world war four

quijibo

doctorj wrote: Just to get a better idea where you're coming from here... how does the following catchcry sound to you:?
"Newt Gingrich for President in 2008"

Think I need to get in early on one of these. I wonder if they'd sell them pre-puked-on?

oh. no worries. i'm not a republican.
or even a joe lieberman democrat.
that bib is hilarious

doctorj

quijibo wrote: oh. no worries. i'm not a republican.

You must admit though, that to the untrained ear, you do seem to echo some of Fuhrer Newt's recent involuntary muscular spasms in the media, if only superfically. Except that he's calling it WWIII.

quijibo

doctorj wrote: [quote=quijibo]oh. no worries. i'm not a republican.

You must admit though, that to the untrained ear, you do seem to echo some of Fuhrer Newt's recent involuntary muscular spasms in the media, if only superfically. Except that he's calling it WWIII.
yes. the reactionary will not bother to hear the nuance
i'm independent which i believe most people to be
except for that mafia of having to register for either the D or R in order to vote? WTF?!

nothing newt said in that interview, as regards Iran and Syria, i find to be untrue. thanks for that link. i don't watch tv so i would have missed this otherwise.

if this is his presidency 2008 stance, then it's a killer. right on the money. he'd get the republican nod, except for the terminator.
he's been doing really good lately spinwise.
people don't wanna think about politics, governator conquers all! 8)

i'd love to see a hillary/obama candidacy
slim chance of winning, but it'd sure be a breakthrough race

next week we'll hear about some hezbollah leaders being assassinated
with bunker busting bombs dropped from an american made F15
fucked up isn't it? :roll:

doctorj

quijibo wrote:
except for that mafia of having to register for either the D or R in order to vote? WTF?!

Yeah, WTF? What sort of democracy is that, and how on earth did it come about? And how can they claim a mandate when only a small fraction of the total population voted for the president? Where I came from, if you're an adult and don't turn up on polling day (blank ballot is ok) or make a postal vote or cook up a really good life-and-death reason for not voting, they whack you with a fine. And if you then don't pay the fine I guess they could put you in jail for a bit. Imagine that: instead of a weird voluntary partisan registration process and lots of time and money spent to try to get people out to vote (and no votes for felons) you make it a compulsory non-partisan process. Then you don't have to pay people to vote, they have to pay not to vote (or become felons for not voting and not paying). Talk about universal sufferage. Democracy: it's not a Privelege, it's not a Right, it's The Law.

quijibo

doctorj wrote: Yeah, WTF? What sort of democracy is that, and how on earth did it come about? And how can they claim a mandate when only a small fraction of the total population voted for the president? Where I came from, if you're an adult and don't turn up on polling day (blank ballot is ok) or make a postal vote or cook up a really good life-and-death reason for not voting, they whack you with a fine. And if you then don't pay the fine I guess they could put you in jail for a bit. Imagine that: instead of a weird voluntary partisan registration process and lots of time and money spent to try to get people out to vote (and no votes for felons) you make it a compulsory non-partisan process. Then you don't have to pay people to vote, they have to pay not to vote (or become felons for not voting and not paying). Talk about universal sufferage. Democracy: it's not a Privelege, it's not a Right, it's The Law.

i like that idea
if you don't vote. you have to pay a fine
only con would be that it's too big brotherish
too easy to figure out who voted for whom then

quijibo

here's is the West's response to Iran's militant jihad, Anousheh Ansari:


AS a girl growing up in Tehran before the Islamic revolution, Anousheh Ansari watched repeats of Star Trek and dreamt of becoming an astronaut. She never tired of telling friends that one day she would “see the stars”.

Nearly three decades later, Ansari’s childhood fantasies are about to come true as she prepares to become the first female space tourist.

Now a multi-millionaire in the United States, Ansari, 39, who made her fortune from telecommunications software, has secured a flight in a Russian Soyuz rocket to the international space station 220 miles above Earth.

“It would be nice to get outside the planet and see the universe for what it really is,” she said.

Earlier this year Ansari passed stringent medical tests and spent weeks in training at Star City, the space centre outside Moscow that has prepared every Russian cosmonaut since Yuri Gagarin, the first man in space in 1961.

She is scheduled to fly next year but could make the trip — which will cost her about £10m — later this year if a Japanese businessman who is due to become the next space tourist drops out.

“Ansari expressed an interest to fly aboard one of our craft late last year. She’s very passionate about space,” said Sergei Kostenko of Space Adventures, a US-based space travel company that has a contract with the Russian space agency to fly tourists.

“She came to Moscow for preliminary talks, passed the medical tests in February and has been studying in Star City since April. She’s been living there most of the time. She’s thrilled and very much looking forward to the year ahead.”

Female astronauts are no longer rare, especially in America. But Ansari — who has endured arduous G-force tests and has been taught to fire a gun to protect her from wild animals in case of an emergency landing in Russia’s wild steppes — will be the first woman to pay for the privilege.

With a fortune of several hundred million dollars, she can easily afford the fare, which works out at nearly £50,000 a mile.
</snip>

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2281371,00.html

escap

doctorj wrote: [quote=quijibo]
except for that mafia of having to register for either the D or R in order to vote? WTF?!

Yeah, WTF? What sort of democracy is that, and how on earth did it come about? And how can they claim a mandate when only a small fraction of the total population voted for the president? Where I came from, if you're an adult and don't turn up on polling day (blank ballot is ok) or make a postal vote or cook up a really good life-and-death reason for not voting, they whack you with a fine. And if you then don't pay the fine I guess they could put you in jail for a bit. Imagine that: instead of a weird voluntary partisan registration process and lots of time and money spent to try to get people out to vote (and no votes for felons) you make it a compulsory non-partisan process. Then you don't have to pay people to vote, they have to pay not to vote (or become felons for not voting and not paying). Talk about universal sufferage. Democracy: it's not a Privelege, it's not a Right, it's The Law.

Can you at least vote 'none of the above'? B/c otherwise you're being forced to support some a-hole who you don't even like. And what about if you have the flu, or are in the hospital? Do you need to through 3 months of bureaucratic red tape just to avoid becoming a felon? Seems bizarrely tyrannical to me. I say, if people don't want to go out and vote and don't care about being represented, fuck em.

doctorj

escap wrote:

Can you at least vote 'none of the above'? B/c otherwise you're being forced to support some a-hole who you don't even like. And what about if you have the flu, or are in the hospital? Do you need to through 3 months of bureaucratic red tape just to avoid becoming a felon? Seems bizarrely tyrannical to me. I say, if people don't want to go out and vote and don't care about being represented, fuck em.

You can turn your ballot into a paper dart. You can turn it into an artwork. You can hand it in blank. Just as long as you get your name ticked off to show you were there and had the opportunity to fulfil your duty. If you have the 'flu or are in hospital, you can get help with a postal vote up to the day. If you really can't make it, you write or call afterwards, minimal bureaucracy, to say why and if it sounds reasonable they don't fine you. If I can't make it to a consulate or embassy, or if it's a local election with no international stations, that's what I have to do and I've never actually been fined, and I don't know anyone who has. The idea that you can be fined is enough. Every society makes demands of its citizens; paying tax for example. Making an effort to turn up once every few years is a pretty small one as tyrrany goes. And it does save a huge amount of money, reduce opportunities for corruption, ensures a large turnout and a real mandate for the winners, and saves a lot of argument about disenfranchised minorities. Everyone knows that everyone votes, one vote each. As for saying fuck the people who don't care, well, that's one way of looking at it. Unfortunately it's often the weakest who are in most need of representation who are least likely to vote: they may be unorganized, disenfranchised, uneducated, disillusioned and uninterested, but they're not disinterested. This system by no means eliminates people who don't care, but it does encourage more people to care and pay a bit of attention to politics. And I reckon that on balance that's a good thing.

doctorj

quijibo wrote:
i like that idea
if you don't vote. you have to pay a fine
only con would be that it's too big brotherish
too easy to figure out who voted for whom then

Not big brotherish compared to what the IRS, homeland security, and the credit reporting agencies currently do to us. The electoral agency knows where you voted (or didn't vote if that's your thing) and they know the total tally for that office afterwards, but once your name is ticked off it's anonymous. Not really different from how it is here. Less big brotherish because there's no registering as red or blue.

You could easily make it work here with the SSN database. If you have an SSN, are a citizen over 18, and have an address, you're automatically enrolled to vote at that address. And then you either have to vote (or pretend to vote), or specifically give a reason not to participate on a particular occasion, or pay a fine. The homeless are more tricky and you can hardly fine them, but if they have an SSN they can still walk in and vote. This is nothing, compared with the way the IRS makes us fill out complicated tax returns each year. You bring it in incrementally: first year you don't vote and don't opt out you get a warning, next time a fine. $50 is enough. People get the hang of it really quickly, and before you know it, everyone knows that everyone votes. And kids grow up not knowing there was a time when their parents didn't have to vote and didn't bother, or worse, a time when there were all kinds of hurdles discouraging their minority from participating.

boygabriel

quijibo wrote:
i like that idea
if you don't vote. you have to pay a fine
only con would be that it's too big brotherish
too easy to figure out who voted for whom then

i agree. something like that is a very interesting idea.

our voter turnout numbers are a joke

our two-party dictatorship is a tragedy

boygabriel

quijibo wrote:
the Iranian citizenry's eventual souring of an militant muslim leadership
has long been predicted. it's the reason why Reagan didn't wage war with Iran when the americans were taken hostage
and the natural tendency of a citizenry to not wish to go to war

I'm sure the Iranian people apologize for not starting a bloody revolution on the U.S.'s schedule. It's been about 25 years since the hostage situation and what has Iran done to us? Helped keep Saddam in check? Fund terrorists in Palestine and Lebanon? Hmm yes, that seems like urgent grounds for another Iraq-style preemptive war.

quijibo wrote:
i prefer that we get in and out fast

hmmm. hmmm. now where have I heard that before? Hmmm. Hmmm.

escap

doctorj wrote: [quote=quijibo]
i like that idea
if you don't vote. you have to pay a fine
only con would be that it's too big brotherish
too easy to figure out who voted for whom then

Not big brotherish compared to what the IRS, homeland security, and the credit reporting agencies currently do to us. The electoral agency knows where you voted (or didn't vote if that's your thing) and they know the total tally for that office afterwards, but once your name is ticked off it's anonymous. Not really different from how it is here. Less big brotherish because there's no registering as red or blue.

You could easily make it work here with the SSN database. If you have an SSN, are a citizen over 18, and have an address, you're automatically enrolled to vote at that address. And then you either have to vote (or pretend to vote), or specifically give a reason not to participate on a particular occasion, or pay a fine. The homeless are more tricky and you can hardly fine them, but if they have an SSN they can still walk in and vote. This is nothing, compared with the way the IRS makes us fill out complicated tax returns each year. You bring it in incrementally: first year you don't vote and don't opt out you get a warning, next time a fine. $50 is enough. People get the hang of it really quickly, and before you know it, everyone knows that everyone votes. And kids grow up not knowing there was a time when their parents didn't have to vote and didn't bother, or worse, a time when there were all kinds of hurdles discouraging their minority from participating.

what americans really need is a "lazy" solution, like voting online or via digital tv. look at the turn out for american idol. see, i can't even bother to capitalize my words.

actually, more important than widespread knowledge and involvement in policy by voters would be widespread knowledge and involvement in policy by politicians. i'd settle for that. unfortunately, there are no credentials required for making public policy other than representing powerful interests. want to work for pfizer? better be a chemist. work for msft? better be a software engineer. be a teacher? a degree in education or at least the subject you're teaching is a good move. gee, you'd think that to run a country you might need a Phd in public policy or economics--perhaps decades of experience on the council for foreign relations, the federal reserve, the bureau of labor, etc. NOPE. you just need to be cozy with Big Labor, or Big Oil, or Big Sugar, etc. I think half of our politicians couldn't write a letter let alone a law, and yet they're in charge of the world's most powerful nation. nice.

anonymous

Boygabriel wrote: [quote=quijibo]
i like that idea
if you don't vote. you have to pay a fine
only con would be that it's too big brotherish
too easy to figure out who voted for whom then

i agree. something like that is a very interesting idea.
our voter turnout numbers are a joke
our two-party dictatorship is a tragedy

Opt-out instead of opt-in voting has been in place in quite a number of countries for long periods of time, and is even on the books in Massachusetts. So it's hardly a radical idea. For more information, see the wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting

It would nearly double the turnout in the US, and fix a lot of injustice, but it would not fix the two-party dictatorship.

To fix that, you need the mixed member proportional representation system, originally from Germany, in place in various countries and in various variants like in Scandinavia, and most recently adopted by New Zealand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_Member_Proportional
Typically you get two votes: one for a party and one for a representative, and the representatives are then picked in order of their popularity to match the proportion of the vote over a threshold, e.g. 5%. This seems to lead to about 4-7 major parties representing a wide range of views, that then form reasonably stable center-left or center-right ruling coalitions.

For example, in the US, you might wind up with 5 major and 2 minor parties:
-- the neo-fascists (minor)
-- the christian conservative right
-- the neo-conservative wealthy right
-- the progressive liberal center (liberal in the original sense, not the recent US sense)
-- the new environment left
-- the traditional labor left
-- the godless communists (minor)
Who would then form blocs to pass different pieces of legislation, one issue at a time.

And yes, escap, tele-voting can't be far away and would also help, if it can be made secure and people trust it enough.

quijibo

Anonymous wrote: For example, in the US, you might wind up with 5 major and 2 minor parties:
-- the neo-fascists (minor)
-- the christian conservative right
-- the neo-conservative wealthy right
-- the progressive liberal center (liberal in the original sense, not the recent US sense)
-- the new environment left
-- the traditional labor left
-- the godless communists (minor)
Who would then form blocs to pass different pieces of legislation, one issue at a time.

And yes, escap, tele-voting can't be far away and would also help, if it can be made secure and people trust it enough.

wow. thanks for the info. these are really good ideas.

escap

I second the call for multiple parties. Especially since our current parties are both completely inconsistent and overlapping from an ideological perspective. The Dems switch from being liberal on multiculturalism and tolerance to backing unions in their anti-immigration rhetoric and calling for economic nationalism and protectionism. The GOP meanwhile claims to be small govt libertarian in one breath and then turns around and calls for vast expansion of govt powers of surveillance and the criminilization of victimless acts they personally consider immoral. I frankly don't know how anyone can vote for either party anymore without contradicting their own values.

findcate

how about a non-armageddon focused party? I'd like a party that does not have a secret plan to destroy the planet because they can't cope with the fact that they will die someday.

quijibo

findcate wrote: how about a non-armageddon focused party? I'd like a party that does not have a secret plan to destroy the planet because they can't cope with the fact that they will die someday.

the plan is not to destroy the planet
the armaggedon cover is merely to have the religious conservatives play along
the plan is to place america as the preeminent nuclear power. here. read for yourself:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060724&articleId=2807
if the world gets destroyed in the process. feh....

doctorj

(btw, sorry for not logging in last time I posted; guest was me)

escap wrote: I second the call for multiple parties. Especially since our current parties are both completely inconsistent and overlapping from an ideological perspective.

Totally. It must really hurt being either a Republican or Democrat and being forced, in order to play to the base at the same time as trying to grab some center at the same time as believing something, to either have to contradict yourself every day, or mouth broad nothings. It must really hurt to have to share the platform with people whose views are diametrically opposed on just about anything that matters.

The big issues that I see for this country are:

1) Moral issues: secular/scientific/pro-choice vs. religious/pro-life/'family'
2) Military: interventionist vs. isolationist
3) Trade: globalist vs. protectionist or bilateralist
4) Immigration: more vs. less, high-skilled vs. low-skilled
5) Environment: short term vs. long term
6) Business and markets: anything goes vs. regulations
7) Fiscal policy: save vs. spend
8 ) Social policy and taxation: progressive vs. flat
9) Healthcare: public vs. private
10) Education: public vs. private
11) Social justice (inc.civil rights): laissez faire vs. intervention/affirmative action
12) Civil liberties: authoritarian vs. libertarian

(Did I miss anything important?)

Unfortunately, knowing someone is R or D tells me very little about where they stand on any of these, even if a few of them are correlated some of the time. Nor does having R or D as president or senate or congress majority mean you have much idea which direction things are going to move for most of them.

Somehow, the US needs to carve up R & D about three ways to make about five parties, but I can't see it happening without electoral reform. Which is not made easier by the federal system and electoral anarchy at the state level.

As for a non-armageddon party, I think Reagan's Secretary of the Interior James Watt summed it up when he said "We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand."

findcate

As for a non-armageddon party, I think Reagan's Secretary of the Interior James Watt summed it up when he said "We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand."

Totally! I was working at home the other day & turned on the tv at lunchtime to find fox's faith & values correspondant telling me about how many people inthe country are getting psyched up for the destruction of the world. Normally I would immediately switch channels and be annoyed at fox's typical alarmist bs, but I was pretty much shocked and glued to the spot. War in isreal=god coming down on some cloud to take me up to heaven for about half of our population. It's really scary that people are this deluded. Wake up! This planet supports more than just human life. It just seems to me like the ultimate arrogance to decide that because you can't deal with the fact that you will, someday, cease to exist that this means god is going to destroy the planet in a fireball (meaning a nuclear bomb). And I was looking online afterwards, there are people who are arguing, convincingly, that bush is among those freaks.

We are not this story’s author, who fills time and eternity with His purpose. Yet His purpose is achieved in our duty.... This work continues. This story goes on. And an angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm.
George W. Bush, January 20, 2001
Rutgers University history professor Jackson Lears, in a recent letter to The New York Times, “How a War became a Crusade” (3-11-03), suggests a reason why Bush is so cavalier about the possibility that war in Iraq will have unintended consequences. Bush, according to Lears, “denies the very existence of chance.” “Events aren’t moved by blind change and chance,” Lears quotes Bush as saying; rather, events are determined by “the hand of a just and faithful God.”

Bush uttered these words at the fifty-first National Prayer Breakfast, held February 2003 in Washington DC. In his remarks, Bush assured Americans that they can “be confident in the ways of Providence, even when they are far from our understanding,” History, according to Bush, is the unfolding of God’s will. “Behind all of life and all of history, there’s a dedication and purpose.”

There is no need to speculate about the degree to which religious sentiment guides US foreign policy. Insiders have revealed that state and war planners, focused on the Middle East, bring their strategies and tactics to the President, and he and members of his administration pray over their vision and translate the text into articles of faith. (I suspect that administration officials have been focusing on Revelations big-time in their daily Bible studies.)

Feeling nervous yet?

doctorj

findcate wrote:
There is no need to speculate about the degree to which religious sentiment guides US foreign policy. Insiders have revealed that state and war planners, focused on the Middle East, bring their strategies and tactics to the President, and he and members of his administration pray over their vision and translate the text into articles of faith. (I suspect that administration officials have been focusing on Revelations big-time in their daily Bible studies.)

We should get used to it because there's more to come. The rise in fundamentalism all around the world since the late 70s is a result of birth control, access to abortion, access to education and careers for women. Quite simply, rational secular humanists are breeding themselves out of existence in most countries at an alarming rate, compared with fundamentalists. Check out the birth stats for Utah vs. Massachusetts. The same goes for Europe, the Middle East, etc; as in fundamentalist Christianity so also in Islaam. It's not that moderate modern liberals have lost their way or aren't being heard, it's that they're being outevolved and simply not born. One of the results of this is popularly known as 'The War on Terror' or 'Jihad' depending on your point of view.

quijibo

WhyFi wrote: [quote=quijibo]i wonder what he has up his sleeve for his last days of the presidency :roll:

Big fuckin' war and a proposal to not change leadership during times of extreme crisis.
that's exactly what he's gonna do!

quijibo

what do you guys think about the arrests in england?
was Iran involved?

livetotravel

you seem as fixated on Iran as Bush is on Iraq. Meanwhile Afghanistan and Pakistan host Al Qaeda, who plot our demise.

Bush took his eyes off the real trarget 5 years ago and we're still paying the price.

quijibo

there's no proof one way or the other
i'm asking for people's opinions

boygabriel

quijibo wrote: what do you guys think about the arrests in england?
was Iran involved?

I have different levels of response:

Level I: We must remain vigilant. Clearly there are still individuals out there trying to perpetrate crimes on innocent civilians. I am glad the British police were able to save innocent lives.

Level II: Nothing has changed. Terrorism is a disease not an enemy. You can keep putting bandaids on your cuts, or you can you stop getting the cuts in the first place. It seems Bush prefers the former.

Did Iran have something to do with the thwarted attacks in the UK? I have no idea. Do I think that if they did it helps the case for military action without diplomacy? Hells no.

anonymous

Boygabriel wrote: [quote=quijibo]what do you guys think about the arrests in england?
was Iran involved?

I have different levels of response:

Level I: We must remain vigilant.

Level II: Nothing has changed.


Level III: Ennui. Sooner or later, news of foiled terror plots becomes like news of car accidents. War on Terror? Global Jihad? That was like sooo 2000s. At which point, even though there are still loonies out there who want to blow stuff up, there's less political mileage in it for all stakeholders, which would be a Good Thing (TM). I'm just wondering what's next in the series of zeitgeists after Reds, Drugs, and Terrorists...

quijibo

Livetotravel wrote: you seem as fixated on Iran as Bush is on Iraq. Meanwhile Afghanistan and Pakistan host Al Qaeda, who plot our demise.

Bush took his eyes off the real trarget 5 years ago and we're still paying the price.

yea i am fixated on iran
my bias veers towards iran as the dark seed

even if this turns out to be strictly an afghanistan al qaeda operation

When the war began. on 9/11 {some would say the Cole bombing or the first WTC explosion were the true beginnings} i thought for sure that we should have retaliated against Saudi Arabia and Iran.
in the intervening years, i've come to place less blame on Saudi Arabia than Iran.
for various reasons

right now Saudi Arabia is a benign necessary partner
so long as americans feel the need for taking cross-country car rides in the summer

george bush senior is the true villain in all this

livetotravel

nothing personal per se - but your avatar is just too weird for words - what's your point using it?

boygabriel

quijibo wrote: When the war began. on 9/11 {some would say the Cole bombing or the first WTC explosion were the true beginnings} i thought for sure that we should have retaliated against Saudi Arabia and Iran.
in the intervening years, i've come to place less blame on Saudi Arabia than Iran.
for various reasons

right now Saudi Arabia is a benign necessary partner
so long as americans feel the need for taking cross-country car rides in the summer

I just don't think war against Iran is going to achieve any kind of lasting peace. Especially given that war against a weaker "enemy" than Iran (Iraq) is going so poorly. It's not like we even have the manpower to start another war. And an "air campaign" doesn't work without ground support. Ask Israel how Lebanon went.

We need to stop waging wars without attempting any political solution before, during or after the violence. War without attempted diplomacy is like cops recklessly shooting criminals on the street without the justice system to provide any kind of structure and context. For chrissakes we haven't had high level negotiations with Iran in 20 years. And now people are talking about bombing them into oblivion?

As for Saudi Arabia, I wish we had the political will to break our addiction to their oil. If our politicians really wanted to, they could find a way to pressure Saudi Arabia to be a bit less inviting to terrorists. Maybe in the process women could win the right to drive a car! I wish we used half the energy (money) on Saudi Arabia that we do chasing guerrilla terrorists back and forth across Iraq.

escap

Can someone remind me again why we're so panicky about Iran making nukes? The last time I checked, China, Russia, India and Pakistan (not to mention France!) were nuclear powers whose interests often conflict with ours, and the world hasn't come to an end. What is Iran going to do with a nuke to threaten the US? Nothing. Same old M.A.D. scenario as it's always been. The main impetus for them to even seek the weapon is to protect themselves against us, not the other way around!

Oh, but you say, they finance Hezbollah and Hamas. Yeah, and neither of those organizations has ever, or will ever, launched an attack on American soil. Yes, Hezbollah attacked US forces in Lebanon in 1983(?), but it's inconceivable that they would detonate a nuke in the middle of their own country to kill a few hundred int'l peace keepers, even US ones. It's equally inconceivable that Iran would, for all their rhetoric, arm Hezbollah or Hamas with a nuke bound for Israel, since again they know it would mean the end of every major city in their country. Iran has absolutely no ties to Al Qaeda--in fact Al Qaeda hates Shiites just as much as it hates jews and Americans.

I can understand how a nuclear Iran can make Americans feel antsy, but we'd be far more likely to dissuade them from arming by signing a non-aggression treaty with them (and N Korea for that matter) than by threatening them. If we fear global instability created by a nuke-armed Iran, why pre-emptively create global instability by attacking them? This is much ado about nothing.

Finally, I also disagree with the notion that if we somehow stopped buying oil from Saudi Arabia that the terrorism problem would go away. There's no reason to believe that the Saudi govt is financing Al Qaeda, and it's repressiveness and islamic education systems are likely to worsen dramatically if they are suddenly bereft of their oil money. If anything, high oil prices are creating a private sector in Saudi Arabia that provides people with jobs and hope, making them LESS likely to become terrorists. If we stop buying their oil, what do you think those 50 million unemployed muslims will do, anyway? Besides, let's not forget that a hugh percentage of the terrorists we have caught or been attacked by are from Europe, not the Middle East. Let's not stigmatize the Saudis when European terrorists (and a handful of Americans as well) have been involved in most of the major terrorist plots of the last decade.