Finally somebody's saying it out loud.
August 6, 2002 4:58 AM   Subscribe

Finally somebody's saying it out loud. A "top Pentagon advisory board" says the real enemy in the War on terrorism is...drum roll, please....Saudi Arabia.
posted by alumshubby (74 comments total)

 
There is a war on and we are losing, the enemy however is known all to well.
posted by johnnyboy at 5:12 AM on August 6, 2002


Can you say "hijacked thread"?
posted by alumshubby at 5:20 AM on August 6, 2002


Yay! Hydrogen powered cars for everyone! Get in line to be a Texas Hydrogen baron now!
posted by machaus at 5:30 AM on August 6, 2002


I would feel a whole lot more sanguine about this supposed turn against the Saudis if most of those espousing it did not have Jewish surnames.

And yes, I am Jewish, thanks for asking.

Seriously, though, don't these neocons realize how easily their message can be countered, and nullified as part of the supposed "Jewish agenda," by any moron who "connects the dots"?
posted by adamgreenfield at 5:43 AM on August 6, 2002


There is a lot of oil in Alberta. Canada had better stop rocking the boat unless they want to become a point on the axis of evil...
posted by Fabulon7 at 5:50 AM on August 6, 2002


there IS a war on, the enemy is the triumvirate of evil: bush, cheney, and asscroft.
posted by quonsar at 6:02 AM on August 6, 2002


uh humm, sorry, hijacked thread. Happy.
posted by johnnyboy at 6:15 AM on August 6, 2002


Actually, Canada, Mexico, and Australia formed the Axis of Nations That Are Actually Quite Nice But Secretly Have Nasty Thoughts About America. [from SatireWire]
posted by Stuart_R at 6:15 AM on August 6, 2002


Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.
posted by riviera at 6:16 AM on August 6, 2002


no way bush, cheney and laura asscroft. The three musk-o-rears
posted by johnnyboy at 6:17 AM on August 6, 2002


It seems by the varied opinions in the article that we've entered the grey area between friendly and adversarial relations with Saudi Arabia with no end in sight. But the logic that installing democracy in Iraq would help to leverage our relationship with Saudi Arabia is wack.
posted by yonderboy at 6:33 AM on August 6, 2002


It's wack? Let's try and see.
posted by ParisParamus at 6:47 AM on August 6, 2002


While I heartedly dislike Bush and gang, I thought it was Saudi citizens and Saudi money that was involved in Sept. 11. But the again, I could be wrong.
posted by Postroad at 6:48 AM on August 6, 2002


Adam, maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not seeing the Jewish connection. Several people on the Pentagon advisory board have Jewish names, but the only two names mentioned as authoring the report were Laurent Murawiec and Richard Perle. What I don't understand is why the Washington Post went to so many conservative Jewish sources for supporting quotes, lazy research maybe? I can think of several sources who aren't Jewish who would have said the same things. Also, Kissinger is quoted as critical of the report.

As for the report authors, Richard Perle has a long record of claiming nearly everyone in the Arab World is a threat to America. He's also lovingly referred to as an "Isreali Agent" by several white power/Arab jew-hating/neo-nazi web sites. (search Google for "richard perle jewish" for a dose of hated, the sites do cross over.) Laurent Murawiec has a diverse background in international affairs.

It ultimately doesn't matter if there are Jewish names in the report. Those convinced that a Jewish conspiracy is running the world believe everything is controlled by Jews anyway, Jewish authors or not. If you/we start reacting to that absurd, poisonous idea we might as well stop living. I highly suggest reading a few hate groups' websites to be reminded exactly how extensive these irrational people believe Jewish control to be.

I found it much more disturbing to learn that Dan Quayle was on the advisory board.
posted by joemaller at 6:53 AM on August 6, 2002


Joemaller, ha ha. You're right, that really is the disturbing part. Might as well have Mayor Quimby on it.

But in all seriousness, a reckoning is coming with Saudi Arabia. One wonders what we can do.
posted by pjgulliver at 7:00 AM on August 6, 2002


Back on track.. Finally, people are actually looking in the proper direction. As the article states, they have been actively promoting anti-US propaganda as well as financially supporting various terrorist activities.

The most interesting part for me was the potential to seize their oil fields (which, according to previous discussions on meta were originally owned and operated by US companies, before being 'given' to the Saudis). This would, of course, require that a sizeable military force be maintained in the region -- which wouldn't be such a bad idea given today's environment over there.
posted by eas98 at 7:03 AM on August 6, 2002


Eas98. The article mentions seizing their oilfields and financial assets OUTSIDE of Saudi Arabia, ei, fields Saudi Aramco may own in Texas.
posted by pjgulliver at 7:06 AM on August 6, 2002


If anyone truly believes the House of Bush would ever cut ties, or even moderate their ass-kissing, with the House of Saud....well, i have 2 towers to sell them downtown....
posted by amberglow at 7:07 AM on August 6, 2002


and joemaller, I was just as disturbed to see Kissinger still skulking around. But I guess since he's wanted for questioning in many parts of the world, he feels safe close to home. Feh.
posted by kittyloop at 7:09 AM on August 6, 2002


A little political will + renewed relationships with alternate petroleum-producing countries (like Russia) + a nice efficient hydrogen-fueled car = Saudi Arabia once again becoming a not-very-interesting part of the desert that no one goes to.
posted by UncleFes at 7:17 AM on August 6, 2002


Great. So we're going to seize the Saudi oil fields, maintain a strong military presence in Afghanistan, invade Iraq, keep funneling forces into the Philippines and defend Taiwan from Chinese aggression (yes, that's heating up, too). All the while, we've got thousands upon thousands of troops committed to Europe, Japan and Korea. Anybody else wonder how thin our military forces can stretch?
posted by TBoneMcCool at 7:28 AM on August 6, 2002


Not very many people go to Saudi, anyway.
posted by drstrangelove at 7:46 AM on August 6, 2002


Russia, ANWR, hydrogen-power, yada yada yada. What about good ol'-fashioned conservation? Or is that un-American?

Instead of pipe-dreamin' about magic bullets, why not purchase small, fuel-efficient cars we already have, instead of Nimitz-class SUVs?
posted by drstrangelove at 7:53 AM on August 6, 2002


A little political will + renewed relationships with alternate petroleum-producing countries (like Russia) + a nice efficient hydrogen-fueled car = Saudi Arabia once again becoming a not-very-interesting part of the desert that no one goes to.

Yeah, I think I read that somewhere.
posted by TBoneMcCool at 7:56 AM on August 6, 2002


Something that hasn’t yet been mentioned in this thread is that Saudi Arabia is home to the two holiest sites in Islam; any perceived threat from American intervention will not help our popularity among Muslims.
posted by TedW at 7:59 AM on August 6, 2002


couldn't agree more with amberglow, bush and his energy loving buddies would never cut ties with such a huge investment...
posted by mhaw at 8:04 AM on August 6, 2002


Yeah, I think I read that somewhere.

::shakes head in ugga-wugga fashion::

Sometimes what's me and what's me-dia gets all mixed up inside my brain, sorry.
posted by UncleFes at 8:05 AM on August 6, 2002


Sometimes what's me and what's me-dia gets all mixed up inside my brain

Believe me, I know the feeling!
posted by TBoneMcCool at 8:13 AM on August 6, 2002


...one big parking lot...
posted by clavdivs at 8:14 AM on August 6, 2002


...covered in melted sand...
posted by quonsar at 8:36 AM on August 6, 2002


...so God can look down and see his reflection?
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 8:39 AM on August 6, 2002


Yes you're right. Nobody will go to Saudi Arabia. What would they go for?
posted by i_cola at 8:48 AM on August 6, 2002


Well, in my book wars are fought between people, not concepts. So this war on "terrorism" is really against "terrorists," and "terrorists" all just happen to be the people that live on the largest deposits of oil in the world.

Funny coincidence... the people that are writing our government policies are those who profit most from, you guessed it, oil consumption.

But I'm sure that has nothing to do with why we're blowing up innocents all over the world. We do that to remove tyrannical leaders, and improve human rights around the world. Look how active we've been in Africa, after all... and China, we've been putting some major pressure on that front right
posted by zekinskia at 8:53 AM on August 6, 2002


The Axis of Evil® countries don't seem to have anything to do with terrorism against the US, and the countries that do (Suadi Arabia and Egypt) are being given a free pass. What's becoming clear is that the War On Terror® is being used as the media spin opportunity of a lifetime by the Bush team.

All the things Bush would have liked to do but couldn't are suddenly possible as long as the words "fighting global terrorism" or "safety of hard working Americans" are stamped on it.

So his dad got made to look like a failure after the Gulf War? No problem, we'll just say Iraq is the world's largest exporter of terrorism. Once we say it, no one will dare oppose it. So dad didn't like the way the CIA was hobbled by the civil rights loving whiny asses? No problem, we'll just roll up all the security agencies into one giant, blackhole-like bureaucracy which can spy on anything. So the economy is swirling down the toilet? No problem, we don't need to worry about that because we're busy fighting terrorism.
posted by y6y6y6 at 8:54 AM on August 6, 2002


Nobody will go to Saudi Arabia. What would they go for?

Doh, forgot about the whole invisible magical overlord's arbitrary tourism demands. My bad.
posted by UncleFes at 8:57 AM on August 6, 2002


Early next year action will be taken in the middle east in order to boost the economy and buff up the global terror fighting image. By that time corporate profit misstatements will not be popping up each week either. This gives Bush a great chance to say, "I cleaned up the corporations, I fixed the economy, and I am continuing to fight evil and protect U.S citizens." Then he will be wildly popular, destroy any opponent in the Fall Election and he will be our president for another 4 years. Smart moves on his part, and good things will happen for all of us. So sit back and complain all you want.
posted by Mushkelley at 9:07 AM on August 6, 2002


I wonder if your average run-of-the-mill militant fundamentalist Islamic-on-the-street reads the Washington Post (or follows links from The Drudge Report)? I can hardly wait to see what kind of response this gets in the Moslem world.

For the nonce, though, I'm looking forward in particular to the responses from Crown Prince Abdullah ibn Abdulaziz (de facto leader in SA) and Prince Bandar bin Sultan (SA ambassador to the US) and the Bush Administration's furious (in both senses of the word) backpedaling.
posted by alumshubby at 9:17 AM on August 6, 2002


I hope I don't get stationed in Saudi Arabia. No offense, I just really don't like heat.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 9:29 AM on August 6, 2002


If America invades Iraq, Bush can cut all ties to Saudi Arabia. Iraq has just as much oil and cheaper extraction costs. Friends, schrmiends, this was always about $$$ anyway, and there are trillions to be made in Iraq.
posted by cell divide at 9:32 AM on August 6, 2002


Alumshubby:
Prince Bandar bin Sultan has already weighed-in (via Reuters):
The Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, told the newspaper he did not take the briefing seriously. "I think that it is a misguided effort that is shallow and not honest about the facts," he said. "Repeating lies will never make them facts".
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 9:32 AM on August 6, 2002


Early next year action will be taken in the middle east in order to boost the economy and buff up the global terror fighting image.

This, and the rest of your post, reads like a quote from Bush himself - no substance, no logic, no argument just dogmatic statements.

"I will clean up the corporations, I will fix the economy, I will fight evil and protect US citizens." - fair enough, how?

Do you believe everything people tell you?
posted by niceness at 9:35 AM on August 6, 2002


I read a small article somewhere... from Time or USA Today, perhaps... that stated the United States gets only around 30% of its oil from Saudis & other countries in the region. A vast majority came from places on this side of the world... here in North America and down south.

Anyone know the report I'm thinking of? Was it pure crap?
posted by cinematique at 9:42 AM on August 6, 2002


any perceived threat from American intervention will not help our popularity among Muslims.

Ummm, how could our "popularity" get much worse?? Besides, force gets you places in the middle east. Popularity gets you offed but quick.

"Repeating lies will never make them facts". -"Prince" Bandar

Oh sweet Irony...the man has completely lost touch with his roots
posted by BentPenguin at 9:47 AM on August 6, 2002


I believe that bush is no different than a politician of any other stripe. I also believe he is much smarter than people give him credit for being. He is smart enough to land himself in the seat of U.S power and he is going to be smart enough to use recent events to his advantage in winning the next election. I'm not trying to make an argument, just a prediction for when and why the executive branch will take action in the middle east. And it has nothing to do with the guy sitting there, any other person would do the same thing if they had the chance and the advisors to help guide them. It would be very foolish to invade Iraq or to sanction the Saudis now because any good it does will be forgotten by the next election and buried under silly reports about how Bush mispronounced something or other. Niceness, I don't believe anything people tell me, and I don't believe you are objective in your views of the U.S president.
posted by Mushkelley at 9:49 AM on August 6, 2002


Aww crap.

Is it really worth it to attack SA? On the one hand you have a whole lot of oil, but on the other you have Mecca and Medina. This whole "war on terror" is gonna get very interesting if anyone tries to follow through with any action against SA.
posted by fnord_prefect at 10:17 AM on August 6, 2002


"The road to the entire Middle East goes through Baghdad," said the administration official, who is hawkish on Iraq. "Once you have a democratic regime in Iraq, like the ones we helped establish in Germany and Japan after World War II, there are a lot of possibilities."


This strike anyone else as the really salient point in that story? Sounds kind of like an inverted Domino Theory, doesn't it?

Ah, yes, if only we can bring democracy to Baghdad, then the entire region will tumble into a neat democratic line. Why, anyone who opposes war with Iraq opposes democracy itself!
posted by gompa at 10:47 AM on August 6, 2002


Um. Hardly anything in the report suggests "attacking" SA, yet that seems to be the point most people in this thread want to argue. I guess you CAN have your straw man and eat it, too.

Murawiec said in his briefing that the United States should demand that Riyadh stop funding fundamentalist Islamic outlets around the world, stop all anti-U.S. and anti-Israeli statements in the country, and "prosecute or isolate those involved in the terror chain, including in the Saudi intelligence services."

If the Saudis refused to comply, the briefing continued, Saudi oil fields and overseas financial assets should be "targeted," although exactly how was not specified.


It certainly isn't "new" that people are saying that SA is a problem -- which is what I'd describe them as. As I've noted before, an ally is not the same thing as a friend; and as much as Bandar wants to laugh it off, we have entered that gray area where friendship is no longer assumed, probably as low a point in US-Saudi relations as there has been since the last time they invaded Israel a generation ago; and back then we weren't fast friends with the latter. This is just a briefing given to an influential policy board, and doesn't by any means represent anything official. It's only one view; the same board could hear a pro-Saudi briefing next week.

I have no doubt that the Bush coterie's close relations with the Saudis over the years make them reluctant to treat them less gingerly, but allowing this report to be presented was definitely a signal that they let through, a signal to the Saudi regime as much as anyone else. (In line with the signal sent by packing up our command base and moving to Qatar.) Certainly the dramatic change in our policies in the region has the potential to reduce their standing with us over time.

I do believe in separating issues when appropriate: That 15 Saudis were recruited for 9/11 by OBL is not an indication that the Saudi government is our enemy, and ideally they would be a fast ally in eliminating any threat. That the Saudi government has failed to assist, barely beyond financial investigations, is troubling. The terrorism that the government directly -- and openly -- supports, however, is the intifada which is killing Israelis. The Saudis are at pains to pretend that we're still friends, but they have to know that they've lost a great deal of trust. They're at a difficult time, with falling incomes, rising debt (even while making billions from oil!), restless underclass, and rents within the royal family.

By the by, the briefing was all Murawiec's work (though certainly it reflected a range of input); Perle is simply the chairman of the committee that heard it.
posted by dhartung at 10:54 AM on August 6, 2002


The Axis of Evil® countries don't seem to have anything to do with terrorism against the US, and the countries that do (Suadi Arabia and Egypt) are being given a free pass. What's becoming clear is that the War On Terror® is being used as the media spin opportunity of a lifetime by the Bush team.

i love comments like this. y6y6y6, do you happen to live in europe? or are you a leftist american?

the problem with this 'war' is that is cannot be faught like any other war in history. the people we are fighting (fundamentalists) are willing to die for their cause, and do it every day. so normal tactics will not work. you cannot threaten a group of people that are willing to kill themselves in the process of killing you and your children. you cannot just sit back and play "whack-a-mole" like the clinton administration did.

regarding your statement that we are currently not targeting the saudis or the egyptians... it's a very simple concept: if you want to take on a large group of oppenants, your best tactic is to pick them off one at a time. and how do you do that? by convincing the other guys that you won't come after them... you are just gonna get that one guy.. then when he's done, you pick another guy, and convice the others that they are still safe.. and so on and so forth.

who knows if we will need to attack the saudis... attacking iraq my shake things up enough in the region... we'll have to wait and see.

you want some good commentary on the war? check out u.s.s. clueless.
posted by epoh at 10:54 AM on August 6, 2002


"terrorists" all just happen to be the people that live on the largest deposits of oil..."
Funny Coincidence®? Nah. It goes like this...

Some Arab governments have a lot of oil & allegedly sacred sites but don't have a strong military or a democratic society.
Some Arabs have strong religious beliefs, a nationalistic outlook & wealth.

Westerners have a demand for a lot of oil, technological and military advantage & have different religious beliefs.

The Arab governments then request that different-believers protect their oil (and, by extension, sacred sites), to the regret, horror & disgust of the noble common man.

It's definitely NOT a coincidence that the disaffected populace, goaded and misdirected by radical and plutocratic believers are then willing to attack the targets chosen by their overlords. Its deliberate.
As is the targetting of Iraq when respectable former WMD inspectors cast doubt on the possession of WMD by that country: it just suits US policy to reject compromise as much as it suits Saddam.
posted by dash_slot- at 11:02 AM on August 6, 2002


Is it really worth it to attack SA? On the one hand you have a whole lot of oil, but on the other you have Mecca and Medina...


I would like to re-float my Idea of the Month:

Invade SA, and transport all of the sacred sites of Mecca to New York. Place them on various floors of a rebuilt 125 story World Trade Center. And for build a few mosques into the structures.
posted by ParisParamus at 11:05 AM on August 6, 2002


Jeez epoh, the strategy you lay out of attacking your enemies one by one while assuring the rest that they are safe sounds an awful lot like the way Hitler conducted business. But I doubt that comparison will be made any time soon in the headlines: "U.S uses Nazi War manual to fight the war on Terror. Jewish people applaud."
posted by Mushkelley at 11:23 AM on August 6, 2002


The report concludes by linking regime change in Iraq to altering Saudi behavior. This view, popular among some neoconservative thinkers, is that once a U.S. invasion has removed Hussein from power, a friendly successor regime would become a major exporter of oil to the West. That oil would diminish U.S. dependence on Saudi energy exports, and so -- in this view -- permit the U.S. government finally to confront the House of Saud for supporting terrorism.

I see. So reducing dependance on Saudi Oil is the key to ending Saudi support of terrorism. Why then aren't these same policy wonks advocating a switch to renewable energy and more fuel efficient cars. After all, shouldn't conservatives be in favor of conservation? Or could it be that they have no clue what they are talking about and will fabricate any excuse to blow shit up in Iraq.
posted by euphorb at 11:29 AM on August 6, 2002


you want some good commentary on the war? check out u.s.s. clueless.

Hah!! The only correct thing about steven den beste's weblog is it's name. Kinda like Ann Thrax's new book, only the title is correct (Slander.) And it seems you weren't trying to be funny either. Oh well.

Repeat after me:

War is Peace!
Patriots Must Support War!
Do Not Question the Wisdom of der Fuerher!
Kill 'em All and Let God Sort Them Out!
The Best Defense is a Good Offense!
False Religions Must Be Punished!

Den's Best !
posted by nofundy at 11:49 AM on August 6, 2002


I believe that bush is no different than a politician of any other stripe. I also believe he is much smarter than people give him credit for being…. I don't believe anything people tell me, and I don't believe you are objective in your views of the U.S president.

Last week I watched a Republican congressman on the BBC - In 10 minutes he must have used the phrase "I believe…" at least 30 times (my wife overheard and assumed it was a spoof documentary). He made no justification, logical or otherwise for any of his ‘beliefs’, his entire argument consisted of we ‘believe’ we are right (and therefore "trust us we will do what we like".

And yet you "don’t believe anything people tell me".

Is this what passes for moral and political discourse in the US these days.
posted by niceness at 12:36 PM on August 6, 2002


nofundy, your CD is stuck on the "ad hominem" track again. Give it a knock, would you?

Mushkelley: You may wish to acquaint yourself with the works of Major-General Carl von Clausewitz, especially the concept loosely attributed to him called "defeat in detail". Any strategist would be fool to take on all his potential enemies simultaneously; and taking them on singly and sequentially does not require perfidy, annexation, or institution of a racist political regime in the defeated territory. So watch your comparisons.
posted by dhartung at 1:29 PM on August 6, 2002


I would like to re-float my Idea of the Month:

Why bother? Short of following that idiot on eBay and tattooing 'I Am A Bigot' on your shaven head, there's no need to re-state your credentials here.
posted by riviera at 2:01 PM on August 6, 2002


thank you dhartung.

it's easy for people to laugh and point fingers and place blame on the united states, but the bottom line is that the united states has had a stable government and economy longer than any other country in history. it's easy for europeans to sit around and compain about what we're doing, because they don't possess the power to do it themselves! they've spent years building up connections with the PA, the house of saud, king of jordan and everyone else down there. they are scared sh-tless of the united states shaking things up, because they will have effectively lost all that money they've been pouring into the middle east for the past decade.
posted by epoh at 2:33 PM on August 6, 2002


euphorb wrote: I see. So reducing dependance on Saudi Oil is the key to ending Saudi support of terrorism.

no one said that. please learn how to read.

Why then aren't these same policy wonks advocating a switch to renewable energy and more fuel efficient cars.

someone needs to come up with and efficient and cost-effective alternative to fossil fuels for this to happen. what would you suggest we use?

After all, shouldn't conservatives be in favor of conservation? Or could it be that they have no clue what they are talking about and will fabricate any excuse to blow shit up in Iraq.

and now it comes down to how you really feel, a completely twisted view of the situation. i for one consider myself a conservative, and i am in favor of another 3,000 people not getting blow up by psychos. if that means we need to completely dismantle every government in the middle east, one at a time, and i am all for that.

if you think that saddam is some sort of fantastic leader that the iraqi people adore, you need to wake up. this man has hijacked a country. he is starving his own people and repressing their needs. his son, who is set to take over, is a completely psychotic murderer.
posted by epoh at 2:43 PM on August 6, 2002


Epoh: precisely right. There was an article on the impotence of Europe discussed on Mefi (a French friend also e-mailed it to me).

Ask yourself this question: if France, or the nations of the EU wanted to go to war with a country more powerful than, say, Poland, could it/they? Could they win decisively, in a matter of days or months? The answer is no, and European foreign policy flows from this reality. Add in the anti-democratic realities of politics in Europe, and you have most of the explanation for Europe's pragmatic love of the Mideast (minus Israel).
posted by ParisParamus at 2:47 PM on August 6, 2002


Paris, you are soooo correct. Europe has no ability to field more than an exploratory military force, or limit special forces, anywhere outside of Europe itself. The French have a limited penetration in Africa due to the Foreign Legion, but that's it. Europe could barely get enough troops to BOSNIA to conduct a piece keeping mission. And they completely lack smart weapons for their aircraft (let alone a mobile strike force like our carriers or intercontinental bombers.)
posted by pjgulliver at 2:50 PM on August 6, 2002


(excluding the UK)
posted by ParisParamus at 2:55 PM on August 6, 2002


Rivera: get a sense of humor. For you, it's bigotry to do anything but have the Jews leave Israel. For you, it's OK for women to be oppressed and raped; people to be brainwashed into hating "THE INFIDELS"; etc, because as long as they as Muslims, it's OK. Well, it's not OK, and barbarism and oppression, whether inspired by, defended by, or tolerated by a religion, is still barbarism and oppression.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:03 PM on August 6, 2002


UK lacks heavy lift capability, as well as access to command, control, and intelligence capabilities overseas. They were only able to fight the Falklands conflict because the US loaned them satellite systems, intelligence, transport aircraft, and oilers for their fleet while at sea. Their carriers are a joke, they should be seen more as mobile sub hunting platforms then a strike force (incidentally, they were designed as sub hunting platforms to plug the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap in the event of a general European war with the CCCP.) And their military has deteriorated since then. I wish it weren't so, I have nothing but respect for the British, and, I think what military they have is highly competent. Its just not sizable enough to matter.
posted by pjgulliver at 3:15 PM on August 6, 2002


I too have great respect for the British. Their uniforms are striking, with taut fabric, impeccably sewn by Turnbull and Asser. The muscular arms of their special forces are especially respectful, as are their rosy complexions after a hard day of beating back swarthy hordes in country after country. But those days are, sadly, largely in the past. Unfortunately, their military spends only 25 billion "pounds" on the military each year. This is a paltry sum, equivalent to 40 billion Dollars. By comparison, Saudi Arabia, for the sake of Jesus, spends $18 billion a year.

By contrast the US spends $396 billion per annum. A healthy sum that is only .5% more in relation to GDP than the UK and aproximately equal to the Saudis. Our superior size, strength, and technology are nothing short of awesome. Sometimes, gazing through my books of military hardware, I find myself getting emotional in ways that were previously reserved only for my wife, my family, and my country. It is so more than just a symbol of immense power and ability to kill people in so many different, amazing ways. It's a symbol of my own self-worth and importance, the knowledge that I am a part of something so wonderful in its potency and fortitude. I often wish that other countries could even get a taste of such freedom from fear and weakness, and it's even amusing to watch them try. But deep down we all know they never will.
posted by cell divide at 5:09 PM on August 6, 2002


cell divide, LOL.

I do think the "reverse-domino" theory - and yes, you have correctly understood it - is astonishingly naive, especially after we acknowledged that the original domino theory had holes in it you could drive a Ho Chi Minh Trail through...
posted by adamgreenfield at 7:41 PM on August 6, 2002


For you, it's OK for women to be oppressed and raped; people to be brainwashed into hating "THE INFIDELS"; etc, because as long as they as Muslims, it's OK.

For me? That's rich. See, I didn't say any of that, and I challenge you to find any evidence that I have anything close to such beliefs; which means that you're putting words in my mouth. Now, using your standards, I could say that you expose yourself to old ladies on your daily commute, but that too would be unverifiable. Fortunately, you have said plenty of things to prove that you're a bigot, your 'bright' idea being just the latest.

Now, putting words in people's mouths is very lawyerly, but it doesn't make for good discussion. And really, for you to accuse me of such baseless beliefs is more amusing than your attempt to rewrite your bigotry as 'humour'.
posted by riviera at 7:24 AM on August 7, 2002


Actually, to call me a bigot is precisely that, since I've never said anything racist in my life. Too bad you have to fall back on such lameness; try challenging the validity of what I endorse, instead.
posted by ParisParamus at 11:18 AM on August 7, 2002


(diagramming the humor for the slow-witted, moving Mecca to Liberty Street was a joke; the rest was not).
posted by ParisParamus at 11:23 AM on August 7, 2002


Sometimes, gazing through my books of military hardware, I find myself getting emotional in ways that were previously reserved only for my wife, my family, and my country. It is so more than just a symbol of immense power and ability to kill people in so many different, amazing ways. It's a symbol of my own self-worth and importance, the knowledge that I am a part of something so wonderful in its potency and fortitude. I often wish that other countries could even get a taste of such freedom from fear and weakness, and it's even amusing to watch them try. But deep down we all know they never will.

Sometimes I get this feeling. Not usually though. I mean, a job is a job is a job. But sometimes you have to just look at where you are in the world and say "I work on a Nuclear Reactor! Man, this stuff is keen!" I would give a pound of flesh to see the British military goodies. Or the Russians.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 4:22 PM on August 7, 2002


Kissinger, Quayle, Gingrich and Perle on a Lie Detector?
posted by muckster at 8:22 PM on August 7, 2002


It's true, the UK government isn't as committed to defence spending as its war-like talk suggests. Instead it has announced a spending package that puts an enormous amount of cash into health and education. Damn this government and it's stupid priorities. Damn it to hell.
posted by Summer at 2:15 AM on August 8, 2002


Too bad you have to fall back on such lameness; try challenging the validity of what I endorse, instead.

After you accuse me of this? That's the pot calling the washing machine black. Go play with your HonestReporting emails, won't you?
posted by riviera at 4:59 AM on August 8, 2002


I'm rubber; You're glue. Whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:07 AM on August 8, 2002


I'm humus; you're chick peas. Say something intelligent, or nothing at all, please.
posted by ParisParamus at 10:59 AM on August 8, 2002


« Older George Ivanovich Gurdjieff....  |  Promiscuity is good.... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments