A right proper old rant!

[usmc1]

I just read the article below and can still feel the heat on the back of my neck. I do not know about anyone else, but I am damned sick and tired of having countries such as Saudi Arabia and Israel dictating our foreign policy to us.

This all stems from our dependence on foreign oil and it is about time that we came to terms with our over-consumption and did something realistic and constructive to achieve, if not independence, less dependence.

A strong, free America acting in its enlightened self-interest will strengthen the entire world. Our current model is a metaphor of dysfucntion. The Saudi regime is one accidently dropped light bulb from exploding into civil war and Israeli intransigence and provocations perpetuate their problems.

The worst thing that would happen in Iraq if we departed would be that Iraq would be over run by Iraqis.

And can you imagine the right wing rabble's lunatic brayings if the Sauds had dressed down Al Gore when he was VEEP.

Damn! This two-bit (ok, six-bit) piker of a prince dressing down the Vice-President of the United States. Why in the name of hell didn't Cheney just take him hunting?


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah has warned Vice President Dick Cheney that Saudi Arabia would back the Sunnis if the United States pulls out of Iraq, according to a senior American official.

The official said the king "read the riot act" to the vice president when the two met last month in the Saudi capital, Riyadh.

The New York Times first reported the conversation Wednesday, saying Saudi support would include financial backing for minority Sunnis in the event of a civil war between them and Iraq's Shiite majority.

Violence between the two sects has exploded in waves of revenge killings since February's bombing of a revered Shiite mosque in Samarra, north of Baghdad.

An official with Cheney's office said the one-on-one meeting lasted two hours. The November 25 visit marked the fourth time Cheney had been to Saudi Arabia as vice president.

The Saudi king told Cheney that his country would be forced to step in and support "like-minded Sunni Arabs" if the situation in Iraq fell apart and the Sunnis' safety was in jeopardy, the senior U.S. official said.

The monarch said he would "intervene aggressively on one side absent an American presence," the source said.

The source said the king did not mean to imply that Saudi Arabia would support al Qaeda in Iraq, but rather tribal groups. However, some of those groups overlap with insurgents who are fighting Americans, the source conceded.

The bipartisan Iraq Study Group that reported to President Bush and Congress last week said money from Saudi citizens is funding Sunni insurgents in Iraq, although the Saudis may not know exactly where their money is going.

Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution said Saudi Arabia has a reason to take sides.

"They're terrified that Iraq is going to fall into civil war. They're terrified that civil war will spill over into Saudi Arabia. But they're also terrified that the Iranians, backing the various Shiite militias in Iraq, will come out the big winner in a civil war," Pollack told CNN.

Another recommendation of the Iraq Study Group called for engaging other countries in the region, including Iran and Syria, in the search for solutions in Iraq.

In his meeting with Cheney, the Saudi king voiced strong opposition to talks between the United States and Iran, which has a majority Shiite population.

According to the senior American official, he told Cheney that Sunni Arab states, including Saudi Arabia, believed that talking to Iran was dangerous.

A senior U.S. official said the conversation between the two men reflects the "anxiety about the situation" and the Saudi concern about being left "high and dry" if the United States leaves Iraq.

But the official said leaving Iraq is a "doomsday scenario" that will not happen because the United States isn't going to withdraw.

"We are not walking away from it," the official said.

[usmc1]

I just read the article below and can still feel the heat on the back of my neck. I do not know about anyone else, but I am damned sick and tired of having countries such as Saudi Arabia and Israel dictating our foreign policy to us.

This all stems from our dependence on foreign oil and it is about time that we came to terms with our over-consumption and did something realistic and constructive to achieve, if not independence, less dependence.

A strong, free America acting in its enlightened self-interest will strengthen the entire world. Our current model is a metaphor of dysfucntion. The Saudi regime is one accidently dropped light bulb from exploding into civil war and Israeli intransigence and provocations perpetuate their problems.

The worst thing that would happen in Iraq if we departed would be that Iraq would be over run by Iraqis.

And can you imagine the right wing rabble's lunatic brayings if the Sauds had dressed down Al Gore when he was VEEP.

Damn! This two-bit (ok, six-bit) piker of a prince dressing down the Vice-President of the United States. Why in the name of hell didn't Cheney just take him hunting?


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah has warned Vice President Dick Cheney that Saudi Arabia would back the Sunnis if the United States pulls out of Iraq, according to a senior American official.

The official said the king "read the riot act" to the vice president when the two met last month in the Saudi capital, Riyadh.

The New York Times first reported the conversation Wednesday, saying Saudi support would include financial backing for minority Sunnis in the event of a civil war between them and Iraq's Shiite majority.

Violence between the two sects has exploded in waves of revenge killings since February's bombing of a revered Shiite mosque in Samarra, north of Baghdad.

An official with Cheney's office said the one-on-one meeting lasted two hours. The November 25 visit marked the fourth time Cheney had been to Saudi Arabia as vice president.

The Saudi king told Cheney that his country would be forced to step in and support "like-minded Sunni Arabs" if the situation in Iraq fell apart and the Sunnis' safety was in jeopardy, the senior U.S. official said.

The monarch said he would "intervene aggressively on one side absent an American presence," the source said.

The source said the king did not mean to imply that Saudi Arabia would support al Qaeda in Iraq, but rather tribal groups. However, some of those groups overlap with insurgents who are fighting Americans, the source conceded.

The bipartisan Iraq Study Group that reported to President Bush and Congress last week said money from Saudi citizens is funding Sunni insurgents in Iraq, although the Saudis may not know exactly where their money is going.

Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution said Saudi Arabia has a reason to take sides.

"They're terrified that Iraq is going to fall into civil war. They're terrified that civil war will spill over into Saudi Arabia. But they're also terrified that the Iranians, backing the various Shiite militias in Iraq, will come out the big winner in a civil war," Pollack told CNN.

Another recommendation of the Iraq Study Group called for engaging other countries in the region, including Iran and Syria, in the search for solutions in Iraq.

In his meeting with Cheney, the Saudi king voiced strong opposition to talks between the United States and Iran, which has a majority Shiite population.

According to the senior American official, he told Cheney that Sunni Arab states, including Saudi Arabia, believed that talking to Iran was dangerous.

A senior U.S. official said the conversation between the two men reflects the "anxiety about the situation" and the Saudi concern about being left "high and dry" if the United States leaves Iraq.

But the official said leaving Iraq is a "doomsday scenario" that will not happen because the United States isn't going to withdraw.

"We are not walking away from it," the official said.

[luvnaturism]

Right on about our dependance on foreign oil. It may well be THE national security issue that threatens the future of the US, and neither party pays attention to it. We just had an illustration of the potency of this issue: In October gas prices fell a little bit and our trade deficit was reduced by half.

I'm in a small, tiny minority who has believed for years that US fuel prices should be taxed to put the street price of gas into rough parity with European prices, not less than $4.00/gallon. If this had been started years ago and phased in over 10 or 15 years the economy would have adjusted, and the world situation would be hugely different. Much of the terrorism in the world is financed by Middle East oil profits that would have long since dried up if the US had a sane policy on energy.

But getting so upset because a Saudi government official speaks his mind to the designated political representative of the President? I don't get that. We got into this mess by refusing to pay enough attention to the views of other nations; we cannot now expect Iraq's nearest neighbors to be thrilled at what we have done to their neighborhood.

Our paper this morning discloses that the congressional leaders of both parties whose job it is to maintain oversight of US intelligence gathering haven't bothered to learn the distinction between Sunnis and Shiites. In other words they don't have a clue, and show little interest in doing enough homework to speak intelligently on the causes of the civil war in Iraq.

This and much, much more being case, why would we expect to receive kindly hospitality when we send our VP for discussions?