Some perspectives: Why Iraq?, what to do about Oil !

Post #24,938 by dmarker2 1/20/02 1:09:26 AM Reply	Some perspectives: Why Iraq?, what to do about Oil ! Am offering these as perspectives as to the real reasons Iraq is a problem & also what US is doing to deal with its current need to 'keep close' to (read interfere) in Arab politics. Reason Saddam Hussien & Iraq are getting such focus & causing political debate is that Saddam Hussien is his own man & not a US puppet & thus is unpredicatble & a serious potential threat to US interests in the major world's oil region. To counter any potential threat Saddam & Iraq might pose, US has to keep a major presence in Kuwait & Saudia Arabia & that is both costly and has been the indirect cause of religious hostility such as that shown by the likes of Bin Laden. Bin Laden's hate for US stemmed from US moving into the 'holy land' after Gulf war & his mission was to drive US out & he had the money & will to live up to his obsession. If US could totally neutralise Saddam Hussien & Iraq the country, become a 'tame' Arab state, then US could get out of Saudi & Kuwait & defuse the causes for so much ancillory hostility to US. The cost of 'containing' a potentially hostile Iraq is proving to be too great. Re OIL. US is on a serious programme to establish hydrogen fuel cells as a serious alternative power source that could lessen US dependancy on Arab oil. Personally I have seen efforts to produce light aircraft engines powered by fuel cells & Ford (among many) have a program to introduce fuel cell cars as serious commercial transporters, by 2010. All major car manufacturers are perfecting their fuel cell technologies. Fuel cells in transport & other uses would cut US dependancy to the point that US could leave Arabs to run their own destinies without being paranoid about loss of oil fields to a 'loose cannon' ruler. Us could get out of Arab countries & get away from the real accusation that US needs dictate middle east politics in a harmful way to all concerned. Open to comments Cheers Doug Marker
Post #24,952 by Ashton 1/20/02 3:41:08 PM Reply	This conundrum is at least beginning to see some coverage in normal daily papers here - amidst the higher priority gossip and car crashes, natch. Ex: From 1/18 SF Chronicle an article quoted from Washington Post ~ 2 columns on p. 20 -- A quote from Sen. Carl Levin, chairman Armed Services Committee: We need a base in that region, but it seems to me, we should find a place that is more hospitable. Article generally echoes themes already discussed in the lofty posts of zIWE - clearly a source perused at highest levels of government.. It concludes with, US officials say the two countries [US Saudi] no longer share a common view on security for the region now that Saudi Arabia has engineered a detente with Iran, its traditional rival in the region. I'd opine that the 'Colonel McSally' fiasco - can only have helped a little, in garnering a more intense look at the contradictions of the US supporting the Wahhabis who utterly despise [anyone not Just like them - including other sects, and damn sure: US except for our $$.] yada yada Ashton
Post #24,983 by dmarker2 1/21/02 8:44:06 AM Reply	Re: I was (almost) stunned by Pilot Sally & her lawsuit How b****** unreal can the world get - she sues USAF & US Govt over her US rights to freedom as she believes they should apply in Saudi Arabia, that are not available to local women - am stunned !!!!! I understand her desire to see things change but what a bizzare way to go about it. She is in effect attemting to get US govt to take blame for Saudi culture that conflicts with US dec of ind re peoples rights - hmmmmm which one of the two of us lives in disneyland ????? - sure ain't I I tells myself. World is an amazing place ! Cheers Doug
Post #25,029 by Ashton 1/21/02 7:44:33 PM Reply	Don't think you read for comprehension in the links, when this came up here - after opening surly post by BeeP, in similar vein to yours. The 'rule' in question is an arbitrarily imposed US military one: wearing the $^&%#$ sack + man-driven jeep as accompanying chaperone. These are NOT* "Saudi Rules" which we are merely concupisciently following. Read the 'suggestions' followed by US embassy and such (and which obviously mesh with SA official attitudes about visitors). These explicitly DO NOT require this burkha, only normal common-sense prudence. I think we may credit That to Colonel McSally. (Even the Saudis aren't This obtuse re the rights of people who are NOT Muslim, but who 'have' to be around Wahhabiis in full Male-Moral Regalia.) For a fucking US Colonel! on active duty - to have to adopt these absurd and unnecessary rules AND still maintain er - all that stuff called morale / discipline / leadership etc.: That! is the crux of her case. I heard her speak on NPR (and mentioned that in original thread). Characterizing her as some spoiled-brat whiner IMhO is to both miss the point utterly and.. indulge in tiresome sexist BS of the Usual Kind: this woman outflies a lot of male jocks - remember, jets have power steering and don't need all that much 'upper body strength' yada yada. (I note that women regularly win the Iditerod race over all that snow, with a heavy sled.. so much for body strength and endurance myths). This fighter pilot could get killed defending [oil] these sanctimonious twits' accidental [oil] source and their right to fuck over half their own population. Adding gratuitous humiliation to the mix is.. (if I had to explain it - forget it) I expected less cant from thee, O Cartercopter boffin ;-) Ashton must be a fuckin whole Lot of insecure males in the world. Hell, they still! insist on pushing their invented 'male Gods' (no doubt lusting after Mrs. God?) Think... about 'gender' and: The Omnipotent Omniscient Source Of All Things That Are, Are Not and Might Ever Be\ufffd Rest Case.
Post #25,130 by jb4 1/22/02 1:41:40 PM Reply	Question: Is McSally suing in a "military tribunal" ("military court" is too obvious an oxymoron) or a civilian court? Will have a buttload of difference in the outcome of the suit! jb4 (Resistance is not futile...)
Post #25,030 by a6l6e6x 1/21/02 8:17:22 PM Reply	Re: Pilot McSally & her lawsuit She was on a segment of the 60 Minutes TV program here in the US, last night. The Pentagon declined to comment for the program. First. the Saudi government did not request that the US Armed Forces women wear an abaya - culturally correct clothing. Second, the US diplomatic corps does not require their women (nor do they) wear similar clothing. US Armed Forces women are required to wear this off-base "uniform", while the US Armed Forces men in Saudi Arabia are explicitly prohibited from wearing local clothing. So the rules are strictly the Pentagon's doing. So, if the highest ranking U. S. Air Force woman pilot, with a hundred combat missions under her belt, isn't the one to challenge a stupid Pentagon rule, who is? [link\|http://www.cbsnews.com/now/story/0,1597,324757-412,00.shtml\|CBS article.] "This is where we separate our men from our women and we demean and humiliate just them." Additionally, off base, she has to ride in the back of a car (Yes, women are prohibited from driving in Saudi Arabia) and when walking around off-base, must be accompanied by at least one man. Some man must be prepared to claim he is the lady's husband, if questioned. Sally did not go off base except to travel to another base. She never said anything about wanting to drive off base nor otherwise being an "Ugly American". Alex Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. -- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Post #25,107 by drewk 1/22/02 11:41:32 AM Reply	My sneaking suspicion Disclaimer: I have no evidence to support this other than knowing how the military (bureaucratic) mind works. Let's suppose the military is tired of being sent into places they aren't welcome to stand between two (or more) groups of people fighting over who gets to hold our economy hostage to our oil dependancy. Let's further suppose that high-ranking people in the military have discussed privately the obvious fact that political considerations force us to ally ourselves with people who would be in prison in any civilized country for what they do to half their population. Now, how do military people (bureaucrats) fight back against resulations with which they disagree? By enforcing the letter of the regulation beyond all reason. For example, when some local commander (true story) writes a regulation that camouflage uniforms can not be worn if they have been torn and repaired, enforce it strictly and rigorously until the commander gets dozens of complaints per week from infantrymen who have been told they have to buy $300 of new uniforms. Keep it up until the commander either repeals the reg or writes an exception to it. Basically, you can't be disciplined for overzealous enforcement of a regulation. But, you absolutely can not state publicly what you are doing. You'd be up for insubordination. So if you've been ordered into a country that despises us, to defend people you would rather prosecute for human rights violations, how do you protest? You could always enforce the local regulations with which you disagree. If this causes people back home to take note of the local injustice, well, that's not your fault. You're just trying to get along with your hosts. Of course, you could never admit to this, so you'd just have to keep your mouth shut and let the situation play itself out in the press. We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link\|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html\|Thomas Friedman]
Post #25,124 by SpiceWare 1/22/02 1:17:28 PM 1/22/02 1:18:20 PM Reply	Thanks for the insight Makes sense to me. I've never been in the military, so would have never thought of this. Darrell Spice, Jr. [link\|http://home.houston.rr.com/spiceware/\|SpiceWare] - We don't do Windows, it's too much of a chore Edited by SpiceWare Jan. 22, 2002, 01:18:20 PM EST Expand All History
Post #25,164 by Ashton 1/22/02 4:32:26 PM Reply	I'll bite on that one. (Disclaimer - I am not one of those sloganeers who imagine that military intelligence is an oxymoron - have met too many quite sharp folks in uniform - as at C.D.I. in DC. Ditto for the grunts - same Gaussian as everywhere.) Yes, this would be a subtle approach to an idiotic situation - and maybe that's exactly what it was. It would be silly to try to guess whether McSally was YAN instrument of this stealth approach (?) or a wild card. Wouldn't it? (I'd Like.. to think that any dudgeon shown by the brass in response to her suit - is, mostly, also just good acting. But wouldn't we like to be a fly on the wall!) Ashton

Welcome to IWETHEY!