This Just In!

Holy Shit:

Alex Alexiev, a former CIA consultant on ethnic and religious conflict. The Saudi funding program, Alexiev says, is "the largest worldwide propaganda campaign ever mounted"--dwarfing the Soviets' propaganda efforts at the height of the Cold War.

Hmmm. 28 pages long.

Political Correctness:

The fact that the movement was based on Islam made it more difficult to discuss. "There was a fear that it was too sensitive, that you'd be accused of discrimination," Probst says. "It was political correctness run amok."

It's always running amok, never just right.

These guys have the right idea

Hey Reaganite

Bad timing, huh?

#6 Henry S.

Why?

We should also be very worried that Bush brought back James Baker, very disturbing... considering he's bought and paid for by Syria.

How much ya wanna bet that the Arab media, CAIR, and Cynthia McKinney (soon to be joined by Howard Dean) pull out the "Zionist-controlled US Media" card and deny the whole thing. US News = Mort Zuckerman, right?

I propose a toast: here's to the hordes of Saudi princes no longer being able to buy their way into the West's good books while their government props up terrorist thugs worldwide.
Hopefully the US will be more critical of 'em... that last speech of Bush's was a good start, but not enough. Ah well.

#6 Henry S.

Bad timing, huh?

Bad timing for what?

Again, Saudi Arabia is the hornet nest. Soon, very soon, it will be time to reach for the stick...

Interesting U.S. upgrades Saudi security warning

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia, Dec. 6 — Saudi Arabia issued the names and photos of its 26 most wanted terrorist suspects and increased protection around Western housing compounds in the capital Saturday as the United States upgraded its security warning, restricting its diplomats’ movements.

If Bush & co. haven't done anything about the saudi problem by now don't expect that to happen anytime soon. Get the twinkle dust out of your eyes.

#5 Franz: that link is a keeper - bookmarked w/many thanks

Just stopping by the Drudge Report and found this:

Link to NYT article

It's not entirely OT, 'cause it does indicate one possible solution to the Saudi problem: Fence 'em in!

...but you start to wonder where the US got the idea to start building 'security fences,' establishing 'checkpoints,' and blowing up buildings that terrorists may be operating from...

Teacake

AS much as I would like to see us go head-to-head with the KSA, the cold hard facts that we can't do anything that would cut off that oil.

from the US News article: "Saudi largess encouraged U.S. officials to look the other way, some veteran intelligence officers say. Billions of dollars in contracts, grants, and salaries have gone to a broad range of former U.S. officials who had dealt with the Saudis: ambassadors, CIA station chiefs, even cabinet secretaries."

on this topic highly recommend CIA operative Robert Baer's book: Sleeping With the Devil: How Washington Sold Its Soul for Saudi Crude

#17

Actually, Engineer, while there isn't anything one can do immediately, there is much that can be done in the near and long term to begin the starve this oil-beast.

Short-term (2-5 yrs): Begin to access and develop sources in the Caspian and Russia, as well as more of our own resources, such as ANWAR.

Some of the projects we've developed in the last twenty years may be helpful in this regard, such as coal gasification and ethanol.

Longer Term: Start developing petroleum free methods of creating plastics and other chemicals.

Also, create a push to use technologies such as fuel cells for our vehicle fleet. This way we can make use of domestic resouces such as natural gas.

The article makes one thing clear; the war on terrorism and Islamo-fascism will ultimately be a war against Saudi Arabia itself.

Note the most strenuous objections to doing anything came from the State Department. Probably because that's where the Fraudis concentrated most of their bribes.

We need to be patient. There is some grand strategy operating here, which is why we went into Iraq, besides the WMD (which I still believe in).

I'm sure it will take a few years or decades to get Iraq stabilized. We can't go to war with Saudi Arabia right now, but we can find ways to pressure it to stop funding the terrorists.

Here's an article that was in the Atlantic Monthly - also by Robert Baer.
The fall of the House of Saud.

Someone else (Dr. Dweeble or Mary perhaps?) posted it a week or so ago. Thanks, whoever you were.)

#17 Engineer

Like take it perhaps?

Of course, the State Department, or some of it, is the enemy within.

#14 Teacake

It's getting increasingly difficult to ignore the elephant under the tent. The WH can protest all they want that the Saudis are really, truly making an effort to end funding, close the madrassas, fire imams, etc. but the evidence suggests otherwise. And every new terrorist attack is a reminder of who ultimately, is responsible for the deaths of 3,000 Americans and the scourge of Islamism.

#19 Steve

We are doing a number of things

Begin to access and develop sources in the Caspian and Russia

Russian oil is already coming into Houston, Not much yet, but it will increase.

such as ANWAR

Still can't get that done because of the Democrats, but Alaska just opened a big tract that the feds don't control.

Also, create a push to use technologies such as fuel cells for our vehicle fleet. This way we can make use of domestic resouces such as natural gas.

That's not so good. Natural gas is already in short supply. The new Alaksa pipeline will help.

Building nulear plants to crack H2O to run fuel cells would help a lot.

Roger L. Simon-some of it, true-unfortunately it appears to be the some-of-it-that-matters. 95% of most organizations is deadweight; the five percent that isn't appears to be the enemy within at the State Department.
Offtopic-In re: my #4; fortuitously, moments ago I read the best characterization of the nature of Political Correctness that I am ever likely to. I will quote it here:

I was warned before my lecture visit to a Union College sociology class that several black students in the class were "upset by what you wrote" in the assigned book, Home From Nowhere, specifically, the chapter titled "The Public Realm and the Common Good." in which I really did try to grapple with some of the problems of race and social status.
Well, anyway, I gave a formal slide lecture about civic design and then there was a Q and A period, and a very pretty Barbadian girl made a little speech saying, "I'm offended by what you wrote about the underclass and about affirmative action, etc etc." It was as though she were reciting a girl scout pledge, something beyond practiced: rote.
I'm not an academic, which is to say that I don't have to function in what must be a semi-psychotic melieu these days. But I have a keen interest in the phenomenon of political correctness for two reasons. 1.) it's so bizzare and nonsensical, and 2.) it was created, or perhaps a better word is developed, by my generation of 60s hippies who now run the universities. But I've been mystified as to actually what it is. Now I think I finally know: it's just good old-fashioned Maoism.
Remember back around 1966 (maybe you don't) when Chairman Mao TseTung (as it was then spelled) virtual emperor of "Red China" (as it was then called) promoted a vicious campaign called the Cultural Revolution. To many of us in the West following the story in the papers, it seemed pretty insane. Mao and his lieutenants in the party hierarchy had decided to unleash the youth of China in a great purge of incorrectness by their elders. Students were let off of higher education for several years and organized into gangs who then went around harrassing, punishing, and even killing elders and authority figures who, for some reason, had exhibited less-than-pure revolutionary thought. They dragged teachers out of schools and stuck them in "re-education" jails. They paraded local and regional officials around in public wearing dunce caps and humiliating sandwich boards. Among the latter was one Deng Shao Ping, then a rising provincial politician. Years later when this madness subsided, Deng would emerge as the ultimate Chinese leader who put a stop to all Maoist nonsense and began to take China into real modernity.
So what we're seeing in the universities these days is a very special form of low-grade Maoism -- young people given a license by the university authorities to harrass and re-educate their elders. For practical purposes, only 'minority' students have that license.
What got me in the incident I describe is how perfectly programmed the young lady was, as though she had allowed herself to become a walking palm pilot. And the incident had the peculiar aura of an oft-repeated ceremony: visiting lecturer comes in, visiting lecturer gets scolded for incorrect thinking, visiting lecturer apologizes for all the multitudinous turpitudes of the white race.
I think I shocked the class by replying to the young lady that the time for complaining and being a crybaby is over; that this nation is about to face troubles that will dwarf her adolescent anxieties at a small private college; and the real issue for her and anybody else in the room will soon be how to live a purposeful life in the face of extremely difficult times.

from this excellent blog.

now you tell me.....

[Link: www.geocities.com...]

sorry...bad link

It's not just State. The article talks about how a national security assessment did not list Islamist terror as among the strategic threats to the US in coming years. There is no way that this doesn't tie into the antisemitism that runs rampant in intelligence circles dating at least back to the USS Liberty incident.

Spy for the Saudis and get a short sentence, but when Pollard is locked up you throw away the key.

Rest assured, the Fraudis are looking into it.

When will our unhealthy relationship cease?

I think we all knew somthing was definately up with the Saudis from the beginning. It's funny how people can look the other way so easily and compromise all for unearned gains.

On another Topic. WTF? Cheaters on the Poll

Big Time Cheaters

#30 Ben F

but when Pollard is locked up you throw away the key.

You know, I am really tired of hearing people whine about Pollard. He was a spy and IMHO he got less than what he should have.

The Sauds assumed title over the oil-fields from Anglo-American interests, because international conditions were favorable to granting sovereignty to that entity. It is becoming obvious that the Sauds reject the same international-legal system which gave them said title. They have used sovereignty as an instrument of muslim-aggression, thus, furnishing a pretext for repatriation of the oil-fields. So what the hell is stopping us? Potential destruction of the well-heads? The Persian Gulf area fields are, at last count, 10 times as productive as Texas wells. Extraction pump replacement could be achieved over a relatively short time. There would be no need for local refinement, so producers need only be concerned with extraction of crude oil.

The House of Saud is composed of only 6-8,000 parasites, of which only 50, or so, have any power. It is time to send these desert freaks to hell.

ARABS ARE THIEVES; THEY HAVE OUR OIL.

#84 Camel Prophet.

You are right, of course.

There are reports that they are rounding up a few here and there, but the biggest problem with the Saudis is that by all accounts, there isn't one single one of them that has what it takes to clean their mess up. The problem is at the top.

#34 Camel Prophet

In time of war, all enemy property and resources are fair game. We can always turn over control of the oil fields to another Arab custodian once the House of Saud is gone and Wahhabism has been vanquished.

Heres what I got..

Funding began around the late 80's, (Yeah those were some of the Bush 1 years, but one can also argue that like AIDS, it was a relatively new problem, and one shouldn't expect the CIA to be all over it just yet..

But thats just the begining...

The Wahabi efforts continued speed through the 90's... The article makes clear, that the most urgent conversations between the CIA and the State department took place during the--yup you gueesed it-- Clinton administration...

These are the State dept officials who, "Even after the African Embassy bombings" continued to rebuff the urgent please of our CIA..

And as for now.. We do have troops squatting a few kolometers from the house of Saud.. If you folks don't think we have a scenario planned for their fall, you will be mistaken.. ITS CALLED A DEMOCRATIC IRAQ..

This will the end much faster than any conservation effort..

Wallace News Service

#34 Camel Prophet

I think they owe us about a trillion for overcharges during the OPEC thievery. Tell you what: Forget the cash; we'll just take the wells...

#33 Engineer sez:

You know, I am really tired of hearing people whine about Pollard. He was a spy and IMHO he got less than what he should have.

Engineer, I was not whining about Pollard. This is a thread about the US dropping the ball on the Saudi threat. My point was that antisemitism plays a part in it. So the issue is not simply Pollard's life sentence, but the

'Global Trends 2015:
A Dialogue About the Future With Nongovernment Experts'
[Link: www.cia.gov...]

From US News:
"The NIC's final report, Global Trends 2015, barely mentioned radicalism in the Islamic world. The NIC's vice chairman, Ellen Laipson, later wrote that their report "shied away" from the issue because it "might be considered insensitive and unintentionally generate ill will."

The quote is from this review of 'While America Slept: Understanding Terrorism and Counterterrorism':
"In the late 1990s, for instance, when the National Intelligence Council (NIC) embarked on its unclassified exploration of the "drivers" of international politics, culminating in the publication of Global Trends 2015, analysts debated whether religion should be identified as a principal driver. Some argued forcefully that neglecting it would be a shortcoming in the study. But in the end, the NIC shied away from focusing sharply on the issue out of concern that such analysis might be considered insensitive and unintentionally generate ill will toward the United States."
[Link: www.foreignaffairs.org...]

"Ellen Laipson joined the Henry L. Stimson Center as president and chief executive officer on April 1, 2002, after nearly 25 years of government service."
[Link: www.stimson.org...]

America's longtime ally and the world's largest oil producer had somehow become, as a senior Treasury Department official put it, "the epicenter" of terrorist financing

I know something else that Saudi Arabia is the epicenter of.

The "Marijuana is evil" ad campaign that runs all over that site is just a terrific illustration of one of the major fraud/distractions this fucked up PC and corrupt government of ours has been shoving down our throats for the past several decades. All the while they've been toking up on oil money, while the real threat of Islamofascism has gone unchecked. Hypocrisy and irony all on one web page.

Also, unless we destroy Saudi Arabia, we are all doomed. 1 2 3 4...I DEMAND a fucking war!

Re the House of Saud and all of its members...

OBLITERATE.
ERADICATE.
EXTERMINATE.

As long as a single one of them remains alive, Western civilization remains under threat.

Sorry for the length of the post but these were big reports.
The National Intelligence Council has some great reports on it's website. After reading the 'Global Trends 2015' report, I don't agree that Islamic radicalism was "barely mentioned" (excerpts from the 2010 and 2015 reports below). IMO, both of the reports seem to be pretty good for a publicly released overview of the world. Unfortunately, the reports aren't very optimistic (maybe they should get Model4 to help with the next one ;-)
They also had a new report on WMD (below).

'Global Trends 2010', November 1997
"Defense of Islam will continue to serve as the rallying cry for those who attempt to seize power, those who mobilize against external "enemies" to maintain power, those who are concerned about deteriorating economic conditions, and those who are alarmed about the impact of Western values."
[Link: www.cia.gov...]

'Global Trends 2015', December 2000
"Prospects will grow that more sophisticated weaponry, including weapons of mass destruction—indigenously produced or externally acquired—will get into the hands of state and nonstate belligerents, some hostile to the United States. The likelihood will increase over this period that WMD will be used either against the United States or its forces, facilities, and interests overseas."

"The United States also will have greater difficulty building coalitions to support its policy goals..."

"Between now and 2015 terrorist tactics will become increasingly sophisticated and designed to achieve mass casualties. We expect the trend toward greater lethality in terrorist attacks to continue."

"Some potential adversaries will seek ways to threaten the US homeland. The US national infrastructure—communications, transportation, financial transactions, energy networks—is vulnerable to disruption by physical and electronic attack because of its interdependent nature and by cyber attacks because of their dependence on computer networks."

"Most anti-US terrorism will be based on perceived ethnic, religious or cultural grievances. Terrorist groups will continue to find ways to attack US military and diplomatic facilities abroad. Such attacks are likely to expand increasingly to include US companies and American citizens. Middle East and Southwest Asian-based terrorists are the most likely to threaten the United States."

MY FAVORITE:
"The probability that a missile armed with WMD would be used against US forces or interests is higher today than during most of the Cold War and will continue to grow."

"Decades of foreign domination and civil war have devastated Afghanistan's society and economy, and the country is likely to remain internationally isolated, a major narcotics exporter, and a haven for Islamic radicals and terrorist groups."

"Political Islam in various forms will be an attractive alternative for millions of Muslims throughout the region, and some radical variants will continue to be divisive social and political forces."

"The trend toward more diverse, free-wheeling transnational terrorist networks leads to the formation of an international terrorist coalition with diverse anti-Western objectives and access to WMD."
[Link: www.cia.gov...]

'Iraq's WMD Programs: Culling Hard Facts from Soft Myths'
"Let me be clear: The NIE judged with high confidence that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of the 150 km limit imposed by the UN Security Council, and with moderate confidence that Iraq did not have nuclear weapons. These judgments were essentially the same conclusions reached by the United Nations and by a wide array of intelligence services—friendly and unfriendly alike. The only government in the world that claimed that Iraq was not working on, and did not have, biological and chemical weapons or prohibited missile systems was in Baghdad."
[Link: www.cia.gov...]

Don't forget to read 'Foreign Missile Developments
and the Ballistic Missile Threat
Through 2015', December 2001
[Link: www.cia.gov...]

More carpools and buses, less SUVs, natural gas, nuclear power, solar power, fuel cells....

The less we are rely on their oil, the less they get to screw with us and put their brainwashing centers on our soil.

#40

wow, even the CIA is in "don't offend them and they won't threaten us" mode.
too many people live in an alternate reality full of smiley faces and warm fuzzy feelings.

OT, but here is an "explosive" exclusive from the Sunday Telegraph about Saddam's WMDs:
[Link: www.telegraph.co.uk...]
You might have to register first (free).
"Revealed: the Iraqi colonel who told MI6 that Saddam could launch WMD within 45 minutes
By Con Coughlin"

Charles, this might be worth a post:
Transcript of Q&A with Yassir Abed Rabbo and Yossi Beilin, in New York.

Here's another one - good news this time:UNESCO plans to denounce anti-Jewish text.

ROME (AP) - The U.N. culture agency plans to denounce the so-called ``Protocols of the Elders of Zion'' amid reports that the text, long dismissed as a forgery to discredit Jews, was on display at a prominent Egyptian library.

Sunday Saud news:

Yemeni beneficiaries of Wahabi terror financing are turning on their master. Sow the wind: reap the whirlwind:

[Link: www.bradenton.com...]

American Open University, the East Coast's principal funnel for Wahabi subversion, might be shutting down while prominent sheiks are sent packing to the sand heap:

[Link: www.msnbc.com...]

No doubt Joe Kaufman's anti-jihad work had some role here:

[Link: joe4rep.com...]

#45 Josh

Right. Then we'll have to deal with the Greenie Weenie Tree Hugging Naderite bureaucratic thugs who are just about as insufferable.
Nope. Take the oil back if we have to temporarily.
In a few decades the other great patches will be up and running and and dependency will be a distant dream.
Higher prices.
More exploration.
New sources.
Impoverished princes.
The market will solve this; it's not a zero sum game.
Keep the world economies humming on cheap oil now and we'll have the capital to develop...when the market (not Al Gore) tells us... to switch over to alternatives.
Fall into the trap of government allocation of resources and see just how stagnant development can be.

More saitire from our Saudi pals:

America the Ungrateful

...Tell that to the senators and congressmen threatening sanctions against Syria and Saudi Arabia, and what you will get is what abandoned friends always get from America: A finger and a cold shoulder.

I guess we're just a finger short:

About Mohammad:

When he turned his attention to the Hour and how close it is, he used a visible gesture with his two fingers to reinforce his words and drive his meaning home.

#40 Bourgeouis Reactionary--

Excellent digging! Especially on the fact that Laipson is now sucking from the Saudi teat.

#44 Bourgeois Reactionary--

The claim is that the Global Trends report shied away from a sharp focus on political Islam. And this is true. It did not merit even so much as a section heading. The threat from political Islam is not portrayed as a driver, but a byproduct of issues such as globalization.

Poor Saudis! All that oil, all that money, and nothing to show for it!

Amazing what lack of a moral center does to a society. The Jews in Israel, with very little in natural resources, are a powerhouse of technology. The Saudis and their allies, with trillions in petrodollars, have nothing to show for their wealth except a glittery new third international airport in Riyadh. Wow. I can see why they are so upset. It's so unfair that the people with heart, brains, and courage keep beating them in every field - except seething and whining. At that, the Saudis are the clear World Masters.

#47 pk

The Telegraph article you mentioned is the topic of this AP article.
Report: Source of Iraq Arms Claim Emerges

And now it's time for the liberal press to commence with character assassination of this source.

You know it's coming.

My speculation from my "summit of limited knowledge" is that Bush is working on positioning our nation to take out the Saudis with a minimal amount of damage to itself. In the meantime he is giving them ample opportunity to fix their problems themselves befor the hammer falls.

He is doing this by going after Iraq. There are a number of benefits with taking Iraq, not the least of which includes lessening our dependence on their oil. By controlling Iraq's oil we have created a plentiful alternative to Saudi oil. In the long run this will lighten their coffers and allow us the option of attacking them with less damage to ourselves. If we had charged into Saudi Arabia on 9/12 we would probably seriously damaged our economy.

I think Bush is putting the pressure on the Saudis slowly and he is not ignoring the threat.

It just reinforces my opinion that we should have nuked Saudi Arabia a long time ago. A completely worthless, evil country filled with evil worthless pieces of crap. We should have bombed them years ago and certainly after 9/11. Instead, Bush and Co. act to protect them (hustling them out of the country and away from the FBI on 9/12-9/18) and they continue to protect them (Carlyle Corp, the excised pages from the report, etc.) (Not that any of the Dems are a viable alternative, mind you.)

Great Gnu Almighty, enough with the silliness of the Saudis-on-747s already. And enough with the Nuke Mecca/Riyadh garbage.

I notice alot of reporting that names Saudi Arabian terrorist funding seem to imply Saudi Arabia is a monolithic entity. It's been awhile since Western nations have had to deal with the political nuances of a monarchic kingdom. Perhaps a well-known parallel would be the relationship between HenryVIII and the Church of England. Obviously the source of terror money flows through Saudi mosques with the tacit approval of whichever prince is the favored liason.Alot of court intrigue, infighting, back-scratching, tit for tats are at work in this system. The Royal House relies on the current mosque heirarchy to pacify the masses to some extent, they probably can't venture to confront the mosques directly and retain their rulership. Applying external pressure on the Royals would give the mosque a bargaining chip,an upper hand,with the Royal House' fealty, loyalties, under scrutiny. Add in the various mutations of Islam at work there and it's probably a tricky play to massage the Royals into cracking down on terrorist financing. Can't really appeal to their international obligations with such a treasure at stake.The only option outside of direct conflict would be either a bidding war for the terrorists sympathies (unlikely since most operate from ideological and not pecuniary motives)or a pyschological cold war.Seems somewhat appropriate with the offhand comparison made to the Soviets in the article. Maybe that's what Rumsfeld was getting at in his proposal to reshape the battlefield by going after recruiters and training facilities(madrassas)and chase the money down after it leaves the Kingdom. I hate playing head games with Murder Inc more than anyone but I can understand how past and current administrations choose to tread carefully when dealing with the Saudi regime.

steve miller (#58),

But if we would just nuke Saudi Arabia all of our problems would go away. The muslims will have learned their place and the rest of the world will respect and thank us for killing millions of innocent people.

And oh yeah, George Bush would be re-elected in a landslide for finally doing something right in ME.

Isn't it obvious?

Geepers - almost you had me there.

Blowing up Riyadh or expelling Muslims isn't going to solve the problem. (I'm assuming that Riyadh hasn't been truly identified as an enemy yet.)

If - big if - Riyadh becomes the equivalent of Berlin in WWII, then blowing it up might be the right answer. So far, I don't think Riyadh is that.

Opposing Riyadh's policies by every means possible is the right thing to do now. But needlessly killing millions of people because it would be so satisfying is wrong.

Fuck em. I'm willing to ride my bike. Lets use some of those pin point accurate Jdam cement blocks to excise the players in the Saudi world.

Better yet , how about some of those key radical Imams disssappearing far a couple hours and then resurfacing minus phalus.

Only a few hundred to do then the wahabi will have to make the embarassing complaint to the US saying "Please Please Please stop cutting off our terror organizers winkies."

I'm betting they won't have the guts to broach the subject myself.

Well, the ultimate horror to the Saudis is to be exposed as uncultured and backwards, plus the idea that they might lose their access to Ameerican universities, so perhaps Bush & Co is doing the right thing.

I don't think that blowing up the world's supplier of oil is going to work. It won't just be riding a bike to work. It would mean the catastrophic disappearance of wealth, the destruction of economies world-wide, and the seething anger of a billion Muslims. Even if the US had a 0% reliance upon Saudi oil, it would still experience nearly all the same catastrophes the world would suffer, because oil is fungible, and oil to the US at $32/bbl isn't going to make it if Japan bids $100/bbl. And where would we send our exports to, if no one could afford to buy them?

Best thing to do is to exert growing pressure upon the Saudis to change their ways.

As soon as a Dem gets into the WH, of course, it's all over. We'll be supplicants of the world's opinion again.

Riding my Bike wouldn't hurt. I'm not advocating burning millions of Saudis> just the loud ones.

We can start were they are the most vulnerable.
Here in the US. Identify - track - corner - wack off their weenie.

Then on to Canadian Loud mouths - repeat steps 1 through 4

Then to Australia, Great Britain, France, Germany, - anywhere our operatives are already prepared and can mingle in without notice.

Of course we have to keep it on the Hush Hush so don't tell anyone.

I'm not even advocating burning the loud ones.

I'd advocate for exposing their perfidy loudly and consistently.

Burning them will just make two things happen (a) others from the 8,000 princes will arise to replace them seamlessly and (b) a propaganda coup for the militant Muslims.

But exposing them, overturning them, ridiculing them, and showing them to be uncultured savages is a far worse punishment to them - for they, for their honor, need the West to honor them.

regarding

Best thing to do is to exert growing pressure upon the Saudis to change their ways.

tahs a temporary measure

only thing to do is cut off all money flow TO Saudi and FROM Saudi

least loss of life?

totally incinerate ALL THEIR OIL FIELDS

Well, yeah, you could incinerate their oil fields. That would work. But would there be other consequences as well, such as a world-wide depression as the oil price shock stops the economies of every advanced country?

The removal from power of a dozen or so imans in Saudia would be better, I think, especially if the Saudi government came out with some bland pronouncements along the lines that "Sheik AlGae has retired due to health reasons." Wouldn't be much more than retiring them to some nice private estate, kinda like a harem for imans.

But I don't think destroying a critical piece of the world's energy supply is going to be the 'best' way to do this.

67 steve miller

thinking of the alternatives

least loss of life

and once the deed is done

its done

ANSWER can go blow smoke

I think Yehudit originally found this link – it’s always helpful –

From Saudi Arabia's Overrated Oil Weapon:

"American policymakers have been drawing from these myths--or outdated ideas--about oil is that the United States had better be deferential to Saudi Arabia because it has the power to ruin our economy. The United States pays more deference to the Saudis than to any other government in the world. If any other government imposes restrictions on American diplomats in their country, the United States applies the same restrictions to that country's diplomats in the United States. The only exception is Saudi Arabia--which, for example, pays no price for denying American women with diplomatic passports the right to drive in the kingdom. Recently there have been a number of stories about how American mothers have suffered as a result of U.S. deference to Saudi Arabia when their children were kidnapped by their fathers and taken to Saudi Arabia."

"Saudi policy toward the United States is based on their perception of our fear of their oil power. That is why Crown Prince Abdullah felt free to patronize President Bush in Crawford, Texas, less than a year after 15 Saudi citizens attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. That is why they have felt safe enough to allow more than $50 billion of Saudi oil money to be exported to stir up hatred of the United States in the last 20 years. "

The Saudis have been exporting their civil war and their cult philosophy for years. If Saudi Arabia were politically and economically isolated, as they must be, the world could survive without their oil for awhile.

all this talk about weenie whacking reminds me:

What did Jeffrey Dahmer say to Lorena Bobbitt?
- You gonna eat that?

The argument that we cannot declare war on SA and take control of the oil fields is based on a spurious premise. The war effort against Germany and Japan carried far greater risks and costs for the US. Can anyone imagine American leaders arguing in the 1940s that we cannot engage Germany, cannot bomb Dresden, cannot occupy the country because we might damage German productive capacity or destroy infrastructure? The likely costs to occupy and rebuild Germany were massive, well known in the early 1940s, and incorporated into the Marshall Plan years before the end of the war. Can anyone imagine FDR arguing that we allow the Nazi leadership to remain in power, that they be allowed to continue disseminating propaganda, recruiting, funding and operating the Nazi youth camps?

Ben F #51 - yes, radical Islam was not a 'driver' but it was more than "barely mentioned". To me, the report is not bad for a bureaucratically-produced publically-distributed look through a crystal ball made in December 2000. Maybe I've spent too much time looking through Government reports...

For instance, one of the Global Trends 2015 conclusions is: "Many of the global trends continue to remain negative for the societies and regimes in the Middle East."

The first "Future Conflict" 'driver' is "Asymmetric threats in which state and nonstate adversaries avoid direct engagements with the US military but devise strategies, tactics, and weapons—some improved by "sidewise" technology—to minimize US strengths and exploit perceived weaknesses."

The scariest parts of the report to me are the parts on Chinese and North Korean nukes and the report's claim that we are closer being attacked now than we were during the Cold War. Because we were close then. Thank goodness they can't reach me; sorry LA.

"Steve Miller", I hope you stick around.

This is a good thread.

#56 Dar ul Harbarian . . .

Perhaps it's wishful thinking on my part, but that is the strategy I believe Bush is following. I think the Saudis know that we expect them to stop funding the terrorists and that they have to do something about terrorism or else we will. Meanwhile, we're trying to get Iraq on its feet with a friendly government.

Maybe the Saudis are funding and supplying the terrorists fighting the Coalition in Iraq.

I agree with ploome and Henry S. So Let's ask two questions:

1. What would the effect on the jihad be if we seized the Saudi oil fields and money from there would no longer fuel terror, propaganda etc?

2. Why is there a brick wall in The White House when it comes to the Saudis? As James Lileks asked: "So why does Bush coddle the Saudis?" Is it, as he proposed. partly oil, but also Bush's assurance that this is not a holy war, "NO MATTER WHAT THE OTHER SIDE SAYS?"

Or does?

There's no war and we won't "follow the money." Oy.

#76 Observer . . .

Sometimes it's best to let actions speak louder than words. Sure it would feel good to tell the Saudis officially to go and f*** themselves, but maybe it's wiser to play the diplomatic game here.

I think they know what we are thinking. Furthermore, there is nothing written anywhere that another political candidate wouldn't take after the Saudis. Even if Bush is beholden to the Saudis, it's not forever.

#76, Promethea

Sure, if the "diplomatic game" gets tangible results rather than the usual declarations or pledges.

Bush seems to think we can pick and root out the few "rotten apples" in an otherwise friendly Islamic barrel. Can we sucessfully follow such a grandiose, perhaps delusional, strategy for the next 20 years? Is the will, political and social, there in this country?

On your last sentence--what's not "forever?" His being beholden to the Saudis, or are you talking about his presidency?

#75 observer

2. Why is there a brick wall in The White House when it comes to the Saudis?

Suggested readings: The secret war against the Jews and Unholy Trinity, by John Loftus and Marc Aarons.

You will find your answer.

#78, Mr Pol

Thanks. Will pick up one or both later today.

U.S. Revokes Visa of Cleric at Saudi Embassy: Monarchy to No Longer Be Islamic Institute's Sponsor

#80 J.D.

From your link:

Idris's departure follows a decision by the Saudi government to stop providing diplomatic status to Islamic clerics and educators teaching overseas

Prior to this move, all Saudi clerics and "educators" operating overseas were enjoying the privileges and protections afforded by full diplomatic status ... and the US government did exactly nothing to end this. Why? Because Bandar would have cancelled his tennis match with Colin Powell? I am frickin' furious!

Henry S. (#81),

I am frickin' furious!

The Saudi's have canceled diplomatic status for Islamic clerics and educators and your "frickin' furious"?

That would seem like a good thing to me.

It has spread to many places, not just large cities in US. We in Pittsburgh had a jihad magazine called Assirat Al-Mustaqeem, which was distributed across the US, apparently produced by Saudi grad students. Doesn't the Saudi guvment pay tuition for Saudis?

OT: The FBI said it wasn't terror-related, but we had about 20 Iraqis from all over the US come here & bribe PennDOT employees to get HazMat licenses. An investigation was begun before 9-11 on this.

#82 Geepers

Re-read my post. I'm furious that the US government permitted the Frauds to carry on with this practice until last week. Along with Visa Express, diplomatic status for non-diplomats should have been terminated immediately after 9-11.

Henry S. (#84),

But now that Visa Express and diplomatic immunity for clerics has been reascended your happy right?

John Brady, look at what your masters have wrought.

A site to comment on the ACLU, alot of great commentaries here, but the one thing missing is , that I have not seen is that no one collectively is trying to do anything, soon that will change, a few friends of mine and myself are beginning a grassroots awareness campaign beginning in our home state of Ohio, we are currently working on networking churches and christians to each other via speaking engagements and a website, to be activated soon. We have to stop this attack on the American system soon, or the liberties we were given in the constitution will be gone , and once their gone , their gone...!
We have literally spent months researching the ACLU agenda and their roots and have came up with some very insitefull information, our intent is to soon begin a membership drive , as the ACLU does, and counter them move for move with a networking system that will rival every step they take , soon I will list the name of the site and we can together soon, begin to inform the American public what they need to do to get involved, instead of waiting for someone else to do something

THE ONLY THING NECESSARY FOR THE TRIUMPH OF EVIL IS FOR GOOD MEN TO DO NOTHING.

Edmund Burke 1756

JMiller (#87),

Good at ya! Keep us posted.

Where abouts in Ohio are you? I'm in Columbus.

35 miles south of you (Columbus) , Chillicothe

#85 Geepers

No. We should reward them for their efforts. That would make me happy.

Link not working. Here's the story:

US Wants Saudis to Bid for Iraq Contracts
Javid Hassan, Arab News Staff

William Lash with Abdulrahman Al-Jeraisy prior to their meeting. (AN photo by Abdallah Ateeq)

RIYADH, 7 December 2003 — The United States wants Saudi companies to take part in reconstruction projects in Iraq worth $18.6 billion. The call came from US Assistant Secretary of Commerce William Lash while meeting in Riyadh yesterday with Saudi businessmen at the Council of Saudi Chambers of Commerce and Industry.

Lash is in the Kingdom on a brief visit to whip up interest in work in Iraq.

“We want to encourage and facilitate Saudi businesses getting involved in the reconstruction of Iraq,” he told Arab News before flying to Jeddah. “We also want to encourage face-to-face contact between Iraqi and Saudi businessmen,” he said. “Saudi businesses have a very large and profitable role to play as regional leaders in the reconstruction program.”

The US Department of Commerce plans to conduct seminars and hold regular consultations to keep the Saudi businessmen informed about upcoming projects. Meanwhile, new tenders would be coming out soon and Saudi companies could bid in joint ventures with American counterparts.

The Riyadh meeting also heard that Saudi Arabia wants the US to agree to reopen the Saudi-Iraqi border at Judaidat Arar. Abdulrahman Al-Jeraisy, chairman of the Council of Saudi Chambers of Commerce, announced that the Kingdom plans to set up a coordination office at Judaidat Arar to facilitate direct trade with Iraq. But that would require American backing to get the border open.

“Moreover, businesses won’t need a visa to go to Iraq as they can operate from Judaidat Arar. Having this gate opened would help us to avoid using other Iraqi borders with Jordan or Kuwait.”

But Jeraisy also voiced concerns whether Saudi companies would get further involved in Iraq given the present situation there. Businessmen were unhappy about bidding for new projects without firm guarantees, he said. Some had lost a lot of money in Iraq, and Saudi investments need to be underwritten. “We want a letter of credit from a reputed financial institution or a solid guarantee,” he said.

Lash, however, did not believe that was necessary or wanted. “We’re not aware of any requests for guarantees,” he said. On the contrary, there is “Saudi enthusiasm” for doing business in Iraq — “without guarantees.”

In other words, the Saudis own us. What a happy thought.

I'm still convinced that the censored 28 page annex to the Congressional 9-11 Report will emerge in the next 11 months--before the election--by one of the democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The question will then become how quickly we can take control of the Saudi oil fields.

#93 Gary

The question will then become how quickly we can take control of the Saudi oil fields.

Ain't gonna happen. This administration is married to the Saudis -- for better or for worse. You don't award $18 billion contracts to a regime that you expect to go to war with.

#93, Gary Bruce
#94, Henry S.

In #75 I suggested seizing the Saudi oil fields, and asked what the effect on the jihad would be?

If it would be a key to slowing down/stopping the jihad, then W should be challenged if it ain't gonna happen. But by whom? I suspect the public doesn't really buy the "Saudis are our friends" line--but not so much because it is so well informed, but because those fat, ugly princes don't look like buddies.

those fat, ugly princes don't look like buddies.

Don't talk about Colin Powell's friends like that!

Henry S., good comments.

#95 observer

Look at the political demographics on this board. I'd say it consists of about 80 - 90% conservative republicans (Bush supporters). Yet, perhaps only 30% of those advocate for military action against SA. The other 70% will follow the lead of GWB. On the other side, there are even fewer democrats who want to see the US "alienate" more Muslims -- perhaps 10%. That places us in the minority -- say, 40% -- of the general population. Unless there are several new terrorist attacks on US soil or an attack with WMD (and Wahhabis are implicated), that number will not grow and will not be large enough to effect changes in the WH or Congress leading to a change in the status quo with Riyadh.

#97 zb

;>)

Henry S. #98 - the military cannot take out another regime right now and still provide non-nuclear deterrence to NK (thanks to the two major theater war doctrine and Bill Clinton). Give 'em some time to digest what we've got and re-arm. IMO, the military needs almost a year before we can take out another regime.

Put me in with the South Park Republicans or Conservative Democrats.

#100 BR

I know about the "two major theatre war doctrine" but I don't feel it applies here because SA, if attacked by the US would fold within 48 hours. In fact, the 8,000 princes are likely to be checking into their suites in Geneva before the first shots are fired.

We would require an occupation force but given the light population density (compared to Iraq for example) this could be accomplished with a much smaller army. The real key would be to get control of Mecca, Medina, and the oil fields into the hands of a benign Arab custodian as quickly as possible.

Henry S. (#98),

Look at the political demographics on this board. I'd say it consists of about 80 - 90% conservative republicans

And you know this how?

#102 Geepers

Hanging on my every word in this thread, huh? See the quote you excerpted above? Read it again.

I'd say it consists of about 80 - 90% conservative republicans

"I'd say", NOT "I know".

It's an estimate, a rough guess, a ballpark figure, etc. based on reading and posting here for 18 months.

You want to call in Nielson and conduct a scientific survey?