Given the location of Earth's oil reserves, was it inevitable that the United States would hand over tens of billions of dollars to people who then spend it on things which they give to people who want to destroy the United States, or could this have been avoided with better planning on someone's part?
Huh, maybe some reporter should've factchecked W when he said that we'd dismantled the A.Q. Khan network or whatever it was he said.
I mean, if they nuke each other enough, then all the petroleum bubbles to the surface and we have a big lake to drive our carboats in, right?
I mean, it's science. It's logic. It just makes sense.
This will not be popular:
I am on record as wanting WWIV in the summer of 2002. Full mobilization, war economy, 50 million in the ME for five years, 5 million for fifty years. They are not Russia or China. We are going to lose a city, and respond by turning the desert into glass.
The American liberals wouldn't do it, but American liberals may no longer ever again control the military apparatus in this country.
Saudi Arabia is one crazy evil bunch of muthas.
This will not be popular:
You got that right.
I know these views aren't popular, but I have never courted popularity.
1. Saudi Arabia knows that within a span of twenty years the U.S. can turn on its allies.
2. Saudi Arabia knows that unless it has some very convincing deterrent the U.S might very well invade to control Saudi oil.
3. Replace "Saudi Arabia" with any Middle Eastern power and "U.S." with any outside power and 1. and 2. still hold.
7:1) I don't know if we can. They don't need nukes as a deterrent against the US. The have the Holy Sites, and 1 /2 billion Muslims. They have investments and bribed allies all over the world. They have the marginal oil. They (or a very large faction) financed, organized, and provided personnel and logistics for 9/11 and we can't even say it. We can't even say so.
2) It ain't about the oil. It is about the money. For quite a while, the price of oil will rise while the costs of production remain stable. In the last few years, the oilarchies have made trillions in profits, buying things like port authorities. Soon it will be communications and software companies. Then real estate.
If we try to switch from oil, our economy will go south for a while, making those assets even more attractive. Oil is good stuff. Solar will never be as efficient, and switching will be very expensive. If China gets the oil, they can make the switch cheaper. Meanwhile, as we approach peak oil, SA has the last marginal barrel, runs out last, and just owns everything.
The Reagan years were about making our assets too expensive. Dow 900 for fifty years, suddenly after 1980 at 9000. Duh. Now I think maybe Bush wants to make our assets worthless, i.e., default, crash the dollar, send the world into a depression, come out the other side in fascism.
But we are war with SA. Economically, thru proxies, every which way.
bob:
(1) I think you vastly overstate both the power and the unity of the Saudis. I've read that the 1973 oil boycott hurt them more than hurt them more than it hurt us: financing the state and keeping the people from being too restless depends on oil revenues, and over the long term, the oil boycott led to more efficient cars and an oil glut.
I think it's a lot harder for them to turn off the spigot than people realize. No cash from oil means unrest at home. But by and large, we're a government of pussies who are unwilling to face short-term pain (the OPEC boycott of 1973 apparently lasted five months before it broke) and the electoral consequences associated with such pain. And, in a sense, we're making the smart play. We are so much more powerful than anyone over there that, by and large, I don't think the costs of playing ball with whomever necessary are much more than rounding errors.
(2) We've had the same worries about foreign companies/countries buying our stuff before. In my lifetime, the obvious example is the fear surrounding Japanese acquisitions of American assets. At the time, everyone worried that they were "buying up America." Now it turns out that we pantsed them. I've no doubt that we're doing the same the Saudis.
(3) I do think that it's tragic that our foreign policy of recent years has created a largely unimpeachable justification for a nuclear weapons program in any sovereign nation.
(4) Picking an early war is almost always a bad choice, particularly when dealing from the position of strength that the US occupies. Occupation of the Middle East would last much, much longer than 50 years, and it would turn us into a monstrous nation. It would be, I think, substantially more pernicious for us than the Israeli occupation is for them, and they're not too crazy about those effects.
50 million in the ME for five years
Given that we have fewer than 90 million men between the ages of 18 and 65, and probably no more than half of those fit for military service, when were you planning on breeding your clone army, Bob?
Saudi bar codes can be found on half of Pakistan's nuclear weapons 'because it is Saudi Arabia which ultimately co-financed the Pakistani atomic nuclear program.'
They put bar codes on nuclear weapons? Is that so they can get through the A.Q. Khan checkout line quicker?
10:Sexist. Anyway, once the world saw we were serious, for instance if Bush soon after 9/11 had gone for a universal draft and reversed the tax cuts, they would have had to choose sides. Russia and China would have wanted to keep their eye on the prize, so to speak.
SCMT, the Japanese economy was based on a real-estate bubble. Oil money is real money, and the price will never do anything but rise, unless we have an world economic collapse.
Iraq & Iran are sane nations. The Sauds have always been crazy, ever since they allied with a religious fanatic and grabbed Mecca from the Hashemites. They are serious about their religion, financing mosques and madrassas in Cleveland. They are as serious about Jerusaleum as oh, Republicans are about abortion. And as patient.
Ya know the first thought in my head when I saw the 2nd plane hit the tower? "There goes Social Security." I am not proud, but it's the truth. The Right will run with this, all the way to neo-feudalism, because the left is ...never mind. I fear the Saudis, but I hate Republicans. Loathe them. They are what they were in 1840. Exactly that. Ya know, t-shirts of Nathan Bedford Forest outsell Bob Lee 5 to 1. Ya don't know what you are dealing with here. Wanna save billions, war, global warming, whatever, you are going to have split the country and kill a bunch of rednecks. But not the nice liberals, they would never hurt a fly. We must be tolerant.
I feel stuck between Eloi and Morlocks. Eloi are prettier, but still just passive food. The Morlocks are gonna eat you alive.
Oil money is real money, and the price will never do anything but rise
The Sauds have always been crazy
It was assuming the irrationality of the other guy that got us into the present mess in Iraq.
financing mosques and madrassas in Cleveland
I don't know anything about the specific schools that you reference; maybe they're quite evil. But as I understand it, "madrassas" are simply religious schools, and no one looks askance at Jewish kids going to Hebrew school or me for going to VBS (or to parochial schools).
I hate Republicans. Loathe them.
I'm OK with Republicans, but I hate the fucking Reds. I sometimes think that we ought to burn them out towards Argentina. (Honestly.) But I can't seem to square that legally or morally.
They are what they were in 1840.
That seems wrong. Aren't they what the Democrats were in 1840?
Eloi are prettier, but still just passive food. The Morlocks are gonna eat you alive.
If it makes you feel better, we've been working out. Agree that Dems are, in general, prettier.
"Disagree." Peak Oil is a fact, whether we have reached it yet. There may be fluctuations due to recessions, and China will have one...but the new base is $30, and I doubt we will see that again. We wouldn't be there for long.
"It was assuming the irrationality..."
I can't even begin to guess why Bush/Cheney went into Iraq. But Saddam wasn't crazy. The Sauds...well, like Digby said about somebody else, these people are serious. I have no real problem with Islam, or even a proselytizing Islam. I like the Shia, except for the little Sharia misogyny stuff. But the Sauds/Wahhabis/Salafi are very aggressive eliminationist proseltyzers. They are on a mission.
"I'm OK with Republicans"
In my youth, the party of Javits and Dirksen and Rockefeller was tolerable. That Party is gone. If the libertarians and maybe even the corporatists were in charge, or Burkean conservatives, they could be reasoned with. But there ain't a dimes worth of difference between DeLay and Frist and Bull Connor and Lester Maddox.
"Aren't they what the Democrats were in 1840?"
Give me a break. The party and philosophy of Russ Finegold is not the same as John Calhoun's. There was a change that started in the 60s. I didn't expect that of you. For curiousity some here might read some Calhoun, and see if it looks familar.
(PS both "big government Republicanism" and its Republican enemies are engaged in head fakes.)
How far will Dixie go? How far did they go 150 years ago?
Aw heck, this isn't the place to argue this. My favorite bloggers are Gilliard, Marcotte, Newberry, and Wolcott except that I think they are too moderate, tolerant, and optimistic. Read them, add a bunch of speedy acid and ecce homo. Cept, of course, for the war and violence stuff which I think is as much a human constant as sex and greed. You gotta channel it, or somebody else will. Was it Isaiah or Jeremiah, "There is no peace".
Emerson can vouch for me. I have always been crazy.
I'm not following your logic, Bob. Calhoun was a pro-slavery Democrat.
Bob, you seemed to say "The Republicans are what the Republicans were in 1840." SCMT said "The Republicans are what the Democrats were in 1840 (ie, Calhoun etc.)" I don't think you're disagreeing with that.
SCMT:
I'm OK with Republicans, but I hate the fucking Reds.
Are you expressing hatred of communists, or of the Cincinnati baseball team? And what does "burn them out toward Argentina" mean? I'm genuinely confused.
Weiner:
the party of Javits and Dirksen and Rockefeller was tolerable. That Party is gone. If the libertarians and maybe even the corporatists were in charge, or Burkean conservatives, they could be reasoned with. - Republicans. I'd probably throw the single-issue pro-life crowd in here, too.
But there ain't a dimes worth of difference between DeLay and Frist and Bull Connor and Lester Maddox. - Reds.
And what does "burn them out toward Argentina" mean?
I mean that they have a different basic conception of America than I do, and than has been the operating conception for a long, long time. I'd prefer that they leave the country for other climes. If it wasn't fundamentally contrary to my conception of America, I'd be OK with forcing them out.
Gotcha. I think the Republicans are pretty much completely in the thrall of the Reds at this point unless (like the only Republican I've ever voted for) they've left the party.
Here is some typical Newberry, discussing Kevin Phillips' American Theocracy. Is Bush working for Saudi Arabia? Maybe. The theocrats and oligarchs of both nations can get along for a while, til their bases go nuts. I guess my point is that if there was gonna be a war, and there was going to be and always will be a war, I would rather it had been against the interests of Bushco and SA.
And I think that is the main difference between me & progressives. Every American child sees that tiny strip of 1776 and the huge continent we own today, and understands what we are. The most violent Imperialistic expansionistic nation in history. We prefer hegemony to actual empire but will settle for nothing less than hegemony.
The progressives believe we can settle with our guilt and demons with a whimper. I agree with their agenda, but believe it demands a bang. The Rapture/ID crowd will not surrender. Whether at home or abroad, there will be war.
Well, after reading 22, I now agree with your earlier point about being crazy.
Last point:Been a lot of discussion about how Democrats gain enough purple votes to regain dominance. Dominance is what will be required to regain choice, for instance.
For thirty years Democrats have been sacrificing the economic and social issues, in order to be a peace party, and still losing. I am alone in the frigging world, but I suggest we feed the blood lust of the South, if we can't destroy them, return to the left on economics and privacy, and rebuild the huge manpower military of the cold war. 100k troops in Paraguay or the Sudan looking tough will get a lot of votes, will do those countries some good, provide jobs and education, etc.
Yes, there will be death and destruction. But I think less net suffering at home and abroad than letting the Right run everything. We have seen how Republicans do war, less casualties, but looks like the Philippines and the Gilded Age to me. Keep choice and Social Security at the cost of liberal militarism.
My favorite response to this is from Saisegly:"I would rather have the Devil's own domestic agenda."
Saisegly is a bright guy, and I can't say as I disagree with him.
Every American child sees that tiny strip of 1776 and the huge continent we own today, and understands what we are. The most violent Imperialistic expansionistic nation in history. We prefer hegemony to actual empire but will settle for nothing less than hegemony.
This is patent idiocy. We ain't always been so great, but we're not even as bad as the British Empire for much of its history, much less the Russian Empire or Genghis' hordes.
Your general point that Americans aren't the shining ideal of humankind that we often hold ourselves up to be is well taken, but simply isn't served by frothing hyperbole.
Not to go Dorothy Parker on him, but how would he distinguish "the Devil's own domestic agenda" from what we have now?
27: More abortion and hott man-on-man action.
bob -
I have a naive faith in the good sense of the majority of Americans. Things have been much worse in the past, and we have overcome. Granted, the recent Republican agenda is peculiarly bizarre, as it very much looked like we'd agreed on a basic deal that seemed to work pretty well as recently as 1997. (See, e.g., Brooks's article on "national greatness.") Then these fucks blew it all to hell. Granted, the Reds have made clear how different a vision of America they have than the previously standard Establishment view of the world. But this too shall pass. Let's try to kill as few innocent people and make as small a mess as possible until then.
Also, regarding the Newberry piece, people need to decide if the "Christianists" and the other social conservatives (I hate that word) are pulling one over on the rest of the coalition, or if it's the other way around.
Coming in late:
I agree with McManus that the Saudis are the source of the worst fundamentalism. I also agree with him that getting the US into hock to the Chinese and the Saudis was a disastrous idea. And beyond that, I agree that Bush is far too cozy with the Saudis.
I disagree with him about the scope of the problem and the need for a drastic military solution.
So anyway, you have three crazy old guys infesting your comments, at least if Farber comes back.
Farber's 47. Does everybody older than him qualify? That would include at least me and your buddy Idealist.
And how come there aren't any older women around here? Two narrow bands: mid-to-late twenties and mid-to-late thirties.
Emerson and McManus - The Saudis, a quasi-Islamic state, are worse than Iran, a real Islamic state, in terms of fundamentalism?
Yes. The Saudis export fundamentalism, and they have an advantage because they're Sunnis. For a long time they ahd a deal that their fundamentalists could do whatever they wanted, as long as they left Saudi Arabia alone.
There's been some change, but I'm not confident that it's enough. Saudi Arabia is authoritarian visavis the commoners, but it's such an archaic state that the nobility is not under much control. The claim is that the Saudis cut off all contact with Osama at al after 9/11, but I don't believe it. Prince Turki al-Faisal (sp?), who was implicated with Osama, has been quietly rehabilitated without any consequences.
Saudi Arabia is not quasi-Islamic. It's pretty much full Islamic, except that the Saud family and a few others don't have to follow the rules which apply to everyone else. The Saudis finance enormous "charitable" slush funds which finance fundamentalist mission work.
The corollary to what John's saying is that the Shiism of the Iranians limites their influence to a few places, Iraq and Syria and Lebanon.
The reason I questioned the relative fundamentalisms is that it seems to me that Saudi Arabia was not quite secular, but was pretty lax in its religious observance until the Iranian revolution when its status as protectorate of Islam and its holy sites was challenged. (Iran was literally 'holier than thou'). By which I'm saying, obviously, that Iran pushed Saudi Arabia to its current state of extremism.
I still maintain that Saudi Arabia is not technically an 'Islamic state' in the true definition, although it is in practice.
"This is patent idiocy. We ain't always been so great, but we're not even as bad as the British Empire for much of its history, much less the Russian Empire or Genghis' hordes."
The British, like most empires, including even for the most part the Roman Empire, came, conquered, looted, put a local on top, taxed, and eventually left. The Cantonese, the Hindi, the Kenyans are back to ruling their countries in their millions.
Where are the Algonquins, the Cherokee, the Crow, the Potawatomi? You are correct, we Americans, the 19th century, did our own Empire thing differently. Perhaps not uniquely, I think Genghis Khan mostly left the native populations alive and in place, but there were the Huns. Maybe America is better than the Huns.
The Gang Rape is the Essential Scene of the Patriarchy ...Marcotte
Since I am outing my innermost opinions today, I instantly connected this to the Iraq war and Red State politics. Quote:
"I've joked in the past that the states that are lining up now to ban abortion after South Dakota reminds me of a gang rape. It does. The psychology is exactly the same–ganging up to show off who's the most masculine, who can hurt the victims the most. And the victims are always, always pegged as guilty.
Criminologists say that a lot of young men who participate in gang rapes would never rape a woman on their own. That strikes me as accurate–the pressure to conform and participate is probably enormous. It's good evidence for the feminist assertion that rape is a tool of male dominance–the psychology is a lot like that of war–you must be brutal to the target to show your loyalty to the group. That the violence on average in gang rapes is worse than most other rapes is more evidence of this." ...my emphasis
The point is that the Limbaugh fans don't just require a hated subgroup to dominate, they actually need to wield the whip. The dominance must be expressed, proven with unanswered violence. They brought their children to lynching parties, cheered the "shock and awe", thought Abu Ghraib was really neat. Public violence toward an oppressed class is an essential part of their identity, and serves them as it served the Romans.
They are 20-30% of America, and must be dealt with. They will not be ignored or placated.
Where are the Algonquins,
Quebec.
the Cherokee,
North Carolina (and Oklahoma).
the Crow,
Montana.
the Potawatomi?
Michigan, among other places.
You're wrong about Genghis.
You're wrong about the English.
Where are the native tribes of Siberia? Where are the tribes of Southern Africa before the Zulu arrived? Where will the ethnic Tibetans be in 50 years? Why did the Lakota take to the plains, and who was there before them?
We are in no way unique in our history of bloody conquest. American exceptionalism is just as short-sighted when we are made to be a special evil as when we are made to be a special good.
Some of the Pequod, I hear, survive in the Carribean, into which we sold them in slavery back in the day.
37. I'm wondering how true it is that Iran's Islamic Revolution pushed Saudi Arabia into its current, aggressively religious form. From the rather cursory histories I've read, the house of Saud was founded on the back of an Islamic reaction against the British in the 1920s. The balancing act may have been substantially complicated by the Iranian revolution, but the necessity of appeasing the fundamentalist Sunnis existed beforehand. I haven't googled this to get any of the names or dates right, but the above was my general impression...
They are 20-30% of America
I agree, bob, and it saddens me. It still means that we've got 70-80% of the country to work with.
Some of the Pequod, I hear, survive in the Carribean, into which we sold them in slavery back in the day.
Others survive in Connecticut, where they manage casinos.
As for the Saudis, apostopher and I had a discussion of this in comments a while back. Basically, the House of Saud has always derived its power from its ties to Wahhabism, going right back to Ibn Wahhab's lifetime.
Uh, make that Abd al-Wahhab. Actually, his full name was Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, so I was kind of right.
Heh. That's one of the reasons I wasn't going to guess without googling.
(Just not to let it go gracefully, Wikipedia and other sources mention that in the 1910 census, the number of self-reported Pequot reached its low at 66. Then again, Google suggests: estimates for how many Pequot there were at contact seem to be at around 6000, and by 1910 few Pequot were living on the reservations [in Conneticut!?]. Melville scholars seem to have exaggerated somewhat. Sorta.)
Not being familiar with Melville scholarship (although I love Moby-Dick), I don't know what claims have been made about Pequot demography, but those numbers sound reasonable to me.
"the Potawatomi?
Michigan, among other places"
And the Dallas area, commenting in this very thread, if 1/64 has any contribution to ethnicity
Mark Kleiman on the Saudi Bomb
I haven't seen anyone, anywhere mention the ship interception by the Spanish carrying North Korean intermediate range missle parts a few years ago.
Quite surprisingly, the Bush administration said nothing could be done, because they were bound by int'l law. I never believed those cylinders were actually bound for Yemen, who could ill afford them and had little need or competence to use them, but for points a little north.
IOW, Bushco has been helping or allowing a nuclear SA.
There are fragments of the the tribes mentioned still extant, but the facts aren't too impressive. In the 1990 census there were 281,000 speakers of Native American languages, of whom 157,000 were Athabascan (Navajo, Apache, or Alaskan), and of whom a total of 5200 were in the Northeast.
Total Native American population was almost two million, but this was self-reported. A big jump in the Native American population occured when affirmative action came along, so that someone with one Native American ancestor who might not even be full blooded could be qualified (By this arithmetic I would count as one German, one Dutchman, or one Englishman, and one Welshman.)
The exterminationist hypothesis seems pretty accurate for the Eastern seaboard, including the South down to Florida.
Algonquin. Cherokee. Crow. Potawatomi.
The thesis is more true for some tribes than for others, but these are the ones McManus mentioned.
on the other hand, any thesis that attempts to support a claim that the peoples of the americas weren't essentially bent over chair and raped with a fence-post auger is doomed to laughable failure.
I, for one, am glad to hear that Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are all ruled by their native peoples, now that the British have left.
The survival of the Algonquin in Canada hardly argues against McMahon's point.
There's been a big pushback against the "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee" picture of Native American history, which is now associated with dreadlocks and drum circles and filthy Chomskyite hippies. There's been a lot of exaggeration and misrepresentation in this pushback, even in its non-Limbaugh versions.
People sometimes suspect me of closedmindedness due to my unfriendly attitude toward Republicans, but in the actual world we live in, openness toward filthy Chonskyite hippies is wiser than openness toward George W. Bush's thugs and enablers.
I'm slightly missing the argument from "We really did treat the Native Americans very badly" to "We ought to have gone to war against the whole Middle East." I agree with the first (as in 51) but not the second.
The last two paragraphs of 48 seem not implausible to me. I don't know what the proper attitude toward SA is, but I think it's somewhere in between McManus's preferred policy and Bush's truckling. Bush basically cares a lot more about the Saudi royal family than he does about the average American; the former, not the latter, are his kind.
"I don't know what the proper attitude toward SA is, but I think it's somewhere in between McManus's preferred policy and Bush's truckling."
You aren't afraid to stick your neck out, are you?
To tell the truth, I'm not sure if any link was intended between the Saudis and the Native Americans. I think that Bob had just decided to let it all hang out.
55: Well, the link is that America is an inescapably violent nation, and the violence should be channeled by those of us who would prefer a rational foreign policy to a crusade/rape/vendetta.
Hoping we can become Sweden next year is counter-productive, and cedes foreign policy to wingnuts.
54:My concerns about the ME have more to do with the economic/political conditions than the religious. The doves have not yet shown me a feasible peaceful path out of the oligarchies and paternalistic failed economies, and I think it is critical to American security interests that the Arab League approach at least 2nd world status before the oil runs out. ME instead of Africa because of an available ideology to organize and direct the mayhem.
I have a vision of the Saud family carrying the last oil dollar to Monaco, leaving behind millions of starving jihadists. Looks scarey.
There is also a domestic analysis here. I think Nixon ending the draft was part of the Southern strategy. It was irrelevant to his re-election or the conduct/outcome of the Vietnam war. Listening to the professional army about a proper military structure is unwise. They want a small, professional military that needs long training, really nice pay, and neat toys. Duh.
Rumsfeld "transformation" is also primarily a political strategy. There are a lot of benefits to a universal draft, including a generally more egalitarian liberal society. Engineers making Predators will vote Republican. Career Officers will vote Republican. Small armies will fight brutally, not win "Hearts and Minds", and depend on airpower. Americans who spend two years in Germany or Korea may nor be so insular.
Our military is designed to create and protect a Republican, conservative country. Sparta.
