Apply the Bush Doctrine to Saudi Arabia

CAPITALISM MAGAZINE.COM ^ | October 7, 2002 | Tym Parsons

[Deb]

Whatever that means.

As for Wahabis, the hijackers weren't Wahabi, they were radicalized America-haters who drank and went to strip bars thinking their deaths would get them to paradise automatically

Use your brain and quit regurgitating every factoid you read in the press.

There is not a government more pro-American than the Saudi's. And like Jordan's royal family, Qatar, UAE and many others, they walk a fine line between their, sometimes silent, support for us and their radical population.

If the Saudi royal family falls, what will take their place? A representitive democracy? Get a clue.

[Mr. Mojo]

Apply the Bush Doctrine to Saudi Arabia

OK, I will.

First Iraq (because it presents the most immediate danger), and then....

Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, and No. Korea (in no particular order).

[Mr. Mojo]

There is not a government more pro-American than the Saudi's.

Pro-American, eh? A gov't that knowingly harbors al Qaeda (our gravest enemies), and pays them off not to overthrow them A gov't that damn well knew what was going down on 9/11/01, and didn't tell us. A gov't that puts out truckloads of anti-American propaganda to placate their Wahhabist/terrorist populace.

Yeah, they're our good buddies.......and Islam is a religion of peace.

[Deb]

What is it with you morons who can't understand the difference between the government and the people?

Not a single thing you said is true. You have no sources and are confusing about a dozen different elements. Quit drinking and go to bed, then wake up and try the sports sites. Politics and international issues are too complex for you.

[Mr. Mojo]

Did you forget your prozac, Deb, or is it that time of the month...again? Does that pea-brain of yours actually entertain the thought that the House of Saud is wholly separable from the Wahabbist populace, and that the insanity of the latter isn't a natural and inevitable consequence of the encouragement and sanction of the former?

[swarthyguy]

>>You may now return to your bong.

Pass the Bong, dude, don't bogart it!

[swarthyguy]

>>Quit drinking

Why stop now?

[swarthyguy]

That's all you can do.

Call people potheads, drunks and morons.

When you take your lips off the Saudi butt, then maybe you'll wake up.

[weikel]

I have no problem with the government of Jordan or the UAE Qatar hosted Al Jazeera so im suspicious of them. Your not going to convince me the Saudis are not our enemies because its not true so don't try the fact is they fund radical islam and 15 of the 19 Saudis were hijackers I don't need to know more than that.

[Man of the Right]

I don't dispute you.

I hope Bush has the time and the moral courage to confront the Saudi royal family. I like Bush, but I doubt it, given the extended Bush family's three-generation-old relationship with the Al Sabah clan, and to a lesser extent the Saud clan.

A large chunk of the U.S. ruling class does business or is receiving fees from the Sauds. Accordingly, appeasement of them is reminscent of America First and the Japanese and Germans in 1940.

It would take an effective President not tied to the Sauds, or a horrendous terrorist attack tied to them -- a nuclear detonation or smallpox pandemic -- to eliminate them. Trust me, they will be somewhat more circumspect for a time regarding support for Al-Qaeda if we take Saddam down. The reason Mideast regimes are opposed to summary U.S. action is that they are all totalitarian states, more or less.

[Man of the Right]

If they band together, it stops being a walk-over.

However, did European states unite to oppose Hitler?

They went down one at a time.

We can handle 2 theater wars simultaneously, if it came to it. Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya simultaneously, no problem. One theater war. If the Palestinians and Lebanese militias want to sign on, the more the merrier.

Cuba, no problem. That's a week's bombing, no ground invasion necessary.

North Korea, a second theater war.

China, not without full national mobilization and extended preparation. The Communist regime was on the ropes in '89. Should have done them then. However, their prosperity is based on a $80B annual favorable trade balance with us. A trade embargo puts them back in the '30s.

It would be better to eliminate these regimes now, rather than risk a nuclear attack later or endure a half-century cold war.

Look at our economy and the stock market. They recover when the threat is eliminated.