Pres. Obama, Winner of Peace Prize, Starts New War.


prophetofdoom
 Share

Recommended Posts

Khaddafi is not toppled yet. That his sons are suggesting they take over, does not mean an end to the family empire.

France is the biggest benefactor to force in Libya, because that is where they receive most of their oil. So, since it is in their national interest, let THEM handle this crisis. We are not the only free democracy with air power.

If Obama wanted to make a real difference, why wait 31 days before doing anything? Why didn't he immediately send a couple war ships to the coast of Libya to "evacuate" Americans, with the underlying idea that Khaddafi needed to step down? That alone would have probably caused a change without engaging in war. His delay led to the deaths of many people. If the excuse is he was seeking a coalition: well the UN Security Council basically abstained from voting, most of NATO didn't want to get involved, and the Arab League gave lip service as they now condemn the bombings! Oh, and he didn't bother asking consent and advice from Congress, as is required in the Constitution.

That NATO has now taken over, only means that we are still in charge, but using NATO as cover.

I am not an isolationist. However, I am not a neo-colonialist, either. We need to be engaged in the world, where our interests lie. This was not our battle. It was Africa's and Europe's to determine. It would have made more sense for us to go to Ivory Coast, where an elected president has been kept from office by illegal means, and where thousands have been killed to repress democracy. In that instance, we know who the new president is, and the importance of democracy for the people. There is a legitimacy for engagement.

History is going to judge Pres Obama harshly simply because he is not leading. He isn't leading the USA. He isn't involved in creating a budget, which should have been passed before last October (2010). He isn't involved in rescuing our economy by engaging in spending cuts, etc. Nor is he leading the free world. He is not taken seriously on the world stage anymore. He is as impotent as Jimmy Carter was.

This invasion into Libya has one sole purpose: it is the tail wagging the dog. It is a distraction from the problems at home, and he hopes for a quick boost to his popular ratings.

When our nation collapses economically, and it will if the President and Congress do not get serious about fixing it, then he will be the one remembered as the president who drove a stake through America's heart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Khaddafi is not toppled yet. That his sons are suggesting they take over, does not mean an end to the family empire.

France is the biggest benefactor to force in Libya, because that is where they receive most of their oil. So, since it is in their national interest, let THEM handle this crisis. We are not the only free democracy with air power.

If Obama wanted to make a real difference, why wait 31 days before doing anything? Why didn't he immediately send a couple war ships to the coast of Libya to "evacuate" Americans, with the underlying idea that Khaddafi needed to step down? That alone would have probably caused a change without engaging in war. His delay led to the deaths of many people. If the excuse is he was seeking a coalition: well the UN Security Council basically abstained from voting, most of NATO didn't want to get involved, and the Arab League gave lip service as they now condemn the bombings! Oh, and he didn't bother asking consent and advice from Congress, as is required in the Constitution.

That NATO has now taken over, only means that we are still in charge, but using NATO as cover.

I am not an isolationist. However, I am not a neo-colonialist, either. We need to be engaged in the world, where our interests lie. This was not our battle. It was Africa's and Europe's to determine. It would have made more sense for us to go to Ivory Coast, where an elected president has been kept from office by illegal means, and where thousands have been killed to repress democracy. In that instance, we know who the new president is, and the importance of democracy for the people. There is a legitimacy for engagement.

History is going to judge Pres Obama harshly simply because he is not leading. He isn't leading the USA. He isn't involved in creating a budget, which should have been passed before last October (2010). He isn't involved in rescuing our economy by engaging in spending cuts, etc. Nor is he leading the free world. He is not taken seriously on the world stage anymore. He is as impotent as Jimmy Carter was.

This invasion into Libya has one sole purpose: it is the tail wagging the dog. It is a distraction from the problems at home, and he hopes for a quick boost to his popular ratings.

When our nation collapses economically, and it will if the President and Congress do not get serious about fixing it, then he will be the one remembered as the president who drove a stake through America's heart.

Fair enough. I'd say that politics do work in to it, and it's certainly true that France was the most hawkish when it came to intervention.

I'm interested more in your take on Obama's interests, though - Do you think he's solely doing this for the sake of a few points, or do you think it's a push to keep the US as being seen as relevant on the world stage? A lot of people think the US is using this as a means to maintain their current hold on world power despite the EU stepping up to the plate.

Frankly, I think we're moving in to a state where the major world powers are:

Russia

China

The EU

The US

The EU, Russia and China have very different takes on world politics than the US, which means if any of those end up being the world leader, there will be a fundamental shift in the way things work. That scares a lot of Americans as it means a major change in your lifestyle. As the worlds largest consumer nation, how would Americans deal with a price of $4-5/gallon for gas?(Current price in the UK is £1.29/liter. That works out to be $7.87/gallon) That's what the rest of the world pays, but America's intertwined allies keeps the cost low. With China being the worlds largest importer of steel, with the US's change in alliances, how would you deal with the vast increase in costs of steel, oil products and food? I think Obama is just trying to stave off the inevitable vast increase in prices until his term is up. The consequences of that will be bad, I agree - But there's no denying that the changing world stage is driving a lot of the administration's decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we return to Constitutional principles, we will find many solutions to the problems. I believe that if we stop being militarily engaged everywhere, but still politically engaged, we can accomplish much the same things as we do now.

If we reduce our taxes and federal spending by several trillions of dollars, move to a flat/FAIR tax, end most needless regulation, etc., then our products will drop greatly in price and be attractive everywhere.

If we encourage immigration of those who want to work hard here, including foreigners who gain college degrees here and then we send them away, we would have the smartest and hardest working peoples in the world here to help solve many of our problems.

I'm not afraid of Russia, China or EU. I'm afraid of them when we are beholden and indebted to them. Once again, as a city on the hill, many of them will eventually come our way. Reagan accomplished that politically by promoting freedom, not forcing it militarily. We can see despotic dictatorships collapse over time as we set the example. As it is, we now push many people away from us by our interference. They prefer being communist, jihadist, or under a dictatorship, because they see the United States as being hypocritical.

As for Pres Obama, I really want him to succeed. However, his actions and in-actions are the clear signs of either an inexperienced person who is way above his head, or of a person intent in making the USA a former great nation that is now just one of many failed states. I'm not sure which is worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that Obama is an inexperienced person in over his head in a difficult time. Everyone knew that this President was going to face difficult decisions due to problems he inherited. He's not the sole person responsible for running your country - Everyone from Wall Street to the guy defaulting on his bank lone are responsible for the current state the world is in.

I'm interested in your take on minimalist government and taxes. Do you think that reducing taxes will necessarily mean an increase in manufacturing in the US? In the US, manufacturing has steadily been on a decline since the 1970s. Would lower taxes bring corporations back to the US to manufacture instead of cheap labour areas such as China or Taiwan? Is there anything you can quote that suggests manufacturers lost to areas such as Taiwan would come back?

I think that the time for cheap American consumerism is over. I think you're going to be facing prices more in line with the rest of the world. Already, gas has gone up... What? $.79/gallon in a year? That's just the beginning. That's not crippling - It just means that things the US take for granted - Like everyone owning a car or two - Will not be a truism any more.

If we return to Constitutional principles, we will find many solutions to the problems. I believe that if we stop being militarily engaged everywhere, but still politically engaged, we can accomplish much the same things as we do now.

If we reduce our taxes and federal spending by several trillions of dollars, move to a flat/FAIR tax, end most needless regulation, etc., then our products will drop greatly in price and be attractive everywhere.

If we encourage immigration of those who want to work hard here, including foreigners who gain college degrees here and then we send them away, we would have the smartest and hardest working peoples in the world here to help solve many of our problems.

I'm not afraid of Russia, China or EU. I'm afraid of them when we are beholden and indebted to them. Once again, as a city on the hill, many of them will eventually come our way. Reagan accomplished that politically by promoting freedom, not forcing it militarily. We can see despotic dictatorships collapse over time as we set the example. As it is, we now push many people away from us by our interference. They prefer being communist, jihadist, or under a dictatorship, because they see the United States as being hypocritical.

As for Pres Obama, I really want him to succeed. However, his actions and in-actions are the clear signs of either an inexperienced person who is way above his head, or of a person intent in making the USA a former great nation that is now just one of many failed states. I'm not sure which is worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least for the next 20 years, everyone in the USA owning a car will be a truism. Why? Because we do not have a solid public transportation system, such as Europe has. As for cheap fuel, we can accomplish that by drilling and converting much of what we do to natural gas. We have about 200 years worth of the stuff here. Then there is oil shale, which has hundreds of years available. Of course, this would be done in conjunction with developing clean technologies to replace them in the long run.

All of this would bring jobs into the States, as we would not only be a consumer, but also an exporter of fuel, competing with OPEC, etc.

If we eliminate local corporation taxes completely, many will choose to come back here to manufacture. Tariffs still must be considered as a method to regulate trade and our trade deficit. I have no problem with free trade, as long as it is on basically square footing. However, when China regulates its currency and subsidizes its companies to lower their production costs, then the USA should have the right to demand equal footing. This also includes environmental, safety, and employee wage standards. I'm not asking that we pay Chinese employees $7.25/hour. I am asking that they should be paid at least 1/3 the wage of the average American worker in the same job.

We can influence other nations heavily by our trade actions.

Manufacturing has declined because of American regulations have made it difficult to work here. At the same time, other nations have begun using our past techniques for success to create their own success. We do not need to bring all manufacturing back to the USA. We do need to bring some manufacturing back that is of value to us. The reality is, many of our young people will never go to college, and therefore not be prepared to take on many of the new tech jobs that are popping up. We need to bring in qualified immigrants to fill those new positions we cannot fill, and then ensure we have sufficient manufacturing jobs for those Americans who will never be the scientists and computer engineers of tomorrow.

These are just a few of my ideas. Mises.org also has many clear ideas on how to fix several of our problems, although they are more free trade than I am.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slamjet,

In your post regarding a fireside you attended you wrote regarding Libya:

"I attended a I fireside last night with the speaker who is involved in diplomatic circles, works in international law and diplomacy and was the U.S. representative at the U.N. general assembly. His experiences clearly shows that the arrogance of the U.S. is a misnomer. The world at large are constantly wanting to know what the U.S. stance is on things. They will act if and when the U.S. will act. It's all part of the promise in the Book of Mormon about this country.

"What we are seeing is what happens when the U.S. does not act. Other countries come begging us to do something. This inaction/late action in Japan and Libya will shape the world's opinion for a long time to come. That opinion will be that the U.S. is still an absolute necessity in the world. Yea, France and the UK can take the lead but nothing will happen without us being involved.

"Whether we like it or not, we are the world's police force. We'd better get used to it.”

Please don't think I'm playing the devil's advocate here or trying to contradict anything you wrote. But when you wrote that "[t]he world at large are constantly wanting to know what the U.S. stance is on things. They will act if and when the U.S. will act. It's all part of the promise in the Book of Mormon about this country," I was unsure how the world's acting and its wanting to know the US stance are specifically related to the BOM promise for this country. I'm probably just reading things wrong, but if you could clarify what you meant, I'd very much appreciate it. Also, could you please refer to the specific scriptures you're referring to. Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Hidden
Hidden

If we want to protect civilians from dying in Africa, there were and remain Congo, where up to 4 million have died, and the Ivory Coast, were at least a couple of hundred thousand have died. We know that for a fact in both cases. Yet to this day no one knows how many civilians have been killed by Gaddafi or the rebels. Living and working in the ME, I've come to know that Arabs love to talk, talk big, but threats usually end as threats. The US State Department should know this. Before running to the rescue, we should have had some kind of fact-finding mission. We still don't know how many were killed and we don't know who the rebels even are. One thing that is certain is that Gaddaf has a lot of support from the Libyan people. (Even dictators need support, contrary to popular opinion.) In any event, I tend to agree with Pat Buchanan on this one that while we in the US consider it evil for Gaddafi to us violence to put down a rebellion in Libya, Lincoln did the same thing in our own country and he's at the top of the American pantheon of presidents. Yet at the time Lincoln declared war on the South, no one had yet been killed. The South did fire on Fort Sumpter, but there were no deaths. Nor did the South ever try to take over the federal government, which is the nature of a civil war and which has been the goal of the Libyan rebels. The South simply wanted to leave the Union. But the North wouldn’t allow a repeat of what the founders had done during the Revolution and 620,000 Americans died over the next four years.

In the current situation some of the ways that have been used to demonize Gaddafi are as follows. Gaddafi has been accused of using mercs. But we use mercs all the time. We just call them "private contractors." Fallujah was leveled because of the deaths of 4 mercs. He has been accused of not fighting fairly and it was said here in one post that our coming to the rebels aid can be seen as a picking-on-someone-your-own-size sort of justice. But the US hasn't picked on anyone its own size for long time. We've been using far superior force to go after smaller, weaker nations for decades. As with WW I, which we entered late, we entered WW II late, well after the USSR had basically bled Germany dry. (We like to boast how we saved Europe from the Nazis but the truth is that Europeans give as much credit to the USSR. Worse, we forget that we gave the USSR all of Eastern Europe.) Post WW II there’s been North Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Libya. (I might have missed a few.) All of them have been third world nations with third world militaries. None of these are our own size. They’re not even close. Few of them even had anything close to a navy or anything resembling a decent air force. In Iraq and Afghanistan they fight us in sandals and loose flowing robes; we have helmets and body armor. They don't have any of the hi-tech weapons we have. Remember, for Iraq, there was first the Gulf War, followed by 11 years of bombing in the no-fly zones and sanctions for a country 90% dependent on imports, followed by our invasion of 2003. Of course, all of that was on the heals of a destructive war between Iraq and Iran, with our helping Iraq. By 2003, Iraq was on its back. It was in ruins. As for Gaddafi's using planes to bomb people, we also use planes to bomb from miles above. (Note that in such an asymmetrical war, car bombs are essentially a poor country's air force.) They certainly don’t have anything close to just one of our carriers, much less the two and their respective strike groups just off Libya’s coast. We fire cruise missiles from up to 900 miles out to sea. And we launch drones from nice comfortable offices on America’s eastern seaboard. The truth is that since the end of WW II, Washington has had a very clear preference for picking on small nations that are nowhere near our own size. And we do so using our superior technology which they don’t even come close to matching. Such is the case now, with our deciding to go after Gaddafi. Moreover, up until recently we were selling Gaddafi weapons, just as we do neighboring Egypt. And we know full well that neither Libya nor Egypt have any neighboring countries they need to fear. Hence, we sell them weapons knowing full well that these weapons will most likely be used against these countries’ own respective citizens.

The US certainly does play a key role in the UN and NATO. But it’s more than just a key role. The UN and NATO can do nothing of this sort without the US. The UN General Assembly is powerless. Only the UN Security Council has is any power and is lodged in its five permanent members, i.e., the US, the UK, France, China and Russia. These five are the only countries with veto power and any one of them could have stopped Resolution 1973 from passing. While China and Russia abstained during the vote, the US, the UK and France approved. As for NATO, it should have died with the collapse of the USSR 20 years ago. But it was conveniently kept alive and has become the de facto military branch of the UN, which is under US control. We simply use the UN and NATO as a convenient cover. When Obama says it's been passed to NATO that's just a game of words. We're still in charge. The commanding general of NATO is American. We’re simply passing the prosecution of this war from ourselves to ourselves. The UN and NATO are simply masks we hide behind when it’s convenient.

Then there are those pesky dictators. However, the one thing that should have been made clear in the past two months is the fact that while the USSR for years had their bloc of satellite nations, we also had our bloc of satellite nations. The Soviet bloc was Eastern Europe, which, of course, we gave them at the conclusion of WWII, in accordance with our Yalta agreement. The American bloc of satellite nations stretches from Morocco in NW Africa through the Middle East. Those dictators who won't bow to us and do our bidding are labeled evil, perpetually demonized by us, and often compared to Hitler. Currently, these are Iran, Libya, and Syria, the latter perhaps being next after Libya. Those who obey us are allies, our friends, those with whom we have a “special relationship,” as Gates and Mullen recently pointed out. On much smaller scale, Bahrainis were crushed by our allies and friends in the Gulf at the same time we decided to get rid of Gaddafi. The timing was perfect. Too perfect, actually. In fact, diplomats from other nations have stated that such was part of a deal between the White House and Riyadh. If Riyadh would get the GCC, all of whom are our dictators, to pressure the Arab League to request help from the UN in Libya, a well-known enemy to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, the US would give them the green light to crush the demonstrators in Bahrain and eastern Saudi Arabia. Saudi is top dog in the GCC, none of whom want any change in their fiefdoms. All Saudi needed was three other votes to get everything going rolling--Khalifa of Bahrain was already on board and less than half of the Arab League was even present for the vote. And while the US media diverted our attention to US ships sailing through the read sea to rescue Libyan rebels, of whom we know nothing, American supplied Saudi tanks and American trained Saudi troops moved across the King Fahd Causeway into Bahrain.

Interestingly, something that is completely missed in the US is that fact that in the Gulf and the greater region, Saudi Arabia is considered a de facto US colony. Gaddafi of Libya and King Abdullah of Saudi hate each other. Abdullah wants Gaddafi gone as does the US since Libya, besides having oil and lots of scarce water, estimated at about 200 years of the current Nile flow, was also one of five African nations that refused to participate in AFRICOM, part of our military doctrine of full spectrum dominance in which we've carved up the world into different American military commands. AFRICOM is the US African Command. Of the five African nations that refused to participate in AFRICOM, the US military is now actively engage in four. Additionally, in the Mediterranean the US Navy is denied access to the ports of only two nations, those of Libya and Syria. On thing certain is that our war with Libya is not for humanitarian reasons, and war it is since the mere act of attempting establish a no-fly zone on a sovereign nation is an act of war under international law. We can call it "kinetic military action," such as the White House does, and we can say it's for humanitarian reasons, as is claimed and believed by many, but no matter how we dress it up, we've just got ourselves involved in another war.

One thing that going after Libya has accomplished has been to kill mostly peaceful demonstrations and calls for reforms elsewhere in the ME. While our attention was intentionally shifted to Libya, everything supposedly gained by the departure of Mubarak in Egypt was lost this past week as Mubarak's fellow officers banned further demonstrations and street gatherings. (Egypt’s dictator was never just one man but a military junta of high-ranking officers of whom Mubarak was simply the face we knew.) Also, our little dictators in the Gulf can now sleep easier, as can we, knowing that nothing is really going to change. In essence, the Arab Awakening is being crushed, which is precisely what is wanted by the various rulers of the US, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and members of the GCC and our other friends in the region.

Please note that I am not attempting to defend Gaddafi or any dictator, even our own. But the stench that comes from our hypocrisy as a nation in all this is almost overpowering. If we had stayed with what the founders had set up, we wouldn't have all these problems. But the more we meddle, the more problems we create for ourselves and the more freedom we give up. The truth is that the US has become far worse than the British empire America's founding father's rebelled against in during the Revolution. We have, using an appropriate phrase from the Bible, been as a dog turned to its vomit. We have become what the founders feared and abhorred. I agree with President Benson who basically said that we have apostatized from the founding gospel of this nation, which can be seen in part in the Constitution and the Declaration.. J. Reuben Clark, in general conference, after the conclusion of WWII, warned that if we did not change our nation's foreign policies we would become hated justly by other nations. Lord Acton stated that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The US, of all countries, comes closest to having absolute power, and we are addicted to it. And it has corrupted us. As Spencer W. Kimball said, we are a warlike people. And as with Rome, the Republic is dead and has been for some time. We are living in a time of America's world empire, yet so many of us don't, or won’t, see it. And lest anyone think that we are the good guys on the block, it was Joseph Fielding Smith who said the following:

“The United States is not the kingdom of God, . . . Satan has control now. No matter where you look, he is in control, even in our own land. He is guiding the governments [of the world] as far as the Lord will permit him. . . One master mind is governing the nations . . . it is Satan himself.”

Edited by Sean1427
Link to comment

I reject the concept that we HAVE to be the world's police man. I accept the idea that we be involved in non-violent ways, using military intervention in rare occasions. Instead, it is better for us to be the city on the hill, where we can tell all tyrants that ours is the proper course.

As the world's police force, we fail miserably. And it is financially bankrupting us. If we don't teach them to rely upon their own armies, or the regional forces available, how can they ever wean themselves from us? We set the example, and encourage them to follow it.

As it is, unless we plan on being in Iraq and Afghanistan for 50 years, we will not leave them as we want them. It would require a generational change, the jihadists dying of old age or violence, and the new generation learning and accepting new concepts, for them to change. We don't have the finances nor staying power to do that.

And if the USA financially collapses, then the world will have neither a police force nor a city on the hill to follow. Instead, they will have the success of the despot China as an example to follow in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm unsure which thread to post this at, but this seems more appropriate than most of the others. I forewarn anyone reading this that it will be a two parter. The first part will provide a little background that helps in understanding why I share what I do in the second part. I simply attempt to show a different perspective. One member on another thread stated that the "girth" of my posts were an attempt on my part to portray myself as an intellictual and to intimidate others into silence. I assure you that such is not the case. The "girth" of my articles is simply the way I write about topics. I simply find it difficult to take complex situations and reduce them to a few short sentences. As for my alleged attempt to portray myself as an intellectual and intimidate readers, trust me, I rarely expect anyone to even read what I write. I post things knowing that most people won't read what I've posted and believing that people are free to read or not read, agree or disagree, accept or reject in whole or in part. My only attempt is to show a different way of looking at things. I have no desire to get into an online debate/argument with anyone. I'm simply putting a different perspective out there. I realize that some might be offended by what I write or by how I phrase things. Yet my intent is not to offend, but simply to share a different viewpoint. And my main point in sharing any of this here is that I believe that our involvement in Libya cannot be understood if we divorce it from the larger picture, one which many of us are unable to see for various reasons. I simply want to share a different perspective on the bigger picture that might help us understand what's going on in Libya.

As some know on this site, I'm an American LDS who has lived and worked in Saudi Arabia since several years before 9/11. While I've never thought of it as such, I am likely one of the few members on this site who has lived among Muslims Arabs, under Shari'ah, and in the heartland of Wahhabi'ism. Currently, I am not there; I'm simply elsewhere. If I were there, I wouldn't be sharing this online. As you learn quite quickly when you enter the kingdom, the walls have ears. They also have eyes. Of course, the same is now sadly true of the US. When I'm in Saudi, I do not post anything regarding religion or politics to this or any other site. I do not have a profile here and like most do not use my real name. I do this mainly because I don't want the Saudis among whom I work tracing anything back to me. My concern is not because I'm afraid of them, per se, but I would simply like to keep my job. I do not work for the US in any capacity. Nor am I a "private contractor," which is a euphemism in many instances for what was once know as a merc.

In Saudi I live and work in the Eastern Province near Qateef, which is Shiite terrority. This part of Saudi is also where all the oil is. The lights of Manama, Bahrain, can be seen at night just across the water. Bahrain, as many now know, is "the home port" of the US 5th Fleet. It's a very small country, essentially what was once known as a city-state. It's about 15 miles from my stomping grounds. When oil was discovered in Saudi Arabia, it was discovered on the Shiite homeland. The Saudi government took a page out of American history and did to the Shiites what we did to the Indians--they forcibly moved them off their lands. (Note that what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians can also be viewed in the same light--removing them from their lands and walling them in is not much different than a reservation where both the Indians and the Palestinians were and are made completely dependent on US or Israeli governments.)

Saudi, like most Middle Eastern countries/societies, including the North African Muslims Nations are tribal, something we don't understand any better than our Anglo ancestors understood the tribal nature of the numerous Indian nations inhabiting what is now the US. Saudi is the only country in the world named after a family, the al-Sa'ud family. When one speaks of the Saudi government, one is referring, whether they realize it or not, to a government controlled by the al-Sa'ud family. Saudi has a poplulation of about 16 million natives. While you will see higher population figures, you have to subtract all the foreign expats working in the kingdom and their families, who make up about 30% of the population. While this is true for all the countries of the Gulf, the percentage of expat workers differs. For instance in the UAE, about 10-15 % are Shia in the area of Qateef. The royal family of Saudi consists of a very small percentage of the Saudi population. The family consists of between 6,000to 9,000 princes and princesses. (No one knows the exact number.) As is the custom, the first choice for a marriage partner is first cousins. In any event, rarely do individuals marry outside the extended family and the tribe to which they belong. Hence, royals marry royals for the most part. While the al-Sa'ud family does have tribes allied to it, their first loyalty remains with the family/tribe. This is important to remember when one considers the oil wealth that Saudi is known for. What's often missed in the West is that in Saudi, oil is considered the private property of the al-Sa'ud family. It is not a national resource. Rather, it is private property. Others are thrown bones here and there to buy and pacify them, but the wealth is the property of the royal family.

Shedding some light on what this means can be seen in a Wikileaks leak of US diplomatic cables that showed that in 1996, "the lowliest member of the most remote branch of the [al-Sa'ud] family" received a monthly stipend of $800US. (This is per member, not per family; hence, a remote family of ten would be getting $8,000 US/month). The surviving sons of Abdul-Aziz ibn Saud, the founder of Saudi, received between $200,000 to $270,000US/month. Grandchildren of the founder recieved $27,000/month; great-grandchildren $13,000/USmonth; and great-great-grandchildren $8,000US/month. Again, that was in 1996.

Recently, at the same time US navy ships were sailing through the Red Sea back to the "shores of Tripoli," Saudi tanks were moved from Saudi across the King Fahd Causeway to Bahrain. The US media, to my knowledge, never covered that event. Instead, the US media focused almost solely on Libya and the US' riding to the rescue of Libyan rebels in the eastern part of Libya. And while our attention was focused on our then-approaching involvement in Libya to save the Libyan civilians. Saudi troops, along with other troos for most GCC countries, were crushing the peacefull demonstrations by Bahrainis.

A little more history is necessary. The Shia of Bahrain make up about 70-80% of the population. Just as Gaddafi uses mercs, which the US uses as well, Bahrain also uses mercs. In fact, the typical policeman on the street is not Bahriani. Most are Pakistani. The Khalifa family’s security force is almost entirely merc--British SAS, Pakistani, Indian, etc. The Khalifa family, a good friend and ally to the US, has its roots in Saudi, their homeland. (While they came from the mainland 200 years ago, they still consider Saudi their homeland.) Bahrain is the poor man of the GCC, the Gulf countries. They don't really have any oil worth speaking of and most of their money comes from refineries and banking. And yes, the Khalifa royal family is heavily financed and supported by the al-Sa'ud family of Saudi. All the good jobs in Bahrain go to mostly Sunni, who are closely affiliated and allied to the Khalifa family. Most Bahraini Shia get the menial jobs. Violence during the demonstrations in Bahrain came almost totally from the reaction by the Khalifa family. Yet initially all the Bahraini demonstrators, which included a good number of Sunni, wanted was reform. But once the violence began, some called for the king's departure.

Another point that's missed completely in the West is this. The largest American city outside the US is inside Saudi. Perhpas there's a reason for this since those in the region have long considered Saudi to be a de facto US colony. Perhaps this is because our agreement to protect the Saudi government, i.e., the royal family, from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. (Sound familiar?) While we've technically moved our troops from Saudi, they are still in the area, especially Bahrain, which is a mere 15 miles from the oil fields of Saudi. I've even seen this quite low down in the system when I've asked Saudi officers why they don't hire Saudis to do jobs often given to Americans. The replies are essentially the same: we can't because we have to hire so many Americans every year or we run the risk of being distablized. Saudi does buy a lot of weapons from the US and the West. In fact, it's flooded with weapons, weapons no one really knows how to use other than those doing the training. Most Saudi troops don't know how to use or maintain them. And no sooner than western trainers train them how to properly maintain something than the particular hardward is scrapped and replaced by something else, which means new training is required. But it there are very good commissions, outrageous commissisons, for both Saudi buyers and Western suppliers. And it provides lots of jobs in the military-industrial complex and home and abroad. But the reality is that Saudi does nothing major without our tacit approval, consent, protection or request. This is also true for Bahrain.

I do need to share a few thoughts on the Saudi military. The Saudi military, like most militaries in the ME are funded, trained, and supplied by the US. It can do a lot of harm to its own citizens, which is the same for the Egyptian military. It can also do a lot of harm for a small country like Bahrain. But on a large scale, there's nothing to worry about. Unemployment is high in Saudi and one of the ways to keep the people pacified is through giving them a job in the military. In essence, it's a form of welfare where they are taught a few things, where attempts are made to unite people whose primary loyalty is to their tribe, and it gives them a little money which allows them to marry and help their families. And most importantly, it keeps them off the streets and under the watchful eye of the powers that be. Other than that, it's a joke. I've seen military cadets between 20-30 having problems changing flat ties. I've worked with soldiers who have epilepsy, not the kind of guy you want behind a gun. During marching drills on the parade ground, I've seen obese soldiers who get to stand on the sidelines because marching is too tiring. A friend of mine was a US fighter pilot in the Gulf War. He said that the hardest thing they had to do during the war was to try to get the pilots into their planes! In fact, there was one decorated Saudi pilot during that war. But he himself didn't want go fight. It wasn't until American fighter planes trapped an Iraqi pilot in the air, got him to expend all his weapons, and then vectored in the Saudi pilot when it was safe and he could down the Iraqi pilot without any real risk to himself. The reality is that the Saudi military is like the Keystone Kops. The navey spends most of it's time looking for pirates off the coast and the navy shuts down about 3 p.m. so the married men can get home and take their wives shopping. (Remember, their wives can't drive.) The real military backbone of the country comes from two sources. The first is the Saudi Arabian National Guard (SANG) which consists of members of bedouin' tribes loyal to the al-Sa'ud family. They're like the royal family's praetorian guard; they were also sent with the Saud army into Bahrain to take care of the problem there. The second is the US military, along with the US president's private military, the CIA, and our enormous supplement of private contractors, America's new Hessians.

Lastly, the Shiites of Bahrain and Iran have no more in common that Mexcian and American Mormons do. They are not Iranian sympathizers. They make this clear in many ways. Even US State Department documents have showed that there was no Iranian meddling in Bahrain until after the Saudi/GCC crackdown on the demonstrators.

Regarding the UN, NATO, the Arab Leaque and the GCC. The GCC are the Gulf states, of which Saudi is top dog. The Arab League consists of 22 states and has been ignored for its entire history until it requested help from the UN vis-a-vis Libya. The UN has no power except what is given to it by the Security Council, which currently consists of 15 members. Yet the only members in the SC that have any power within the UN are the the five permanent members of the UN, i.e. the US, the UK, France, Russia and China. Any one of these five members can veto anything that comes before it. And anything done by the UN similar to the current involvement in Libya is done with their approval. In terms of Resolution 1973 which Obama uses to justify the US involvement in Libya, Russia and China abstained when the vote was taken, which means that it passed becaue it had the approval of the US, the UK and France. And NATO, which, should have disappeared after the collapse of the USSR, is under US control and commanded by an American general. It has, for all intents and purposes, become the UN military. And as J. Reuben Clark pointed out many years ago, the UN's purpose is not peace but war.

OK, sorry for the length of this for anyone who might read it. Initially, I failed to make this post to this thread and ended up making two posts to the thread entitled "It Was Right to Intervene" found under Current Events. The second post at that thread was meant to be the second part of this post here. But since I've already posted it there, there's no need to do so here. Rest assured, the second part/post there is not nearly as long as this post. Basically, it shares links to articles written by people (Paul Craig Roberts, etc) that have help explain best what I've experienced and learned living in the ME. So if anyone is interested in browsing through those articles, you can find the links to them at that thread.

Edited by Sean1427
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One member on another thread stated that the "girth" of my posts were an attempt on my part to portray myself as an intellictual and to intimidate others into silence. I assure you that such is not the case. The "girth" of my articles is simply the way I write about topics. I simply find it difficult to take complex situations and reduce them to a few short sentences. As for my alleged attempt to portray myself as an intellectual and intimidate readers, trust me, I rarely expect anyone to even read what I write. I post things knowing that most people won't read what I've posted and believing that people are free to read or not read, agree or disagree, accept or reject in whole or in part. My only attempt is to show a different way of looking at things. . . .

I read all of your posts and appreciate the time and effort you put into them. The fact that you are actually in the ME (or were), makes your perspective invaluable to me. So, if it matters that one person does read your posts, please keep writing them.

Elphaba

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Elphaba, very much for what you wrote. I very much appreciate the words you wrote. It's not easy to post something that I know someone else might find offensive. Hence, sometimes I doubt it's really worth it. As I've said elsewhere, I don't expect anyone to agree with me. I'm simply sharing a different viewpoint that's based on my experiences. But reading something such as you wrote makes all the difference. Knowing that just one person appreciates something I've shared makes it all worthwhile, and in that sense, what I write, I write for you.

Edited by Sean1427
Link to comment
Share on other sites

J. REUBEN CLARK, Excerpts, 1947, US foreign policy

NOTE: I've posted this at another thread, "We Were Right to Intervene." If you've read it there, just ignore it here. I'm simply posting for those following this thread but not that one.

--

More “girth” for those who might be interested. But almost all the “girth” here comes from J. Reuben Clark, after whom BYU's law school was named. For those who don’t know who J. Reuben Clark was, I’ve provided a short background on him in the following paragraph before sharing his words.

Clark was appointed assistant solicitor to the US State Department in 1906, which began his career in government. During WWI, he worked in the Attorney General’s office. In 1928, as Under Secretary of State, he wrote the Clark Memorandum on the Monroe Doctrine, which repudiated the idea that the US could arbitrarily use military force in Latin America. He was US ambassador to Mexico from 1930-1933. In 1933, Clark was called to be a member of the LDS First Presidency to replace Charles W. Nibley. This call was unusual on two counts, one count being that previously counselors in the First Presidency had generally been selected from within the general authorities of the LDS church, but Clark had never even been a bishop or stake president. Until his death in 1961, Clark served in the presidencies of Heber J. Grant, George A. Smith, & David O. McKay.

What follows after this paragraph was written by J. Reuben Clark in 1947. Please note that everything I quote comes from the same article. My inserts for clarification are in brackets.:

“Until the last quarter of a century, this gospel of the [America’s Founding] Fathers was the polar star by which we set our international course. In the first hundred thirty years of our constitutional existence, we had three foreign wars, the first merely the final effort of our Revolution, which made good our independence. During the century that followed we had two foreign wars, neither of considerable magnitude. During the next twenty-three years, we had two global wars. While the gospel of the Fathers guided us we had peace. When we forsook it, two global wars engulfed us.

“It is not clear when we began our wandering, nor is it necessary to determine the time. President Theodore Roosevelt was hinting our straying when he uttered the dictum ‘Speak softly and carry a big stick.’ We were to force others to do our bidding. President Wilson had the full departure in mind when he declared: ‘Everybody’s business is our business.’ Since then we have leaped ahead along the anciently forbidden path.

“In our course under the new gospel of interference with everything we do not like, we have gone forward and are going forward, as if we possessed all the good of human government, of human economic concept, of human comfort, and of human welfare, all of which we are to impose on the balance of the world,--a concept born of the grossest national egotism. In human affairs no nation can say that all it practices and believes is right, and that all that others have that differs from what it has is wrong. Men inflict an unholy tragedy when they proceed on that basis. No man, no society, no people no nation is wholly right in human affairs; and none is wholly wrong. A fundamental principle of the operation of human society is to live and let live.

“Yet, to repeat, we have entered into new fields to impose our will and concepts on others. This means we must use force, and force means war, not peace.

“What has our apostasy from peace cost us? . . .

“. . . America should again turn to the promotion of the peaceful adjustment of international disputes, which will help us regain the measureless moral force we once possessed, to the regeneration and salvation of the world. We now speak with the strong arm of physical force only; we have no moral force left. . . .

“Our whole international course and policy is basically wrong, and must be changed if peace is to come. Our policy has brought us, and pursued, will continue to bring us, only the hatred of nations now—and we cannot thrive on that, financially or spiritually—and certain war hereafter, with a list of horrors and woes we do not now even surmise. If we really want peace, we must change our course to get it. We must honestly strive for peace and quit sparring for military advantage. We must learn and practice, as a nation . . . , the divine principles of the Sermon on the Mount, There is no other way.”

Interestingly, elsewhere in the same article Clark freely admitted to being an isolationist in terms of how US foreign policy was even then being used. He admitted to fully believing in “the wisdom of the course defined by Washington, Jefferson, and other ancient statesmen”; that “American manhood is too valuable to be sacrificed on foreign soil for foreign issues and causes”; that “ America’s role in the world is not one of force, but is of that same peaceful intent and act that has characterized the history of the country from its birth till the last third of a century”; & that “moral force is far more potent than physical force in international relations” but that “we [i.e., America as clearly seen in the context] now speak with the strong arm of physical force only; we have no moral force left.” These are his words, not mine. He also stated that he was not shaken in his “convictions or frightened by the assertion” that “the doctrine of the Fathers is outmoded, and that we are now in a new world. All the age old forces are still peering out at us, -- greed, avarice, ambition, selfishness, the passon to rule, the desire to enslave for the sordid advantage of the enslaver. Not a single wanton face is missing and the visages of some are more hideous than ever.” Despite the technological advances, which would now include the internet, “we are just as we were . . We can and should mind our own business . . .”

Again, Clark’s words above are from 1947, after the conclusion of WWII. It amazes me that he would write such just after the end of WWII at a time when Americans are patting themselves on the back for being the good guys. But there's not much victory-celebration language in his words! It’s always made me wonder what Clark knew that we don’t know even today. And while on another thread it was suggested that I was an isolationist and was accused of using “contemptuous language in speaking about America” that makes me “sound like another moveon.org dunderhead,” how are we to judge J. Reuben Clark and his words above? Clark was speaking as member of the LDS Church First Presidency and as a statesman who had a wealth of experience in and knowledge of America’s international dealings. For those of us who are LDS we have to wonder why a member of the First Presidency would write what he did. And for all of us, regardless of our backgrounds, we have to wonder why someone who had such a long and illustrious career in the US State Department would say such things.

Now readers can rest. No more "girthiness" from me. At least not on this topic. I'm going to rest as well.

Edited by Sean1427
Link to comment
Share on other sites

J. REUBEN CLARK, Excerpts, 1947, US foreign policy

Very nice post. I have not read a lot of J. Reuben Clark's materials, but after reading what you've posted here and matching that up to the extensive study I have made of Ezra Taft Benson's writings, I can assure you that I am going to do more digging.

I completely agree with the concept that we have a military industrial complex and that it is dragging this nation speedily down to you-know-where. I also believe strongly that secret combinations abound and the great majority of our foreign, domestic and finance policies are the result of a well calculated combination on the part of some very powerful yet secretive and very greedy few.

Thanks again for your post and I look forward to reading others in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is best if we were the Light on the Hill for the rest of the world to see and aspire to.

The USA is the light and Satan:cloud666: is slowly extinguishing it ! I believe that what is happening now has to happen so that Christ :twothumbsup: will come !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share