Wow..thats deep sir.

Post #37,626 by bepatient 5/6/02 11:53:34 AM 5/6/02 12:01:57 PM Reply	Wow..thats deep sir. I forgot my hip waders. You can call me strawman all you like...I'm not the one claiming that US supply of oil is somehow effected by a pipeline to supply Pakistan. I'm not the one claiming that Yasser Arafat would be a factor without the existance of Israel. I'm not the one claiming that relations in the mideast are as simple as stating "its all about the oil". I'm not the one falsely claiming that our tanks and other military hardware will stop running without Saudi oil. I'm not the one ignoring the equally disastrous economic effects of a simultaneous assault against housing, chemicals, electronics, aluminum and steel production, aerospace (commercial/military aircraft and weapons), automotive and commercial and residential refrigeration. In economic terms...both and oil embargo and a loss of these materials result in material shortages and cost-push inflation. The government, however, (and that includes the military) would remain largely unaffected due to strategic reserves. And you think favored nations for China is becasue we want to sell >them< something...and chide me about >my< knowledge of international relations. Wow. Thats good. Feel free to recap your idiotic arguments again at this point. Everyone will need to be told again that supplying Pakistan with oil is risking our ability to keep the M1A1s running. Oops...forgot one thing... Follow the logic... US foreign policy in the mid-east is primarily based upon our addiction to their oil. //snip// #2. We dealt with them to get a pipeline across their country. #3. This pipeline was to carry oil. To who??? Pakistan. Ok...">our< addiction"...pretend your hooked on heroin(maybe not far off considering these logical leaps)...how does getting someone >else< a fix keep you from DTs? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient] Edited by bepatient May 6, 2002, 12:01:57 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #37,652 by Brandioch 5/6/02 2:51:02 PM Reply	Strawman strikes again. You can call me strawman all you like...I'm not the one claiming that US supply of oil is somehow effected by a pipeline to supply Pakistan. You IMPLY that you don't use strawmen, and IN THE SAME SENTENCE, you retreat to a strawman. It's pathological with you, isn't it?
Post #37,654 by mmoffitt 5/6/02 2:57:59 PM Reply	Simple Question. If Israel is our real buddy in the region, then why is Saudi Arabia called, officially, our buddy if its not about the oil? I mean, if you're correct and oil isn't corrupting our policy in the region, why would we support such an oppressive regime as the one that exists in Saudi Arabia? They do not share our values, they have as an atrocious a human rights record as you can find, they are overtly hostile towards our pal Israel. Yet, Saudi Arabia remains our buddy (I heard Dubya gushing over them as recently as last week). And its not about oil? Tell me, exactly what is it that causes us to support the Saudi regime if its not their oil?
Post #37,669 by rsf 5/6/02 4:57:04 PM Reply	Simple Answer, perhaps Oil is always going to play a part in US policy towards Saudi Arabia but I think right now our intentions towards Iraq are playing a much bigger role in the White House. It's no secret that W, Rumsfeld, Rice, et. al. are setting their sights on a US/Iraq war before the next presidential election. In order to engage in such a war, the Pentagon is probably pushing foreign policy in the direction of keeping Saudi Arabia's rulers on our side so that we can use their land for staging attacks. I suspect that in the formulation of our current foreign policy there is a machivellian belief that if we can uninstall Saddam, we can install a friendly secular government that will be more open to us with their oil and which can then effectively neutralize Saudi Arabia's economic influence over us. Ray
Post #37,676 by Brandioch 5/6/02 5:16:30 PM Reply	But isn't that still about the oil? I suspect that in the formulation of our current foreign policy there is a machivellian belief that if we can uninstall Saddam, we can install a friendly secular government that will be more open to us with their oil and which can then effectively neutralize Saudi Arabia's economic influence over us. So, our goal might be to establish another government, with oil reserves, that is friendlier to us than Saudi Arabia? And the reason to do this would be to neutralize Saudi Arabia's hold over us which is based upon oil? This is why I say that it always comes back to oil in the mid-east.
Post #37,677 by bepatient 5/6/02 5:20:59 PM Reply	Simple answer... ...the are the largest and most moderate (officially) nation in the muslim MidEast...and pretty much the only one left to be friends with. We're pretty good friends with Kuwait...but they're not all that bid nor influential. Who else is there...Iraq, Iran, Syria, Egypt? Israel is not a muslim nation. Or should we not attempt to have an ally...or at least >good< diplomatic relations with at least one muslim nation in the Mideast? Don't get me wrong...I'm not claiming that oil plays no part in the equation...not at all...Just disputing the position that its "all about oil". That is a tired argument and a vast oversimplification of the problem. My position is simple. Israel is a larger influence and the root cause of more of our problems in the region. Israel, sworn enemy to every Muslim state and principle benefactor of US aid in the region. So far...this position has been disputed by 1) Claiming our stance on Yasser Arafat is influenced by oil. My response...Arafat is an old guy eating Hummus and pita that we have never even heard of...if not for Israel. 2) Claiming that we supported the Taliban because of our need for oil. My response...if >we< needed it...then why the hell is Pakistan getting it? Interesting that neither make any sense in context...yet I am strawman. The context you ask? It all started very simply... If we have more than they do, why are we risking national security by being so dependant upon their's? Theirs is cheaper and the libruls don't like us drilling at home. And...btw...we're not risking National Security. , I still remember the embargo. It was a clear example of exactly who was in charge of whom. If they wanted to, they could hit our combat ability How..we import less than 20% of our oil form the region and send some of ours other places. They can hit is in the pocket...but they can't stop the tanks. Now, let's look long term. Nukes. The technology isn't getting any more difficult. Iraq was working on it before we attacked in 1990. Eventually, given enough money and time and determination, one of those states will have nukes. 2 problems here. 1) They would still have money even if >we< didn't buy their oil and they would still hate us. Pakistan has nukes...we don't buy oil from them. Korea has them...again no oil. China has nukes...we send them an awful lot of money...but not for oil. Unless your position is that the US is the only country that buys oil. Then...I'd have to say that not all of the money they have is ours. But >I< am strawman. And then we've spent the past dozen or so posts degenerating from there...about having other enemies that can damage our strategic position as much or more than Saudi could by cutting off supply of strategic materials. To which I get a desert scenario where I have no water...but I'd have 80% of my water in real life...yadda yadda. All of which is simply been caused by me not ignoring the idiot in the first place. Any takers on the response time and tenor pool?? :-) You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #37,693 by Brandioch 5/6/02 9:17:44 PM Reply	Ummm, that wasn't "simple". So, we're friends with Kuwait. But Kuwait isn't "all that bid nor influential." And we're friends with Israel. But Israel isn't a "muslim nation." So, we have to be friends with someone who #1. Is Muslim -and- #2. Is influential. I notice that you left out Uzbekistan. You remember Uzbekistan? They were the first to let us deploy our warplanes in their country during "Eduring Freedom". They are Muslim AND influential. My position is simple. Israel is a larger influence and the root cause of more of our problems in the region. Israel, sworn enemy to every Muslim state and principle benefactor of US aid in the region. But WHY is it the principle benefactor of US aid in the region? Why do we send MILLIONS OF DOLLARS A DAY to Israel? I am not familiar with ANY other country that receives that level of aid. Contrast that with the dollars sent to African nations. Israel is sucking down BIG dollars in support. But WHY are we supporting them? They aren't Muslim and, if we dropped our support, they wouldn't be influential (they wouldn't be there!).
Post #37,698 by bepatient 5/6/02 10:14:42 PM Reply	But you seem to be. Or are you going to tell me that we are now importing oil from Israel? Maybe just that the only reason we supported the creation of the Israeli state was because of Saudi oil? But wait..we send millions of dollars in aid to Israel...and they don't have oil...and we send very little aid to the rest of the region...but they >do< have oil. If its "all about the oil" then wouldn't that support be the other way...with all of the aid going to those countries that supply us oil? Could you please make up your mind? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #37,725 by Brandioch 5/7/02 2:19:27 AM Reply	The country is Uzbekistan. Or are you going to tell me that we are now importing oil from Israel? I've never said we were. I've never implied we were. I've specifically staed that we were not. Yet you want to try to make that my position. Bill "Strawman" Patient, same as ever. I've given you the name of an Islamic state that is friendly to us and is no small player. Uzbekistan. When the facts contradict your positon, ignore the facts and hide behind a strawman. How do you reconcile Uzbekistan with your previous post about Saudi Arabia being the only friendly Muslim country (aside from Kuwait who is too insignificant to matter) being our only "ally" there (aside from Israel who, while significant, is not Muslim)? They're a reformed Soviet style state with near 100% literacy. They are as close to "friendly" as we have over there. They also have far fewer Islamic extremists than Saudi Arabia has. This is what "informed" means. This is why you have to hide behind strawmen and I can provide facts, references and names to support my position. You left Uzbekistan off your list of Arab countries. Yet they were the first to let us land our warplanes in their country. You seem to believe Israel's existance is the root cause. Why don't you tell me what Israel/Usbekistan relations are like? The reason you have NOT heard of Uzbekistan is that the Right Wing Rags you get all of your "information" from do not find it useful. Uzbekistan. If its "all about the oil" then wouldn't that support be the other way...with all of the aid going to those countries that supply us oil? No, it wouldn't. And I have already explained why. Strawman, again, Bill? Why would I expect you to change now? The people with the oil are not our friends. We need someone over there who will act as our puppet in a military fashion. That is Israel. We have Israel dependant upon us for military parts and Israel is dependant upon its military for its existance. We give Israel millions of dollars a day in aid and Israel does things like bomb nuclear reactors of potential enemies. If Israel was not there, there would be at least ONE weapons grade reactor in Iraq. Iraq wants more oil resources (they invaded Kuwait for them). Iraq hates the US. If Iraq grabbed the oil, it would cut off the supply to the US. This is an example of why the US funds Israel so the US will have access to oil in the Mid-East. I don't think you'll bother to respond to anything I've said about Uzbekistan. I understand this is new information to you;.
Post #37,744 by bepatient 5/7/02 9:05:21 AM Reply	Congratulations.... ...you've just changed direction AGAIN to try and discover a real argument. The Pakistani pipeline thing didn't work..the Yasser thing didn't work...lets go to Uzbekistan. The CIA says "Current concerns include insurgency by Islamic militants based in Tajikistan and Afghanistan, a non-convertible currency, and the curtailment of human rights and democratization" Plus...while it may be a nice place to land a plane...it is landlocked and a little off the beaten trail. Sort of like saying make friends in North Dakoda to get you closer to Texas. (Read..wouldn't Oklahoma be a >little< closer?) Look. I agree to disagree. You don't sit well with that...I don't care. End of thread. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #37,763 by Brandioch 5/7/02 11:11:58 AM Reply	Like I said, "strawman". Congratulations.... ...you've just changed direction AGAIN to try and discover a real argument. No. This is a fact that refutes your position that Israel's existance is the root cause. Uzbekistan meets the criteria that you claim only Saudi Arabia met AND they are friendly with Israel. The Pakistani pipeline thing didn't work..the Yasser thing didn't work...lets go to Uzbekistan. So you claim. Yet you have not offered anything to refute my position. Correction, you offered a theory that I destroyed when I informed you of Uzbekistan. Plus...while it may be a nice place to land a plane...it is landlocked and a little off the beaten trail. Sort of like saying make friends in North Dakoda to get you closer to Texas. (Read..wouldn't Oklahoma be a >little< closer?) What are you talking about? Are there other criteria that are attempting to specify now? If so, could you clearly specify them? #1. Islamic #2. Significant #3. ? #4. ? #5. ? Look. I agree to disagree. You don't sit well with that...I don't care. Like I said before, when hit with facts, you run. Otherwise, as in the Ben & Jerry cop killer thread, you will continue to post.
Post #37,769 by bepatient 5/7/02 11:50:29 AM Reply	Reading ability? Look. I agree to disagree. You don't sit well with that...I don't care. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #37,771 by mmoffitt 5/7/02 11:53:18 AM Reply	You concede? Not in this thread but about being able to fly charter when the majors were "grounded"? Sorry, just had to get that in ;-) I just want to see you write it: "Okay, I was wrong."
Post #37,799 by bepatient 5/7/02 2:20:35 PM Reply	Dude...sure...why not. even though I chartered 2 Gulfstream IV's that were back before the first commercial flight left Philadelphia. But its not worth fighting about. Okay...I was wrong. I'm having a Rodney King moment. Take advantage of it. Feel better now? nudge nudge ;-) You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #37,806 by mmoffitt 5/7/02 2:48:57 PM Reply	Saved to File, Burned on CD. Thanks
Post #37,813 by bepatient 5/7/02 3:20:21 PM Reply	Anytime ;-) You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #37,802 by Brandioch 5/7/02 2:37:59 PM Reply	Protocol and courtesy. #1. Congratulations.... ...you've just changed direction AGAIN to try and discover a real argument. #2. The Pakistani pipeline thing didn't work..the Yasser thing didn't work...lets go to Uzbekistan. #3. The CIA says "Current concerns include insurgency by Islamic militants based in Tajikistan and Afghanistan, a non-convertible currency, and the curtailment of human rights and democratization" #4. Plus...while it may be a nice place to land a plane...it is landlocked and a little off the beaten trail. Sort of like saying make friends in North Dakoda to get you closer to Texas. (Read..wouldn't Oklahoma be a >little< closer?) THEN you say: Look. I agree to disagree. You don't sit well with that...I don't care. Oh, poor baby. Looks like I didn't let you get away with introducing more criteria before you ran. Let me explain the courtesy of this to you, Bill "strawman" Patient. When you "agree to disagree" you do NOT try to refute previous points. If you are trying to refute previous points, the discussion is continuing. But, why am I surprised that you don't understand basic courtesy. After all, the strawman is your favorite "discussion" technique. Grow up.
Post #37,811 by bepatient 5/7/02 3:17:07 PM Reply	You follow neither. I had already refuted those points. (Your acceptance of that notwithstanding) And courtesy??? Ending this thread is a courtesy to 295 other registered users who, I'm certain, gave up on this thread about about 50% of its current level of right-shift. I neither claim victory nor admit defeat...just endeavor to stop here with the realization that we will not now, nor ever come to terms. You have your view. I have mine. It is very apparent to all...never the twain shall meet. So take a Zanax already. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #37,818 by Brandioch 5/7/02 3:48:55 PM Reply	And when it falls to ME to explain courtesy...... You follow neither. Ah, but I do follow protocol for debates. And I am courteous. I just don't waste it on people who would not recognize it. (Bill "Strawman" Patient being a prime example) I believe you said you were ending this thread. What was that I said about you living in a fantasy world? How many posts AFTER "End of Thread" will a thread end? Hmmmmm? I had already refuted those points. (Your acceptance of that notwithstanding) Like I said, your fantasy world. So, if you've already refuted them and you want to agree to disagree and you're ending this thread..... How many posts ago was that? You have your view. I have mine. It is very apparent to all...never the twain shall meet. That would be a good point to end this on. So take a Zanax already. Oooooh. But you couldn't resist that "last" personal attack, could you? Face facts, "Strawman". The criteria you gave could be met by more countries than you named. And some of those countries are beter allies than Saudi Arabia. Like I said, your ignorance is vast. But, being ignorant of the situation over there doesn't stop you from having the correct opinion, does it? I don't waste courtesy on those who won't recognize it. The least you could do is follow protocol. But why do that if you don't have basic courtesy?
Post #37,823 by bepatient 5/7/02 4:08:25 PM Reply	Pardon me.. ...but I don't believe any of my responses since that EOT post have had anything to do with the prior subject being discussed. The continuation of that, my friend, has been all your doing. Telling you to chill (Take a Zanax already) was not a personal attack. I've made a few of those, as have you...but that wasn't one of them. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #37,843 by Brandioch 5/7/02 5:31:39 PM Reply	So, you admit you know nothing about the mid-east. ...but I don't believe any of my responses since that EOT post have had anything to do with the prior subject being discussed. And we've already established that we're not best buds. So why are you continuing this past the "End of Thread" you announced? Hmmmm............
Post #37,875 by bepatient 5/8/02 12:04:12 AM Reply	Funny You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #60,257 by pwhysall 10/30/02 2:15:45 PM Reply	This thread is eternal, immortal and knows where you live. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #37,758 by Arkadiy 5/7/02 10:35:47 AM Reply	Re: The country is Uzbekistan. ...is neither very muslim nor very influential. The regime there is a secular dictatorship that barely pays a lip service to Islam. Their leader Islam Karimov, former Secretary of Communist Party, is beyond atheism, much like Saddam Hussein. They aren't powerful because they are still in the shadow of Russia, and they have to fight muslim uprisings, which they do with habitual communist cruelty. I am more ashamed of our "friendship" with Uzbekistan than of that with the Saudis.
Post #37,762 by mmoffitt 5/7/02 11:10:29 AM Reply	Perhaps, tovarish, only because you know them better.
Post #37,765 by Brandioch 5/7/02 11:30:13 AM Reply	Da.
Post #37,708 by a6l6e6x 5/6/02 11:29:17 PM Reply	Ex-Prez Carter: US aid to Israel ~ $10/million / day! Alex "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." -- Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
Post #37,729 by Ashton 5/7/02 3:18:53 AM Reply	How much a day is a surrogate 'US Presence' worth? After all - Billy alone could fund that project for 10-15 years (if we don't count his fortune increasing from interest & investments - an almost certainty with that massive a power base from which to manipulate [everyone around]). What would have been the political/$$ cost - had the US had to take out that Iraqi nascent reactor [or.. and especially - the Next One] ?? Ashton
Post #37,776 by boxley 5/7/02 12:19:04 PM Reply	you forgot our good friends, Turkey secular muslim nation TAM ARIS QUAM ARMIPOTENS
Post #37,803 by Brandioch 5/7/02 2:44:42 PM Reply	With lots of support for us too. The Mid-East is NOT populat The Mid-East is NOT populated, 100%, by rampaging fundamentalist terrorists. And I think we could make a LOT more progress towards lasting peace over there if we focused on the supporting the countries who were interested in peace (not the peace of destroying Israel). There is no reason why Muslims and Jews cannot live together peacefully. But first, we have to stop supporting those who use that conflict to build their political/economic bases. (Yasser being the best example of such)
Post #37,826 by boxley 5/7/02 4:27:41 PM Reply	Well the issue of how the current situation got started has nothing to do with either oil or Israel, sure the Israelis were hated BUT during the cold war circa 1948 we determined that the "Secular" Arabs were going socialist/communists and funded the fundamentalists and fuedalists to takeover. Nasser was overthrown at our behest as well as the Syrian Government, The Shaw was pushed on Iran etc. Now when we could use secular socialist nations over there we have a hodgepodge of lunie dictatorships and Fundie Islamic Republics. thanks, Bill TAM ARIS QUAM ARMIPOTENS
Post #37,834 by Ashton 5/7/02 4:46:22 PM Reply	Do you mean to say that, what goes around comes around? :-\ufffd
Post #37,837 by boxley 5/7/02 4:54:04 PM Reply	no, what comes around goes around Our foreign Policy is always short sighted. We need to plan for generations out not until the next administration. Historical incapability is our major flaw. thanx, bill TAM ARIS QUAM ARMIPOTENS
Post #37,846 by Ashton 5/7/02 5:39:48 PM Reply	Thou sayest. I agree(est). Sad, ain't it..every time too.
Post #37,866 by Brandioch 5/7/02 8:55:49 PM Reply	Yup. We need to plan for generations out not until the next administration. Sometimes it doesn't even make it through the current administration. The US needs to clearly define what behaviours we will support and which we will not. Then >WE< have to follow those rules in our own dealings. No more overthrowing governments. No more funding local wars.
Post #37,869 by Ashton 5/7/02 9:56:25 PM Reply	Yabut.. ________Can That be Good for Bizness ?? and - is there any Other final litmus test we ever employ, before we launch any new operation in or outside our borders? Civics Students Want to Know. ie. Could any US Pres get elected on that platform? - what with all that Evil in the world which.. only We could ever fix, because nobody knows more than We know, has bigger guns, is as rich (or ummm, can stop us?). I think We'd have to lose something Big once.. before the above fine thought would prove to be more than mere blab for sheepish effect. (??) Love to be proven wrong, of course - but.. taking most bets. We're on a Roll ----> (do tanks 'roll' or 'conveyor' along? in that Field Artillery song)

Welcome to IWETHEY!