.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Uncommonly Sensible

Keeping the "anal" in analytical... (While trying to remain civilized)

My Photo
Name:
Location: United States

Monday, August 01, 2005

The king is dead; long live the king?


King Fahd of Saudia Arabia, right, and the Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdel Aziz, left, are seen in this 1981 photo taken in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. King Fahd, who moved his country closer to the United States but ruled in name only since suffering a stroke in 1995, died early Monday, Aug. 1, 2005, the Saudi royal court said. He was 84. Crown Prince Abdullah, the king's half brother and Saudi Arabia's de facto ruler, was appointed the country's new monarch.
(AP Photo/Saleh Rifai, File)


Abdullah Al-Shihri, for AP - RIYADH, Saudi Arabia:
During his rule, the portly, goateed Fahd, who rose to the throne in 1982, inadvertently helped fuel the rise of Islamic extremism by making multiple concessions to hard-liners, hoping to boost his Islamic credentials. But then he also brought the kingdom closer to the United States and agreed to a step that enraged many conservatives: the basing of U.S. troops on Saudi soil after the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.


Abdullah oversaw the crackdown on Islamic militants after followers of Saudi-born Osama bin Laden launched a wave of attacks, beginning with the May 2003 bombings of Western residential compounds in Riyadh. Abdullah also pushed a campaign against extremist teaching and preaching and introduced the kingdom's first elections ever - municipal polls held in early 2005.

And Abdullah - who before coming to power had not been happy with Saudi Arabia's close alliance with and military dependence on the United States and Washington's perceived bias toward Israel - rebuilt the kingdom's ties with the U.S. He visited President Bush twice at Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, most recently in April 2005.



Well. We know that a lot of Islamic fanatics hail from Saudi Arabia...like those charming fellows who flew a few planes into some buildings hereabouts. Then there's the lovely and talented Osama bin Laden, of course.

The Saudi royalty has paid a lot of lip service to being vehemently opposed to terrorism; now they officially have a new king, although in reality Abdullah has been running the show for 10 years years now, ever since King Fahd had a stroke in '95. Perhaps now that Abdullah is king in fact, things might change...but it seems doubtful.

Crude oil prices will very likely stay high, largely due to the appetite of the Dragon in the East...China.
(Economics 101 - Law of Supply and Demand: the Saudis have the supply, while China has the demand. Of course when you adjust for inflation, gas prices in the U.S. have been higher in the past. But I digress...)

My primary concern is regarding terrorism.

Instead of just paying lip service to being opposed to it, it would speak volumes if King Abdullah denounced it entirely. He has cracked down on it within his country's borders to a certain degree, but many of the so-called "insurgents" in Iraq are being bankrolled by Saudi sympathizers. If King Abdullah were to crack down on them, it would truly make a difference.

Talk is cheap, actions speak louder than words...

51 Comments:

Blogger MargeinMI said...

From what I understand, SA is about to come apart at the seams. The royals are sucking up all the money, and the huge rest of society are getting poorer and poorer. Perhaps shades of South Africa? The women there are SO oppressed and brainwashed! God help them!

I for one am GLAD our troops are out of there!

Oh, and FIRST!!!! ;oP

August 01, 2005 8:00 AM  
Blogger MargeinMI said...

Also, I read recently that their numbers on their oil reserves may be fudged on a regular basis. What would happen if their pump went dry? It boggles the mind.

August 01, 2005 8:05 AM  
Blogger camojack said...

MargeinMI:
You can read an excellent article on the whys and wherefores of the deteriorating Saudi standard of living HERE.

August 01, 2005 8:43 AM  
Blogger hooey said...

And if Kimg Shrub brought the troops home, it would truly make a difference.

August 01, 2005 11:16 AM  
Blogger Kajun said...

howie said: "And if Kimg Shrub brought the troops home, it would truly make a difference."

If that happened, that same day on the evening news, the lib-democraps would be bemoaning the fact that he brought them home...rather than increaseing troop strength in Iraq.

August 01, 2005 5:31 PM  
Blogger Hawkeye® said...

Kajun,
You got that right. Hillary Clinton and her dim lib friends have been pushing to increase the size of the military by 30,000 men. Why would they be interested if they weren't planning on using them in Iraq?

August 01, 2005 5:49 PM  
Blogger Hawkeye® said...

Howie,
I thought Kim G. Shrub was Korean.

August 01, 2005 5:49 PM  
Blogger Hawkeye® said...

Marge,
What would happen if their pump went dry?

Unfortunately, some day everyone's oil pump is going to go dry. It's a limited resource, non-renewable. When it's gone, it's gone. Some have even suggested that with the growth of economies like China, it may be gone within 50 years....

Which means that when I'm 103 years old I'll be toolin' around in some cool new electro-hydrogen-hybrid thingy. Can't wait!

August 01, 2005 5:54 PM  
Blogger camojack said...

howie:
You appeasers simply lack any grasp of reality.

Kajun:
I was surprised to note that you added a link to howie's blog on your own; I used to have one myself, but cannot allow my blog to be associated with some of the vulgar stuff he allows there.

Hawkeye®:
I'm all for alternative energy resources...as you rightly pointed out, fossil fuels are non-renewable.

I plan to invest heavily in solar and wind generators when I move to my retirement acreage, along with a water catchment system...

August 01, 2005 7:40 PM  
Blogger Libby Gone™ said...

camo,
er ughhhh!
Thanks for the reality check
deleted
shoot and I thought I could trust my mom's emails.
just wait till I see her again !
haha
thanks again,sir !

August 01, 2005 8:49 PM  
Blogger camojack said...

Libby Gone™:
No problemo, señor.

Always check things first, irrespective of source...

August 01, 2005 9:08 PM  
Blogger mig said...

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

August 01, 2005 9:10 PM  
Blogger Libby Gone™ said...

Plus cha change,
Plus ce le meim chose?
phonetically of course.

August 01, 2005 9:24 PM  
Blogger camojack said...

mig:
That's true.

Libby Gone™:
C'est vrai...

August 01, 2005 10:21 PM  
Blogger SGT USMC 1ea said...

La Roi est mort, vive Msr Bush.

We need more nuke u ler power. spent fuel rods be darned. We can just sneak them into Bergers Socks or have Clinton give them to China. Maybe a magnetic rail gun can be made to launch them into space and provide some nice radioctive comets.

As an interesting side note the US alone generates 60% more power than all 30 countries of Western Europe including the UK, France, and Germany.

On the other hand we consume 40% more than we produce while they consume 72% more than they produce. France uses twice what it produces and Germany uses about 3X its production. We have untapped reserves and they have none of consequence. Who do you think is really going to be in the hurt locker when the oil supply starts to dwindle?

Jesu est Semper Fidelis

August 02, 2005 12:23 AM  
Blogger camojack said...

SGT USMC 1ea:
Since we have our own (strategic) oil reserves, lots of other countries will feel the "pinch" 'afore we do.

As you prob'ly know, the "master plan" is to use up the other guys' oil first...

August 02, 2005 3:51 AM  
Blogger MargeinMI said...

Good link Jack. Seems like the unemployment problem there is a combo of population growth, and the the 'outsourcing' the actual work of running the oil business. Is it because Little Jamal is too busy learning how to be Big Jamal Jihadist, (by the state) than Big Jamal the chemical engineer?

They've got a LOOOOOOOOOOONG way to go!

August 02, 2005 9:58 AM  
Blogger Kajun said...

My Congressman Cooksey was right! It still looks like they wear diapers with fanbelts on their heads.

August 03, 2005 3:32 AM  
Blogger camojack said...

MargeinMI:
Essentially, they live in a glorified welfare state, bringing in foreign help to do all the work...but it's not gonna last.

Kajun:
I like the Italian tablecloth version of their headwear better...

August 03, 2005 3:43 AM  
Blogger Pat'sRick© said...

Hawkeye
Unfortunately, some day everyone's oil pump is going to go dry. It's a limited resource, non-renewable.

Actually we can produce oil from garbage in a few hours. Solves two problems at once. Nobody will pursue it in quantities until the "other" oil is in really short supply.

kajun
It still looks like they wear diapers with fanbelts on their heads.
Actually, they are little sheets. Some people call the wearers "little sheet heads".

August 03, 2005 7:09 AM  
Blogger camojack said...

Pat'sRick© said:
Actually we can produce oil from garbage in a few hours. Solves two problems at once.


Ah, yes; what is also referred to as "Biomass".

I'm all for alternative energy sources, but prefer the cleaner kind. You still have to burn biomass-type products...so you still get pollutants.

August 03, 2005 9:30 AM  
Blogger 'da Bunny said...

Currently giving their number one export(oil) a run for the money, is the Saudi exportation of terrorism. Oh how I wish we could tell them to "take their oil and drink it", so that we would not be unwittingly funding these terrorists' activities. Many of the Iraqi "insurgents" (stupid euphemistic term) are Saudi nationals whose goal is to kill as many Americans as possible. "Fill 'er up." :-(

August 03, 2005 7:31 PM  
Blogger hooey said...

Almost 2,000 dead in Iraq and for what? READ MORE...

August 03, 2005 7:46 PM  
Blogger camojack said...

'da Bunny:
All too true, unfortunately.

Just another excellent reason to develop alternative energy technologies.

howie:
You surprise me; nothing spelt incorrectly.

But to answer your question:
To preserve our way of life and take the battle to the terrorists, rather than fighting it in our own cities and towns...

August 03, 2005 10:13 PM  
Blogger Josh Fahrni said...

But...that's not how howie wants it.

August 04, 2005 12:12 AM  
Blogger camojack said...

Josh:
Maybe I'll go see what howie copied & pasted in his ineffable literary (but not literate) fashion...

August 04, 2005 12:17 AM  
Blogger JR said...

CamoJack,
  Good Questions… Saudi is the birthplace of the “suicide” versions of Islam... Saudi is maybe one third of our daily oil intake??? It is tough to know how much pressure to use to accomplish our long term goals...
  At sixty dollars a barrel, it should be cheaper to convert to corn as our National fuel source...
One problem solved...
JR

August 04, 2005 8:48 AM  
Blogger camojack said...

JR:
We can use corn for everything; fuel, oil, alcoholic beverages...I've also heard it can be used for food. :-)
(You maybe can't tell from my picture, but trust me, my tongue is firmly planted in my cheek...)

August 04, 2005 11:08 AM  
Blogger MargeinMI said...

Speaking of pictures, Jack; nice link on SF the other day. You looked, like, totally, dude, in va-ca mode, like, totally. Nice tattoos.

August 04, 2005 6:18 PM  
Blogger camojack said...

MargeinMI:
You mean this picture?

I definitely was in "vacation mode", indeed...

August 04, 2005 8:10 PM  
Blogger hooey said...

camojack vignetted...
Josh:
Maybe I'll go see what howie copied & pasted in his ineffable literary (but not literate) fashion...


What I «copied + pasted» was your link (Uncommonly Sensitive) on my site.

August 05, 2005 9:32 PM  
Blogger hooey said...

R O B E R T S Read more...

August 06, 2005 10:59 AM  
Blogger camojack said...

howie:
Uncommonly Sensitive?!

Fine. Have it your way; even though it's incorrect, at least you spelt it right...

August 06, 2005 3:48 PM  
Blogger truth_is_freedom said...

Robert Fisk offers some corrective in the Independent, with a front page story on the House of Sa'ud, acknowledging the importance of Wahhabism to the royal family in his second sentence, going on to write:

'Journalists like to claim that Wahhabism is "obscurantist" but it is not true. Abdul-Wahab was not a great thinker or philosopher but, for his followers, he was a near-saint. Waging war on felllow Muslims who had erred was an obligatory part of his philosophy, whether they be the "deviant" Shia Muslims of Basra - whom he vainly tried to convert to Sunni Islam (they chucked him out) - or Arabians who did not follow his own exclusive interpretation of Muslim unity.'

'But he also prescribed rebellion against rulers. His orthodoxy threatened the modern-day House of Saud because of its corruption, yet secured its future by forbidding revolution. The Saudi royal family thus embraced the one faith which could protect and destroy it.'

'Which is why all the talk in modern Saudi Arabia of "cracking down on terror", protecting women's rights, lessening the power of the religious police, is so much hokum.' (page 2)

August 06, 2005 5:18 PM  
Blogger camojack said...

truth_is_freedom:
Apparently we're in agreement yet again...is it becoming a bad habit? Just kidding. But you're kind of teasing me with "(page 2)", although it'd be easy enough to find with a web search, I s'pose.

Anyway, as I closed the post that started this thread:
"Talk is cheap, actions speak louder than words..."

My point being, until they "walk the walk", the talk fails to impress.

August 06, 2005 5:56 PM  
Blogger Hawkeye® said...

Howie,
FYI, you have a starring role in the latest posting on my blog View From Above.

August 07, 2005 9:48 AM  
Blogger camojack said...

Hawkeye®:
Funny. But why tell him here? I think he just makes "drive by" postings here and elsewhere, without checking back for any response...

August 07, 2005 10:15 AM  
Blogger hooey said...

I actually do check for reponses.

August 07, 2005 4:53 PM  
Blogger camojack said...

howie:
If only you'd spell check.
(Hint..."responses")

August 07, 2005 8:20 PM  
Blogger truth_is_freedom said...

You do realise, Camo, that terrorism inside Saudi, against the Royals, is mainly because of their cosy relationship with the USA?

And that the USA's cosy relationship with the Saudis makes a mockery of American claims to be terribly interested in spreading "democracy"? Just as their relationship with Pakistan and (recently) with Usbekistan does.

As for nukes, why is it fine for Israel to have the bomb but not Iran? News has it that on the heels of another terrorist attack on the US, Bush is going to use that as an excuse to attack Iran -- irrespective of whether Iran is responsible or not. Just as he did with Iraq. How many more deaths does he want?

August 10, 2005 12:00 PM  
Blogger camojack said...

truth_is_freedom:
I realize that there's a definite conflict of interest, within Saudi Arabia, and also in its relationship with the U.S.

They want money, Americans want their oil. It's called politics, an ugly business to be sure, but it keeps the "wheels greased"...so to speak.

Regarding your question about why it's acceptable for Israel to have nukes and not Iran, the former has typically been in a defensive posture, whereas the latter has been aggressive historically. Even the vaunted U.N. is opposed to Iran having nukes, although outside of issuing "resolutions" (not worth the paper they're printed on), there's precious little they'll actually do about it.

Personally, I'm hoping that the Iranian people take matters into their own hands, and overthrow the theocracy they are currently living under...

August 10, 2005 12:38 PM  
Blogger truth_is_freedom said...

So in keeping the "wheels greased" you don't care about how many double standards you (America) practise. Or how many people are killed. "Americans want their oil" -- and that's a sufficient reason for any form of behaviour. Like invading Iraq which hadn't even threatened you.

You say of the UN: "although outside of issuing 'resolutions' (not worth the paper they're printed on), there's precious little they'll actually do about it." ?

List of US vetoes cast against UN Security Council Resolutions on Palestine:

1. 24 Jul. 1973. S/10974

Vote: 13 in favor, 1 veto (US), 1 abstention.
The resolution strongly deplored Israel's occupation of the Arab territories since 1967, and expressed serious concern with the Israeli authorities' lack of cooperation with the UN Special Representative of the Secretary General.

2. 23 Jan. 1976. S/11940

Vote: 9 in favor, 1 veto (US), 3 abstentions.
The resolution called for Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories since 1967, and deplored Israel's refusal to implement relevant UN resolutions. It furthermore reaffirmed the Palestinian people's right to self determination and the right of return for Palestinian refugees.

3. 24 Mar. 1976. S/12022

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).
In the draft, the Security Council expressed deep concern over Israeli measures to change the character of the occupied territories, in particular Jerusalem, the establishment of Israeli settlements, and human rights violations, and called for an end of such measures.

4. 29 Jun. 1976. S/12119

Vote: 10 in favor, 1 veto (US), 4 abstentions.
The resolution affirmed the Palestinian people's right to self determination, the right of return, and the right to national independence.

5. 30 Apr. 1980. S/13911

Vote: 10 in favor, 1 veto (US), 4 abstentions.
The resolution affirmed the Palestinian right to establish an independent state, the right of return or compensation for loss of property for refugees not wishing to return, and Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories since 1967.

6. 1 Apr. 1982. S/14943

Vote: 13 in favor, 1 veto (US), 1 abstention.
In the draft, the Security Council denounced Israeli interference with local governance in the West Bank, and its violations of the rights and liberties of the population in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The resolution furthermore called on Israel to end all activities in breach of the Forth Geneva Convention.

7. 20 Apr. 1982. S/14985

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).
The draft strongly condemned the shooting of worshipers at Haram Al-Sharif on 11 April, 1982, and called on Israel to observe and apply the provisions of the Forth Geneva Convention, and other international laws.

8. 8 Jun. 1982 S/15185

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).
The resolution draft condemned the Israeli non-compliance with resolutions 508 and 509, urged the parties to comply with the Hague Convention of 1907, and restated the Security Council's demands of Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon.

9. 25 Jun. 1982 S/15255/Rev. 2

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).
The resolution demanded the immediate withdrawal of Israeli and Palestinian forces from areas in and around Beirut, and that the parties would comply with resolution 508. It furthermore requested that the Secretary General would station UN military observers to supervise the ceasefire and disengagement in and around Beirut, and that the Secretary General would make proposals for the installation of a UN force to take up positions beside the Lebanese interposition force.

10. 6 Aug. 1982 S/15347/Rev. 1

Vote: 11 in favor, 1 veto, 3 abstentions.
The resolution strongly condemned Israel for not implementing resolutions 516 and 517, called for their immediate implementation, and decided that all UN member-states would refrain from providing Israel with weapons or other military aid until Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory.

11. 1 Aug. 1983. S/15895

Vote: 13 in favor, 1 veto (US), 1 abstention.
The resolution called upon Israel to discontinue the establishment of new settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, to dismantle existing settlements, and to adhere to the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. The resolution furthermore rejected Israeli deportations and transfers of Palestinian civilians, and condemned attacks against the Arab civilian population. The Security Council also called upon other states to refrain from giving Israel any assistance related to the settlements, and stated its intention to examine ways of securing the implementation of the resolution, in the event of Israeli non-compliance.

12. 12 Sep. 1985. S/17459

Vote: 10 in favor, 1 veto (US), 4 abstentions.
The resolution draft deplored the repressive measures applied by the Israeli authorities against the Palestinian population in the occupied territories, and called upon Israel to immediately cease the use of repressive measures, including the use of curfews, deportations, and detentions.

13. 29 Jan. 1986. S/17769

Vote: 13 in favor, 1 veto (US), 1 abstention.
The resolution strongly deplored Israeli refusal to abide earlier Security Council resolutions, and called upon Israel to comply with these resolutions, as well as, the norms of international law governing military occupation such as the Forth Geneva Convention. The Security Council also expressed deep concern with violations of the sanctity of the Haram Al-Sharif, and with Israeli measures aimed at altering the character of the occupied territories, including Jerusalem.

14. 29 Jan. 1988. S/19466

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).
The resolution called upon Israel to accept the de jure applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Times of War to the territories occupied since 1967, and to conform to the Convention. The resolution moreover called upon Israel to refrain from practices violating the human rights of the Palestinian people.

15. 14 Apr. 1988. S/19780

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).
The resolution expressed grave concerned with the Israeli use of collective punishment, including house demolitions. It condemned the policies and practices utilized by the Israeli authorities violating the human rights of the Palestinian People, especially the killing and wounding of defenseless Palestinian civilians by the Israeli army. Called on Israel to abide to the Forth Geneva Convention, and urged it to desist from deporting Palestinians.

16. 17 Feb. 1989. S/20463

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).
The resolution strongly deplored Israeli persistence in violating the human rights of the Palestinian people, in particular the shooting of Palestinian civilians, including children. It also deplored Israel's disregard of Security Council decisions, and called upon Israel to act in accordance with the Forth Geneva Convention and relevant Security Council resolutions.

17. 9 Jun. 1989. S/20677

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).
The resolution deplored the violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people, demanded that Israel would abstain from deporting Palestinian civilians for the occupied territories, and that it would ensure the safe return of those already deported. It also called upon Israel to comply with the Forth Geneva Convention, and requested that the Secretary General would give recommendations on measures guaranteeing compliance with the Convention, and the protection of Palestinian civilians in the occupied territories.

18. 6 Nov. 1989. S/20945/Rev. 1

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).
The resolution deplored the Israeli violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people, including the siege of towns, ransacking of homes, and confiscation of property. It called upon Israel to abide to the Forth Geneva Convention, to lift the siege, and to return confiscated property to its owners. The resolution requested that the Secretary General would conduct on-site monitoring of the situation in the occupied territories.

19. 30 May 1990. S/21326

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).
The draft resolution established a commission to examine the situation related to Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories, including Jerusalem.

20. 17 May 1995. S/1995/394

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).
The resolution confirmed that the Israeli expropriation of Palestinian land in East Jerusalem was invalid, and called upon Israel to refrain from such actions. It also expressed its support for the Middle East peace process and urged the parties to adhere to the accord agreed upon.

21. 7 Mar. 1997. S/1997/199

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).
The resolution expressed deep concern with the Israeli plans to build new settlements in East Jerusalem, and called upon Israel to desist from measures, including the building of settlements, that would pre-empt the final status negotiations. The resolution once again called on Israel to abide to the provisions of the Geneva Convention.

22. 21 Mar. 1997. S/1997/241

Vote: 13 in favor, 1 veto (US), 1 abstention.
The resolution demanded an end to the Israeli construction of the Jabal Abu Ghneim settlement in East Jerusalem, and to all other measures related to settlements in the occupied territories.

23. 26 Mar. 2001. S/2001/270

Vote: 9 in favor, 1 veto (US), 4 abstentions.
The resolution called for a total and immediate stop of all acts of violence, provocation, and collective punishment, as well as a complete cessation of Israeli settlement activities, and an end of the closures of the occupied territories. The resolution furthermore called for the implementation of the Sharm El-Sheikh agreement, and expressed the Security Council's willingness to set up mechanisms to protect the Palestinian civilians, including the establishment of a UN observer force.

24. 14 Dec. 2001. S/2001/1199

Vote: 12 in favor, 1 veto (US) 2 abstentions.
In the resolution, the Security Council condemned all acts of terror, extrajudiciary executions, excessive use of force and destruction of properties, and demanded an end of all acts of violence, destruction and provocation. The resolution called on the parties to resume negotiations, and to implement the recommendations of the Mitchell Report. It also encouraged the establishment of a monitoring apparatus for the above mentioned implementation.

You claim that Israel is defensive? But Israel does not even admit publicly to having the nukes, Camo. Why not? And why is Iran not allowed to be 'defensive' when Bush is making threatening noises in their direction? Does the US decide who's allowed to defend now and who isn't??

Is that not rather arrogant, something you accuse the French of being?

August 10, 2005 7:15 PM  
Blogger camojack said...

truth_is_freedom:
There you go making erroneous assumptions...I never said I didn't care.

As for the Israel/Palestine matter, Israel was attacked in the late 60's; if they took more land in retaliation, that's tough! You can spare me the laundry lists of U.N. resolutions. That particular failed experiment in global socialism (The U.N.) has become a mockery of its original high-minded ideals, and has no credibility here.
(Here being this blog; I presume to speak for no-one but myself)

Ponder this: I know you said you're agnostic, but who would you rather have running things...a group that lives by the "death to infidels" credo, or one that is run by the "do unto others as you would have done unto you" crowd?

Arrogant, or simply pragmatic?!

I'll quote some folks who make a LOT of sense, from my perspective...

"While it's true that hundreds of millions of Muslims live in miserable circumstances, who's actually responsible for that oppression? Fifty nations boast Muslim majorities and not one of them boasts economic prosperity and a functioning democracy. ... The true oppressor of Muslims is Islam itself, with teachings that destroy any chance of progress, peace or freedom."
-Michael Medved

"Looking back after 60 years, who cannot be grateful that it was Truman who had the bomb, and not Hitler or Tojo or Stalin? And looking forward, who can seriously doubt the need for might always to remain in the hands of right? That is the enduring lesson of Hiroshima, and it is one we ignore at our peril."
-The Wall Street Journal

August 11, 2005 7:01 AM  
Blogger truth_is_freedom said...

"And looking forward, who can seriously doubt the need for might always to remain in the hands of right?"

Classic American thinking. You can't even conceive of a scenario where the US is NOT IN THE RIGHT. Cowboys in white hats who can do no wrong - except exterminate whole races of people.

Those who snigger at the French would to well to remove the mote from their own eye. You're blinded by self-rightousness and are incapable of seeing what you do wrong. Pragmatism is precisely what leads to torture and inhumane treatment and ignoring the rule of law.

Once you start from the premise that the US is always right, it can take you anywhere -- including flying people for torture to states that you publicly condemn. And those double standards are what make my stomach churn.

Don't you realise that loyalty to one's country has nothing at all to do with being loyal to the government of the day? Bush and Co are a bunch of thugs and crooks and neither you nor anyone else has an obligation to be loyal to them. It's America you should be concerned about, and how your administration's behaviour and standards have gone to the dogs. American's standing in the world is at an all-time low, and all you're concerned about it defending it. Not improving it.

Of course the UN has no credibility here. You're quite happy to think of the US running the world instead -- although none of the other 96% of the world's population voted for you to do so. And you need that oil, so you'll trample on everyone else to get it.

You've got to keep your people fed while they drive their SUVs and supersize themselves to death. Good luck!

August 11, 2005 8:26 AM  
Blogger camojack said...

truth_is_freedom said:
"You've got to keep your people fed while they drive their SUVs and supersize themselves to death."


If you haven't looked at my picture, please do. I ride a (relatively) fuel efficient motorcycle, and am nowhere near "supersized".

Who's being self-righteous here?

You presume much, and erroneously...

Also, you didn't answer my question, to wit:
Who would you rather have running things...a group that lives by the "death to infidels" credo, or one that is run by the "do unto others as you would have done unto you" crowd?
(FYI, if you're not one of 'em, you're an infidel too, by their definition)

August 11, 2005 8:57 AM  
Blogger truth_is_freedom said...

"do unto others as you would have done unto you" (???)

Send your sons and daughters to Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Then fly them on to Egypt and Uzbekistan. Then shoot their kids. Then carry out pharmaceutical trials on them when they have no food, no cash and no medicine. Then inject them with HIV/AIDS and refuse them the right to make or take generic drugs. When you're finished you might like to put them in sweatshops to make your clothes for you, while you drive your bike and sit in the sun by the lake. As recreation you could napalm a few thousand of your kids as well.

Then maybe you can talk about "do unto others" blah blah.

August 11, 2005 9:03 AM  
Blogger camojack said...

You infidel, you...

August 11, 2005 9:15 AM  
Blogger truth_is_freedom said...

You think that remark bothers me?

Maybe it's an "intelligent" answer to what I wrote above.

"Death to infidels" is not the credo of mainstream Islam, Camo. Do some reading-up on the subject.

August 11, 2005 9:34 AM  
Blogger camojack said...

truth_is_freedom:
I wasn't trying to bother you with the remark, but it's true; anyone who isn't one of their own qualifies as an infidel...and since you say you're agnostic, that includes you, especially.

Perhaps "Death to infidels" is not the credo of "mainstream" Islam, but it is the credo of the ones who are being allowed to dictate policy by default.

Maybe you should read up on it...

August 11, 2005 2:15 PM  
Blogger truth_is_freedom said...

"anyone who isn't one of their own qualifies as an infidel"

So what? I don't give a damn what I'm called.

"the ones who are being allowed to dictate policy by default"

Dictate policy where?

August 11, 2005 9:25 PM  
Blogger camojack said...

truth_is_freedom:
They dictate policy in the Middle East, with the tacit consent of "mainstream" Islam. As 'tis said, the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing...

August 11, 2005 11:46 PM  

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Free Site Counters
hit Counter