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 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
     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)

Only the choicest German spam!
358 ms