[whataretheysaying] Mary Madigan: Laconicism explained

[Email subscription to blog articles]

Posted by Mary Madigan:
Laconicism explained
http://whataretheysaying.powerblogs.com/posts/1169058100.shtml


   In [1]this post at Dean's World, [2]Ron Coleman called me out for my
   rather laconic take on the effect of Saudi blood money and bribes in
   America.

   When it comes to the Saudi issue, I used to go on and on. But when you
   get to the point when you actually have the relevant urls concerning a
   certain issue memorized, you have to admit that you have a problem.

   Anyway, repetition gets boring after a while, but here's the
   conclusion I finally came to on [3]the Saudi issue:

     Most Muslims wouldn't want us to attack the Sauds, but they didn't
     want us to attack Iraq either. That doesn't mean that they wouldn't
     be happy to see the Wahhabis kicked out of Mecca and Medina. The
     Wahhabi/Sauds have been destroying graves and relics for decades,
     and they've been building hotels in their place. For that and many
     other reasons, they're hated throughout the region.

     I call them 'parasite usurpers to the throne', but that's a quote
     from [4]Aziz Poonawalla (I'm not that poetic) Muslims have resented
     Saudi control over Mecca and Medina for almost a century. They
     don't want us to get rid of them, but that doesn't mean that many
     wouldn't be happy to do the job themselves. Which they just might
     do, if we weren't protecting the Sauds. Many Muslims and Arabs
     resent us because of our alliance with the KSA.

     The only people who will say anything good about the Sauds (and
     mean it) work for the state department or the government. Or the
     British government. They're the people who will tell you that 'we
     can't afford a war against that entire regime'. They rely on the
     Sauds for cash, oil, but they also see them as a moderating force
     in the region.

     The problem with this is that the only friends the Sauds have are
     the friends they buy. There are some very clear signs that they
     don't have as much oil as they claim to have. When that oil runs
     low, our Saudi 'friends' will become a lot less powerful and a lot
     less generous.

     If we continue on the path we're on now, Saudi/sunni influence will
     wane, Iran will fill the vacuum, terrorism will increase as al
     Qaeda tries to assert Sunni influence, we'll throw billions of
     money after the bad money we've already spent betting on our Saudi
     "allies".

     They'll go down and they'll drag us down with them. The Chinese
     (who we are currently indebted to) will fill the vacuum we've left
     behind. That'll be the result of our 'subtle' efforts to 'pressure'
     our Saudi allies.

     That'll be the result of our refusal to fight the enemies who
     sponsored 9/11.

     But, there's no point in arguing this - I've talked to government
     types, and there is no force on earth that can get them to quit the
     Sauds. They're willing to sacrifice American lives for that
     friendship, many would be happy to chew off their own arms for the
     Sauds. It's not really a rational thing.

     All I can do is vote for Rudy, who is apparently the only human
     being in existence who ever has turned down a Saudi bribe.

References

   1. http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1168835087.shtml
   2. http://www.likelihoodofconfusion.com/
   3. http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1168835087.shtml
   4. http://cityofbrass.blogspot.com/