob from the rich, give to the poor" motto.

If protecting and growing the middle class amounts to theft in your book, then you are way, way outside the American mainstream.

Take the estate tax.

A bipartisan Congress approved it in 1916. I'll quote from the U.S. Treasury Department's Web site now:

The Committee on Ways and Means of the U.S. House of Representatives explained that a new type of tax was needed, because the "consumption taxes" in effect at that time bore most heavily upon those least able to pay them. The Committee further explained that the revenue system should be more evenly and equitably balanced and "a larger portion of our necessary revenues collected from the incomes and inheritances of those deriving the most benefit and protection from the Government."

<a href='http://www.ustreas.gov/education/faq/taxes/history.html' target='_blank'>http://www.ustreas.gov/education/faq/taxes...es/history.html</a>

Those are wise words. They still apply today.

Also worth reading: <a href='http://www.ustreas.gov/education/faq/taxes/historyrooseveltmessage.html' target='_blank'>This 1935 message from President Franklin Roosevelt to Congress</a> explaining how the estate tax and progressive taxation in general reflect basic American values.

Minor quibbles...

Quote:You know, Robin Hood was still just a common theif.

The story that's evolved from Robin Hood has really become a myth within a myth.

Robin Hood is usually branded as one who "stole from the rich and gave to the poor." In actuality, he took from the king's 'tax collector' and gave the people back their own loot. Prince John was really the bad guy in this lore. RH was on the side of economic freedom more than people give him credit for.

Quote:These look like elites to you?

If what you mean is, 'do these look like Rich Old White Men to you?, then indeed they do not.

Of course, I can't make assumptions about them or their ideas personally. But if they're set to champion excessive 'redistribution of wealth', entitlement programs, and some other government top-down bloat, then the word 'elitism' isn't so off-base to describe them. Because a chubby schoolteacher/soccer mom flashes an "aw shucks" warm smile doesn't mean she's any better than a sly corporate CEO.

Wryword Wrote:I wonder what the "better" US policy would be. Even if we had not occupied Iraq, is the idea there that Americans would be safe and happy in Saudi Arabia for very long but for Iraq? The regime in Saudi Arabia is unstable. There is going to be serious trouble there for that reason. Beyond this, due to our slavish and frankly hypocritcal policy with respect to Israel (we demand enforcement of UN sanctions against Iraq, yet curiously forget UN orders with respect to Israel), we are and will have troubles in the Middle East anyway. Bush may well come up snake eyes with this gamble in Iraq, but we fool ourselves if we think that a day of trouble would have been avoided if only we had not invaded and occupied Iraq.

The "better" US policy would have been to have avoided any interest or involvement in the Middle East. But on account of our need for oil and on account of the internal political necessity of supporting Israel, a country that otherwise would be of no interest to us, this cannot be. We can blame the invasion of Iraq as the immediate cause for our need to withdraw our people from Saudi Arabia, but it is a delusional thing to suppose that the invasion is the only reason, or the only reason we would ever have to do so.

I don't agree with the U.S. involvement/occupation with Iraq, as I believe it was a wrong detour off the main course of rooting out Al Qaeda.

But wryword has a good and important point here.

Whether you are anti-Iraq War or pro-Iraq War, let's not fool ourselves into believing that any current or future Islamic fundamentalist act of terror is based on anger resulting from Iraq and Iraq alone. Sure, the Iraq War has charged some cells up, and have given whackos everywhere an excuse to wave a flag and announce their raison d'etre. But these things have been going on for not years, but decades.

Philippine missionaries. Berlin nightclub patrons. Bali resort tourists. African embassy personnel. Munich Olympic athletes. Cruiseline passengers. WTC employees in 1993. Hindu travelers. Shoe-bombers. Men, women, and children who just happened to be at the wrong supermarket, bus stop, place of worship, or restaurant at the wrong time. Things that have happened well before Iraq, before 9-11, and even before the first Iraq War.

I'm afraid many are going to start equating any and all future terrorist activities as, "well, if we hadn't invaded Iraq..."

Guys, even if we contend that Iraq was ill-advised, don't forget that Al Qaeda and their medieval-minded ilk don't need an excuse to hate the decadent West. Remember, we're dealing with fascists here.

Quote:Let's see... we were led to believe Iraq had WMDs despite the fact Colin Powell failed to present any proof to the UN.

Our esteemed* President believes Saddam harbored fugitives based on the fact some Al Queda folks were spotted in Iraq -- therefore Bush is right.  Based on his reasoning, hell, the US harbored Al Queda terrorists.  Hey, they were in our country, right?

If Bush presented his evidence before a jury of his peers, they'd laugh his country a$$ out of court.

I'll post it again...the Clinton Administration presented the same evidence to a grand jury. Guess what? He got an indictment of Bin Laden while presenting the following evidence:

Quote:Additionally, the indictment states that Al Qaeda reached an agreement
with Iraq not to work against the regime of Saddam Hussein and that
they would work cooperatively with Iraq, particularly in weapons
development.

<a href='http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html' target='_blank'>Silly Grand Jury</a>

Quote:However, now instead of Saddam's people torturing prisoners, we are, so I don't know how folks can claim the world is a safer place.

Now, I know that hyperbole is your friend but, Mr. Kennedy, simmer down. I'm not saying what those 10-15 soldiers did wasn't despicable, but to compare their actions to the attrocities of Sadaam's regime is just assanine.

Quote:This whole operation has been a failure from the word "go", and had Clinton been the one moving the chess pieces, the elephants would be calling for his head.

Let's see...controlled the country in three weeks. Handover of power will take place in 2 weeks. Sure, the news was a ugly in April, but Sadr and his thugs got their butts handed to them. Zarqawi (SP?) is in desparation mode. We won. We'll finish the job. That does not constitute a failure.

Schadenfreude Wrote:

DrTorch Wrote:This is humorous on many levels.

First, b/c the situation is exactly what the bi-coastal elite liberals in the US want.  A few rich people w/ the "divine right" of the correct ideology...the mid-westerners to keep working and farming...and everyone who toes the party line can collect compensation from the gov't.

And *that* is humorous on even more levels.

You are being played.

Who do you think benefits from:

-- Eliminating the inheritance tax?
-- Cutting tax rates for rich people?
-- A flat tax?
-- Gutting programs like Medicare and Social Security?

It isn't the middle class families and small business owners of Ohio.

It is those bicoastal elites you speak of -- who are laughing all the way to the bank as they vote Republican right along with you.

Like Soros and Buffet?

Quote:The country club elites of the Republican Party are playing you like a fool. They have you so hung up on guns, abortion and gays that you aren't voting in your best interest.

Democratic policies are designed to protect and grow the middle class.

Yeah, and the Edsel was designed to be a fantastic luxury car.

You've got to understand, I see all sorts of designs every day. And, I get to see the failures involved.

You can wax poetic all you want about how great these principles are...but I tend to be a bit more rigorous in my analyses.

You want middle class? I just got back from Silicon Valley. How many cosmetic shops does the quaint little village shopping center in Los Altos need? I counted three. And that doesn't count the day spas. I saw three photography shops in just one of Palo Alto's shopping districts.

So, let's head back to our midwest. How many cosmetic shops and day spas does my hometown have? How many photography shops?

Silicon Valley's middle class exists and grows, b/c of the extreme wealth that exists from HP, Tyco, SUN, SGI, etc.

Trickle down economics works.

Ohio's (and Detroit, and Muncie, etc) problem is the lack of innovation, and the complacency that has existed for decades. It is not universal, thus Columbus (and other communities) has an affluent sector and a thriving middle class.

The communities that feel they're entitled to traditional jobs, the ones that won't puruse innovation, the ones that keep doing what they've always been doing...those are the ones that suffer.

Quote:Republican policies are designed to protect the rich.

It's as simple as that.

Protect them from what?
Hey, I agree that tax laws need a review. I'm willing to listen to Ben Cohen's ideas about disparity in pay from lowest to highest w/in a company.
I agree that Hannity's whining about "how much should they pay?" are meaningless. Maybe 31% is too low.
Maybe Reagan made a HUGE mistake by eliminating the sales-tax write off. (Or maybe not...hard to know w/o better analysis)

But, democratic policies don't work. Come visit Maryland, Democratic governor fore 32 years until recently, disproportionaly democratic legislature, and the only republicans that get elected are overtly moderate (generally agreed by all local news sources). Oh yeah, and very high taxes.
So what do you get for your money?
Really bad schools
High crime/violence
Gross racial tensions and conflicts
Urban sprawl--and worse traffic than No Va.

No thanks. I think I know how to vote for my own best interest. And if the republicans dismantle NASA, so be it. I have more thoughts about that on another thread.

Quote:These look like elites to you?

Actually some look like my neighbors when I lived in Prince George's county. Hardly the hard-working folks that get the media's sympathies. Instead they are happy to be on the gov't dole, and insist they are entitled to it.

Curiously, many drive SUV's but never get bashed by Nader or the Greens.

Curiously, many eat a ton of junk food and express no concerns about being overweight...but that's not mentioned in health care reforms.

Curiously, many were behind in their HOA fees...but that doesn't get mentioned in discussions about "building community" or the need for reparations. It doesn't usually get folded into crime reports. And its toll on the economy is hard to discern when there are so many federal dollars getting pumped in to subsidize these indiscretions.