There are some good CR words to apply

Post #11,474 by wharris2 10/3/01 12:44:34 PM Reply	There are some good CR words to apply and perhaps the mildest of them all is "Tough shit, Sherlock." They don't want to participate, that's their choice. But, in Bush's words, "If you aren't with us, you are against us." We need to take action, but in years to come we also need to remember those who dragged their feet and, indeed, in some cases celebrated when they saw the plane bombings. Saudi Arabia, remember this next time Saddam Hussein masses his Iraqi forces on your border: we may think Saddam had a part in it, we may hate his regime, but if you expect us to lift a pinky to protect you and your corrupt Islamic-run rich little government, you've got another think coming. Sure, we'll protect our oil interests - but, I trust, no more than that. Who knows how empty the sky is In the place of a fallen tower. Who knows how quiet it is in the home Where a son has not returned. -- Anna Akhmatova (1889-1966)
Post #11,496 by Simon_Jester 10/3/01 2:06:47 PM Reply	<grin> and they say... Thank you very much. BTW: $30 price per barrel of crude increase. Now what do you do?
Post #11,599 by wharris2 10/3/01 7:08:37 PM Reply	Re: <grin> and they say... Thank you very much. BTW: $30 price per barrel of crude increase. Now what do you do? Suck it up, drill more Alaskan wells, and build more nuclear power plants. (Which we should be doing anyway, but that's almost beside the point.) I'd almost rather negotiate with a declared enemy than a wishy-washy ally. What's the Biblical verse about lukewarm? Ye are neither hot nor cold and I will spew thee out of my mouth (or something to that effect.) Who knows how empty the sky is In the place of a fallen tower. Who knows how quiet it is in the home Where a son has not returned. -- Anna Akhmatova (1889-1966)
Post #11,615 by Simon_Jester 10/3/01 7:48:14 PM Reply	I hear ya. But building nuke plants and drilling oil wells are gonna take time. And, while it solves our problems, it won't solve Japan's, GB, etc. Like it or not, the Saudia's can use their oil as a club to bash our coalition. And, we're still ignoring the base problem, why the Saudia's are "willywashy" in the first place.
Post #13,187 by wharris2 10/12/01 7:35:31 PM Reply	Why wishywashy? They're willing to let us station troops for their defense on their soil. They're not willing to let us use their soil for air strikes or invasions into Afghanistan. Sounds wishy-washy to me. Who knows how empty the sky is In the place of a fallen tower. Who knows how quiet it is in the home Where a son has not returned. -- Anna Akhmatova (1889-1966)
Post #11,645 by Andrew Grygus 10/3/01 9:43:21 PM Reply	Of course, Saudi Arabia would be the easiest . . . . country to occupy. There's hardly anyone there, and most of those that are are foreign workers being abused. It would also give us the leverage of holding Mecca hostage. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #11,647 by Ashton 10/3/01 10:04:44 PM Reply	It would be GOOD for us next to do something totally unexpected. Not lethal - in fact, at risk to ourselves - taking great pains not to create even One new martyr: Like, occupying Saudiland as you suggest. Our shield? A few rather large mortars aimed at that little tent in Mecca. (Suitably publicized). Thus: aim-at the same sort of Icon as ... our destroyed Icon of Unrestrained Capitalism. Tit for er tat. This last - to disabuse any of the locals, fresh from training class, of seeking Murican-style Fame. Can damn well bet the Sheikhs aren't about to do a Saddam and torch the oil fields, just to Show Us. Lose all those AC-equipped Mercedes? Then we talk turkey, 'negotiate' a binding stable 5 year oil price schedule - time enough for us to get off asses, discover hydrogen... and a few other items no one wanted to pay attention to last quarter, when money was free. Yup: Surprise! there's the play wherein we'll catch the conscience of the Sheikhs. (Part II is classified) OK now that it's secret - let's get busy. Ashton Clausewitz Bonaparte
Post #11,694 by dmarker2 10/4/01 3:22:53 AM Reply	Re: Of course, Saudi Arabia would be the easiest . . Hmmmm US holding mecca hostage Hmmmmmmm Anyone want a clear definition of 'screaming hordes' or perhaps 'fanatical screaming hordes' - (better still, anyone willing to see either (really dying to see them perhaps) (VB grin) Doug
Post #11,730 by Steven A S 10/4/01 10:25:27 AM Reply	I agree any attack or threat of attack on Mecca would only ensure the support of ALL Islamic countries in the Jihad against America. This would be a Very Bad Thing. ~~~)-Steven----
Post #11,758 by rsf 10/4/01 12:15:32 PM Reply	Not such a bad idea at least it would clarify exactly who the enemy is. Ray
Post #11,765 by marlowe 10/4/01 12:32:49 PM Reply	It might also extend who the enemy is. To destroy Muslim holy places would foreclose the option of installing a reformed Islam. If there actually are a significant number of moderate Muslims out there, this would turn them against us for sure. And besides, it makes us look petty. Also, just because some people make a religion out of commerce doens't mean it should be regarded as such. Think of the impact on tax revenues! [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Post #11,699 by bluke 10/4/01 4:34:05 AM Reply	They need the oil money as much as the West needs the oil Saudia Arabia is a big welfare state which even now is running out of money. They have big social problems. If they stopped selling oil, they would have a revolution.
Post #11,769 by marlowe 10/4/01 12:44:11 PM Reply	And vice versa. If they had a revolution, they would in all likelihood stop selling oil. It's usually a mistake to presume the other guy will act from rational self interest. The other guy isn't always playing with a full deck. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]

Welcome to IWETHEY!