Article

2004-05-31 Arabia

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Phil B 2004-05-31 00:48|| || Front Page|| [6 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 As long as they aren't surrounded...

Now the dance begins, first spinning this way and then that way -- like a whirling dervish on crystal meth.

[rant]
Confused by Saudi internecine politics? Yeah, me too. We'll never really know the full story, of course, because the House of Saud is split into some bizarre factions, one of which controls the "security services" and another controls much or most of the in-Kingdom press. Neither cooperates with the other and neither is keen on having their fuck-ups and agendas openly examined by outsiders. I have never quite grasped Nayef's "position" as it's basically suicidal to support the Wahhabis since they, too, are split into groups - some of which support the AlQ flavor which has as its stated goal the ouster & destruction of the Royals.

I've been trying for a long time to write a decent summary of the Saudi situation in common sense terms, but every day brings new data points - and it seems that most are outliers, heh. So it has become the never-ending task.

I've realized that it's pointless, in sum, to argue about the motives and methods and even the goals of the various factions since much of what is known and what is surmised is nonsense and illogical to anyone except a Saud player steeped in the family politics and rivalries.

In the end, as far as I'm concerned, all that matters are the actions taken, whether it's Abdullah blaming Zionists because he can't publicly blame Nayef (and that's his true enemy it appears) or it's Nayef blaming US support for Israel as the root of all evil (and that seems to be his excuse for what he does). Why should we care if Abdullah's almost a rational Arab (oxymoron?), relatively speaking? Why should we care if Nayef is insane (demonstrable by Western standards) yet in control of most of the internal security forces? What actually matters, once one realizes that their internal Byzantine myriad machinations will never make sense to an outsider in a useful form, which State has traditionally tried and failed to do, is whether or not their sum actions are those of an ally, neutral, or an enemy.

I am amazed and encouraged by Bush's willingness to break with hidebound "traditions", such as the State Dept policies regarding Arabia which serve everyone BUT the US. Investigating Saudi finances in the US, officially advising all US citizens to leave SA, and demanding reforms are all dramatic changes. In the diplomatic world, they're tantamount to declaring the Saudis as adversaries -- almost enemies and almost a declaration of war. This step needed to be taken in self defense - and Bush has done so against the current of Conventional Wisdom and some very powerful vested interests which don't give a flying fuck about what's best for the US. He has, in doing this, bucked the expectations and demands of the "international community" - many bought and paid for by Saudi money and others just jealous has-beens bent on reclaiming imagined glory and lost power or pure adversaries who seek the destruction of American influence - and put that bunch of hyenas on notice that they, too, are looking like adversaries. The next step will be the put-up or shut-up list of demands to the Saudis and, separately, I hope to the UN. Once rejected (And who here doubts they will be?) then open hostilities and action follow.

I wonder what Bush could do, that he is not already doing, that would satisfy those who come to RB to vent their spleens about Islamofascism, yet declare (whether in stealth mode or openly) or consider Bush to have failed, somehow. He is the only President we've ever had who has bucked the "Special Relationship" with the Saudis. He's the only President we've ever had who has taken any definitive direct action against the Islamofascists. He is the only candidate for President who has any credibility on the important issue: the survival of freedom. He, alone, has recognized the duplicity and fallibility of the cadre of cowards (if not traitors) in the State Dept. He, alone, has challenged the Conventional Wisdom of subjugating US interests to the UN. He's got stones. And he's got the right idea: change the Arab world to neutralize the insanity of Islam as it is the source of funding and "inspiration" for the insane actions against freedom. He has taken the stand that needed to be taken to assure future peace: fight the insanity where it directly threatens us and pressure the regimes which harbor insanity to change in favor of democratic forms of government. That is, indeed, the logical action to take first, assuming these people will eventually appreciate freedom's benefits. If it turns out that they can't or won't, well... But we can't know until we try, and I prefer trying to genocide -- at the moment.

About half of Americans "get it" intuitively, and I say this because they get it in spite of an overwhelmingly adversarial press â firmly in the idiotarian camp of multi-culti-cum-dhimmitude. In fact, it can be said that he's the moderate, the man in the middle of the curve, facing two extremes. He's too conservative and reticent for some, too radical and unilateral for others, and his dramatic and bold actions are, in varying degrees, unappreciated by both. For those who want bolder action against the insanity, hang on - it's coming and it's obvious to those of us who seek out the big picture. Rationally, there are steps to be taken and he's taking them. For those that wish us to cease actions against this enemy who has declared their hatred and devout desire to destroy us, well, I can't think of any response that is truthful other than fuck off, you sure as hell don't speak for me.

To both I offer this: grow up, get a grip, think it through for yourself, and be honest - give credit where due. If you can't pony up to the bar and admit when you're wrong or admit facts exist which don't jibe with your stated POV, then you are an intellectual coward and fool / tool. If your grievances are over lesser issues than the very survival of freedom, well, you need to see "get a grip" and accept that perfection isn't available. Okay, heavy sigh, that was yesterday's idiocy - today can be different. No matter who or what you were yesterday, today you can become someone of substance, value, and honor. Go ahead, make today your day. Buck your peers, your family, the very air you breathe filled with the strident blind hatred of idiot memes. Think for yourself, deal within the scope of reality, separate fact from fiction - and take a stand that does, indeed, jibe with the facts. You'll stand out from the crowd. You'll positively drip with class and come-hither pheromones. You'll get more oral sex.
[/rant]

Posted by .com 2004-05-31 12:06:01 PM|| 2004-05-31 12:06:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 Brilliant rant, Dotcom!
Thank you very much.
(And about that last part..?)

Posted by Jen 2004-05-31 12:26:14 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-05-31 12:26:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 "(And about that last part..?)"

Motivation. Gotta give people a reason, eh? Sex cuts to the bone, heh. Besides, it's true. *grin*

Posted by .com 2004-05-31 12:36:16 PM|| 2004-05-31 12:36:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 Hot damn, dotcom- that was worth saving on my HD for future reference. Excellent!

I concur with your assessment of Bush: he's taken some uncommonly bold steps, and gets scant credit for having done so by either end of the U.S. political spectrum.

One thing critics of our efforts in Iraq (especially those who think we should have "done" Syria, SA, or Iran instead) don't ever seem to get through their thick heads is that the president of the U.S. simply cannot do any such thing without the express approval of the U.S. Congress. If he even tried, he'd be thrown out of office inside of a week. And I don't think I've ever, not even once, seen any of these people address the issue of what it would have taken (or even would take today) to get a declaration of war against Syria, Saudi Arabia or Iran out of this Congress. Maybe the next one will be different; but today's congressional makeup is utterly hopeless in that regard, and that's the reality with which Bush has had to contend. And in an election year to boot, with the opposition affecting a contrived, cynical anti-war stance for cheap political advantage. I hope this fall's election will prove their political calculus foolish, but I'm not certain it will.

Another reality that critics seem unable to grasp is that the reasons for what we are doing in Iraq lie mainly outside Iraq- and their misunderstanding extends to the point where they cannot even see Iraq as connected in any way with the War On ~~Terror~~ Islamic Fanaticism. They view it as unrelated, which I find incomprehensible.

During the run-up to the war, it became apparent to me that what we were about to do was probably being planned for a host of reasons, very few of which could be discussed openly by American officials. To me, that just seems commonsense.

So I started asking myself, why are we doing this? How might invading Iraq (and deposing Saddam and freeing the Iraqi people in the process) help out in the overall, larger struggle against the malignancy which culminated in the attacks of 9/11?

I made a list, and added things to it as I went along. It's now up to 37 items, whereas when I started I thought I'd be satisfied if I could list just half a dozen. I've put a summary of the list up, at:

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/dilatush/iraq.html

My only criticisms of Bush so far are that I think he drastically underestimated the perfidy of the Democrats, overestimated the attention span of the American public (especially in the face of Democratic Party efforts to distract it), and overall has done a poor job of keeping the American peoples' eyes on the ball.

Posted by Dave D. 2004-05-31 1:04:08 PM|| 2004-05-31 1:04:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 Yeah! What dotcom said! One small quibble - Bust up the monster paragraph - my little pea brain can only absorb big ideas in small bites.

;)

Posted by Doc8404 2004-05-31 1:06:38 PM|| 2004-05-31 1:06:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 DaveD - That's a great collection, many of which are obvious when stated, but completely lost on the clueless. Just yesterday there was some segment on Fox where Pub & Donk "strategists" were yammering and the Donk twink regurgitated the "No Connection" (AlQ to Iraq) meme and it was so common or mild relative to some of the other memes he spewed that the Pub guy didn't even challenge it. Sigh. Yet the connections are myriad - the Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes has almost made a career out of demonstrating it's false - it's even the cover story of their June 7 issue. Yet, once established, memes persist for the slackers who aren't intelligent enough to continually challenge the Conventional Wisdom or the lock-step Talking Points of their peers. Pathetic lot.

Your point about doing the possible, first, before jumping off a cliff (What the Prez can do vs. what he can NOT do - Doh!) is absolutely spot-on. It boggles to read the comments of a total fucking moron, such as Dog Sucks Trolls (Is that auto-erotic, I wonder? I'm not that supple, either physically or intellectually...), in light of such trivialities such as the reality you describe. Blather, that's all they offer. Fred should institute a tougher policy (Easy for ME to say eh?) and require either substance or exceptional snarkiness... IMHO (heh) he should think of himself as the guy at the door - the one who unhooks the velvet rope and lets you in or sends you away as unworthy to be among the posting clientele, lol! I can think of 3 or 4 prolific posters who'd disappear rather quickly, with zero substantive loss to RB content. The overt twits are easy to spot. There are a couple of stealth candidates I'd recommend (Jen and Phil_B are grinning, I'm sure...) as well. RB should be a bit more than just a place to posture and dump your emotional baggage, no matter how well padded with other-people's-thoughts-cum-published-articles. If the basic POV is idiotarian, then everything must be suspect.

Your efforts to keep yourself informed (And organized enough to keep such a terrific list!) are seriously laudable - I wish I had been as astute in maintaining the mish-mash of bookmarks I have. When I need a link, it takes me forever to locate it! I have wanted to make and keep a coherent set of timelines - essential for perspective in making sense of why what happened did happen - but have failed, miserably! I'm just not organized or motivated to become so. No books will come from me - everything I write is extemporaneous, I'm afraid. Of course, you already know by reading my dribbles, heh.

Your assessment of Dubya's failings match mine. I think the series of weekly speeches, now begun to a chorus of jeers from the press and their ilk, might be a good start in changing this problem. I appreciated the clarifications in the first and look forward to more of same. Only the asshats think the process stupid - I'm with you: they will help the undecided and ill-informed to grasp what's up and why.

Americans are a lazy bunch. I have a saying:
It's hard to be hungry with a ham on your back.
Meaning:
If you have no motivation to be a seeker, because everything is being delivered pre-digested (such as the 'product' of the idiotarian press), you won't expend the effort to seek out your own sources, do your own deliberations, confirm your understanding of the issues, or update your opinions to keep pace with reality. I.E. You gotta have a separate good reason to do the work yourself. So, we're lazy, as a group.

Methinks this applies to far too many Americans.

Your posts rock, Dave, and I look for your nym to see what you say. I never have issues with your stuff and only keep silent because I'm not as informed as I'd like to be and doubt I will add to the thread. So I'm sorta saying it all at once here, heh! Plz keep it up! Oh, BTW, my very best regards and wishes to your son, as well!

Apologies to all for my windiness! :-)

Posted by .com 2004-05-31 2:17:28 PM|| 2004-05-31 2:17:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 hey! I want more oral sex!

Posted by Frank G 2004-05-31 2:42:35 PM|| 2004-05-31 2:42:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Lol! Yeah, that's what I thought! Tunneled right through the shit to the soft spot, didn't it? ;->

Posted by .com 2004-05-31 2:49:22 PM|| 2004-05-31 2:49:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Both .com and Dave are on a roll -- excellent list, Dave, and .com's rant is sublime.

As to the wish that Dubya would engage the American public more, I rather thought that was what the Saturday radio address was for. That ought to be about the WoT each and every week, no exceptions. Challenge the Dem responder to explain the WoT away.

And a mid-week speech in some battleground state each and every week, with exclusive interviews to the local newscasters, wouldn't hurt either.

Posted by Steve White 2004-05-31 2:50:06 PM|| 2004-05-31 2:50:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 "Your assessment of Dubya's failings match mine. I think the series of weekly speeches, now begun to a chorus of jeers from the press and their ilk, might be a good start in changing this problem."

Agreed; they're a start. But, like Steve White, I would have preferred he take on the whacko nonsense from the likes of Ted Kennedy, head-on and in-their-face. But that's probably not his style, and I suspect also his team is following a strategy of staying "above the fray" and going about their business with studied, quiet competence. That tactic may work, but I have my doubts: the appearance it creates is too close to the appearance created by simple lack of leadership; and I'm not confident most people will be able to discern the difference when it counts in November, particularly if there's another terrorist attack here.

Thanks for the kind wishes for my son over in Iraq, as well as for your "rants"- I enjoy 'em.

Oh, and as for people like our "Dog Bites Trolls", here's a label: Bloodthirsty Worrywarts. Just another category of "useless weakling".

Posted by Dave D. 2004-05-31 3:05:43 PM|| 2004-05-31 3:05:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Great rants! There's meat in the sizzle today. Dave D. Didn't know you had a son in Iraq, may God bless him and his crew.

I tried your webpage but couldn't access it. I'll try latter.

I'm with you dot, although I don't mind the crash dummies. I'm usually sitting in the back of the class throwing spitballs with them. I learn so much from those who go toe to toe with them. Especially when you can get them to make a point.

Posted by Lucky 2004-05-31 3:37:38 PM|| 2004-05-31 3:37:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 "I tried your webpage but couldn't access it. I'll try latter."

Hmmm. It's working OK right now. You can't just click on the link I gave, of course (I don't know how to do proper links here at RB, everytime I try I end up screwing it up), you have to copy the text of that line and then paste it into the Address line of your browser, then hit RETURN.

Posted by Dave D. 2004-05-31 3:58:58 PM|| 2004-05-31 3:58:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Okay Fine. I'm having a small bbq today so I printed a copy to pass around.

All well thought out, easy to read. Makes me ponder some assumption I have about the occupation. My big hang-up is I don't want to see this war not go where "It sends a message..." leads. I don't want the WoT all about Iraqi politics. It needs to go forward.

But make no mistate, I think it was the right thing to do and I'm glad GW did it.

Posted by Lucky 2004-05-31 5:01:44 PM|| 2004-05-31 5:01:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Dave, absolutely brilliant. I'm going to be sending that to a few of my Democrat friends.
.com, kudos to you, too, although now I'll be looking over my back, wondering just who's extraneous around here. I'm not quite as informed as some others, and there was that outburst the other day where I happened to be off the mark . . .

Posted by The Doctor 2004-05-31 5:22:49 PM|| 2004-05-31 5:22:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 As I've read more these last few days, I'm becoming increasingly convinced that we're not at war with Islam, but with Arab tribalism, the shame/honor complex, and the conspiratorial worldview that comes from those two and is probably the only thing that makes them less "rational" than us. Because it is, I'm finding, a completely different way of looking at things. Very alien, but also logical in its own brutal way. Except that it doesn't work in the West's modern world.

Could it be that al-Qaeda and the like are, at their black hearts, conspiracies seeking to challenge, basically, the world, and the greatest "power holder" in it, the United States? Islam has a lot to do with their outlook, I know, but the more I think about it, the more I'm suspecting it's more a game of "Who holds the power" and "Who's planning to overthrow whom." In his brilliant book The Closed Circle, which I can't praise enough, David Pryce-Jones talks about Israel being drawn into the tribal conflicts/struggles for power, and how just one of those, the PLO, has been blown far out of proportion. Could something similar be happening with the US, at least in the minds of some Arabs - and can we break that cycle?

Posted by The Doctor 2004-05-31 5:28:28 PM|| 2004-05-31 5:28:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 The Doctor - No, no, not you! We're all off-base now & then - that's always forgivable if acknowledged. But, sadly, some of us don't admit mistakes. Ever. Sigh. Sad, no? Since perfection isn't available...

Hey, ignore me! That seems to be a good rule of thumb - there are so many experts, real and imaginary, to choose from!

Fred knows, heh... Hell, Fred knows everything! ;->

Posted by .com 2004-05-31 5:38:50 PM|| 2004-05-31 5:38:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 "My big hang-up is I don't want to see this war not go where "It sends a message..." leads. I don't want the WoT all about Iraqi politics. It needs to go forward."

Related to that concern, consider this: of the 37 things I wrote in that list, how many of them actually depend on us being able to turn Iraq into a picture-perfect model of a democratic, constitional republic? My assessment is, very few. In my view, the important thing is that Iraq end up peaceful so it won't be a threat to any of its neighbors, and prosperous enough that its inhabitants feel they have a stake in making their society work and won't be a pain in the ass.

As I told someone last year, our plan for conquering Iraq is to make Iraqis fat, dumb, happy and pacifistic- just like we did with the Germans. And it certainly worked with them: the only thing I can think of that's more pacifistic than Germany is a carrot.

The important thing for us, I think, is that we get a permanent land base strategically located in the Middle East, and a supply of oil that isn't going to be shut down by pissed-off Saudi oil ticks who, I dearly hope, we will start pissing off big-time once we get past the November elections.

Posted by Dave D. 2004-05-31 7:15:30 PM|| 2004-05-31 7:15:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 I to wonder were I stand in the Great Rantburg Scheme of Things?

Posted by Raptor 2004-05-31 7:18:55 PM|| 2004-05-31 7:18:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Raptor - Lol! Haven't we had a little talk about trolling for compliments before, young man? Lol!

Posted by .com 2004-05-31 8:04:31 PM|| 2004-05-31 8:04:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 .com just want to say thanks for your efforts on keeping us informed on the magic kingdom.

Posted by Classical_Liberal 2004-05-31 8:08:26 PM|| 2004-05-31 8:08:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Excellent posts, .com and DaveD. I linked to DaveD's page at my website. Excellence!

Posted by Ptah 2004-05-31 8:12:00 PM|| [http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2004-05-31 8:12:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 OT and Offbase? That's my MO, along with snarky comments and making fun of names

Posted by Frank G 2004-05-31 8:21:39 PM|| 2004-05-31 8:21:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Thanks for the link. Hope I don't get shut down by a CrusaderLanche though...

Posted by Dave D. 2004-05-31 8:26:17 PM|| 2004-05-31 8:26:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 Frank G - now be careful, bubba - making fun of names can get you skewered, y'know. And you'll get no apology, either, when you point out the tirade isn't proportional to the offense. So watch your step!

Ptah - Dave's lucid points and org skills would make him an excellent candidate to write a book... and I would hate to be on the other side of the equation!

CL - Look for posts by GK, Michael, Anon4617, and others (argh! memory! apologies!) - they have differing / complimentary experience in SA which rocks!

Posted by .com 2004-05-31 8:30:03 PM|| 2004-05-31 8:30:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 I'm still bummed nobody bit at my MNLF Human Rights Conferee story comment:

#2 "We didn't know where he was", said Lingga's wife, Connie and his daughter, Anna
Posted by: Frank G 2004-05-31 9:38:29 AM Comment Top

Posted by Frank G 2004-05-31 8:50:46 PM|| 2004-05-31 8:50:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 This is Fred's site and he can do what he wants with it, but my 2c worth is that the noise ratio is going up and controlling junk posters like Zenster would help keep the site readable. Various ideas have been floated in the past. I advocate a mixture of paying for the right to post and earning it, based on the 'value' of your comments.

Posted by Phil B 2004-05-31 8:58:31 PM|| 2004-05-31 8:58:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 And .com you are the RantMaster! Truly awesome!

Posted by Phil B 2004-05-31 9:00:23 PM|| 2004-05-31 9:00:23 PM|| Front Page Top

15:05 jules 187
14:23 jules 187
08:56 Anonymous4617
05:58 rkb
05:48 JFM
05:13 Phil B
03:22 Zenster
03:21 Mike Sylwester
03:19 Mike Sylwester
01:15 Tresho
01:11 .com
01:06 Phil B
00:26 Mark Espinola
00:21 Tresho
00:12 Tresho
00:05 Atomic Conspiracy
00:05 Desert Blondie
23:56 Zenster
23:48 Anonymous4617
23:48 Zenster
23:46 Tresho
23:37 Phil B
23:36 The Doctor
23:33 Zenster