| If you say so, chief. |
The Memorandum was sent to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who, under the US law, would pave the way for US aid to Saudi Arabia.
| ! |
| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| Arabia | ||
| Bush labels Saudi Arabia as anti-terrorism ally | ||
| 2007-10-20 | ||
The Memorandum was sent to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who, under the US law, would pave the way for US aid to Saudi Arabia.
| ||
| Posted by:Seafarious |
| #15 Another example of category error, like Religion of Peace. At some point the failure to think and state clearly the nature of the threat will be more lethal than the threat of "being at war with a billion Muslims." Take a look at What British Muslims Want if you have a strong stomach. |
| Posted by: SR-71 2007-10-20 21:03 |
| #14 Word, Frank. .com was well ahead of the curve on this Islamo-bullshit. And given that the Sauds have shown repeatedly that they place Sharia over the international rule of law, our continued recognition of their sovereignty is perverse and suicidal to American interests. First Iran, then clean up the scum in Iraq and Afghanistan, then the Wahabis take the hit that they have deserved for 50 years. McZ, you may not have been here for much of .com's participation, but he was a strong—if not the original—supporter for both targeted killings of Islam's elite and the expropriation of Arabia's eastern Ghawar oil field. Both Frank and myself are also longtime advocates of targeted killings and this policy is supported at this board's very highest levels. My own view is that America is entitled to seize the Ghawar fields as compensation for the Saudi-led 9-11 atrocity. We took an economic hit on the order of ONE TRILLION dollars and it's well past tea to be recompensed. Quite clearly your own views fall in line with this position and I welcome you to the club. I'm also pleased to see that you understand how the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns are far from finished. So long as shari'a law remains part of their respective national constitutions, the job is nowhere near done. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-10-20 19:14 |
| #13 another .com remembrance.... |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-10-20 18:15 |
| #12 Most of the Saudi oil fields are located hundreds of miles from Riyadh and the so-called "holy" centers. They are not defendable. And given the rise of Shiite power - wonder what caused that? - they will be seized by an outside power. Those oil fields are Anglo-American. Only League of Nations and UN folly allowed local savages to hold ersatz sovereignty over same. And given that the Sauds have shown repeatedly that they place Sharia over the international rule of law, our continued recognition of their sovereignty is perverse and suicidal to American interests. First Iran, then clean up the scum in Iraq and Afghanistan, then the Wahabis take the hit that they have deserved for 50 years. |
| Posted by: McZoid 2007-10-20 17:53 |
| #11 I think Glenmore nails it. We can't move directly against the Saooodis, much as all of us would like to. However, I keep thinking of an internal revolution in SA by the eastern Shi'a that would create the Republic of Eastern Arabia, a 50 km-wide strip of sand ... |
| Posted by: Steve White 2007-10-20 15:25 |
| #10 This is very much a one-at-a-time war. Iran and Syria are next, and only then can Saudi Arabia be dealt with. I'd bet the DoD has plans for invasion on file, though. ;-) |
| Posted by: Whaigum Bucket8954 2007-10-20 14:35 |
| #9 Glenmore is correct. They're a valuable ally in the GWOT as is Pakistan. Which means it's not their turn yet. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-10-20 14:08 |
| #8 what a tick mouse. new memo, country islamic? then enemies- |
| Posted by: Icerigger 2007-10-20 14:01 |
| #7 Ally, yeah sure! |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2007-10-20 12:25 |
| #6 They are a valuable ally in the WoT. Just like the Palestinians are a valuable ally in the fight against antisemitism. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2007-10-20 09:28 |
| #5 Our enemies in the Kingdom cannot be dealt with in the same way as those in Iraq, or even Iran. The situation requires 'diplomacy', and for now diplomacy without even an available 'stick' to add persuasiveness to the words. 1) The world cannot afford to disrupt that oil supply. 2) They have enough money to buy off most enemies. 3) Bad as they seem, they are not all uniformally bad, and most of the likely alternatives would be worse. 4) Talking war when you don't have the capacity (physical or political) to wage it is probably counterproductive. 5) Overt intervention (military or economic) against the guardians of that rock thingy would be likely to unify nearly the entire Muslim world against us. Actively against us. That is not something we want to deal with, since we would not be able to get similar unity of the non Muslim world. Bush's diplomatic BS (but I repeat myself) speaking is the appropriate path at this time, in my opinion. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2007-10-20 09:24 |
| #4 These guys are playing a doublegame. Yes, they are confronted by a more extreme islamist element, but how did that more exteme element get that way? The House of Saudi is a House of Hate. They spend hundreds-of-millions worldwide spreading Wahhabi fundamentalism from Aceh and Baluchistan to the madrassas of Pakistan and Wazooland. I will sit back and enjoy the carnage as the House of Saud imitates the House of Romanov circa 1918. I know the aftermath for us will be just as bad, but at least I'll enjoy watching more than a few princelings having their heads lopped off by a dull axe.
|
| Posted by: Galactic Coordinator Shins1195 2007-10-20 09:18 |
| #3 Jokey of Norfolk be not bold, for Dickon thy master is bought and sold. |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2007-10-20 07:28 |
| #2 Damn good man, but with regard to the Soodies, it appears he's been suffering from that sudden hearing, |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2007-10-20 06:36 |
| #1 LAY OFF THE EFFING KOOL-AID, GEORGIE! PS: I've stood next to the sign in that photo. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-10-20 05:27 |
