[Culturechat] The Fall of the House of Saud

Thu, 22 May 2003 10:25:30 EDT

--part1_51.2f9d15dc.2bfe37da_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

>From the start, I thought that the WMD issue in Iraq was an excuse to place a 
large permanent military force in the Middle East, because of the probability 
that we are near, or past the peak of world oil production.  Given this 
probability, it is far more important to have a security force in the Middle East 
than in Europe.   

In regard to domestic U.S. politics, the Middle East, and Bin Laden, there is 
a lot of blame to go around.   For example, the Sudan offered Bin Laden to 
Clinton, and Clinton turned them down.  Recently, FBI agents have described how 
the Clinton Administration killed an FBI plan to subsequently go after Bin 
Laden in Afghanistan, and Clinton's own FBI director, Louis Freeh, has recently 
published a scathing denunciation in the Wall Street Journal of Clinton's lack 
of support for antiterrorist operations and investigations.    

In any case, the author of the original article about Saudi Arabia points out 
that numerous members of both parties have been very cozy with the Saudi 
royal family--with the full knowledge that the royal family has been financially 
supporting Islamic fundamentalists whose goal it is to see the U.S. and Israel 
destroyed.  I personally think that it is a good idea to pull U.S. forces out 
of Saudi Arabia.  Our forces aren't big enough to safeguard the royal family 
in a civil war, and we would certainly be in a peculiar position if U.S. forces 
were defending a repressive monarchy against a popular uprising.   

J. Brown  

--part1_51.2f9d15dc.2bfe37da_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML>From the start, I thought that the WMD issue in Iraq w=
as an excuse to place a large permanent military force in the Middle East, b=
ecause of the probability that we are near, or past the peak of world oil pr=
oduction.&nbsp; Given this probability, it is far more important to have a s=
ecurity force in the Middle East than in Europe.&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 
In regard to domestic U.S. politics, the Middle East, and Bin Laden, there i=
s a lot of blame to go around.&nbsp;&nbsp; For example, the Sudan offered Bi=
n Laden to Clinton, and Clinton turned them down.&nbsp; Recently, FBI agents=
 have described how the Clinton Administration killed an FBI plan to subsequ=
ently go after Bin Laden in Afghanistan, and Clinton's own FBI director, Lou=
is Freeh, has recently published a scathing denunciation in the Wall Street=20=
Journal of Clinton's lack of support for antiterrorist operations and invest=
igations.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 
In any case, the author of the original article about Saudi Arabia points ou=
t that numerous members of both parties have been very cozy with the Saudi r=
oyal family--with the full knowledge that the royal family has been financia=
lly supporting Islamic fundamentalists whose goal it is to see the U.S. and=20=
Israel destroyed.&nbsp; I personally think that it is a good idea to pull U.=
S. forces out of Saudi Arabia.&nbsp; Our forces aren't big enough to safegua=
rd the royal family in a civil war, and we would certainly be in a peculiar=20=
position if U.S. forces were defending a repressive monarchy against a popul=
ar uprising.&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 
J. Brown&nbsp; </HTML>

--part1_51.2f9d15dc.2bfe37da_boundary--