The reference is to our current situation in Iraq. We werent allowed to use the leased bases for our combat efforts, they refused to provide thier own troops, they did little to curtail thier citizens from crossing over the border to participate in the insurgency. Bush is nothing but an appeasor to a sponsor of terrorism.
So you suggest that Saudis should have closed off the entire boarder... by lethal force if necessary, to stop people crossing the desert? Sort of a country wide lock down? I don't know if that's realistic. Not even sure it would be possible to lock down millions of miles of desert.
As for the leased bases, that's a good point. Perhaps we should reconsider our ties to them. I most certainly see a lack of good investment if we are pouring money into bases that we can't use on a whim. That's like renting a car and being told you can't use it Friday night. I don't think so.
But... here you suggest that Saudis are actually sponsoring activities knowingly... and that Bush knowingly is supporting them in this. That is a bit more difficult to swallow.
I do know that the Saudis gave money to terror supporting charities, but as soon as that was out, they quit. Of course many people in America did the same. So do you have some other evidence of this I don't know about?
I see some of your points... but I'm not yet making that logical leap that I see here.
We have provided them with a trillion or more dollars, in cold hard American currency. We have provided them the second best equipped military in the region. We have provided thier defense when threatened by thier neighbors. We have also provided them with political coverage and overlooked the absolute abuses and difference in values we get up in arms about when other countries do it.
I suppose I do not know enough about any of this to comment. A research project for another day. As a policy, I don't believe in foreign aid to begin with. If we provided them cash for product (oil let's say), I'm ok with this. If it was a 'here's money for the good of your country', I'm against that. If they are buying our military goods with money from Oil, that's perfectly fine with me.
The Saudis are OPEC. You can rant about Clinton all you want. There is little question that in hindsight, the Clinton policy of containment of Saddam was working. Bush screwed up in Iraq so bad, I am not sure there is an American historical precedence to look at. In Vietnam it was a greater issue with communism, in Iraq it has been nothing but blood thirsty greed.
Ok you lost me again. There was no 'rant' about Clinton. I was making a factual statement about prior policy. Further, if 'containment' equals Saddam completely skirting his conditional end of hostilities by kicking out UN inspectors and refusing to disarm while funding terrorism... that's a pretty lame version of containment. I suppose Iran is contained too then, based on that description. As far as screwed up... based on what? We freed a huge number of people from a cruel dictator that threatened our allies and us... what exactly is so horrible about that?
