Posted on 10/10/2002 2:29:14 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
Recent intelligence reports indicate that our desultory efforts abroad so far—and our fortress “homeland defense” mentality—will fail to prevent further horrendous attacks on the US. We’re losing because Bush has defaulted on the “Bush Doctrine”—the idea that you’re either with us, or for the terrorists. And he has defaulted most egregiously in continuing to treat the Saudis as allies, when they’re really against us.
Saudi Arabia is indisputably terrorism’s biggest bankroller, even if Iran is its largest sponsor overall. The Saudis persistently stonewall efforts to cut off terrorist funding, and they’ll never reliably change in that regard— too many powerful Saudis are fanatical terrorist sympathizers, due to their Wahabite fundamentalism. They actively hate us and everything that Western civilization stands for—e.g. separation of religion and state. Why do we go on tolerating the Saudis, even as it results in our own destruction? The answer is that multiculturalism is fundamentally to blame.
Multiculturalism says that all cultures are equally valid, no matter how anti-life and irrational they may be. In this view, Middle Eastern culture, say, is just as good as American culture. In other words, a culture characterized by:
Fatalistic mindless submission to deity—death-worshipping martyrs—fantastical conspiracy-mongering and ignorance—“honor” killings of young women—the burqa—centuries of tyranny, torture, bribery, teeming slums, choking pollution, and disease—
Is supposedly equal to one with:
Science—the Bill of Rights—sanitation—a middle-class that takes computers, cell phones, and MRIs for granted —Costco and Target—millions of people desperately trying to get in—and millions more around the globe clamoring for Marilyn Monroe and “The Titanic.”
We ought to conclude that multiculturalism is dishonest on its face. Even so, “multiculturalism” has always been implicit in our policy toward the Saudis—even before it became a buzzword.
In the beginning, we let the Saudis help themselves to oilfields created by Western capitalists from unused desert. Oil in the ground is useless; the capitalists did all of the work—prospecting, pumping, and refining the oil—that made it an indispensable value to the modern industrial world. Under the Western notion of private property, that means the oilfields belong to them, not the House of Saud.
The Saudis are parasites, having produced nothing themselves. They’re just thugs running a neighborhood protection racket. But that’s a part of their tribalistic culture; multiculturalists therefore insist that we have to respect their “right” to the oilfields.
Over the ensuing decades, Saudis have used their illicit oil wealth to fund steadily escalating terrorist attacks on US targets. And we have done nothing beyond giving them timorous reproofs, mindful that they have a foot on the world’s oil jugular—courtesy our acquiescence to their scam.
And now they’re holding our critically-needed campaign against Iraq hostage to the creation of a Palestinian state. Such a move threatens the existence of our ally Israel—the only outpost of Western civilization in the region. The Palestinians—like their Saudi patrons—are mired in a culture of tyranny and corruption. Many if not most Palestinians want to drive Israel into the sea, and giving them their own state would only further that aim. The Saudis would just love that.
Add to all of this that the Saudis have contributed heavily to Pakistani terrorism against our ally India—which in turn could trigger a horrendous nuclear holocaust in South Asia—and the prescription is clear: We have to take over Saudi Arabia.
The multiculturalists will naturally be horrified at this violation of Saudi “sovereignty,” which supposedly we must respect at all costs. But the Saudis are pointing a gun at us—which we gave them. We have a right to defend ourselves by taking that gun away from them.
Accordingly we are justified in seizing whatever we need from the Saudis in order to control the country, as well as bring the war to Iraq and Iran with all due dispatch. This includes seizing state-of-the-art Prince Sultan airbase that we so “generously” built and staffed for them, which use they have denied us for any campaign in the region. We should also:
- Seize the oilfields and restore them to the Western companies that made them possible, or let someone else responsibly operate them, under US commercial and military protection.
- Freeze Saudi assets and cut the umbilical to terrorist religious schools, mosques, “charities,” and Palestinian suicide bombers.
- Force the Saudis to hand over known key terrorist enablers in their country, for trial in US military courts.
- End the Saudis’ relentless pro-terrorist propaganda campaign, which spreads lies about the West and Israel across the Middle East.
All of this may necessitate deposing the despotic House of Saud altogether, confiscating its ill-gotten wealth, and instituting a government more conducive to individual rights—just as the US successfully did in Germany and Japan post-WWII. That policy includes such Western “biases” as emancipating women, separating religion and state—and for similar reasons—separating state and economy.
We’re fighting for our lives. We can win against the terrorists and their enablers, if there is a huge public outcry for Bush to consistently act on his professed principles. Seizing control of Saudi Arabia inevitably follows from that. Then we must press on to Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, and other places to finish the job.
we let the Saudis help themselves to oilfields created by Western capitalists from unused desert...the capitalists did all of the work—prospecting, pumping, and refining the oil—that made it an indispensable value to the modern industrial world. Under the Western notion of private property, that means the oilfields belong to them, not the House of Saud.
Complete crap. Whether or not we should go for "regime change" is a question that can be debated- given the absence of an opposition in the country, other than the really hard core muslims, I don't think it's a winner. But suggesting that developing a resource under contract makes the resource itself yours, in the absence of that language in the original contract, is asinine.
One other thought- "taking" the oil is easier said than done- as the author noted, a lot of work went into devloping the infrastructure to lift the oil, pump it, de-gas it, store it, and either load it onto VLCCs/ULCCs or pump it out via TAPLINE. All that infrastructure takes a lot of manpower to run, and is extremely vulnerable to sabotage.
Guy doesn't have a clue.
noticed others have "guy" in their handle- I meant the author of the article, not fellow freepers.
Does this fellow think this is a game of Risk? Just go conquer the whole world?
No, just the Fundamentalist Muslim Theocracies.
Nice grammar. "Somebody is more anti-Saud than me am." Try I am.
No, just our enemies.
I hope you're right. I tend to beleive that W is working his political capital in that sh!t infested part of the world.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.