A View from the Eye of the Storm

[NUKE]

The Saudis know how weak they are and seem very interested in US relations. I have been spammed by Saudi Government email many times, heard their radio ad campaigns recently and seen their Government reps on Fox news many times.......all professing their great freindship with America.

The Saudis are afraid and  they know how serious the US is imho. I believe the Saudis are willing and capable of dealing with militants in their country. They may have been slow in acting, but they know what the game is now I think.

Syria and Iran are a different matter and they need to be delt with sooner rather than later.

And Nash, the name of the war means little in reality. Everyone knows who we are fighting and why.

[Nash]

In order to debunk the idea that the US is doing nothing about the Saudis you posted a quote from some guy who says the US wants a regime change.

I looked it up a bit, and this guy's interpretation is all wrong. Now ya say:

"Perhaps better to ask him why HE views that simple request as "regime change?"

But didn't you use him to support your argument? And your argument that the US isn't turning a blind eye and is pressuring the Saudis has now become this "simple request", as you say?

As for the rest, I thought we were doing just fine so far without supposition and backroom political intrigue of which we have no idea. "What is being said behind closed doors" and "smoky room negotiation".... well, it could be anything. There's enough that we DO know without having to go there. Besides, you could say anything and pawn off the responsibility of backing it up on this backdoor diplomacy stuff.

Is there a double standard when it comes to the Saudis? Does this double standard diminish the US's capability to fight WWIII? Is this relationship more important than actually winning the war? Does the US actually want to win this war? Why does the Saudi/US relationship exist as it does, or why doesn't the US want to prosecute the war as adamantly as it claims it does?

These questions are a lot more interesting to me than guessing (often incorrectly) what is really really REALLY actually going on behind closed doors.

[Toad]

Another way to look at that is this:

A somewhat prominent Saudi views it as a request for "regime change". That's the "argument" I made.

Now, given that the Saudi probably has a better idea of what's going on than any of us, I say.. "well, obviously HE views it as more than a "simple request". Why would that be?"

I didn't say it was a "simple request"; I used that for shorthand for your

Maybe Saleh Mani can explain how asking the Saudi government to speak to the hopes and aspirations of his people translates into regime change

I guess I could have cut/paste it... I'll try to do that for you in the future.

Anyway, Nash reads the article, decides the guy is wrong.

*****

Saleh Mani, a political scientist at King Saud University in Riyadh.

Nash.

We report, the readers decide.


doing just fine so far without supposition and backroom political intrigue of which we have no idea.

I have this idea. I know that almost all political issues are resolved out of the media glare. I know that negotiating in the media goes on but that usually that is posturing for the public. I "know" this from my Union negotiating experience.

My opinion is that anyone who thinks deals are done otherwise is a babe in the woods.

I seriously doubt that the reported details of the "Partnership for Progress and a Common Future with the Region of the Broader Middle East and North Africa" cover even 25% of what's actually goin on.

Believe what you want to believe about it, however.
 

*Is there a double standard when it comes to the Saudis?*

At the least there is more latitude; double standard is not beyond reason. Face it, right now, they're vital to the US economy. Vital as in VITAL.

* Does this double standard diminish the US's capability to fight WWIII?*

Of course it does. Is it the only factor? Of course not. Would it benefit our ability to fight if we so angered the Saudis that they refused to sell us oil?

 *Is this relationship more important than actually winning the war?*

I think Henry Kissinger would say... "Realpolitik. It depends. At times it is, at times it isn't. Different issues take center stage at different times."

I think most people realize that's pretty much true in life.

* Does the US actually want to win this war?*

Of course it does. However, as we saw in WW2, not everything happens at once. Should we attack both the Germans and the Japanese simultaneously and with equal strength? Well, we wanted to.. but we couldn't. For lots of reasons. But it all worked out didn't it, although I think lots of additional lives were lost taking that approach.

 *Why does the Saudi/US relationship exist as it does,*

Because it evolved over the last 60 years and different factors influenced it at different times. It wasn't planned to evolve specifically to face this exact threat at this time and place.

 *or why doesn't the US want to prosecute the war as adamantly as it claims it does?*

What proof is there that it does not? What do you see not being done to your satisfaction given the detailed knowledge of the situation such a statement implies?

[Pongo]

Nastradamus said that ww3 would start in the gulf. I guess he was right. He said the anti crist would be a blue eyed sheik and that the New City would be destroyed.
Sounds like some of you will only be happy with occupation of most of that region. Maybe old Nastrodamus had something.

[Nash]

"Anyway, Nash reads the article, decides the guy is wrong.

Saleh Mani, a political scientist at King Saud University in Riyadh.

Nash.

We report, the readers decide."

- Toad

Cute. But appearently your President, the Secretary of State and the Saudi Crown Prince seem to have a different take on things than this (whoooo) "political scientist". Do you still want to compare credentials?

It all boils down to the fact that the US does NOT want regime change in Saudi Arabia, so I don't know why you would suggest it does, and offer this guy's opinion as evidence.

You brought him here, not me.

Now, given that the Saudi probably has a better idea of what's going on than any of us, I say.. "well, obviously HE views it as more than a "simple request". Why would that be?"

Huh? Because he's a Saudi he has a better idea of what's going on wrt Saudi/American relations than any of us? You are an American right? Why is his opinion more learned than yours? Is it because he's a political scientist? There are a lot of political scientists invited to give their weighty opinions on CNN every day that you would take extreme exception to.

I'm done talking about this guy... His statement was wrong, and he has no more authority on the matter than you, for example.

But THANK YOU for your honesty in the last half of your post.

People who say this isn't about oil are delusional.

First, it was oil wot propped up these corrupt governments. I think it's a lot like the Prime Directive thing in Star Trek. Civilizations should probably develop at their own pace. But the amount of money and power that oil suddenly gave these countries was a total aberation. They were just not equipped to deal with it.

It's funny. The reason the Saudis don't want political reform is because (say the Saudi royal family) the country would elect people who can't even read or write." This is the same reason the US doesn't really want political reform there either, btw.

So, nice job of governance there, Saudis... A well informed bunch of people they obviously reared...

However, does a corrupt government *really* want to have an informed populace? Might make a dent in the bottom line, no?

That leads us to uninformed tribal nutjobs blowing everyone up.

A problem, it turns out.

But how do ya fight these guys when:

a) They're your allies' citizens, and

b) You rely on your allies

In WWII for example, a huge objective was to destroy your enemy's ability to wage war. It meant blowing up oil refineries and such.

It turns out that here, if you attack your enemy, you're attacking your OWN ability to wage war.

These clowns sure have got everyone over a barrel.

[NUKE]

Part of it is about oil Nash, but not in the way people think. It's not about American oil supply, it's about making sure the WORLD's oil supply remains stable. We don't want to take anyone's oil, we just want to make sure it keeps pumping for everyone.

The other part of it is the war on terrorism. This is a world war that needs unity and is not just an American problem.

[Toad]

Read back a ways. What I said intially was:

I think there's evidence that we are not "turning a blind eye" and that we have tried to pressure the Saudis into some reforms.

Things took off from there.

To the point that the "perfesser" viewed it as "regime change". His words, not mine.

Don't like him, eh? How about the Saudi Council of Ministers then?

No Reforms Under Foreign Pressure’

JEDDAH, 2 March 2004 — Saudi Arabia yesterday reiterated its rejection of foreign-imposed democratic reforms in the Arab world and said speedy solutions to the Palestinian and Iraqi issues were the best route to reforms and peace in the Middle East.

The weekly Council of Ministers’ meeting at Al-Yamamah Palace in Riyadh, chaired by Crown Prince Abdullah, deputy premier and commander of the National Guard, also condemned the Israeli barrier in the West Bank.

At the outset of the meeting, the crown prince briefed the ministers on the outcome of the talks between Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Fahd and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Riyadh last week.

The Cabinet welcomed a joint statement issued after the talks, which said Arab states would not accept a particular pattern of reform imposed from outside, in an apparent reference to US calls for democracy in the Middle East.

Look the question was "is the US trying to pressure the Saudis to reform?".

Clearly, they are. That's the whole "Partnership for Progress and a Common Future with the Region of the Broader Middle East and North Africa" thing.

Even the Saudi Council of Ministers noticed.. but what do they know.

Now, you dismiss this out of hand. It's something the countries must/are doing for themselves. Your call.

I see it as:

1. It orginated in the Bush Administration. That would be the US "doing something".

2. Of course they have to do it for themselves. Unless you want us to use force of arms on them. But of course you wouldn't right? But pushing them to do it themselves is "not doing anything". Whatever.

Sometimes it seems there IS nothing that will suit ya.

******

The rest? Oil is the lifeblood of a modern industrial nation? Ummmmmmmm. Yeah. That's sort of what the Japanese were thinking in the early '40's and I don't see where much has changed in industrialized society.

However, things will change. There WILL be useful, workable alternative energy solutions. However, that may only exacerbate the problem.

How would the Arab extremists react if suddenly there were cheap alternative energy? Hydrogen.... sunlight/photovoltaics... whatever. If the rest of the world suddenly had no use for their oil, would that bring peace?

I suggest it would make war more likely. I don't think they'll take well to being totally ignored and stripped of influence.

Yeah, they say they want nothing to do with us. How would they actually react if they got their wish?

[NUKE]

everyone is ignoring me in this thread, I feel like a dirty girl.

I'm off to listen to some CCR and change my panties.

[Toad]

Turkey waste turned into oil

This one is datelined June 7.

...With the new $31-million plant now operating smoothly and generating a positive cash flow, ....

...The plant's first product, an oil similar to No. 4 grade crude oil, is being sold to an unidentified fuel blender at prices more than 10 percent less than the equivalent oil produced by a conventional refinery. Despite the discount, Appel said his production costs are low enough that the plant's income is outstripping its operating expenses......

...But animal scraps are only one potential source of "fuel" for Changing World's oil-making process, and the company recently reached an agreement with the three major U.S. automakers to investigate the use of auto shredder residue as a feedstock. If a second round of tests shows that the ground-up cars are suitable for thermal conversion, Appel said the company and the automakers may jointly build a plant in the Upper Midwest.....

It's stuff like this that gives me hope for us.

I'm concerned though that it won't solve our problem with them.

The loss their stature on the world stage may not be a good thing. The old "law of unintended consequences".

[Nash]

Originally posted by Toad
Read back a ways. What I said intially was: "I think there's evidence that we are not "turning a blind eye" and that we have tried to pressure the Saudis into some reforms. "

Things took off from there.

They sure did, because when Sixpence said: "the US is fighting terrorists and supports the saudi government, who support terrorists", you try and refute that by bringing in a Saudi poli-sci prof whose opinion is at complete odds with reality.

Look the question was "is the US trying to pressure the Saudis to reform?"

You now say yes, but before it even got to this stage you were arguing with Sixpence that:

Nor does the US/Saudi relationship have anything to do with the Arab world's apparent loss of interest in spreading knowledge to their populations.

... wherein Sixpense says We support a regime that oppresses it's people from knowledge, I would say that's relevant.

THEN enter your esteemed Saleh Mani to argue that we aren't really supporting them.

Sixpense was dead-on... Keeping the mid-east citizens ignorant (which they have done deliberately) has paid huge dividends for not only the people who govern those citizens, but for everyone else who could then count on at least some semblence of consistency in their trade for oil.

But oops, now ya have a bunch of well financed ignorant militant types running around. A direct result. And you're suddenly in the akward position of biting the hand that feeds you.

[Toad]

There's ample evidence the US is trying to get the Saudi government to reform. Six is wrong that we're turning a blind eye.

You focus on the Saudi prof words. You have an opinion, so does he. I think the way a Saudi views it says more about it than how you view it. Just my opinion, like yours. The Council of Ministers seems to feel pressure too. I don't know why you argue against the obvious.

When did I NOT say we were trying to reform them?

How do you figure that the US/Saudi relationship has anything to do with the Arab world's apparent loss of interest in spreading knowledge to their populations? You have something, anything that shows we encouraged Arab leadership to keep their populations in ingnorance?

Anyway, it's a much wider problem than Saudia. The US isn't a causal factor in this, either in Saudia or the wider Arab world; to the contrary it's a self-imposed problem. Further, we're working against it as shown.

Noone's arguing that we don't have an overdependence on imported oil. And only a fool would argue that we should be "biting the hand that feeds us" right now.

[Nash]

Originally posted by Toad
You focus on the Saudi prof words.

Only because you asked us to in order to make your point.

You have an opinion, so does he. I think the way a Saudi views it says more about it than how you view it.

You realize that this guy appears in a long news article for only two sentences, to say the US wants regime change, without saying anything to support that conclusion.... he just says it.... then quickly disappears?

He doesn't say anything about anything. Christ man, I can't believe we're even still talking about him. His opinion means jack. It's one thing for you to even isolate these two sentences and offer them up here as evidence of anything, but it's another for you to continue bringing him up. He's just some dude!

How do you figure that the US/Saudi relationship has anything to do with the Arab world's apparent loss of interest in spreading knowledge to their populations? You have something, anything that shows we encouraged Arab leadership to keep their populations in ingnorance?

It has everything to do with the Saudi/US relationship. Not isolated to that, but it's a good example of...

No, you didn't encourage their leaders to keep their populations ignorant. You merely encouraged leaders who kept their populations ignorant.

If you disagree, then what do you mean by: "...to the contrary it's a self-imposed problem."

And only a fool would argue that we should be "biting the hand that feeds us" right now.

Oh? Seems your Haim Harari disagrees:

"The only way to fight this new "popular" weapon is identical to the only way in which you fight organized crime or pirates on the high seas: the offensive way. Like in the case of organized crime, it is crucial that the forces on the offensive be united and it is crucial to reach the top of the crime pyramid. You cannot eliminate organized crime by arresting the little drug dealer in the street corner. You must go after the head of the "Family".

[Sixpence]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"For 30 years, the U.S. worked to buttress the status quo in Saudi Arabia," Saleh Mani, a political scientist at King Saud University in Riyadh, said at a conference at the Center for Contemporary Arab Studies at Georgetown University in late January. "Now it wants regime change. It's not the status quo policy it used to be."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That was January of this year.

That's nice, but I think this preceded that in the article.

A more ominous development was the failure of U.S. firms to win Saudi contracts in early March, the first time in 30 years that foreign companies were allowed back into the kingdom to explore for new gas deposits. Saudi Aramco, the largest state oil company in the world, signed deals with Russian, Chinese and European firms.

The Saudis initially intended to give Exxon Mobil Corp., the U.S. oil giant, the leading role in the deal, viewing the move as part of a larger strategy to revitalize the entire U.S.-Saudi relationship. But nearly five years of negotiations unraveled in June for reasons still being hotly debated -- the post-Sept. 11 chill, U.S. policy in the Middle East and squabbles over profit margins.

Oh yeah, all of a sudden relations are stressed, I can see that.

You make an invalid assumption here. I think there's evidence that we are not "turning a blind eye" and that we have tried to pressure the Saudis into some reforms. What would YOU have us do? Do you want to antagonize them (with the concomitant results on the US) and hope they change faster that way?

Looks like we don't have do anything, seems like they're are telling us to take a hike first. And don't worry, if the dollar sinks they will be trading oil in euro. With allies like them, who needs enemies.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
entire Moslem region is totally dysfunctional
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He's right if you compare it to any other "civilized region" as a whole. What regions do you feel are the most violent at present?

I still think a lot of Africa is, but do we label Africa as "dysfunctional"? No, because there are countries there that are functional. Unless, of course, you are bias against black people, then the whole of Africa becomes "dysfuntional".

I'm not painting anything, nor is he. Once again, to help you out, here's what he actually said:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The problem is that the civilized world is still having illusions about the rule of law in a totally lawless environment."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's the problem statement. The question was what do you do.

Clearly, there are a lot of "lawless environments" in the "Moslem region" he discusses. Your solution/comment/whatever is........ it doesn't happen in Jordan or Egypt.

He labels the whole region as "dysfunctional", no? Then the statement above addresses that. My question to you is why does Jordan and Egypt get labeled as such? Maybe because they are muslim and he is jew and has ill feelings towards them?

I guess we somehow make these lawless areas into Egypt or Jordan clones?

But he can make Jordan and Egypt clones of the dysfunctional. I do not consider them to be even close to what Iran and Syria are, but this writer does, because they are all part of the muslim region. And this is not bias?

He is right on the money that words are powerful. He uses them to get you into buying that a whole region and people are dysfuntional, and that scares me more than translations of books. There are many good muslims, and alot are in exile in other parts of the world, and alot are still in the region. They are not dysfuntional because they do not have the power to do it because foreign countries have supported brutal regimes(does the shaw of iran ring a bell?) that rule their people with an iron fist. Now all of a sudden we want them to rise up, when for years we helped keep them down.

What do we do? If we are going fight terrorism and those who support and win, we need to fight it wherever it is. And we need to stop supporting regimes that rule their people with force and ignorance. If we decide not to engage those who support terrorism, how can we win? Maybe there will be a stance against saudi arabia, and it seems the stance they have taken against us already will help that along.

[Toad]

Yeah, because it does make a point. A SAUDI thinks we're trying to reform them. So does their Council of Ministers. The point is made; the opinions of the Saudis themselves are out there if you open your eyes.

But no.. you and Six apparently insist that the US isn't putting pressure on the Saudis. A position that's untenable given the reports to the contrary.

You merely encouraged leaders who kept their populations ignorant.

That, however, would never qualify as a chain of evidence.

"...to the contrary it's a self-imposed problem."

They did it to themselves.

Cherrypicking Nash? You?

Ok, here. He said a LOT about what it will take:

...But before you fight and win, by force or otherwise, you have to realize that you are in a war, and this may take Europe a few more years.

....In order to win, it is necessary to first eliminate the terrorist regimes, so that no Government in the world will serve as a safe haven for these people....

...In order to win the war it is also necessary to dry the financial resources of the terror conglomerate.

....It is crucial to stop Saudi and other financial support of the outer circle, which is the fertile breeding ground of terror.

It is important to monitor all donations from the Western World to Islamic organizations, to monitor the finances of international relief organizations and to react with forceful economic measures to any small sign of financial aid to any of the three circles of terrorism.

It is also important to act decisively against the campaign of lies and fabrications and to monitor those Western media who collaborate with it out of naivety, financial interests or ignorance....


....Above all, never surrender to terror. ....

There ya go. That's pretty much how he said to win. The Saudis are one part of it for sure.

Note that he did NOT say to "bite the hand that feeds you immediately."

In fact, an open-minded person could say that the pressure on the Saudis to reform by the US is a necssary first step in the attempt

to stop Saudi and other financial support

.

A beginning, some would say.

[Nash]

Originally posted by Toad
Yeah, because it does make a point. A SAUDI thinks we're trying to reform them.

No he doesn't. He thinks they want to Regime Change them. He's a Saudi teaching college in the US btw. And that's about the last I'm gonna comment on this guy. Now onto reading the rest of your post.