Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (126595)	3/19/2004 2:21:42 PM
From: GST	Respond to of 281500

America is distrusted for good reason. Your flimsy attempts to brush it aside reflect the arrogance that is at the heart of our problem with allies and terrorists alike.

To: Neocon who wrote (126595)	3/19/2004 3:04:36 PM
From: GST	Respond to of 281500

'Liberating' Saudi's Shi'ites (and their oil) By Ashraf Fahim If the rulers of Saudi Arabia held out any hope that the post-September 11, 2001, demonization of their kingdom was finally waning, then someone in Riyadh should pick up a copy of An End to Evil, a recently published neo-conservative roadmap for "winning" the "war on terror". In it, David Frum, an ex-speechwriter for President George W Bush (and inventor of the term "axis of evil"), and Richard Perle, the eminence grise of the neo-con fraternity, suggest that the United States should bring Saudi Arabia to heel by threatening to support independence for the country's Eastern Province or Al Hasa (also known as Ash Sharqiyah), where much of Saudi Arabia's minority Shi'ite population and, coincidentally, most of its oil is situated. While the continuing turmoil in Iraq might inhibit lesser souls even to consider tinkering with the map of the world's most important oil producer, Frum and Perle are made of sterner stuff. Lamenting the discrimination suffered by Saudi Arabia's Shi'ites at the hands of the Sunni elite, whose power base lies in Najd and Hijaz in the center and west of the Arabian Peninsula, they deduce that "it is not bigotry alone that explains these Saudi actions, but also their fear that the Shi'ites might someday seek independence for the Eastern Province - and its oil". If this fear were somehow brought to fruition it "would obviously be a catastrophic outcome for the Saudi state. But it might be a very good outcome for the US." atimes.com

To: Neocon who wrote (126595)	3/19/2004 4:04:35 PM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>>> However, France announced that it would veto an affirmative vote, and therefore we didn't bother.<<< That's an extremely shallow, revisionist even, interpretation as to what actually happened! The fact of the matter is there was no comfort for Bush's position among the Five permanent Security Council members, except for Britain. And there was even less comfort among the other members of the Council. Essentially, the only support Bush had was from Britian, Spain, Australia and Italy. And all four of those nations were sporting public opinion polls against the war near the 80 percent mark or higher. Any other support for Bush's war was public relations window dressing. I mean look at its membership make-up: whitehouse.gov Not only did the US include itself in order to get the numbers higher, but it also included Turkey which made the 101st Airborne come late to the war table. Bush's war actually began with the 101st not even there! Now, tell me, has Micronesia, Palau or Latvia ever been so highly regarded by the US? Nice coalition, huh!