Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but the Saudis are an Allie of ours in the WoT, so is the Musharef regime in Pakistan (the nation MOST responsible for the nuclear proliferation we've seen in recent years)...I suppose we must take our Allies where we can find them.
The UAE, Jordan and Kuwait are also allies in this WoT and all of them are repressive Muslim theocratic states...and many of the people in those countries despise America, Israel and the West.
The Saudis TWICE exiled OBL from that country, the second time freezing all his assetts there. In the early 1990s, when OBL vowed revenge on the Saudi government for allowing U.S. troops on Arab soil to defend Kuwait, the Saudis warned the U.S. about him and continued to do so, through their exiling him. In fact, the Saudis have been the ONE member of OPEC to comply with U.S. reequests to increase oil output so as not to deliberately, artificially raise the global market price for oil.
Saddam's rogue government never ended its war with the U.S. after 1991 and constantly violated the "No Fly Zones" establishjed after that conflict (some 130+ times in 1998 alone). He harbored radical Islamic terrorists like Abu Abbas, allowed terror training camps like Salman Pak to openly operate in Iraq and cooperated with the al-Qaida led Ansar al-Islam camps in northern Iraq against their common enemy, in that region - the Kurds.
Tomorrow, both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia may come to be considered "enemies of America," China may well come to be seen as that as well, BUT for now, they are all "Allies" and trading partners, as well.
As Churchill once said, "There are no permanent Allies, ONLY permanent interests."
For now Saddam's regime, the Afghan Taliban, Syria and Iran are ALL considered "enemies," while Kuwait, Jordan, the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, are all considered "Allies," if albeit, imperfect ones.
Galloway was in bed with an "enemy of the West" (Saddam Hussein), while the Bush's have a relationship with the Saudi Royal Family, an entity still considered "an Allie" to both Britain and America.
In January 2004, he became a founding member of Respect, a new political coalition to the left of Labour, in association with the Socialist Workers Party and other left-wing groups...so YES, I'd agree that those Left-of-Center views alone make him "a nobody," IF by "a nobody" you mean an enemy of Liberty and Western traditions.
America has no fight with Saudi Arabia (SA) and never has!
IF anyone Left or Right in this country took the tack of inanely supporting, say some sort of sanctions on SA (no one has), I'd oppose that on the grounds that (1) SA took more action against OBL than did America pre-9/11, (2) the Saudis have consistently shielded America from the viscisitudes of the OPEC cartel and (3) Like Kuwait and the UAE, the Saudis have allowed US troops to be based in that country.
When we HAD to base US troops in Iraq (during Saddam's "rape of Kuwait"), we were forced to actually invade Iraq to do so! (1991)
Lately there've been reports (by Richard Clarke and others) that some people feel America isn't getting much bang for its $10 BILLION buck in Pakistan.
Again, Pakistan, like Saudi Arabia, is NOT (at least not at this time) "an enemy of America."
I think the confusion some folks have is over cultural differences and practicalities. Yes, the Muslim culture is so different, as to be antithetical to the West's. But that's NOT my major problem with them. Our number ONE export is entertainment, which is, in effect, exporting our "toxic culture" to people who don't particularly want it. As a result, much of the world now opposes the globalization that America and a few other Western nations are fully behind. THAT is the crux of this issue, to me.
I have a friend, Dave, who works in the UAE right now. He's a petroleum engineer.
Before he went there, he was sent a survey. Like a lot of governments, they want to know as much about you as a visitor as they can.
One of the survey questions was "What are your hobbies?"
My friend has a sense of humor, very much like mine, and initially was going to put down, "Wa-hobbie," but thought better of that given the current climate, so he just put down, "Stompin' queers," a line out of that great Michael Douglas movie Falling Down.
Well, when he got there, one of the local leaders looked him up to say, pretty much, "You're gonna love it here."
He didn't hook up the survey, that he'd already forgotten about, and that remark, UNTIL he was invited by that same guy (he wasn't sure if he was a sheik or an Imam) to witness the stoning of two homosexuals. The convicted were wrapped in sheets, buried up to their waists and a small group sort of "had at them" with rocks. But even the size of the stones used were prescribed - they couldn't be too big (cause the convicted might die too quick), nor too small (cause they might not do enough damage).
Dave said he forced himself watch the whole ordeal, saying it was like a "train wreck, you couldn't keep your eyes off," but added, "You know,' eventually we're gonna have to f*ck a whole lot of these people up."
I said,"Whaddaya think I've been sayin'? Of course we're gonna have to frag these f*ckers. We're gonna have to destroy that entire civilization."
Now, the UAE, like the Saudis are currently our "friends."
And none of THAT sh*t (stoning gays, forcing women into burquas, cutting off hands, feet and heads) is what I have a problem with, at least not primarily, lets put it that way.
I mean, if it were just THAT, I'd say "live and let live," but it's NOT about any of that. It's about their feeling compelled to put the entire world under Sharia Law...and THAT'S why the Americans/Westerners I revile the most are those who'd insist that "there must be a way to forge some kind of negotiated peace," that indeed "we CAN talk to the militant Islamists." Ironically enough, Dave, is one of thos guys - he makes money over there....lots of it and he doesn't want that symbiotic relationship to end.
I don't blame him, but you know what?
I don't give a sh*t whether we CAN talk to them, or negotiate a peace, or not. All I know is that that's NOT our destiny, because that's not the path that most advances America and Capitalism (economic Liberty)...and globalization.
With me, it's not so much that the Arabs/Muslims, even the most militant Islamists have done anything that's really all that wrong...it's really just a matter of their "being in the way."
So my view, is basically, "Let's just get this over with."
I am impressed. You are finally admitting that Bush is corrupt.
You misunderstand--I was merely attempting to figure out the logic of your argument.
You seemed to either be saying "George Galloway corrupt! Well, so's your mother!/president!" or "Because George Bush is corrupt, it does not matter that George Galloway is corrupt."
And saying "who cares?" just begs to question of why you even bothered to comment in the first place :p
The Saudis, like the Pakistanis are NOT enemies of the U.S., Saddam Hussein's regime certainly WAS.
But since BW, likes the idea that Galloway reviles Bush and Blair, because Galloway is a pro-Islamist (read "pro-terrorist") Westerner, BW likes Galloway and supports Galloway's Bush hatred.
Only thing I'd disagree with you on is that the Saudis are not the enemies of the United States. The money they pour into running radicalizing schools in not only the US, but Great Britain and other European countries as well--not to mention the fact that they promote programs whereby citizens of the aforementioned countries go to Saudi Arabia and get trained as Wahabi clerics--leads me to believe that they, along with the Iranians, are probably the greatest enemies that we have right now.
The Iranians fund the active terror cells, while the Saudis fund the schools that make war on Western culture. We may not be in a shooting battle with the Saudis in any direct way, but they are no friends of ours.
Adam, I wouldn't call them "friends," I'd call them "imperfect Allies."
The Saudis twice exiled OBL, the second time freezing his assetts there. They warned the U.S. about his activities.
They've also have bucked the OPEC cartel, on a number of occasions, to undercut the cartel's plans to raise the global market price for oil by reducing production quotas.
And the Saudis, like the Kuwaitis have allowed US troops to be based in their countries.
But yes, the Saudis have indeed funded radical madrassas, and it is the home of Wahhabism...and even many pro-Western Muslim nations have cultures that are virtually antithetical to the West (even the UAE, as my friend found out).
For better, or worse, the West first engaged the most radical anti-American roue Islamic states first - Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and Iran had all been among the terror-sponsoring nations we considered "enemies," while we accepted uneasy alliances with the Saudis, Pakistanis, the Emirates and the Kuwaitis.
One of the tacts of the radical Left has been to say, in effect, "How can you justify going after Iraq and Iran without going after Saudi Arabia and Pakistan?"
That's utter nonsense!
We are no more "friends" with the Saudis and Pakistanis then we were "friends" with the USSR in WW II. The USSR fought against Germany. They didn't declare war on Japan until the day AFTER the first atomic bomb was dropped on Japan and in the immediate aftermath of WW II, the Cold War was born.
The USSR was not a "friend" of America's or Britain's, just at best, "an Ally of convenience" and against one single enemy of the Axis Powers of WW II.
At this moment the Saudis are not "enemies" of the U.S. - they are not "friends" either.
I'd liken the situation to Churchill's post-WW II comment, "As Churchill once said, "There are no permanent Allies, ONLY permanent interests."
Still, there is no moral equivalency, as BW tries to make, between currently having relations with the Saudis (who've been able to be counted on to undercut the OPEC cartel) and relations with Saddam's Iraq, as Galloway did.
Am I reading this correctly from JMK? His good pal actually got a kick of sorts from watching some gay people get methodically stoned to death? Nice.
"My friend has a sense of humor, very much like mine, and initially was going to put down, "Wa-hobbie," but thought better of that given the current climate, so he just put down, "Stompin' queers," a line out of that great Michael Douglas movie Falling Down.
"Well, when he got there, one of the local leaders looked him up to say, pretty much, "You're gonna love it here."
"He didn't hook up the survey, that he'd already forgotten about, and that remark, UNTIL he was invited by that same guy (he wasn't sure if he was a sheik or an Imam) to witness the stoning of two homosexuals. The convicted were wrapped in sheets, buried up to their waists and a small group sort of "had at them" with rocks. But even the size of the stones used were prescribed - they couldn't be too big (cause the convicted might die too quick), nor too small (cause they might not do enough damage).
"Dave said he forced himself watch the whole ordeal, saying it was like a "train wreck, you couldn't keep your eyes off," but added, "You know,' eventually we're gonna have to f*ck a whole lot of these people up."
"I said,"Whaddaya think I've been sayin'? Of course we're gonna have to frag these f*ckers. We're gonna have to destroy that entire civilization."
Wow. Two veins-a-poppin' red-blooded U.S. of A. Americans.
Funny, I watched a building burn once and saw a firemen burn to death--not quickly or slowly but just right. The flames weren't hot enough to kill the guy instantly nor were the flames weak enough so that he had to spend too long in a burn unit. It was like a car accident; I had to watch.
"Am I reading this correctly from JMK? His good pal actually got a kick of sorts from watching some gay people get methodically stoned to death? Nice." (anon)
Indeed you are reading incorrectly, alright.
As I said, Dave initially never saw any evidence that "Islam is completely incompatible with the West," which is what I and many, many others fervently believe.
He said that he forced himself to stay and watch the ordeal (the stoning), since the people he was doing business with were there...and apparently that led to a belated revelation on his part - that Islam, as currently constituted cannot peacefully coexist with the West.
I think Dave saw my larger point, "It's about their feeling compelled to put the entire world under Sharia Law...and THAT'S why the Americans/Westerners I revile the most are those who'd insist that "there must be a way to forge some kind of negotiated peace," that indeed "we CAN talk to the militant Islamists."
"Ironically enough, Dave, is/was one of those guys - he makes money over there....lots of it and he doesn't want that symbiotic relationship to end.
"I don't blame him, but you know what?
"I don't give a sh*t whether we CAN talk to them, or negotiate a peace, or not. All I know is that that's NOT our destiny, because that's not the path that most advances America and Capitalism (economic Liberty)...and globalization."
If it were ONLY about there subjugating women and sentencing adulterers and homosexuals to hideous deaths, that would merely make traditional Islam culturally vile....but no threat to anyone outside those cultures.
It's (1) their expansionist view of global Sharia and (2) their antipathy for the economic globalization that both the U.S. & Britain (among others) fervently back, that makes militant Islam a threat that cannot be ignored.
P.S.
I actually have no trouble believing your delight at watching firefighters or cops suffer.
Dave clearly did not delight in the suffering of others. You probably assumed that, because you believe your thinking/feeling is normal and "everyone else must feel/think that way too."
I've probably been to over 3000 building fires, most of the time the residents have self-evacuated. In one fire I went to we took seven young children (all under 11) who were trapped in the apt above the fire, out via the Tower Ladder bucket and at another in the Webster Houses (on Webster Ave) we took three victims out of the fire apartment, Rescue-3 took another out and the Officer of Ladder-19 took out yet another. Those kinds of fires are very rare.
I've been fortunate like that, I've seen a lot of people who've been killed, and though I don't viscerally or emotionally connect with that (I don't react much to those things), I take no pleasure in them. In fact, the first fires that come to mind are the ones where everything went well.
I guess what I'm saying is that while neither Dave nor I (nor I'd think the vast majority of Americans) could live under Sharia Law and its cult of death, you, since you acknowledge taking pleasure in death, very well might.
sometimes the typewritten words, as you've experienced yourself, fails to make evident a joke, an effort at staire or parody, etc. since emphasis and voice inflection is nearly impossible. The firefighter death thing was a joke, of course.
Agreed on the 'if they were simply stoning people or subjugating women, that'd be fine..." Those kooks have been doing it for eons, and if thats their culture, let 'em have it. Yes, it is the part regarding exporting violently militant Islam--and I consider it, since I have very little to counter my thoughts, to be a violent religion--that needs to be countered effectively. EFFECTIVELY, but not the way we've been doing in Iraq.
Actually, I figured it was hyperbole, and I was guilty of being petulant with my last line. One of my more regrettable triats.
As a fellow poster prone to bouts of petulance (Fred) accurately notes, "I'm not going to win many nice guy awards."
Sadly for me, that is undeniably true.
I realize that my view that the West is currently at the beginning of a life & death struggle with Sharia-based Islam is a minority one.
I am not surprised by that and I don't blame people for disagreeing, especially with nearly EVERY elected official here and in Europe and virtually EVERY media-type shouting We are NOT at war with Islam."
That last statement is only technically correct, in my view, as we ARE indeed in a war (both a cultural and a shooting war) with Sharia-based Islam, which is "traditional Islam" based on the dictates of Sharia. Afghanistan's Taliban merely strictly adhered to the letter of Sharia Law.
I commend those who tend to instinctively disagree with my viewpoint because (1) it shows that most Westerners, especially most Americans find it almost impossible to believe that some kind of negotiated peace can't be made between the willing West and the as yet, unwilling Muslim world. It shows they want to believe that it's merely a matter of finding the right balance of negotiation...and (2) since most people probably don't have access to some of the information I have, that good will, is justified, given the information readilly on hand.
If I could point to ONE widely known and well established and accepted fact to make my case, I'd point to the fact that the terrorists that have plagued America and the West, are not from among the poorest, least educated and least "Westernized Muslims," but from among the most well-off, the best educated and the most "Westernized" (at least in outer appearance and actions) Muslims.
OBL is himself a very wealthy man, whose family made their wealth largely from the spoils of Western "petro dollars" - his family did large construction projects funded by Arab oil money in those lands.
Mohammed Atta was the son of a doctor and was himself, a trained engineer, and the rest of the 9/11 conspirators were largely well-off, well-educated and overtly "Westernized" Muslims. The most recent terror plot in England was conducted by physicians.
These are all extremely well-educated, articulate and overtly prosperous people who revile "the decadence of the West."
What I tried (and apparently failed to convey) with Dave's tale was that it took a barbaric stoning to make Dave realize that Sharia-based Islam is completely incompatible with the West.
I know that doesn't necessarily make Dave, nor myself right, BUT, there really is no way to explain the phenomenon of well-off, well-educated men becoming veritable suicidal jihadists in order to strike a blow against the "decadent West," but my view that it's NOT "radicalized Islam," nor even "Militant Islam," but merely Sharia-based Islam that encourages, even demands this kind of behavior (against infidels) by "true believers," is, I believe, the only way to explain that phenomenon.
I fully agree with your last line, "...that (militant Islam) needs to be countered effectively. EFFECTIVELY, but not the way we've been doing in Iraq."
I'd add a small caveat, the inital deposing of Saddam was, in my view very necesssary due to his violating 1441, in order to maintain his strategy of "Detterence by Doubt," AND the intial "war" went well.
It's the post-Saddam "reconstruction" that's been bungled and very badly mismanaged.
We've tried to foist an "Americanist," or at least a Western democracy upon an unwilling people...a very bad idea.
We've also failed to truly identify the enemy in the WoT (for fear of sparking "overreactions") and we've failed to explain the reasons behind rebuilding Iraq and assisting its fledgling government, rather than dividing it up.
In my view, we probably should've deposed Saddam and separated that country the way Yugoslavia was separated - the Kurdish north, the Sunni center and the Shia south, with oil revenues divided up among the three new states, but that too, would've been roundly criticized by both anti-war and reflexively anti-Bush people as well.
We've made many mistakes in post-Saddam Iraq and we're sadly not done in Afghanistan either and Syria and Iran also remain virulently anti-American nations that sponsor international terrorism.
Worse still is that al Qaida has made inroads in parts of Africa and places like Malaysia and Indonesia as well.
Those are the reasons I think we're only at the beginning of this struggle. I also increasingly believe that it will almost certainly take a second attack on American soil, maybe even a third, to fully engage most Americans in the reality of that this struggle IS life & death.
LOL! Sure, we are SO in danger! I'm shaking in my boots.
The fear-mongering fascists on the right grab illegal and unprecedented power over your personal life and destroy the rights and freedoms that millions died for ... and I guess you are all falling for it.
The danger is from Bush, Cheney, Rove, and other America-hating neo-fascists. The terrorists have *directly* impacted the lives of .01% of Americans, while the neo-fascists have stripped the rights of 100% of Americans, all under the guise of protection.
You don't want to be protected from smoking and trans-fat, JMK? I don't want my rights stripped to be protected from "terrorists".
Any real American would choose freedom over the alleged "safety" offered by neo-fascists.
Comments
Oh please... How about the Bush family and the Saudis? Go and watch Farenheit 911 :)
Posted by: Blue Wind | July 18, 2007 10:18 AM
Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but the Saudis are an Allie of ours in the WoT, so is the Musharef regime in Pakistan (the nation MOST responsible for the nuclear proliferation we've seen in recent years)...I suppose we must take our Allies where we can find them.
The UAE, Jordan and Kuwait are also allies in this WoT and all of them are repressive Muslim theocratic states...and many of the people in those countries despise America, Israel and the West.
The Saudis TWICE exiled OBL from that country, the second time freezing all his assetts there. In the early 1990s, when OBL vowed revenge on the Saudi government for allowing U.S. troops on Arab soil to defend Kuwait, the Saudis warned the U.S. about him and continued to do so, through their exiling him. In fact, the Saudis have been the ONE member of OPEC to comply with U.S. reequests to increase oil output so as not to deliberately, artificially raise the global market price for oil.
Saddam's rogue government never ended its war with the U.S. after 1991 and constantly violated the "No Fly Zones" establishjed after that conflict (some 130+ times in 1998 alone). He harbored radical Islamic terrorists like Abu Abbas, allowed terror training camps like Salman Pak to openly operate in Iraq and cooperated with the al-Qaida led Ansar al-Islam camps in northern Iraq against their common enemy, in that region - the Kurds.
Tomorrow, both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia may come to be considered "enemies of America," China may well come to be seen as that as well, BUT for now, they are all "Allies" and trading partners, as well.
As Churchill once said, "There are no permanent Allies, ONLY permanent interests."
For now Saddam's regime, the Afghan Taliban, Syria and Iran are ALL considered "enemies," while Kuwait, Jordan, the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, are all considered "Allies," if albeit, imperfect ones.
Galloway was in bed with an "enemy of the West" (Saddam Hussein), while the Bush's have a relationship with the Saudi Royal Family, an entity still considered "an Allie" to both Britain and America.
Posted by: JMK | July 18, 2007 11:49 AM
"Oh please... How about the Bush family and the Saudis?"
Well, if Bush is corrupt, then I guess it's ok for Galloway to be corrupt too.
Posted by: Adam | July 18, 2007 05:26 PM
"Well, if Bush is corrupt, then I guess it's ok for Galloway to be corrupt too."
Adam,
I am impressed. You are finally admitting that Bush is corrupt. It seems that even neocons are abandoning Bush these days.
P.S. Galloway is a nobody. Who cares about him?
Posted by: Blue Wind | July 18, 2007 06:08 PM
Actually BW, Galloway had been a Labour Party MP.
In January 2004, he became a founding member of Respect, a new political coalition to the left of Labour, in association with the Socialist Workers Party and other left-wing groups...so YES, I'd agree that those Left-of-Center views alone make him "a nobody," IF by "a nobody" you mean an enemy of Liberty and Western traditions.
America has no fight with Saudi Arabia (SA) and never has!
IF anyone Left or Right in this country took the tack of inanely supporting, say some sort of sanctions on SA (no one has), I'd oppose that on the grounds that (1) SA took more action against OBL than did America pre-9/11, (2) the Saudis have consistently shielded America from the viscisitudes of the OPEC cartel and (3) Like Kuwait and the UAE, the Saudis have allowed US troops to be based in that country.
When we HAD to base US troops in Iraq (during Saddam's "rape of Kuwait"), we were forced to actually invade Iraq to do so! (1991)
Lately there've been reports (by Richard Clarke and others) that some people feel America isn't getting much bang for its $10 BILLION buck in Pakistan.
Again, Pakistan, like Saudi Arabia, is NOT (at least not at this time) "an enemy of America."
I think the confusion some folks have is over cultural differences and practicalities. Yes, the Muslim culture is so different, as to be antithetical to the West's. But that's NOT my major problem with them. Our number ONE export is entertainment, which is, in effect, exporting our "toxic culture" to people who don't particularly want it. As a result, much of the world now opposes the globalization that America and a few other Western nations are fully behind. THAT is the crux of this issue, to me.
I have a friend, Dave, who works in the UAE right now. He's a petroleum engineer.
Before he went there, he was sent a survey. Like a lot of governments, they want to know as much about you as a visitor as they can.
One of the survey questions was "What are your hobbies?"
My friend has a sense of humor, very much like mine, and initially was going to put down, "Wa-hobbie," but thought better of that given the current climate, so he just put down, "Stompin' queers," a line out of that great Michael Douglas movie Falling Down.
Well, when he got there, one of the local leaders looked him up to say, pretty much, "You're gonna love it here."
He didn't hook up the survey, that he'd already forgotten about, and that remark, UNTIL he was invited by that same guy (he wasn't sure if he was a sheik or an Imam) to witness the stoning of two homosexuals. The convicted were wrapped in sheets, buried up to their waists and a small group sort of "had at them" with rocks. But even the size of the stones used were prescribed - they couldn't be too big (cause the convicted might die too quick), nor too small (cause they might not do enough damage).
Dave said he forced himself watch the whole ordeal, saying it was like a "train wreck, you couldn't keep your eyes off," but added, "You know,' eventually we're gonna have to f*ck a whole lot of these people up."
I said,"Whaddaya think I've been sayin'? Of course we're gonna have to frag these f*ckers. We're gonna have to destroy that entire civilization."
Now, the UAE, like the Saudis are currently our "friends."
And none of THAT sh*t (stoning gays, forcing women into burquas, cutting off hands, feet and heads) is what I have a problem with, at least not primarily, lets put it that way.
I mean, if it were just THAT, I'd say "live and let live," but it's NOT about any of that. It's about their feeling compelled to put the entire world under Sharia Law...and THAT'S why the Americans/Westerners I revile the most are those who'd insist that "there must be a way to forge some kind of negotiated peace," that indeed "we CAN talk to the militant Islamists." Ironically enough, Dave, is one of thos guys - he makes money over there....lots of it and he doesn't want that symbiotic relationship to end.
I don't blame him, but you know what?
I don't give a sh*t whether we CAN talk to them, or negotiate a peace, or not. All I know is that that's NOT our destiny, because that's not the path that most advances America and Capitalism (economic Liberty)...and globalization.
With me, it's not so much that the Arabs/Muslims, even the most militant Islamists have done anything that's really all that wrong...it's really just a matter of their "being in the way."
So my view, is basically, "Let's just get this over with."
Posted by: JMK | July 19, 2007 12:52 PM
I am impressed. You are finally admitting that Bush is corrupt.
You misunderstand--I was merely attempting to figure out the logic of your argument.
You seemed to either be saying "George Galloway corrupt! Well, so's your mother!/president!" or "Because George Bush is corrupt, it does not matter that George Galloway is corrupt."
And saying "who cares?" just begs to question of why you even bothered to comment in the first place :p
Posted by: Adam | July 19, 2007 05:25 PM
There isn't ANY "logic" to BW's argument Adam.
The Saudis, like the Pakistanis are NOT enemies of the U.S., Saddam Hussein's regime certainly WAS.
But since BW, likes the idea that Galloway reviles Bush and Blair, because Galloway is a pro-Islamist (read "pro-terrorist") Westerner, BW likes Galloway and supports Galloway's Bush hatred.
Posted by: JMK | July 19, 2007 08:11 PM
Only thing I'd disagree with you on is that the Saudis are not the enemies of the United States. The money they pour into running radicalizing schools in not only the US, but Great Britain and other European countries as well--not to mention the fact that they promote programs whereby citizens of the aforementioned countries go to Saudi Arabia and get trained as Wahabi clerics--leads me to believe that they, along with the Iranians, are probably the greatest enemies that we have right now.
The Iranians fund the active terror cells, while the Saudis fund the schools that make war on Western culture. We may not be in a shooting battle with the Saudis in any direct way, but they are no friends of ours.
Posted by: Adam | July 19, 2007 10:52 PM
Adam, I wouldn't call them "friends," I'd call them "imperfect Allies."
The Saudis twice exiled OBL, the second time freezing his assetts there. They warned the U.S. about his activities.
They've also have bucked the OPEC cartel, on a number of occasions, to undercut the cartel's plans to raise the global market price for oil by reducing production quotas.
And the Saudis, like the Kuwaitis have allowed US troops to be based in their countries.
But yes, the Saudis have indeed funded radical madrassas, and it is the home of Wahhabism...and even many pro-Western Muslim nations have cultures that are virtually antithetical to the West (even the UAE, as my friend found out).
For better, or worse, the West first engaged the most radical anti-American roue Islamic states first - Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and Iran had all been among the terror-sponsoring nations we considered "enemies," while we accepted uneasy alliances with the Saudis, Pakistanis, the Emirates and the Kuwaitis.
One of the tacts of the radical Left has been to say, in effect, "How can you justify going after Iraq and Iran without going after Saudi Arabia and Pakistan?"
That's utter nonsense!
We are no more "friends" with the Saudis and Pakistanis then we were "friends" with the USSR in WW II. The USSR fought against Germany. They didn't declare war on Japan until the day AFTER the first atomic bomb was dropped on Japan and in the immediate aftermath of WW II, the Cold War was born.
The USSR was not a "friend" of America's or Britain's, just at best, "an Ally of convenience" and against one single enemy of the Axis Powers of WW II.
At this moment the Saudis are not "enemies" of the U.S. - they are not "friends" either.
I'd liken the situation to Churchill's post-WW II comment, "As Churchill once said, "There are no permanent Allies, ONLY permanent interests."
Still, there is no moral equivalency, as BW tries to make, between currently having relations with the Saudis (who've been able to be counted on to undercut the OPEC cartel) and relations with Saddam's Iraq, as Galloway did.
Posted by: JMK | July 20, 2007 08:26 AM
Am I reading this correctly from JMK? His good pal actually got a kick of sorts from watching some gay people get methodically stoned to death? Nice.
"My friend has a sense of humor, very much like mine, and initially was going to put down, "Wa-hobbie," but thought better of that given the current climate, so he just put down, "Stompin' queers," a line out of that great Michael Douglas movie Falling Down.
"Well, when he got there, one of the local leaders looked him up to say, pretty much, "You're gonna love it here."
"He didn't hook up the survey, that he'd already forgotten about, and that remark, UNTIL he was invited by that same guy (he wasn't sure if he was a sheik or an Imam) to witness the stoning of two homosexuals. The convicted were wrapped in sheets, buried up to their waists and a small group sort of "had at them" with rocks. But even the size of the stones used were prescribed - they couldn't be too big (cause the convicted might die too quick), nor too small (cause they might not do enough damage).
"Dave said he forced himself watch the whole ordeal, saying it was like a "train wreck, you couldn't keep your eyes off," but added, "You know,' eventually we're gonna have to f*ck a whole lot of these people up."
"I said,"Whaddaya think I've been sayin'? Of course we're gonna have to frag these f*ckers. We're gonna have to destroy that entire civilization."
Wow. Two veins-a-poppin' red-blooded U.S. of A. Americans.
Funny, I watched a building burn once and saw a firemen burn to death--not quickly or slowly but just right. The flames weren't hot enough to kill the guy instantly nor were the flames weak enough so that he had to spend too long in a burn unit. It was like a car accident; I had to watch.
That's funny too, isn't it?
Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 10:54 AM
"Am I reading this correctly from JMK? His good pal actually got a kick of sorts from watching some gay people get methodically stoned to death? Nice." (anon)
Indeed you are reading incorrectly, alright.
As I said, Dave initially never saw any evidence that "Islam is completely incompatible with the West," which is what I and many, many others fervently believe.
He said that he forced himself to stay and watch the ordeal (the stoning), since the people he was doing business with were there...and apparently that led to a belated revelation on his part - that Islam, as currently constituted cannot peacefully coexist with the West.
I think Dave saw my larger point, "It's about their feeling compelled to put the entire world under Sharia Law...and THAT'S why the Americans/Westerners I revile the most are those who'd insist that "there must be a way to forge some kind of negotiated peace," that indeed "we CAN talk to the militant Islamists."
"Ironically enough, Dave, is/was one of those guys - he makes money over there....lots of it and he doesn't want that symbiotic relationship to end.
"I don't blame him, but you know what?
"I don't give a sh*t whether we CAN talk to them, or negotiate a peace, or not. All I know is that that's NOT our destiny, because that's not the path that most advances America and Capitalism (economic Liberty)...and globalization."
If it were ONLY about there subjugating women and sentencing adulterers and homosexuals to hideous deaths, that would merely make traditional Islam culturally vile....but no threat to anyone outside those cultures.
It's (1) their expansionist view of global Sharia and (2) their antipathy for the economic globalization that both the U.S. & Britain (among others) fervently back, that makes militant Islam a threat that cannot be ignored.
P.S.
I actually have no trouble believing your delight at watching firefighters or cops suffer.
Dave clearly did not delight in the suffering of others. You probably assumed that, because you believe your thinking/feeling is normal and "everyone else must feel/think that way too."
I've probably been to over 3000 building fires, most of the time the residents have self-evacuated. In one fire I went to we took seven young children (all under 11) who were trapped in the apt above the fire, out via the Tower Ladder bucket and at another in the Webster Houses (on Webster Ave) we took three victims out of the fire apartment, Rescue-3 took another out and the Officer of Ladder-19 took out yet another. Those kinds of fires are very rare.
I've been fortunate like that, I've seen a lot of people who've been killed, and though I don't viscerally or emotionally connect with that (I don't react much to those things), I take no pleasure in them. In fact, the first fires that come to mind are the ones where everything went well.
I guess what I'm saying is that while neither Dave nor I (nor I'd think the vast majority of Americans) could live under Sharia Law and its cult of death, you, since you acknowledge taking pleasure in death, very well might.
Posted by: JMK | July 20, 2007 11:47 AM
sometimes the typewritten words, as you've experienced yourself, fails to make evident a joke, an effort at staire or parody, etc. since emphasis and voice inflection is nearly impossible. The firefighter death thing was a joke, of course.
Agreed on the 'if they were simply stoning people or subjugating women, that'd be fine..." Those kooks have been doing it for eons, and if thats their culture, let 'em have it. Yes, it is the part regarding exporting violently militant Islam--and I consider it, since I have very little to counter my thoughts, to be a violent religion--that needs to be countered effectively. EFFECTIVELY, but not the way we've been doing in Iraq.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 12:49 PM
Actually, I figured it was hyperbole, and I was guilty of being petulant with my last line. One of my more regrettable triats.
As a fellow poster prone to bouts of petulance (Fred) accurately notes, "I'm not going to win many nice guy awards."
Sadly for me, that is undeniably true.
I realize that my view that the West is currently at the beginning of a life & death struggle with Sharia-based Islam is a minority one.
I am not surprised by that and I don't blame people for disagreeing, especially with nearly EVERY elected official here and in Europe and virtually EVERY media-type shouting We are NOT at war with Islam."
That last statement is only technically correct, in my view, as we ARE indeed in a war (both a cultural and a shooting war) with Sharia-based Islam, which is "traditional Islam" based on the dictates of Sharia. Afghanistan's Taliban merely strictly adhered to the letter of Sharia Law.
I commend those who tend to instinctively disagree with my viewpoint because (1) it shows that most Westerners, especially most Americans find it almost impossible to believe that some kind of negotiated peace can't be made between the willing West and the as yet, unwilling Muslim world. It shows they want to believe that it's merely a matter of finding the right balance of negotiation...and (2) since most people probably don't have access to some of the information I have, that good will, is justified, given the information readilly on hand.
If I could point to ONE widely known and well established and accepted fact to make my case, I'd point to the fact that the terrorists that have plagued America and the West, are not from among the poorest, least educated and least "Westernized Muslims," but from among the most well-off, the best educated and the most "Westernized" (at least in outer appearance and actions) Muslims.
OBL is himself a very wealthy man, whose family made their wealth largely from the spoils of Western "petro dollars" - his family did large construction projects funded by Arab oil money in those lands.
Mohammed Atta was the son of a doctor and was himself, a trained engineer, and the rest of the 9/11 conspirators were largely well-off, well-educated and overtly "Westernized" Muslims. The most recent terror plot in England was conducted by physicians.
These are all extremely well-educated, articulate and overtly prosperous people who revile "the decadence of the West."
What I tried (and apparently failed to convey) with Dave's tale was that it took a barbaric stoning to make Dave realize that Sharia-based Islam is completely incompatible with the West.
I know that doesn't necessarily make Dave, nor myself right, BUT, there really is no way to explain the phenomenon of well-off, well-educated men becoming veritable suicidal jihadists in order to strike a blow against the "decadent West," but my view that it's NOT "radicalized Islam," nor even "Militant Islam," but merely Sharia-based Islam that encourages, even demands this kind of behavior (against infidels) by "true believers," is, I believe, the only way to explain that phenomenon.
I fully agree with your last line, "...that (militant Islam) needs to be countered effectively. EFFECTIVELY, but not the way we've been doing in Iraq."
I'd add a small caveat, the inital deposing of Saddam was, in my view very necesssary due to his violating 1441, in order to maintain his strategy of "Detterence by Doubt," AND the intial "war" went well.
It's the post-Saddam "reconstruction" that's been bungled and very badly mismanaged.
We've tried to foist an "Americanist," or at least a Western democracy upon an unwilling people...a very bad idea.
We've also failed to truly identify the enemy in the WoT (for fear of sparking "overreactions") and we've failed to explain the reasons behind rebuilding Iraq and assisting its fledgling government, rather than dividing it up.
In my view, we probably should've deposed Saddam and separated that country the way Yugoslavia was separated - the Kurdish north, the Sunni center and the Shia south, with oil revenues divided up among the three new states, but that too, would've been roundly criticized by both anti-war and reflexively anti-Bush people as well.
We've made many mistakes in post-Saddam Iraq and we're sadly not done in Afghanistan either and Syria and Iran also remain virulently anti-American nations that sponsor international terrorism.
Worse still is that al Qaida has made inroads in parts of Africa and places like Malaysia and Indonesia as well.
Those are the reasons I think we're only at the beginning of this struggle. I also increasingly believe that it will almost certainly take a second attack on American soil, maybe even a third, to fully engage most Americans in the reality of that this struggle IS life & death.
Posted by: JMK | July 20, 2007 04:08 PM
LOL! Sure, we are SO in danger! I'm shaking in my boots.
The fear-mongering fascists on the right grab illegal and unprecedented power over your personal life and destroy the rights and freedoms that millions died for ... and I guess you are all falling for it.
The danger is from Bush, Cheney, Rove, and other America-hating neo-fascists. The terrorists have *directly* impacted the lives of .01% of Americans, while the neo-fascists have stripped the rights of 100% of Americans, all under the guise of protection.
You don't want to be protected from smoking and trans-fat, JMK? I don't want my rights stripped to be protected from "terrorists".
Any real American would choose freedom over the alleged "safety" offered by neo-fascists.
Posted by: Bailey Hankins | July 23, 2007 08:53 PM