MD-90
Topic Author
Posts: 7835
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

US Bases In Saudi Arabia To Be Closed?

Mon Apr 07, 2003 8:24 am

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson040403.asp

Victor Davis Hanson
The Train Is Leaving the Station
Will our “friends” jump on in time?

Wars disrupt the political landscape for generations. Changes sweep nations when their youth die in a manner impossible during peace. An isolationist United States became a world power after the defeat of Japan and Germany, buoyed by the confidence of millions of returning victorious veterans. Even today the pathologies of American society cannot be understood apart from the defeat in Vietnam, as an entire generation still views the world through the warped lenses of the 1960s. In some sense, postmodern quirky France today is explicable by the humiliation of 1940 and its colonial defeats to follow.

So, too, one of the most remarkable military campaigns in American military history will shake apart the world as few other events in the last 30 years. Depressed and discredited pundits now turn to dire predictions of years of turmoil in postbellum Iraq. A lunatic Syria promises a Lebanon to come. Meanwhile we are currently reassured that the Atlantic Alliance is unchanged. The Washington-New York corridor, in sober and judicious tones, has rightly emphasized to us all that we must work harder to renew our old ties — echoed by their like counterparts in Europe. But it is eerie how the more the experts insist on all these probable scenarios, the more they seem terrified that things are not as they were.

Something weird, something unprecedented, is unfolding, driven by American public opinion — completely ignored in Europe — and the nation’s collective anger that Americans are dying by showing restraint as they are slandered by our “friends.” Despite the protestations of a return to normalcy, this present war will ever so slowly, yet markedly nonetheless, change America’s relationships in a way unseen in the last 30 years.

With little help from Saudi Arabia or Turkey — “allies” and “hosts” to our troops — damned by many of our NATO allies, stymied in the U.N., turned on by Russia, opposed by Germany and France, the Coalition nevertheless is systematically liberating a country under the most impossible of conditions. This experience in turn will oddly — if we avoid hubris and maintain our sanity — liberate us as well.

Far from making the United States hegemonic, the success in Iraq will have a sobering effect on Americans. Contrary to pundits the hard-fought Anglo-American victory will not make us into hegemonists, but simply less naïve about tradition-bound relationships and the normal method of doing business. I would expect military spending to increase, even as reluctance grows to get involved with any of our traditional allies. Given billions of dollars in foreign aid, the past salvation of Europe from the Soviet juggernaut, and a half-century of protection under our nuclear shield, the old way was supposed to work something like the following.

At worse France and Germany would quietly call Mr. Powell. They would explain their predicaments and then abstain at the U.N., ensuring passage of a second decree. The traditionally wise and savvy German diplomats — conscious of everything from the Berlin Airlift to the American promise to pledge New York to preserve Bonn from a Soviet nuclear strike — would cherish American goodwill toward the German people, grimace somewhat, and then say something like: “We believe you are wrong; but we are not going to ruin a half-century of mutual amity over a two-bit fascist Iraq. So good luck, win, and let us pray that you, not we, are right — for both our sakes.”

A Turkish prime minister would learn from Tony Blair, and thus explain to his parliament the historic and critical relationship with the United States, while vigorously campaigning to win approval for our armored divisions to hit Iraq from the north to help shorten a controversial war.

Mexico and Canada would complain privately, but express North American solidarity. In other words, sober and sane Western statesmen would swallow their pique at a powerful United States acting unilaterally, seek to provide it diplomatic cover, and quietly accept that a removal of a mass-murdering dictator was in all liberal states’ interests.

Instead, just the opposite happened, and so we must eventually react to this radical realignment that brought it about.

We can start with those hosts of American military bases. Many Americans are now dead in part because a NATO ally Turkey not merely refused its support, but did so in such a long and drawn out fashion that it is impossible to believe that it was not preordained to hamper U.S. military operations. And, of course, Turkey’s last-minute refusals to allow transit of U.S. divisions did exactly that by delaying the critical rerouting of troops and supplies to the Gulf.

I would expect that we all will smile, still extend some minor aid, but simmer on the inside and quietly and professionally take steps to ensure that we are never put in such a position again. We should, without fanfare, bow out of Turkish-EU discussions, and let Europe and Turkey on their own decide the wisdom of allowing an Islamic country into the “liberal” European confederation. The EU can handle Cyprus. Who knows, maybe Brussels will be forced to reward Turkish recalcitrance toward America with renewed subsidies and membership — and who cares? So in the eleventh hour of this war, the democratic government of Turkey must pass some decree, if only symbolic, that they value our friendship and wish us to win in Iraq.

Ditto the erosion with the Saudi Arabian relationship even if, as I expect, we will soon hear from their sheiks with various proclamations of liberalization and greater freedom for their unfree. Bases that earn us enmity, cannot be adequately used when Americans die nearby, and are expensive political liabilities, are not military assets. And the paradox grows worse when bases exist through the pretexts that they in part help to protect the host country that does not wish to be protected.

We should smile, profess goodwill — and then withdraw all American troops from Saudi Arabia as soon as events settle down in Iraq, reassessing in a post-Cold War, post-9/11 world our entire relationship with that medieval country. After all, we buy oil from the worst of all dictatorships in Teheran and the people there like us better than do the Saudis precisely because we are not complicit in their government. The Saudis, of course, could still catch the train as it leaves the station, close the madrassas, and join the 21st century — but it is their call, not ours.

We are told that an Israeli-Palestinian solution will restore our good name in the Middle East. Maybe. But like the past spectacle of Palestinians cheering news of the 3,000 American dead, the recent West Bank volunteers who wish to go to Baghdad to blow up more Americans and protect another Arab fascist don’t play well in the United States — and make us wonder what our hundreds of millions of dollars in aid for the Palestinian Authority are for.

We must maintain cordial relations with Russia — but Russia has never had an accounting with tens of thousands of Communist apparatchiks who here and there inhabit the present government. This was a country, after all, which to the silence of the Arab and European worlds killed thousands of Muslims in Chechnya, rooted for the mass murderer Milosevic, allowed weapons to be sold to Saddam Hussein that would be used to kill Americans, and thwarted all our efforts in the U.N. Surely it is time for sobriety and circumspection in everything we do with them.

If we thought Turkey’s recent turnabout was depressing, imagine a South Korea when that crisis heats up, as thousands in Seoul take to the street to protest our presence as they are hours away from being annihilated by North Korean artillery. As soon as possible we should begin discussions about carefully drawing down troops and relocating them far to the south to compose a “strategic reserve” as tens of thousands of wealthy brave South Korean teenagers assume their exclusive place on the front-line to protect their own motherland from Korean Stalinists. And if we cannot convince China that it is time to rein in Pyongyang’s nukes, then we should throw up our hands and let Tokyo, Seoul — even Taiwan — do what is necessary to provide for their own strategic deterrence.

In the neighborhood of the battlefield, Iran is in a unique position. The illegitimate government will have to tell its own restless population why the liberation of Iraq next door is a bad thing. The unfortunate Iranians, scarred by a dirty war with Saddam Hussein, weary of mullocracy that they brought in themselves, will not be unhappy that the soldiers a decade ago who slaughtered them are losing, and the changes that are coming across the border are what they themselves want.

Syria, the embryo of most terrorist groups and the occupier of Lebanon, still issues empty threats. For all the scary rhetoric and promises of worldwide jihad, an impotent Syria must be terrified of the consequences should it send direct aid to Saddam Hussein. It is a historical rarity that 300,000 United States troops are at last fighting an Arab dictator with 70 percent of the American people’s support — and losing far fewer dead than those slaughtered in one day in their sleep in a barracks in Lebanon.

And then there is the madness of Europe. It is time to speak far more softly and carry a far larger stick. France may be right that we all have really come to the end of history — and so we should give them an opportunity to prove it, to match deed with word by being delighted as we withdraw troops from Germany. Germany may or may not be embracing the frightening old nationalist rhetoric — but again that will be France’s problem, not ours. Let us hope that the more sober in Germany can still grasp at what Mr. Schroeder has nearly thrown away, and see that few superpowers have given it so much and asked for so little in return — and genuinely wish it to do well.

But again it is their call, not ours. We do not have to withdraw from a dead NATO, but we should simply grin and spend as much on it as Europe does — and so let it die on the vine. How could we be allies with such countries as France and Germany when sizable minorities there want a fascistic Saddam Hussein to defeat us?

There is not much need to speak of the governments of Canada and Mexico. More liberal trade agreements and concessions with Mr. Chretien are about as dead as open borders are with Mr. Fox. It is the singular achievement of the present Canadian government to turn a country — whose armed forces once stormed an entire beach at Normandy and fielded one of the most heroic armies in wars for freedom — into a bastion of anti-Americanism without a military. Both countries are de facto socialist states, and the Anglo-French pique we see in Europe is right across our northern borders in miniature. Anyone who looked at the papers in Mexico City could rightly assume our neighbors’ elite preferred an Iraqi victory.

And so where does all that leave us? Unlike the conventional rhetoric of pessimists (e.g., “the world hates us”), we may well be in a stronger position than ever before. Russian arms, German bunkers, and French contracts will become known in Iraq and will be weighed against America’s use of overwhelming force for a moral cause in a legal and human fashion against a barbaric regime. The Middle Eastern claim that we won’t or can’t fight on the ground is a myth. And America, not the Orwellian Arab Street, is the catalyst for democratic reform. Looming on the horizon are Iraqi archives, the evidence of weapons of mass destruction, and a happy liberated populace that Europe would have otherwise left well enough alone to profit from its overseers.

The United Nations has lost its soft spot in the hearts of Americans, and is more likely to appease dictators than aid consensual governments. The general-secretary should be scrambling madly before the armistice to win our good graces — never has American support for the U.N. been lower, even as a U.N. resolution has never been better enforced at almost no cost to its general membership. The debate has now spun out of control and questions not merely our own membership but also the very propriety of the residence of the General Assembly headquarters in New York.

And as for Britain, Australia, Spain, Denmark, Italy, and a host of Eastern European countries who are rolling down the tracks with us, waving to the exasperating at the station, we have to show them as much appreciation for their stalwart courage as we do abject disdain for the duplicity of their peers behind.

The world is upside down and we should expect some strange scenes of scrambling in the weeks ahead as side-glancing diplomats and nail-biting envoys flock to meet Mr. Powell in Washington, who — far from fearing those recent idiotic calls for his resignation — will in fact emerge as one of the most effective and powerful secretaries in recent history. Such are the ironies of war.

It will all be an interesting show.

Withdrawing from Germany and Saudia Arabia, as well as letting the Asians deal with North Korea sounds good to me.
 
TechRep
Posts: 1877
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2002 6:53 am

RE: US Bases In Saudi Arabia To Be Closed?

Mon Apr 07, 2003 8:52 am

I second that motion.

TechRep
 
heavymetal
Posts: 4443
Joined: Fri May 08, 2015 3:37 am

RE: US Bases In Saudi Arabia To Be Closed?

Mon Apr 07, 2003 8:58 am

Many Americans are now dead in part because a NATO ally Turkey not merely refused its support

Hey Vic, let's clear something up okay chief? Many Americans are now dead because a few guys in Washington , including your President, didn't have the imagination to deal with Saddam any other way than playing Erwin Rommel across the desert.

Many young Americans are now dead because Exxon/Mobil made all theright phone calls.

 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: US Bases In Saudi Arabia To Be Closed?

Mon Apr 07, 2003 9:05 am

Although I'm not American, I agree with the article.

As a Canadian, I (and many others) are ashamed at our Fed Govt's lack of support for the US. I assure you that many Canadians cherish the US. There was a massive pro-US rally in Toronto on Friday that warm every American's heart.

As for US bases in South Korea, Japan, Saudi Arabia, etc......yup.....bring the boys & girls home. They aren't appreciated locally. Even in the event that North Korea invades South Korea, let South Korea deal with it.
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
LOT767-300ER
Posts: 8526
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2001 12:57 pm

RE: US Bases In Saudi Arabia To Be Closed?

Mon Apr 07, 2003 9:07 am

"Hey Vic, let's clear something up okay chief? Many Americans are now dead because a few guys in Washington , including your President, didn't have the imagination to deal with Saddam any other way than playing Erwin Rommel across the desert.

Many young Americans are now dead because Exxon/Mobil made all theright phone calls."

What an ignorant statement. Do you truly believe this is all for oil?
 
Glenn
Posts: 1454
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 8:33 pm

RE: US Bases In Saudi Arabia To Be Closed?

Mon Apr 07, 2003 9:13 am

Post was too long to read, So I'll assume that it's cheaper to relocate them to Iraq.

If I am wrong. you'll tell me, If I am right, you'll flame me

 Smile/happy/getting dizzy
 
tbar220
Posts: 6706
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 12:08 pm

RE: US Bases In Saudi Arabia To Be Closed?

Mon Apr 07, 2003 9:18 am

Well of course Heavymetal, it all makes sense now.  Yeah sure
NO URLS in signature
 
tbar220
Posts: 6706
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 12:08 pm

RE: US Bases In Saudi Arabia To Be Closed?

Mon Apr 07, 2003 9:19 am

Glenn,

Believe it or not, this is a pretty decent article about the current political state of affairs. Put aside fifteen minutes of your time to read it, and I think you will appreciate the time spent.
NO URLS in signature
 
Glenn
Posts: 1454
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 8:33 pm

RE: US Bases In Saudi Arabia To Be Closed?

Mon Apr 07, 2003 9:20 am

There was a massive pro-US rally in Toronto on Friday

was that mass support greater than the mass support against

I think not
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: US Bases In Saudi Arabia To Be Closed?

Mon Apr 07, 2003 9:21 am

The war is not about oil.

I'm attaching an article from the Daily Telegraph dated March 19th which explains this.

Goal is not oil

David Rennie
The Daily Telegraph

WASHINGTON - From Europe to the Middle East, you can hear the same charge: a war with Iraq is about America's plans to seize control of Baghdad's oil. Iraq, the argument runs, holds the second-largest oil reserves in the world -- a pool that America, with its insatiable greed for oil, dreams of tapping.

Today, Iraqi oil only trickles out because of punitive UN sanctions. What's more, Saddam Hussein prefers to do business with friends, so has assigned provisional oil rights to Russian, French and Chinese firms.

It seems obvious to placard-waving protesters that America needs a war to grab Iraqi oil. With a U.S. military governor or Iraqi puppet installed in Baghdad, they predict, America will tear up Russian and French contracts, handing the oil fields to ExxonMobil, Chevron and its chums.

There is one final twist to the charge: once Iraqi oil is in American hands, they say, world oil prices will plunge. That will break the Islamic stranglehold on America's oil imports, allowing Bush administration hawks to tell Saudi Arabia where to go.

The trouble is that this scenario is deeply flawed. It is based on misunderstandings of the world oil market, and several factual mistakes.

The Bush administration would go further, of course, and say it is deeply unfair. Colin Powell, the U.S. Secretary of State, recently promised that oil fields will be held "in trust" for the Iraqi people, with proceeds going toward the country's reconstruction.

At the Azores summit, George W. Bush, the U.S. President, yielded to British Prime Minister Tony Blair's call for Iraqi oil revenues to be held by the United Nations as an "interim" measure after the war.

Many in Europe, of course, do not set much store on American promises. Put trust to one side then, and stick to facts.

Since 1999, UN sanctions have placed no limit on how much oil Iraq can export. The UN only controls the use of Iraqi oil revenues. Under the oil-for-food scheme, proceeds from oil sales must be spent on humanitarian goods, war reparations to Kuwait and UN activities in Iraq. That angers Saddam, which is why he smuggles oil to neighbours and tries to collect illegal surcharges on the oil he exports.

The United States already buys lots of Iraqi oil. Last year, America bought an average of 449,000 barrels a day, or about a quarter of Iraq's production. The Arab world's stranglehold over America is exaggerated. Last year, Gulf nations accounted for 11% of America's daily consumption of 19.9 million barrels.

Oil is perhaps the most freely traded commodity on Earth, with oil flowing regardless of political enmities. Venezuela, run by a populist strongman who loathes Mr. Bush, is America's fourth-largest source of oil.

To quote Amy Myers Jaffe, a senior analyst at the James A Baker III Institute for Public Policy in Houston: "If the U.S. were to start buying oil only from people we like, we'd have to change our lifestyles."

The White House's position is that if it wanted Iraq's oil, it would simply lift sanctions and let the oil flow freely.

American analysts also reject talk of Big Oil dictating U.S. foreign policy. U.S. oil companies own several giant oilfields in Libya, but are barred from exploiting them by American sanctions, Ms. Jaffe noted.

"The UN has lifted sanctions on Libya, but we have not. If all President Bush was concerned about was American access to oil, he could wave his hand and lift U.S. sanctions, and you would get another million barrels of Libyan oil a day."

If rapid access to Iraqi oil drove American policy, Ms. Jaffe added, Washington would do better to lift sanctions.

"Ironically, for the 'no blood for oil' crowd, regime change might delay the day Iraqi oil floods on to the market, compared to ending sanctions. A war might cause much more damage to the fields."

Nobody is getting their hands on Iraq's reserves in the near future. Two decades of neglect and periodic war have left Saddam's oilfields badly damaged. According to most oil analysts, it will take years, and tens of billions of dollars in investment, to bring Iraqi production back to pre-war levels.

If there is an Iraqi bonanza for Western firms, it is likely to be for oil-service companies and engineers, not refiners.

Finally, private oil analysts and U.S. government advisors are far from agreed that oil prices will plunge after an Iraqi war.

War with Iraq, the experts agree, will have a huge effect on world oil prices. The hard part is getting them to agree what that effect will be.

There is near consensus that prices will soar sharply upwards on the day war breaks out.

"There is no question. If there is a war, prices will rocket. It's a gut reaction," said John Lichtblau, chairman of the Petroleum Industry Research Foundation in New York.

"There's already a war premium at work -- prices are at US$32 a barrel; that's very high. It could go to almost anything for a few days."

Many analysts hope the American, Japanese and European governments will counter any price surge by releasing some of the 1.2 billion barrels of oil in state-owned reserves worldwide.

Dr. Philip Verleger, a U.S. government advisor on oil and foreign affairs, goes further, urging a massive release of reserves.

"You want to put a lot of oil on the market," he said. "If governments are reluctant, they're going to get themselves an economic catastrophe. They're going to get themselves US$50 oil."

State-held reserves are brim full, partly because war with Iraq has loomed for so long. America alone holds 600 million barrels in underground salt caverns in Louisiana and Texas.

"Under almost any circumstances, unless Iraq manages to take out some Saudi production for a long time, these stocks will last two or three years," said Dr. Verleger. "There is no reason to be at all cautious."

Analysts are confident Mr. Bush will heed such calls -- they point to the fate of his father, who saw oil prices rise to US$40 a barrel during the 1991 Gulf War, triggering a recession that some say cost him his presidency.

Yet an equally plausible scenario has oil prices crashing to historic lows before the end of this year.

So, curiously, though Iraq is at the centre of the crisis, its oil -- actual physical oil flowing from wells -- is a relatively minor factor, at least in the short term.

Iraqi oil production has slumped from 3.5 million barrels a day before 1990 to some two million barrels now.

The world consumes 77 million barrels a day. Saudi Arabia alone produces eight million barrels and has plenty of spare capacity.

Mr. Lichtblau said: "If we had to, the world could do without Iraqi oil for years. Iraqi exports on their own are not a major factor."

The oil industry is nervous for other reasons. One fear is that a cornered Saddam Hussein will fight on for months, or attack his neighbours.

"If disruption goes beyond Iraq, then we are in trouble," said Mr. Lichtblau. "If Saudi production is blocked, or damaged, that's the nightmare of nightmares."

Even barring such disasters, the Iraq crisis comes at a bad time. Venezuela has spent months locked in a bitter general strike. Commercial oil stocks are also at near-record lows, for various complex reasons.

It could, of course, go the other way. The war in Iraq could be short, and America's victory crushing. If Venezuela returns to normal at the same time, the oil industry fears a price crash.

"If Iraqi oil becomes fully available by the second half of 2003, and Venezuela comes back, you could have US$20 oil," Mr. Lichtblau added.

"Everyone is in a state of suspended animation," Dr. Verleger said. "We hope it all turns out right, but it might not. We just don't know what might happen."

I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
Glenn
Posts: 1454
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 8:33 pm

RE: US Bases In Saudi Arabia To Be Closed?

Mon Apr 07, 2003 9:27 am

oh a detailed newspaper report

must be true

not

It's not about oil at all. well we'll see. Once the wmds have been proven false, and daddies mistake has been fixed, watch what will happen to the oil.

1 barrel for Iraq
2 barrels for Usa

 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: US Bases In Saudi Arabia To Be Closed?

Mon Apr 07, 2003 9:28 am

What parts of the article do you dispute Glenn? Please provide specifics. (if you can).

I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
tbar220
Posts: 6706
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 12:08 pm

RE: US Bases In Saudi Arabia To Be Closed?

Mon Apr 07, 2003 9:29 am

Glenn, did you even bother to read the first article? That was the point of this thread.
NO URLS in signature
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: US Bases In Saudi Arabia To Be Closed?

Mon Apr 07, 2003 9:32 am

Glenn is not interested in factual discussion. He takes his cues from the alpha aussies on anet. He's just a "me too".
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
Glenn
Posts: 1454
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 8:33 pm

RE: US Bases In Saudi Arabia To Be Closed?

Mon Apr 07, 2003 9:35 am

no if you had bothered to read my much shorter post, I said i did not

You will either tell me or flame me.

either way. Not too concerned
 
airplay
Posts: 3369
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 1:58 am

RE: US Bases In Saudi Arabia To Be Closed?

Mon Apr 07, 2003 9:35 am

YYZ,

I think it's important to make no mistake that the rally in Toronto was NOT pro-war. It was a show of continuing support for our relationship with the US.

http://www.torontostar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1035780306766

I certainly support the intent of this rally...and continue to disaprove of the Bush administration's foreign policy, particularly this war in Iraq.

Also, be aware that there are 2 sides of every story, and the "massive" pro-US rally has a counterpart:

http://www.torontostar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1035780530933

As a Canadian, I am not ashamed of the Canadian governments decision to stay out of the war. We stayed out of the Vietnam conflict too, and we all know how that turned out.....

There are many other reasons to disagree with our current administration of clowns, but I believe Chretien is right this time, whatever his motive.

What an ignorant statement. Do you truly believe this is all for oil?

I guess we'll just have to see if any Iraqi oil hits the American shores in the coming months. I for one forecast that a great deal of it will flow as the result of a "rebuild Iraq for oil" plan much like the food for oil plan France was involved with. Does that mean the US went to war for oil? guess that depends on how much the oil will eventually cost and how many US corporations will profit from the proceeds. Again I forecast a windfall for such companies as Halliburton (Cheney was former CEO) who have secured huge contracts to rebuild Iraq.

Halliburton, America's No. 1 oil-services company, is the nation's fifth-largest military contractor and the biggest non-union employer in the United States. Halliburton, under Cheney's command helped rebuild Iraq's oil fields that helped finance the build-up of WMDs. Ironic huh?
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15445

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0915-04.htm

So...it's not about oil huh?

 
tbar220
Posts: 6706
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 12:08 pm

RE: US Bases In Saudi Arabia To Be Closed?

Mon Apr 07, 2003 9:38 am

Glenn, I'm going to hammer this point home. Read the article! You're judging it without even taking the time to read it.
NO URLS in signature
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: US Bases In Saudi Arabia To Be Closed?

Mon Apr 07, 2003 9:39 am

Glenn takes his cues from ADG. He'll read it when she reads it, or tells him to.

I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
Glenn
Posts: 1454
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 8:33 pm

RE: US Bases In Saudi Arabia To Be Closed?

Mon Apr 07, 2003 9:41 am

it's too long, i am waiting for the abridged version. Which is kinda what I said in my original post
 
tbar220
Posts: 6706
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 12:08 pm

RE: US Bases In Saudi Arabia To Be Closed?

Mon Apr 07, 2003 9:48 am

Man, if you cant spend 15 minutes of your time to read the article, you're lazy.
NO URLS in signature
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: US Bases In Saudi Arabia To Be Closed?

Mon Apr 07, 2003 9:52 am

Not true HM. The war for oil theory is about the deadest horse there is. I realize you have an axe to grind.
 
Glenn
Posts: 1454
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 8:33 pm

RE: US Bases In Saudi Arabia To Be Closed?

Mon Apr 07, 2003 10:00 am

Lazy perhaps. Suites my life style

However, the first rule of thumb in marketing is to make it simple, keep their interest. Failing that, you lose the sale.

Ching ching
Sale closed

thank you for coming, we open tomorrow at 8am
 
tbar220
Posts: 6706
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 12:08 pm

RE: US Bases In Saudi Arabia To Be Closed?

Mon Apr 07, 2003 10:06 am

Well, if you dont read the article, you cant make statements about it. And I lose respect for you if you think you can make a valid opinion in this thread without bothering to read the article. Either of the articles at that. But you go ahead and state that they aren't legitimate.

Suits your lifestyle? I guess it shows.
NO URLS in signature
 
Thumper
Posts: 520
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2001 2:12 am

RE: US Bases In Saudi Arabia To Be Closed?

Mon Apr 07, 2003 10:14 am

MD-90: Great post,have to agree 100%, time to get out of the U.N. and N.A.T.O. How could anyone EVER trust France again.As far as Canada, Airplay is just a pimple on a Moose's a#s,most Canadians and Americans get along just fine,same with most Australians,except for the ones on this fourm.
 
Glenn
Posts: 1454
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 8:33 pm

RE: US Bases In Saudi Arabia To Be Closed?

Mon Apr 07, 2003 10:15 am

Whatever

My point was it was too long. Nothing more, nothing less. You see, my few comments seem to have been the real attention grabber now. This thread has to do all about me and not the topic

 
dragogoalie
Posts: 1172
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2001 3:58 pm

Re:

Mon Apr 07, 2003 11:22 am

You know he read the article. He has enough time to post so many posts about nothing, you know he has time to read the article.

I think the US should let the world deal with thier own problems...or at least attempt to deal with them. That way when we have to come save their asses the next time around, they are a little more appreciative. the only thing is, how long will it take till what other countries do does affect us, and we have to go in and save the day again. And how many lives will that cost verses what we are doing now?

--dragogoalie-#88--
Formerly known as Jap. Srsly. AUSTRALIA: 2 days!
 
Glenn
Posts: 1454
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 8:33 pm

RE: US Bases In Saudi Arabia To Be Closed?

Mon Apr 07, 2003 11:25 am

Hey, I am all in favour of America coming to liberate Australia if the case ever arises. Just give me enough time so I can move my family to another country so they can be libertated without fear of being killed in the process
 
Glenn
Posts: 1454
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 8:33 pm

RE: US Bases In Saudi Arabia To Be Closed?

Mon Apr 07, 2003 11:27 am

But seriously, I didn't read the post, is this a new tactic now to tell me what I have or have not done ?

I know I haven't cleaned the driveway so will one of you say I have so I can get that past my lovely wife. She wont believe me when she see's it with her own eyes.

 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: US Bases In Saudi Arabia To Be Closed?

Mon Apr 07, 2003 11:47 am

This story started with one big, huge premise: that the U.S. is absolutely, unequivocally right in what it's doing in Iraq. There's not doubt the author of this article feels the U.S. IS right. I, and many others, believe the opposite-that this was was NOT right, at least not at this time.

The premise that we are right, and the rest are wrong, is egotistical to say the least. I have not been enamored with France, Germany and Turkey in this whole affair, but this person is all but saying-as to many conservatives around the U.S. and on this board, that these nations MUST agree with us, or we'll take all our marbles home and not play with them any more. They are going on the believe that they MUST accomodate us, and not consider their points of view.

Canada, socialist? Hardly. Turkey, causing the deaths of these American soldiers? Laughable. most have died in the south-those troops were going to storm Iraq from the south to begin with. Put the blame for the American deaths where they belong-on either Saddam's forces, or on the American administration that sent them to Iraq.

If Saudi Arabia wants us to close their bases, we tell them "fine, if you ever need us, let us know. May Allah bless you", and go our merry way. If we were to close our bases there ,and in Germany, in a huff, we look like sore losers, on top of having an adminstration that looks almost eager for armed conflict.

This guy, and others on here ,need to stop blaming the world for this war. Yes, it's been 12 years and 17 resolutions put down on Iraq, but was war necessary, at this point in time? Most in the world don't believe so. I'm one of them. Saddam would have hung himself eventually. Blaming the rest of the world for OUR decision to go to war is blaming the cat when the dog takes a shit in the house.

This is another example of conservatism that has gotten way out of control in the U.S. It's a belief that we have a divine right to run the world as we see fit, and not consider the consequences, or consider how anyone else thinks. It's going to destroy the U.S's credibility abroad, and, eventually, it will destroy it at home as well.
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: US Bases In Saudi Arabia To Be Closed?

Mon Apr 07, 2003 11:48 am

Glenn,

How about you print it out and read it bit by bit over 3 days. Then respond to the article.
 
airplay
Posts: 3369
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 1:58 am

RE: US Bases In Saudi Arabia To Be Closed?

Mon Apr 07, 2003 11:58 am

As far as Canada, Airplay is just a pimple on a Moose's a#s,most Canadians and Americans get along just fine,same with most Australians,except for the ones on this fourm.

Do you see anything in my prior post that is eroneous? Or are you just frustrated because its true? Try to stick to the facts.

Who said I don't get along with Americans? Thumper, here's some advise. Print my response, then read it over a few days and once you understand it post your opinion. This time try to make it informative. Sprinkle some facts in and try to keep the personal attacks (its so tragic to see wildlife with acne) to yourself.

 
Glenn
Posts: 1454
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 8:33 pm

RE: US Bases In Saudi Arabia To Be Closed?

Mon Apr 07, 2003 11:59 am

Nah it's OK, Alpha1 shortened it and made it readable.
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: US Bases In Saudi Arabia To Be Closed?

Mon Apr 07, 2003 12:02 pm

Glenn-take an Evelyn Woods speed reading course. The thread will last, oh, 10 seconds.  Laugh out loud
 
MD-90
Topic Author
Posts: 7835
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: US Bases In Saudi Arabia To Be Closed?

Mon Apr 07, 2003 12:02 pm

Well, at least Alpha 1 read the article before it made him so upset he had to start cussing.
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: US Bases In Saudi Arabia To Be Closed?

Mon Apr 07, 2003 12:08 pm

On here, MD-90, I don't think "shit" is cussing much.  Big grin
 
MD-90
Topic Author
Posts: 7835
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: US Bases In Saudi Arabia To Be Closed?

Mon Apr 07, 2003 12:12 pm

I remember a time when it was, so you can stuff it.
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: US Bases In Saudi Arabia To Be Closed?

Mon Apr 07, 2003 12:25 pm

MD-90, you're all gang-ho for a war where people are dying, but you can't stomach the word "shit"?

Either grow up, or bury yourself somewhere. Life is rough, if you can't take it, don't participate, OK?
 
jwenting
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:12 pm

RE: US Bases In Saudi Arabia To Be Closed?

Mon Apr 07, 2003 2:01 pm

Glenn and Heavymetal will not read long articles (if they look like they might not coincide with their misguided view of the world).
If you shorten it, they'll say you manipulated it to make the US look good...

Heavy, if this were all about oil why didn't the USA just do what France and Russia have been doing which is deal with Iraq and call for sanctions to end?
That would get them all the oil they can at very favourable prices and noone needs to die...
I wish I were flying
 
CX747
Posts: 5582
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: US Bases In Saudi Arabia To Be Closed?

Mon Apr 07, 2003 2:28 pm

I enjoyed both articles and was happy to see acurate reporting on the facts. It is about time that those who appose the war look at the facts rather than scream an uneducated "Blood for Oil".
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: US Bases In Saudi Arabia To Be Closed?

Mon Apr 07, 2003 2:29 pm

Regardless, there is going to have to be a major realignment of forces in the region now that the treat and the mission are clearly changing.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
Glenn
Posts: 1454
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 8:33 pm

RE: US Bases In Saudi Arabia To Be Closed?

Mon Apr 07, 2003 3:24 pm

Whatever Jtwenting

My spend ages reading hours of crap, when your few sentences will suffice  Wink/being sarcastic
 
tbar220
Posts: 6706
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 12:08 pm

RE: US Bases In Saudi Arabia To Be Closed?

Mon Apr 07, 2003 4:30 pm

Glenn, you're joking right? Nobody is going to take you seriously again if you keep this up.
NO URLS in signature
 
qatarairways
Posts: 864
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 6:02 pm

RE: US Bases In Saudi Arabia To Be Closed?

Mon Apr 07, 2003 4:37 pm

I honestly don't know the reasons behind this war and I don't feel me or anyone on this earth can now for surfe if it is right or wrong untill we have hind sight and read about the conflict in history books 50 or 100 years from now.

I just wanted to chime in about the issue of oil. It is naive to assume that the US is after OIL for COMMERCIAL reasons but I also think that people are naive assume that oil plays no reason whatsoever even from a security aspect rather than from a commercial one.

On the article, I have given a similar one to some Anti-War activists in my college to make them re-think there accusations that the US wants to profit from the oil. It addresses many of the arguments of people and it shows that the theories that the US wants to profit from the oil, or at least have a cheap supply of oil as flawed and illogical. What the article fails to address is the argument of oil security put forward by many oil experts. There was an excellent BBC program on this issue broadcast in March. Basically it says that Oil sources outside of the Middle East are declining, becoming less reliable and less viable. The only hope is in the Middle East.

The problem is that the Middle East is a fairly unstable region with many regional conflicts (military and social) and so it is not good for the US or any country to rely on these sources. A regime could stop selling oil and grind the world economy to a sudden stop (e.g. Saudi Arabia - 1973 though that time it didn't go far). A regime could use funds from oil to fund terrorism or start wars (e.g. Saddam vs Kuwait and Iran). Regional conflicts could place oil infrastructure and supply in danger as well as pose a threat to American Investors and their assets (e.g. Yemen Civil War). A regime could also use oil as a blackmail similar to North Korea with the nukes.

The situation isn't as bad nowadays, most of the oil is located in the Arabian Gulf and Iraq. The Arabian Gulf is mainly pro-western, with western oil companies investing, with American, British and French military presence and the governments are fairly stable meaning that there isn't much risk of the above scenarios happening.

Iraq though is different. There is a lot of oil production potential in Iraq. Analysts have said that upto 6 million barrels a day could be produced which should help compensate for declining production in the world and keep oil prices stable untill the end of the decade. This is in the interests of the whole world and not the US only. If Iraqi oil is not capitalised we risk increasing oil prices which will hinder economic growth rates and will make the current economic situation worst.

As the article said lifting the sanctions would mean that the US or any other country can get access to abundant Iraqi oil, initially for low prices. Lifting the sanctions though is not a practical solution because with this we risk:

- Saddam getting stonger, getting more weapons and reach the strength of North Korea or maybe even launch another war of aggression.

- Saddam getting in the position to blackmail the west, as well as having the power to distrupt the world oil supply with a press of a button.

That is of course not the answer. Many people who are in Bush's administration today such as Perle, Wolfowitz and Rumsfield have long campainged that the answer is to remove Saddam by force. Just look at the letters, petitions, interviews etc... that were done by them over the past decade. A key advisor to Cheney has also advised Cheney that the key to "Energy Security" is changing the regime in Iraq.

Removing Saddam would mean that the sanctions can be lifted, allowing the Iraqi people to improve their lives as well as ensuring a secure and reliable oil supply to the world and not the US only and finally they wouldn't have to deal with the risks I mentioned above.

If you think about it, on paper the cause is noble. They want to ensure the security of energy supplies to stabilise the world economy and they don't want to take the easy route and make Saddam stronger because they are thinking of world security. Al-Jazeera even had an arab analysts who said that the US has a right to go after the oil because he understands that it is oil in the sense of security and not oil for commercial reasons and greed.

Oil security is EXTREMELY important to the whole of the world. The world economy is dependant on oil and if anything happened such as the decline of production without suitable short term replacements or something similar this will lead to many problems caused by a declining economy. Poverty, Wars (e.g. Japan's invasion of Manchuria) etc... This alone can be a good reason to go to war but I am not here to debate the rights or worngs, this is for the historians to do in 50 years or so.

If the US come out and say, "We want to remove Saddam because of oil" the world would take it in the wrong way and there would be outrage even in the US. They had to find a cause, frankly it is not too difficult to find anything to accuse to Saddam off. He has all the makings of a Tyrant, lets see he has WMDs, he killed his own people, he launched two wars of aggression and now the magic phrase of "supporting terrorism". After Sept 11 you can get the support of the masses especially in the US just by using the magic phrase without the need of evidence, add to that the resurgence of patriotism in the US.




I tend to not make sense after I write to much, so sory if the little peice I wrote above doesn't make sense at least you might understand the gist of it.

I also think that I am going to hit a nerve with many people, especially the bleating sheep from animal farm but I want to make it clear that I didn't intend this as flame bait and not an attack on the US, its policies or anyone in particular. I love discussing politics and if anyone wants me to elaborate further on any of my points I wouldn't mind doing so but if this goes down to the level of mud sliging I'm probably goint to stay out.

Note: Edited to correct HTML


[Edited 2003-04-07 09:41:32]
 
Glenn
Posts: 1454
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 8:33 pm

RE: US Bases In Saudi Arabia To Be Closed?

Mon Apr 07, 2003 4:43 pm

Who cares if I am taken seriously or not. This is a pointless futile argument.

I am arguing with idiots, I don't expect to be taken seriously.
 
Glenn
Posts: 1454
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 8:33 pm

RE: US Bases In Saudi Arabia To Be Closed?

Mon Apr 07, 2003 5:03 pm

I should clarify, not everyone is an idiot. There are some good arguments put forward. But those that matter to me know  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

 
Guest

RE: US Bases In Saudi Arabia To Be Closed?

Mon Apr 07, 2003 6:19 pm

Damn,

That's a lot of words ..




ADG
 
Arsenal@LHR
Posts: 7510
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 2:55 am

RE: US Bases In Saudi Arabia To Be Closed?

Mon Apr 07, 2003 9:08 pm

Here's a clue: the world's oil supply will run out in 50 years time. Food for thought.
In Arsene we trust!!
 
wingman
Posts: 2830
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

RE: US Bases In Saudi Arabia To Be Closed?

Tue Apr 08, 2003 1:26 am

Good article and some good posts as well. There are several excellent reasons for getting rid of Saddam. One, he's proved that France and the UN are nothing more than paper tigers, appeasers to the world's most ruthless tyrants. This war sends a very useful message then. Two, Saddam has a history of both developing and using WMD, something the UN, France and the rest of the appeasement community cannot prevent by waiving pieces of diplomatic paper in Saddam's face. Three, Saddam is a murdering arsehole of the highest order, whether he kills directly, or tortures or starves his own people. This man is a bad seed and good riddance once he's gone. I'm sure France and others will find others like him soon that they can coddle.

I agree also with QatarAirways. The only thing I would add is that if the US wanted any oil, we would've taken it at any time and on any day of the past 50 years. But we've NEVER stolen ANYONE's oil. We just pay for it every goddamn day and nearly 100% of the export dollars we spend on oil goes to FOREIGN oil companies, not domestic ones. There are a lot of ignorant and paranoid people out there saying this war is for oil. In a way, it may be to guarantee to the FLOW of oil from the region as a whole. But this oil, as Qatar pointed out, not only benefits the US, it also benefits every other nation on Earth. Some of you may not know this, but the EU also uses oil. The cars in Europe also run on gasoline, not sunshine and flowers. You should also know that tax revenue from the sale of downstream oil products in the EU is one of the largest sources of public renenue there, money that is used to guarantee state-funded healthcare, welfare and education systems. The EU has just as much at stake with the uninterrupted flow of oil as the US does.

 
747-451
Posts: 2327
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2000 5:50 am

RE: US Bases In Saudi Arabia To Be Closed?

Tue Apr 08, 2003 1:52 am

"Hey Vic, let's clear something up okay chief? Many Americans are now dead because a few guys in Washington , including your President, didn't have the imagination to deal with Saddam any other way than playing Erwin Rommel across the desert. "

Yeah, right and the old Europe way to deal with a murderer like Sadam is a combination of "deny, deny,deny", appeasement/prostitution, and allowing TotalFina/Elf/Lukoil/BASF/SIEMENS/Rhone-Poulenc/Aventis make their phone calls to their governments as not to upset the staus quo and their lucrative, juicy contracts, humantiatiran vilations, sarin polluted Euphrates aside....
 
erj190
Posts: 371
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2000 12:26 pm

RE: US Bases In Saudi Arabia To Be Closed?

Tue Apr 08, 2003 2:19 am


After having red the article twice, After having seen so may so called "facts" being based in absolute lies.

I would say the author is one of the Nazis that took over America.

Lies, lies and half true facts, ready to be supplied to a willing population, that will buy anything, if the marketing is right.

And WINGMAN...

The US could not take the oil 50 years ago, because the Nazis, the Far-right fanatic republicans and the Klu Klux Klan, where not in power then.

The Nazis and the other goons are dressing new suits now, they almost look human. But inside their sick minds, there is this idea of an empire, that will have to take the world one day.

The empires have all disappeared. Like Mr. Henri Kissinger said once, "...If we go on like this, we will end up with the whole world against us..."

At the time I thought he was just kidding.

Maybe he was not

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: seb146 and 15 guests