Logic is the path from assumptions to conclusion
Your basic assumption is that a President who acts badly will be impeached. I firmly disagree with this assumption.
In a point in time where you have hard-line Republicans in control (even if by small margins) of Congress, the Senate, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court, it would take truly extraordinary evidence to start impeachment proceedings against the President. Furthermore it is not at all clear that it is an impeachable offence to have a President who is motivated by a desire to maintain a relationship that historically has been of great benefit to the USA.
As for your requested facts and hard evidence, you're setting a double standard. Your theories, even when they contradict available evidence, do not require facts. Anyone else's theories must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. As I pointed out in [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=164279|http://z.iwethey.org...?contentid=164279], your theory has yet to be reconciled to the fact that the man who arranged for 9/11 to happen was funded by Saudi oil money, and the majority of the hijackers were Saudi citizens.
Explaining that is easy - but you need to have a model of Saudi Arabian behaviour that is more complex than their being a rational actor out for their own economic best interest. Of course that simplistic model is exactly what your theory is based on.
And right now you're rejecting the complication that I offered, which is that the leaders of Saudi Arabia are trying to balance the internal forces that they need to satisfy to remain in charge of Saudi Arabia, and thereby continue generating oil profit, and the value of investments that are external to Saudi Arabia. This is a fairly reasonable complication. It doesn't even contradict your theory of human behavior - they are still motivated by their own economic self-interest. However by being put in a more complex situation, they are forced to play a balancing act where, though they wouldn't intentionally destroy the US economy, could make a serious mistake.
You haven't offered any evidence against this hypothesis. You have igored evidence for it. As far as I can tell, you haven't shown enough interest to read up on the Wahabi faith. You haven't seen it important to comment on how extreme the religious laws in Saudi Arabia are. These are signs of the internal forces that I mentioned. People who believe in beheading a girl for flirting with a guy are unlikely to have warm fuzzies for the USA. People like that who're given money could well act against US interests. Yet Saudi Arabia gives money to people who're exactly like that - in fact they run the state religion!
If you wish to reject my hypothesis that these religious extremists have political influence in Saudi Arabia, and the Saudi leaders need to placate them to continue profiting from oil, then I'd like an alternate explanation of why the Saudi government gives them substantial sums of money. A fact that is easy to verify if you wish to.
Cheers,
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
