IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Coalition blues
This thread is to contain all discussion of the the anti-terrorist coalition, and of the merits/demerits of insisting on a coalition.

Here's a discussion question: at what price consensus? A coalition is a means to an end, but given human stupidity, it often happens that a means becomes mistaken for an end, and the original end is lost sight of. When agreement becomes an end in itself, we have what's called groupthink. That's generally regarded as a bad thing by those who stop to think about the question at all.



[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
New I completely agree
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]
New Attacks called off to appease locals.
[link|http://www.thisislondon.com/dynamic/news/story.html?in_review_id=462228&in_review_text_id=414574|Sordid details here].

Excerpt:

Washington officials say today that a severe attack of last-minute cold feet by some key Arab members of the coalition caused President Bush to postpone the operation.

The waverers are Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan and Oman, and US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is embarking on an urgent mission today to strengthen nerves in these countries.

Question:

Do we really, absolutely need these people? How much effort has gone into coming up with a plan B? After all, it's foolish to rely upon the unreliable.

Blair and Rumsfeld are off on emergency handholding missions. I have the sneaking suspicion they're missing the point in a big way. As one official commented: "We fear there is something deeper here." Or maybe something shallower.

And check this out:

One notable omission on Mr Rumsfeld's itinerary is Pakistan. "The last thing Pakistan needs is a high profile visit by a US Secretary of Defence," said a Pentagon official.




[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
New 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)
New <grin> and they say...
Thank you very much. BTW: $30 price per barrel of crude increase.

Now what do you do?
New 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)
New 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.
New 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)
New 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]
New 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
New 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

New 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----
New Not such a bad idea
at least it would clarify exactly who the enemy is.
Ray
New 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]
New 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.
New 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]
New Disappointing to say the least
If we are going to fight this war by committee, a committee where a fair-weather friend (with friends like Saudi Arabia, who needs enemies) can direct or derail the actions of our military, then we have lost. Might as well as give our special forces blue UN helmets so that the Taliban knows that our guys are non-combatants.
Ray
New Re: Attacks called off to appease locals.
The waverers are Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan and Oman, and US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is embarking on an urgent mission today to strengthen nerves in these countries.

Question:

Do we really, absolutely need these people? How much effort has gone into coming up with a plan B? After all, it's foolish to rely upon the unreliable.


In my opinion, we could do without Saudi Arabia except for one thing, they control the price of oil. Pissing them off could hurt us in a big way. Of course we could also threaten to feed them to Saddam. But they'd only counter with, if you do that, you won't be getting any oil. So I guess we're stuck with 'em...but I don't have any love for the regime.

Oman we rather need, they have been an ally for a long time and more or less keep the entrance to the Gulf accessible to us. To not have them means it is effectively blocked by Iran and Oman. From the south, the closest we'll get with a real base is probably Oman.

Uzbekistan has some really good assets to use since we not want to destablize Pakistan. To get El Beardo, we'll need to have men on the ground and the best country to do that seems to be Uzbekistan. They already have fought their own Islamic terrorists that are funded bin Laden. No doubt they are expecting we'll give them a hand with their own. But the government is run by fellow whose own mother probably doesn't love him.

Gerard Allwein
New The price of Russia's cooperation
[link|http://www.thenewrepublic.com/101501/trb101501.html|Shutting up about Chechnya].

[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
New Egypt and Saudi Arabia finally come around again
[link|http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20011010-69550313.htm|Now they're for us].

Excerpt:

Egypt became the first Arab state to back the U.S. and British strikes against the Taliban regime, with President Hosni Mubarak saying he supports "all U.S. measures to eradicate terrorism, because we have suffered from it."
Saudi Arabia acknowledged for the first time that there is clear evidence linking Saudi-born Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda network to last month's attacks on New York and Washington, and called for the perpetrators to be brought to justice.



[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
New I think this latest speech from bin Ladin's group . .
. . made it so undeniable who it was who operated those aircraft even the most inflamitory fanatic can no longer credibly claim it's a Zionist plot, even to those most wanting to believe it is.

My opinion: this latest speech was a very serious mistake on a number of fronts.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
New Saudi Arabia: a friend in need
[link|http://www.thenewrepublic.com/102201/teitelbaum102201.html|They're there for us when they need us]

Excerpt:

The first thing that has changed for Saudi Arabia since the Gulf war is its relationship with its Muslim neighbors. In 1990 the hostility between Tehran and Riyadh that began with Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution had still not abated. The two governments insulted each other almost daily, clashes had broken out between Iranians and Saudis during the annual pilgrimage to Mecca, and there were no direct flights between the two countries. Between 1980 and 1988, the Saudis even aided Saddam's war against Tehran. And so Saddam's subsequent invasion of Kuwait not only posed a military threat to the Saudis, but it was also seen as a terrible betrayal. With its former ally suddenly menacing its border, Saudi Arabia was desperate for help. King Fahd, the Saudi ruler, was personally inclined toward the United States, regularly vacationing in the West and presiding over large arms purchases from America. And so, finding itself at odds with both Iran and Iraq--the two other most powerful states in the region--Riyadh called in the Yanks.

Since then, however, Saudi Arabia's position in the neighborhood has improved. While Saddam remains in power, he now poses no immediate threat to the Saudis, thanks to his defeat in the Gulf war and the U.S. military's ongoing intervention in Iraq. Meanwhile the Saudi leadership has changed--and with it the kingdom's relationship to Iran. In 1995 a stroke debilitated Fahd, and his half brother, Crown Prince Abdullah, essentially took charge of the kingdom. Abdullah, who is less comfortable among non-Muslims and does not vacation outside the Arab world, has a decidedly less pro-Western perspective. And, almost immediately, that included an aggressive effort to repair relations with Iran.

[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
Expand Edited by marlowe Oct. 12, 2001, 12:36:18 PM EDT
New How to run a coalition
[link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5574-2001Oct16.html|Coalition of the Unwilling]

Excerpt:

Bismarck said every alliance has a horse and a rider, and one should endeavor to be the rider. The same goes for international coalitions. You're either leading them or they're leading you. Of course, we're all interested in what "the coalition" feels may be necessary. We'd like to have as many nations on our side as possible. But with many thousands of Americans dead, and who knows how many more at risk, Washington ought to be making its own decisions about the war on terrorism.

This is not the voice of unilateralism speaking. Contrary to fashionable wisdom, the debate today is not between multilateralism and unilateralism. It's between effective multilateralism and paralytic multilateralism.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
New Qatar is not on board
[link|http://sg.news.yahoo.com/011023/1/1l01n.html|Where they stand]

Excerpt:

Qatar's foreign minister condemned Tuesday the US-led military strikes on Afghanistan as "unacceptable", after talks in the Iranian capital.

"The attacks against Afghanistan are unacceptable and we have condemned them. It is our clear position," Sheikh Hamad bin-Jassem bin-Jabr al-Thani said.

He was speaking to reporters here after a meeting between Qatar's emir, Sheik Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, and Iranian President Mohammed Khatami.

"What is happening in Afghanistan concerns the Islamic world, and we think that the culprits of the September 11 attacks, no matter who they are, should be tried justly. We think that the Afghan people should not be the victims of these attacks," the foreign minister said.

On October 8, the day after the air strikes began in retaliation for the September 11 terror attacks on New York and Washington, the emir said that he regretted them.

"We wish it hadn't come to this," he said after talks in Paris with French President Jacques Chirac. "We are in principle opposed to wars, opposed to seeing more victims falling."

Two days later, the foreign minister said Qatar would not let the United States use its airport facilities for its military operation against Afghanistan.

Qatar currently heads the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), after succeeding heavyweight Iran last year. Next month it hosts a key ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organisation.

[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
New IIRC, Qatar was financial backer for al Jazeera,
the actually rather 'balanced' media outlet (ie the place we get most all our in-Afghanistan video from, which shows bin-L propaganda, but commentaries from US spokesfolk as well). I recently read some commentary about al-J. and this unusual 'fairness' - and their unique role as media-source for all Islam.

Dunno how the above POV will square next with their laissez-faire hands-off treatment of al-Jaz. openness, next..

(That is - if I am correct about Qatar being their main sponsors)


A.
New Don't listen to what anyone over there says.
Watch what they do, or do not do.

These people are all in a bind, and they're squirming. Give 'em some slack.

If they use the slack to aid our enemies, well, we name them as "partners" (in the Microsoft sense) and do them when we can get around to it.

Actually, anyone dragging their feet, we should praise to high heaven for all the cooperation they're giving us. Anyone actually cooperating, keep our damned mouths shut.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
     Coalition blues - (marlowe) - (25)
         I completely agree -NT - (drewk)
         Attacks called off to appease locals. - (marlowe) - (15)
             There are some good CR words to apply - (wharris2) - (12)
                 <grin> and they say... - (Simon_Jester) - (11)
                     Re: <grin> and they say... - (wharris2) - (2)
                         I hear ya. - (Simon_Jester) - (1)
                             Why wishywashy? - (wharris2)
                     Of course, Saudi Arabia would be the easiest . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (5)
                         It would be *GOOD* for us next to do something - (Ashton)
                         Re: Of course, Saudi Arabia would be the easiest . . - (dmarker2) - (3)
                             I agree - (Steven A S) - (2)
                                 Not such a bad idea - (rsf) - (1)
                                     It might also extend who the enemy is. - (marlowe)
                     They need the oil money as much as the West needs the oil - (bluke) - (1)
                         And vice versa. - (marlowe)
             Disappointing to say the least - (rsf)
             Re: Attacks called off to appease locals. - (gtall)
         The price of Russia's cooperation - (marlowe)
         Egypt and Saudi Arabia finally come around again - (marlowe) - (1)
             I think this latest speech from bin Ladin's group . . - (Andrew Grygus)
         Saudi Arabia: a friend in need - (marlowe)
         How to run a coalition - (marlowe)
         Qatar is not on board - (marlowe) - (2)
             IIRC, Qatar was financial backer for al Jazeera, - (Ashton)
             Don't listen to what anyone over there says. - (Andrew Grygus)

public class Lrpdism implements GenericSaying
128 ms