PDA

View Full Version : WikiLeaks cables portray Saudi Arabia as a cash machine for terrorists



Gingersnap
12-06-2010, 11:33 AM
WikiLeaks cables portray Saudi Arabia as a cash machine for terrorists

Hillary Clinton memo highlights Gulf states' failure to block funding for groups like al-Qaida, Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba

Saudi Arabia is the world's largest source of funds for Islamist militant groups such as the Afghan Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba but the Saudi government is reluctant to stem the flow of money, according to Hillary Clinton.

"More needs to be done since Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaida, the Taliban, LeT and other terrorist groups," says a secret December 2009 paper signed by the US secretary of state. Her memo urged US diplomats to redouble their efforts to stop Gulf money reaching extremists in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

"Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide," she said.

Three other Arab countries are listed as sources of militant money: Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates.

The cables highlight an often ignored factor in the Pakistani and Afghan conflicts: that the violence is partly bankrolled by rich, conservative donors across the Arabian Sea whose governments do little to stop them.

The problem is particularly acute in Saudi Arabia, where militants soliciting funds slip into the country disguised as holy pilgrims, set up front companies to launder funds and receive money from government-sanctioned charities.

One cable details how the Pakistani militant outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba, which carried out the 2008 Mumbai attacks, used a Saudi-based front company to fund its activities in 2005.

Meanwhile officials with the LeT's charity wing, Jamaat-ud-Dawa, travelled to Saudi Arabia seeking donations for new schools at vastly inflated costs then siphoned off the excess money to fund militant operations.

Militants seeking donations often come during the hajj pilgrimage "a major security loophole since pilgrims often travel with large amounts of cash and the Saudis cannot refuse them entry into Saudi Arabia". Even a small donation can go far: LeT operates on a budget of just $5.25m (3.25m) a year, according to American estimates.

Saudi officials are often painted as reluctant partners. Clinton complained of the "ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist funds emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority".

Washington is critical of the Saudi refusal to ban three charities classified as terrorist entities in the US. "Intelligence suggests that these groups continue to send money overseas and, at times, fund extremism overseas," she said.

Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/05/wikileaks-cables-saudi-terrorist-funding)

PoliCon
12-06-2010, 02:50 PM
I have to wonder what people expect the Saudi Government to do . . . they're in a difficult place dealing with a radical element who would HAPPILY over throw the Saudi Royal family and then we'd face an even more radical threat from them.

Molon Labe
12-06-2010, 04:46 PM
I have to wonder what people expect the Saudi Government to do . . . they're in a difficult place dealing with a radical element who would HAPPILY over throw the Saudi Royal family and then we'd face an even more radical threat from them.

Sounds kinda like what happened in Iraq.

Madisonian
12-06-2010, 06:09 PM
So we pay taxes to pay for American soldiers to help protect Saudi Arabia so the Saudi's can turn a blind eye to their country being used to finance terrorists that are killing American soldiers.

Protect the Saudi royalty? Fuck them and the camels they were born from. China and Europe get more oil from the Middle Blech than we do, let them foot the bill for a few decades.

And why are we in that shit hole commonly referred to as the Middle East? The total land mass of that backwards cesspool is not worth 1 drop of American blood.

PoliCon
12-06-2010, 06:39 PM
So we pay taxes to pay for American soldiers to help protect Saudi Arabia so the Saudi's can turn a blind eye to their country being used to finance terrorists that are killing American soldiers.

Protect the Saudi royalty? Fuck them and the camels they were born from. China and Europe get more oil from the Middle Blech than we do, let them foot the bill for a few decades.

And why are we in that shit hole commonly referred to as the Middle East? The total land mass of that backwards cesspool is not worth 1 drop of American blood.

How do you conclude that a blind eye is being turned?

PoliCon
12-06-2010, 06:41 PM
Sounds kinda like what happened in Iraq.

:confused: Iraq went to hell because of foreigners not because of the natives with rulers having being the chief radical element when they were in power. Saudi Arabia faces radicalization from within with the royal family being the moderating force.

Molon Labe
12-07-2010, 11:40 AM
So we pay taxes to pay for American soldiers to help protect Saudi Arabia so the Saudi's can turn a blind eye to their country being used to finance terrorists that are killing American soldiers.

Protect the Saudi royalty? Fuck them and the camels they were born from. China and Europe get more oil from the Middle Blech than we do, let them foot the bill for a few decades.

And why are we in that shit hole commonly referred to as the Middle East? The total land mass of that backwards cesspool is not worth 1 drop of American blood.

Someone actually gets it.


How do you conclude that a blind eye is being turned?

I think that post clearly lays out in simple terms how.

txradioguy
12-08-2010, 07:46 AM
So we pay taxes to pay for American soldiers to help protect Saudi Arabia so the Saudi's can turn a blind eye to their country being used to finance terrorists that are killing American soldiers.

We don't have soldiers in Saudi Arabia anymore. that's why we built big new bases in Qatar and upgraded our facilities in Kuwait.


Protect the Saudi royalty? Fuck them and the camels they were born from. China and Europe get more oil from the Middle Blech than we do, let them foot the bill for a few decades.

And just turn our back on agreements...treaties etc that we've made with them? YOu'd be throwing a tantrum if some counry decided to do that to us.


And why are we in that shit hole commonly referred to as the Middle East? The total land mass of that backwards cesspool is not worth 1 drop of American blood.

Considering I've been in Iraq and am currently deployed in Afghanistan. Let me tell you that from a truly informed standpoint...you're full of shit.

With that line of thinking you sound exactly like a Libtard.

Rockntractor
12-08-2010, 08:21 AM
Considering I've been in Iraq and am currently deployed in Afghanistan.

How long will you be there?

Molon Labe
12-08-2010, 08:33 AM
We don't have soldiers in Saudi Arabia anymore. that's why we built big new bases in Qatar and upgraded our facilities in Kuwait.

And just turn our back on agreements...treaties etc that we've made with them? YOu'd be throwing a tantrum if some counry decided to do that to us.

Considering I've been in Iraq and am currently deployed in Afghanistan. Let me tell you that from a truly informed standpoint...you're full of shit.

With that line of thinking you sound exactly like a Libtard.

Uh...yeah we kinda do have troops still in Saudi. Several thousand to be precise. We've got troops stationed all over Taif Air Base, Eskan Village and Rihad. Who's the uninformed again? There's a lot of people who've been overseas serving who have come to the opposite conclusion that you have. The "I've been deployed" and that somehow makes me and expert on middle eastern culture and and I'm now a qualified "anthropologist" is a bit of a stretch.

That's some comedy gold qualifing someone as a libtard , when endless intervention was invented by the LEFT.

malloc
12-08-2010, 09:12 AM
We don't have soldiers in Saudi Arabia anymore. that's why we built big new bases in Qatar and upgraded our facilities in Kuwait.



And just turn our back on agreements...treaties etc that we've made with them? YOu'd be throwing a tantrum if some counry decided to do that to us.



Considering I've been in Iraq and am currently deployed in Afghanistan. Let me tell you that from a truly informed standpoint...you're full of shit.

With that line of thinking you sound exactly like a Libtard.

I think there's quite a few conservatives on this board who don't really think the foreign intervention mentality is the correct solution for the future of America. I was in Iraq during the invasion back in '03, and even then thought the place was a shit hole not worthy of a Marine boot print, much less a division and a MEF. The U.S. has enough oil, plenty of coal, and enough space for more nuclear plants. I'd be happy to start producing our own energy and let the Iraqi's and Afghans wither and rot in their mud huts until they decide to make their situation better on their own.

Any treaties or agreements we had with these 10th century cavemen should be considered null and void so long as our "friends" continue to allow the funding and free movement of our enemies. If they wanted to be "friends" with the U.S. they should put their money where their mouth is, or we can just go our separate ways.

txradioguy
12-08-2010, 11:14 AM
How long will you be there?

Until June 2011.

txradioguy
12-08-2010, 11:20 AM
I think there's quite a few conservatives on this board who don't really think the foreign intervention mentality is the correct solution for the future of America.

Only if they are kool aid drinking zombies who kiss the ass of Dr. Nutz. a.k.a. Ron Paul.




I was in Iraq during the invasion back in '03, and even then thought the place was a shit hole not worthy of a Marine boot print, much less a division and a MEF.

Yeah well the people we helped there might actually disagree with you. And this Doggie hasn't met a Marine yet that had the same attitude you seem to have about the worthiness of our mission there.

Guess it was kinda lonely at the chow hall for you some days huh?




The U.S. has enough oil, plenty of coal, and enough space for more nuclear plants.

No arguments from me on this one. Too bad the Enviro nazi's in our country and serving in Congress won't let that happen.



I'd be happy to start producing our own energy and let the Iraqi's and Afghans wither and rot in their mud huts until they decide to make their situation better on their own.

Thank God the vast majority of us serving don't have the craptastic view on this that you do.


Any treaties or agreements we had with these 10th century cavemen should be considered null and void so long as our "friends" continue to allow the funding and free movement of our enemies. If they wanted to be "friends" with the U.S. they should put their money where their mouth is, or we can just go our separate ways.

Churchill spied on all of his allies in WW II. Should we have not gotten into that war because one of our allies was working against us for his own benefit?

According to your thinking the answer is yes.

Lets hope that people that think things WE do are "barbaric' don't decide to treat us in the manner you want us to treat the rest of the world.

txradioguy
12-08-2010, 11:27 AM
Uh...yeah we kinda do have troops still in Saudi. Several thousand to be precise. We've got troops stationed all over Taif Air Base, Eskan Village and Rihad. Who's the uninformed again?

You are jackass. There's 500 left with the 320th and 64th AEW's. Not thousands. Not anything that comes close to what we had there prior to 2003. You really need to get better info.

Oh and I guess we can count the Embassy guards if you REALLY want to get technical.

:rolleyes:



There's a lot of people who've been overseas serving who have come to the opposite conclusion that you have. The "I've been deployed" and that somehow makes me and expert on middle eastern culture and and I'm now a qualified "anthropologist" is a bit of a stretch.

Somalia twice in 1993...Iraq with 3rd Bde. 1st Armored Division 2003-04

Afghanistan 2nd Cavalry Regiment right now.

I think I've seen enough of the Middle East and the related areas in my military career to know what I'm talking about.

So just EADC.


That's some comedy gold qualifing someone as a libtard , when endless intervention was invented by the LEFT.

I'm sorry what were you saying? It was muffled with your lips around Ron Pauls d*ck.

djones520
12-08-2010, 11:33 AM
Alright, lets tone it down a notch, this isn't the Dome.

Gingersnap
12-08-2010, 11:58 AM
There's a new story today describing the drug, drink, and hooker-fueled parties attended by the Saudi royal families. :p

Molon Labe
12-08-2010, 11:58 AM
You are jackass. useless ramblings etc. etc.

lol!

malloc
12-08-2010, 01:18 PM
Your at a 10 on the drama scale, we'd like you around a 2.


Only if they are kool aid drinking zombies who kiss the ass of Dr. Nutz. a.k.a. Ron Paul.

There are many conservatives in this country who think the way Ron Paul does. I don't see anything wrong with it. There are those who have their eye on the constitution and our pocketbooks over recent Republican ideology, and those who believe ideology is the end-all-be-all of politics. You don't see me shouting down or ridiculing people who have those viewpoints, minus my jab at your tone above, do you? Some of the other interventionists even make good points and arguments for the interventionist ideology. You might try that approach as I'm sure you'll get much more out of this board that way. If you are looking for an echo chamber, this probably isn't the place.



Yeah well the people we helped there might actually disagree with you.

I'm sure the people who received the "free" help would disagree with me, I'd expect them to. As one of the taxpayers mortgaging this countries' future for the privilege of helping these people, I think my opinion is rated a bit higher than theirs.



And this Doggie hasn't met a Marine yet that had the same attitude you seem to have about the worthiness of our mission there.

Guess it was kinda lonely at the chow hall for you some days huh?


I guess you haven't met too many Marines then. Many of my fellow Marines thought and still think Iraq wasn't the best use of the U.S. Military and taxpayers dime. That doesn't mean we didn't do the job 110% for the duration, it just means we thought our skills would be better applied fighting the Taliban, the Iranians or in North Korea.




Thank God the vast majority of us serving don't have the craptastic view on this that you do.


It's awesome how you know me so well in such a sort time period, that you can articulate exactly what my view is. Unfortunately, you know next to nothing about me, and even less about my conclusions and viewpoints. As I'm sure you'll learn as you continue to participate on this board, I tend to use logic, facts, and citations to make arguments, not rhetoric and shouting. Though the previous statement is inversely relative to the amount of bourbon I have consumed if it's a Friday night. So if my viewpoint is sometimes craptastic, then it's probably because applying the logic to the facts resulted in a craptastic outcome.



Churchill spied on all of his allies in WW II. Should we have not gotten into that war because one of our allies was working against us for his own benefit?

According to your thinking the answer is yes.


We got into WW II because Japan and Germany declared war on us! We didn't get into that war because it was popular with the American people, or because we felt sorry for Europe. On Dec 6th 1941 popular support for entering yet another war in Europe was minuscule despite Roosevelt's pro-war White House. On Dec 8th 1941, the whole of the country was chomping at the bit to get into that fight. To be honest, I really don't know what point you were trying to prove by bringing this up.

If the U.S. really wanted to spend the money and blood to go after state supported terrorism, Iraq was small potatoes compared to Saudi Arabia and Iran. That's common knowledge and hardly disputable. So tell me, why do these two states still exist while Iraq as it was known does not? At least the elimination of Iran for instance would have been better ROI . Not to mention, if we eventually plan on confronting Saudi Arabia or Iran, invading Iraq was the dumbest play ever. You go after the heavy hitters when your veteran military is fresh and strong, and the civilian population is hopeful and not war and debt weary. It just makes strategic sense to go after the bigger fish first.



Lets hope that people that think things WE do are "barbaric' don't decide to treat us in the manner you want us to treat the rest of the world.

I don't think you understand correctly. I don't want to "treat" the rest of the world in any particular fashion. I want to buy things from them, sell things to them, and leave each nation to decide for itself how they are going to treat themselves, so long as that treatment doesn't spill over into this country. If they allow themselves to be ruled by some king who thinks Sharia is law and all women should wear a tent, that's a whole lot of their problem, and very little of mine.

PoliCon
12-08-2010, 01:34 PM
Someone actually gets it.



I think that post clearly lays out in simple terms how.

I see no evidence offered in his post to justify his claim. You got evidence?

PoliCon
12-08-2010, 01:35 PM
We don't have soldiers in Saudi Arabia anymore. that's why we built big new bases in Qatar and upgraded our facilities in Kuwait.



And just turn our back on agreements...treaties etc that we've made with them? YOu'd be throwing a tantrum if some counry decided to do that to us.



Considering I've been in Iraq and am currently deployed in Afghanistan. Let me tell you that from a truly informed standpoint...you're full of shit.

With that line of thinking you sound exactly like a Libtard.

someone who actually gets it.

Molon Labe
12-08-2010, 02:10 PM
I see no evidence offered in his post to justify his claim. You got evidence?

Of course I have...There's a wealth of evidence....

..... But since it's not from the MSM lik FAUX and MSNBC, you don't want it if I remember correctly. Pointless to post links that you have to post other links to "validate" the claims.

There's a boat load of evidence the Saudi royal family is sympathetic to terrrorism against the West and plays both sides. There's a wealth of evidence the Pakistani's are using US forieign welfare to kill Ameican troops.
I think the recent leaks highlighted quite a lot of evidence of how "great" the Saudi government is...but then you see reading those revelations about our soldiers being put in harms way as "espionage".
The internet is a great tool for someone who'll use it with a critical stance to what our federal government tells us.

You think Saudi Royal family and the Pakistani's are our "buddies". I stopped buying that garbage after voting for George Bush a second time and when I stopped ignoring my bullshit detector and I started learning about how these governments work in tandem to keep us off balance in the Middle east. But people believe what they wish to believe.

I don't understand the cognitive dissonance that allows someone to BE conservative on the one hand (which traditionally meant being skeptical of the federal government and power structures that work in tandem with it) but allows that critical stance about small government, and no welfare to go out the window when dealing with foreign nations. Because that same federal power structure you're supposed to be wary of is complicit with the liberal big media and feeds you a daily line of garbage that, I guess, fits your world view.:confused:

PoliCon
12-08-2010, 02:21 PM
There are many conservatives in this country who think the way Ron Paul does. it's easy to agree with Paul on most everything - except his international policy which would be an absolute disaster. The world is way too small in these modern times to revert to backwards hide behind our national borders isolationism. It would a a disaster for our economy and for our national security.

PoliCon
12-08-2010, 02:42 PM
Of course I have...There's a wealth of evidence.... Real evidence or conspiracy theory website evidence? If it's real evidence real news and other RELIABLE outlets would pick it up. If the only one giving you evidence is World Nut Daily then you really don't have evidence at all.


..... But since it's not from the MSM lik FAUX and MSNBC, you don't want it if I remember correctly. Pointless to post links that you have to post other links to "validate" the claims. I'm not interested in conspiracy theory sites no. I was evidence not fantasy.


There's a boat load of evidence the Saudi royal family is sympathetic to terrrorism against the West and plays both sides. This is an INCORRECT statement. There is evidence that MEMBERS of the royal family - remember that these people like having multiple wives and breed like it's going out of style so we're not talking about a family of 10 or 12 but of HUNDREDS - are sympathetic to the terrorists because they see it as their way to power which is a far cry different from the royal family being sympathetic.



There's a wealth of evidence the Pakistani's are using US forieign welfare to kill Ameican troops. Again you make generalizations and paint with too broad a brush. It is not Pakistan but elements in Pakistan. So would you have us go in and overthrow that government as well? I thought you wanted less intervention not more?



I think the recent leaks highlighted quite a lot of evidence of how "great" the Saudi government is...but then you see reading those revelations about our soldiers being put in harms way as "espionage".
The internet is a great tool for someone who'll use it with a critical stance to what our federal government tells us. So you're in bed with the left in claiming that the US is a monstrous empire? That we need to be cut down to size is that it?

Have you never been involved with any organization beyond being a low level member? You cannot run with these kinds of communications because people speak differently in private correspondence than they do when they are writing formal correspondence. The problems with most of these documents is that they are not presented in context. We don't know anything about the other communications that went along with these cables - all wikileaks has published - or at least all that is being discussed are the sensational ones. Sorry - but as an historian I'm not interested in what they say except in context.


You think Saudi Royal family and the Pakistani's are our "buddies". I stopped buying that garbage after voting for George Bush a second time and when I stopped ignoring my bullshit detector and I started learning about how these governments work in tandem to keep us off balance in the Middle east. But people believe what they wish to believe. International relations are a wickedly complex maze of ins and outs and things are almost never as they appear. My bet is that you you "stopped buying that garbage" when you discovered the various conspiracy theory sites and started reading them and because you want to believe them to be true - you do. But that's fine. It's your right to do that.


I don't understand the cognitive dissonance that allows someone to BE conservative on the one hand (which traditionally meant being skeptical of the federal government and power structures that work in tandem with it) but allows that critical stance about small government, and no welfare to go out the window when dealing with foreign nations. Because that same federal power structure you're supposed to be wary of is complicit with the liberal big media and feeds you a daily line of garbage that, I guess, fits your world view.:confused: I believe that the federal government should be limited to what the constitution allows for - which means that national security, national defense, international relations, protecting American interests abroad, etc. The domestic issues that the federal government is meddling in are the purview of the state and local government not the federal. That being said I KNOW that is in our interest to have a politically divided and stable middle east. It is in our interest to hold communism at bay. It is in our interest to prevent another global war. It is NOT in our interest to retreat behind our own boarders and let the rest of the world go to hell.

malloc
12-08-2010, 02:49 PM
it's easy to agree with Paul on most everything - except his international policy which would be an absolute disaster. The world is way too small in these modern times to revert to backwards hide behind our national borders isolationism. It would a a disaster for our economy and for our national security.

I never pretended to agree with Paul's foreign policy wholesale. However, there's a lot of ground between staying indoors for fear of mud puddles, and jumping into every one you see just to get your feet wet and trousers dirty. I fear we've been doing too much of the later and our enormous deficits and inversely proportional defense budgets are testament to that fact.

BTW, I wouldn't the use of the word "isolationism". If you are talking about Paul he is all for engaging in international discourse and trade, especially trade, which precludes both the definition and historical connotations of isolationism from applying. (Us "Paul-Bots" will get you with this one every time. :D)

PoliCon
12-08-2010, 02:59 PM
I never pretended to agree with Paul's foreign policy wholesale. However, there's a lot of ground between staying indoors for fear of mud puddles, and jumping into every one you see just to get your feet wet and trousers dirty. I fear we've been doing too much of the later and our enormous deficits and inversely proportional defense budgets are testament to that fact.

BTW, I wouldn't the use of the word "isolationism". If you are talking about Paul he is all for engaging in international discourse and trade, especially trade, which precludes both the definition and historical connotations of isolationism from applying. (Us "Paul-Bots" will get you with this one every time. :D)

And what kind of trade do you think you're going to get if the world is destabilized by war - war would could have prevented by having a strong military presence in the world? How long do you think the rich fat plumb that is South Korea would stand free if we pulled out? And what damage would be done to our economy without their products, trade, investment? I agree that there are conflicts we can and should stay out of - such as Bosnia and most of Africa - but we did what was right in Iraq. We're doing what is right in Afghanistan. Defending South Korea is right.

Molon Labe
12-08-2010, 03:54 PM
it's easy to agree with Paul on most everything - except his international policy which would be an absolute disaster. The world is way too small in these modern times to revert to backwards hide behind our national borders isolationism. It would a a disaster for our economy and for our national security.

I agree that the total concept of this is hard for some to swallow. It still is for me a bit. But the fallacy is qualifying non interventionism as isolationsim.......if that's the way people wish to have it, that they are one in the same, there is no point in discussing it. They are two totally different concepts. That's the same type of meme Obama apologists use when trying to criticize his poliicies and then label it racism.


Real evidence or conspiracy theory website evidence? If it's real evidence real news and other RELIABLE outlets would pick it up. If the only one giving you evidence is World Nut Daily then you really don't have evidence at all.
I'm not interested in conspiracy theory sites no. I was evidence not fantasy.

Another great example of how you tend to have bought into the lie that if it's not covered by big media or reported by the masses in the mainstream that it's somehow untrue.

I remember the thread where you thought posting a story that is WORD 4 WORD the same from your website over the same article on World Net daily makes it somehow more true. lol!
It didn't matter to me because it WAS true..regardless.

For example: Did you know that Mastercard was completely shut down by hackers today for at least 8 hours and I think it still is. It wasn't reported on the mainstream only on some small independants sites. Must be untrue huh? Go try to use your Mastercard Poli.



I guess reliabiltiy is in the eye of the beholder. You think it's big media...and I think it's more independant media who still have a critical stance of power structures.


Again you make generalizations and paint with too broad a brush. It is not Pakistan but elements in Pakistan. So would you have us go in and overthrow that government as well? I thought you wanted less intervention not more?

Who said more intervention was the answer to that little dilemma? That's a strawman....no need to go there.


So you're in bed with the left in claiming that the US is a monstrous empire? That we need to be cut down to size is that it?


Yes...I'm an evil liberal who only believes in the tenets of "less government" so I can defeat the "empire" on all levels and thinks you should ignore what great conservatives have said...Mmwahahahahahaha


In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believed the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today. - Ronald Reagan on Beirut and the fallacy of intervention in Lebanon


People do not make wars; governments do. - Ronald Reagan


Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing. ~Dwight D. Eisenhower


If we don’t stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, we’re going to have a serious problem coming down the road. ~George W. Bush


I don't want to be the worlds policeman - George W. Bush


oooh those evil "isolationist" conservatives. :p



My bet is that you you "stopped buying that garbage" when you discovered the various conspiracy theory sites and started reading them and because you want to believe them to be true - you do. But that's fine. It's your right to do that.

Let me see if I get this straight. If I don't believe in Fox or CNN or the Wall street journal is on the up and up in reporting the whole story then I am an.......... A. A liberal.. B. A conspiracy nut.

Have I got your MO correct?

No I don't buy into Alex Jones. Sorry.....

Let's just say that I understand the concept of Instituional Analysis. You should try it sometime.
Which means that if you study power structures you see that over time they behave a certain way that is documented and common knowledge......the bigger they are the more corrupt the tend to get. No conspiracy of all.

If you want to believe that's a conspiracy...go ahead.



I believe that the federal government should be limited to what the constitution allows for - which means that national security, national defense, international relations, protecting American interests abroad, etc. The domestic issues that the federal government is meddling in are the purview of the state and local government not the federal. That being said I KNOW that is in our interest to have a politically divided and stable middle east. It is in our interest to hold communism at bay. It is in our interest to prevent another global war. It is NOT in our interest to retreat behind our own boarders and let the rest of the world go to hell.

As others have more eloquently put it, the world hasn't been made much better since Clinton began the excessive intervention abroad to what we currently have today. You and I are reading two entirely different constitutions then because it's small government in ALL areas.


You throw around the strawman of conspiracy alot in a debate. Which brings up an interesting fact about institutional analysis.

Funny the logic at how people think you're into conspiracy if you believe there is the possibility that people in power may have the capacity to actually murder others for billions and trillions of dollars....but there's nothign crazy about being capable of believing you can be murdered for that $50 bucks in your wallet in a parking lot or for a 100K life insurance policy.

malloc
12-08-2010, 03:58 PM
And what kind of trade do you think you're going to get if the world is destabilized by war - war would could have prevented by having a strong military presence in the world?


How was international trade conducted before the U.S. had 800 military bases in 104 countries? It still happened. International trade isn't something new. It's been happening without a global stabilizing force for many centuries. That being said, it's not like I'm against global stability or a global stabilizing force in the super power & nuclear ages. However having the U.S. as the only visible profile in global stabilization creates excessive costs, and excessive blow back. When you are the world's police man, every success is simply expected of you, and every failure lands squarely on your shoulders. It's starting to take a toll on national morale, national cohesion, and most importantly, the economy.



How long do you think the rich fat plumb that is South Korea would stand free if we pulled out? And what damage would be done to our economy without their products, trade, investment?


South Korea isn't the 1950's third world military it was. South Korea could best the North Korean starving "Army" on the ground any day. South Korea forces are highly trained (by us), and very well equipped (from us). I believe China will be very reluctant to get into it, as the Chinese know that intervention opens a can of worms a quickly developing nation can ill afford if it wants to retain it's "developing" status. If they intervene they may stop buying our debt, but the U.S. and it's allies will stop buying China's products, and would effectively force them into an involuntary isolationist state*. As I've said before, I'm not opposed to the idea of using U.S. Naval forces to help the South Koreans gain air and sea supremacy, but anything more might be seen to the Chinese and Pacific Region as American aggression. Sea and air operations can be justified as ensuring trade routes as a matter of our national interests. With air and sea supremacy, Korea would be re-united under South Korean terms.



but we did what was right in Iraq.

I think history will judge this differently, but I could be wrong. I'm sure, the U.S. can pull a "win" out of this, but this "win" is much more costly since we've opted to build Iraq as we see fit, instead of removing the problem regime, and letting the Ba'ath party recover knowing the same could happen to them at any time.



We're doing what is right in Afghanistan.


So long as our targeted enemy, the Taliban is there, we should be there killing him. However, as they flee to Pakistan, should we invade Pakistan to get at them since the Pakastani's seem to have a problem policing their own? What if they flee to Yemen? Oh wait...

The basic premise is just, but when does it end? Does it end when we've run across half the globe, bankrupted ourselves, and have another World War on our hands? Unfortunately the Taliban and their allies aren't interested in meeting us in the field, so while our heart is in the right place in our desire to utterly destroy this filth, our head may not be in the right place. I think some new tactics and a new direction might be in order. Something to bait them back into the open. Those are the kinds of ideas that will win this war, not whining and mulling over troop levels and withdraw dates.



Defending South Korea is right.


Considering the mutual benefit our economies provide to each other, I'm inclined to agree with this, but as I stated earlier, we should use the approach of least possible involvement and let South Korea [mostly] defend itself if attacked.



*As an aside to those who fear the Chinese dumping the dollar; Consider the Chinese are manipulating their Yuan to keep it less valuable than the U.S. dollar precisely because that makes Chinese imports more desirable than American imports in terms of cost. If the Chinese were to dump their dollar reserves, global competitors could snatch up U.S. goods at a fraction of the cost of Chinese goods leading to the Chinese exporting nothing for a good long while. Also, before anyone jumps on the "U.S. doesn't manufacture anything anymore" bandwagon, they should probably compare exports. The U.S. exports $1.8 Trillion/year to China's $1.4 Trillion/yr based on 2008 figures & U.S. $1.05T Vs. China $1.1T for 2009 (recessions a bitch). We simply import a lot more from China than we export to them, but we export to a lot more countries and are globally competitive. I'm not saying it's impossible to hurt the U.S. economy with such a move, I'm just saying it's not as easy as the Chinese liquidating their dollars.

Molon Labe
12-08-2010, 03:58 PM
I never pretended to agree with Paul's foreign policy wholesale. However, there's a lot of ground between staying indoors for fear of mud puddles, and jumping into every one you see just to get your feet wet and trousers dirty. I fear we've been doing too much of the later and our enormous deficits and inversely proportional defense budgets are testament to that fact.

BTW, I wouldn't the use of the word "isolationism". If you are talking about Paul he is all for engaging in international discourse and trade, especially trade, which precludes both the definition and historical connotations of isolationism from applying. (Us "Paul-Bots" will get you with this one every time. :D)

Excellent expression of what Isolationism is not. North Korea reprensents the closest to that there is to isolationism. I do not wish to be a North Korea.

PoliCon
12-08-2010, 10:31 PM
I agree that the total concept of this is hard for some to swallow. It still is for me a bit. But the fallacy is qualifying non interventionism as isolationsim.......if that's the way people wish to have it, that they are one in the same, there is no point in discussing it. They are two totally different concepts. That's the same type of meme Obama apologists use when trying to criticize his poliicies and then label it racism.


Then make your case for what is non-intervention without it being isolationism. I do not see any way to have one without the other.




Another great example of how you tend to have bought into the lie that if it's not covered by big media or reported by the masses in the mainstream that it's somehow untrue. Not at all. What I am saying is that if you cannot trust the site - you cannot trust the information offered on the site.


I remember the thread where you thought posting a story that is WORD 4 WORD the same from your website over the same article on World Net daily makes it somehow more true. lol!
It didn't matter to me because it WAS true..regardless. Because WND has made up so much bullshit that I don't trust a damn thing I read on that site until it's been verified somewhere else. WND could tell me the sky was blue and I'd want it verified by another source.


For example: Did you know that Mastercard was completely shut down by hackers today for at least 8 hours and I think it still is. It wasn't reported on the mainstream only on some small independants sites. Must be untrue huh? Go try to use your Mastercard Poli.I have never said that reliability is in the size of the source.




I guess reliabiltiy is in the eye of the beholder. You think it's big media...and I think it's more independant media who still have a critical stance of power structures. I trust what is verified and confirmed -which is what the 'big media' does and I also trust the 'independent media' when they have proven themselves trust worthy. The truth is not established by the testimony of one - but by 2 or more agreeing witnesses or through primary source material - which is not something that really can exist online. The nature of online evidence is that digital documents are easily faked or manipulated.




Who said more intervention was the answer to that little dilemma? That's a strawman....no need to go there.Seemed to me that you were calling for something to be done about Pakistan so . . .





Yes...I'm an evil liberal who only believes in the tenets of "less government" so I can defeat the "empire" on all levels and thinks you should ignore what great conservatives have said...Mmwahahahahahaha


oooh those evil "isolationist" conservatives. :p
a fine bunch of quotes - not all of the applicable or even accurate. Reagan was wrong when he said "People do not make wars; governments do." True governments are one of the chief makers of wars - but political and ideological groups can also make war. For example - the IRA and Al Queda. Hammas and Hezbollah are really just front organizations for governments but that is not the case of for the IRA or Al Queda.


The Ike quote is irrelevant. And Bush was always as much a moderate as a conservative so . . . . But he's right about nation building - and he clearly realized why we are and must be the world police force.




Let me see if I get this straight. If I don't believe in Fox or CNN or the Wall street journal is on the up and up in reporting the whole story then I am an.......... A. A liberal.. B. A conspiracy nut. Not at all. When you believe things that have not been confirmed to be gospel truth - you're treading in the territory of the conspiracy nut.


Have I got your MO correct? MO? My MO is finding truth.


No I don't buy into Alex Jones. Sorry.....Well that's good to know. Others here have used him as a source so . . . .


Let's just say that I understand the concept of Instituional Analysis. You should try it sometime.
Which means that if you study power structures you see that over time they behave a certain way that is documented and common knowledge......the bigger they are the more corrupt the tend to get. No conspiracy of all.

If you want to believe that's a conspiracy...go ahead.You're assuming that that has to always be the case and that's a poor assumption.





As others have more eloquently put it, the world hasn't been made much better since Clinton began the excessive intervention abroad to what we currently have today. You and I are reading two entirely different constitutions then because it's small government in ALL areas. Clinton intervened because he wanted to look good or because he felt it would buy him domestic political points. Is it your assertion that Iraq or Afghanistan was for similar reasons?



You throw around the strawman of conspiracy alot in a debate. Which brings up an interesting fact about institutional analysis. When dealing with Paulbots - conspiracy is a pretty common factor.


Funny the logic at how people think you're into conspiracy if you believe there is the possibility that people in power may have the capacity to actually murder others for billions and trillions of dollars....but there's nothign crazy about being capable of believing you can be murdered for that $50 bucks in your wallet in a parking lot or for a 100K life insurance policy. Sorry but I'm not nearly that jaded.

PoliCon
12-08-2010, 10:56 PM
How was international trade conducted before the U.S. had 800 military bases in 104 countries? It still happened. International trade isn't something new. It's been happening without a global stabilizing force for many centuries. That being said, it's not like I'm against global stability or a global stabilizing force in the super power & nuclear ages. However having the U.S. as the only visible profile in global stabilization creates excessive costs, and excessive blow back. When you are the world's police man, every success is simply expected of you, and every failure lands squarely on your shoulders. It's starting to take a toll on national morale, national cohesion, and most importantly, the economy.
Intermittently and with a great deal of trouble and overhead expenses. Historically prosperity comes with the order provided by a strong and strategically placed military. Rome did not protect herself my placing all her armies in Italy - she defended herself for thousands of years by keeping forces on the frontier and in strategically placed locations where they could quickly intervene in any trouble. Hell - the ONLY reason why Rome even bothered with middle east was because the bickering there upset trade. The prosperity we have is in large part because of the stability brought by our military presence in the world.




South Korea isn't the 1950's third world military it was. South Korea could best the North Korean starving "Army" on the ground any day. South Korea forces are highly trained (by us), and very well equipped (from us). I believe China will be very reluctant to get into it, as the Chinese know that intervention opens a can of worms a quickly developing nation can ill afford if it wants to retain it's "developing" status. If they intervene they may stop buying our debt, but the U.S. and it's allies will stop buying China's products, and would effectively force them into an involuntary isolationist state*. As I've said before, I'm not opposed to the idea of using U.S. Naval forces to help the South Koreans gain air and sea supremacy, but anything more might be seen to the Chinese and Pacific Region as American aggression. Sea and air operations can be justified as ensuring trade routes as a matter of our national interests. With air and sea supremacy, Korea would be re-united under South Korean terms. I agree with you in part. But boots on the ground are a much greater deterrent than planes in the air. AND when it comes to china - you cannot forget that they do not think the same way we do - and they have different motivations - honour is much more important to them than economics. I have no doubt that they would cut off their nose to spite their face for the sake of honour. Half the point for china in this recent economic drive has been to get foreign investment to build infrastructure for them so that they would be able to be self sufficient should the need for economic isolationism arise.




I think history will judge this differently, but I could be wrong. I'm sure, the U.S. can pull a "win" out of this, but this "win" is much more costly since we've opted to build Iraq as we see fit, instead of removing the problem regime, and letting the Ba'ath party recover knowing the same could happen to them at any time. Perhaps you're right - but the problem is that the Ba'ath party is fascist and radical with dreams of empire. So was it really wrong to outlaw them? Personally I think the mistake was totally dismantling the existing power structure. They could have kept the low level Ba'athists in place and still outlawed the party.




So long as our targeted enemy, the Taliban is there, we should be there killing him. However, as they flee to Pakistan, should we invade Pakistan to get at them since the Pakastani's seem to have a problem policing their own? What if they flee to Yemen? Oh wait... Invading Pakistan would create a cascading destabilization of the whole region and that's why we're avoiding it. Plus as is generally the case - in the next election, things will change.


The basic premise is just, but when does it end? Does it end when we've run across half the globe, bankrupted ourselves, and have another World War on our hands? Unfortunately the Taliban and their allies aren't interested in meeting us in the field, so while our heart is in the right place in our desire to utterly destroy this filth, our head may not be in the right place. I think some new tactics and a new direction might be in order. Something to bait them back into the open. Those are the kinds of ideas that will win this war, not whining and mulling over troop levels and withdraw dates. I agree. We cannot fight them the same way we've fought armies in the past. We need to take lessons from our own war for independence.




Considering the mutual benefit our economies provide to each other, I'm inclined to agree with this, but as I stated earlier, we should use the approach of least possible involvement and let South Korea [mostly] defend itself if attacked.
As I have said - you trust China much more than I do.

malloc
12-09-2010, 05:05 AM
Intermittently and with a great deal of trouble and overhead expenses. Historically prosperity comes with the order provided by a strong and strategically placed military.

Turn your eyes from Rome and the ancient world for a minute and look at 16th century to 19th century pre-industrialization trade. Britain, France and Spain, basically individual members of the "West", including eventually the Americas took their turn on checking the power of the others. There wasn't really a dominant world power except individual members of, or conglomerates of Western Ideology. During this time period, despite the wars and bickering, trade flourished. From the Caribbean, to the North East U.S. From Eastern Seaboard cotton to Bristol Tea. From Spain and Portugal to the Cape of Good Hope and South America, trade was alive, profitable and improving the human condition by specializing the division of labor. With the slave trade and westward expansionist movements, this era may not have been the crowning achievement of Western Ideology, but it laid the footings for the Magna Carta, which gave way to the Declaration of Independence, and eventually the U.S. Constitution, quite possibly the epitome of the ideal of self ownership. These revelations, probably the finest advancements in all of human kind, were accomplished without the presence of a omnipotent, world policeman at the helm.



Rome did not protect herself my placing all her armies in Italy - she defended herself for thousands of years by keeping forces on the frontier and in strategically placed locations where they could quickly intervene in any trouble. Hell - the ONLY reason why Rome even bothered with middle east was because the bickering there upset trade. The prosperity we have is in large part because of the stability brought by our military presence in the world.


I don't know what kind of kid-glove PC family friendly history books you have been reading, but the Roman conquest of the Mediterranean-rim, including most of the Middle East and North Africa is well documented and not founded in "friendliness" at all. If you want to study this era, outside the scope of the Bible, which I'm not begrudging you, then you should look into studying the grain trade from Egypt, the expansionist necessity of the Roman Economy, and the riches in both material and slaves the Middle East brought to Rome. The real brass tacks of Roman policy and politics is much more unfriendly than Romanticized versions of the history would have you believe. Furthermore, before you see the words Egypt or Syria in a text, please look at the regions these nations controlled. Egypt extended from southern Syria, to Nubia, to Cyrene under Ptolemy I.




I agree with you in part. But boots on the ground are a much greater deterrent than planes in the air. AND when it comes to china - you cannot forget that they do not think the same way we do - and they have different motivations - honour is much more important to them than economics. I have no doubt that they would cut off their nose to spite their face for the sake of honour. Half the point for china in this recent economic drive has been to get foreign investment to build infrastructure for them so that they would be able to be self sufficient should the need for economic isolationism arise.


Perhaps in 1940, or 1950 you would be right with your boots on the ground statement. You are forgetting though, that we face an enemy adept at evading boots on the ground, and very adept at hiding behind political boundaries. Just like Britain was able to overcome submission from the skies, our enemies are learning how to avoid, deflect, and capitalize upon our boots on the ground. Do you think for a second that Taliban and Al-Qaeda leaders didn't study the Vietcong, or how to spin the plight of the "Communist Vietnamese" as a victim? Do you think they didn't improve upon this ideal? The NVA and Vietcong defeated America via removing the American will to fight, not the means. American forces bested the NVA and Vietcong at every strategic turn, yet we still gave up the fight first. You might think that is a problem with the American psyche, but when greater than 100 million people fall into that belief that is not a problem with the psyche, that is a successful tactic which must be countered.

As for your other comment about the Chinese and honor, the Chinese are capitalizing while the rest of Europe falls into socialism. Allowing private ownership of an enterprise so long as it serves a state purpose is a step toward fascism for the Chinese, but it is also a step towards individualism. I don't trust China, as an economist, I trust the Chinese to act within their newly granted purview of self interest.




Perhaps you're right - but the problem is that the Ba'ath party is fascist and radical with dreams of empire. So was it really wrong to outlaw them? Personally I think the mistake was totally dismantling the existing power structure. They could have kept the low level Ba'athists in place and still outlawed the party.


Finally some neutral perspective. By eliminating the power structure of the Ba'ath party, the U.S. effectively brought anarchy, for quite some time, to Iraq. I remember many nights filled with SALUTE reports from our LP/OP's, not of enemy on friendly engagement, but of freelance engagement without any rhyme, reason or anyway to sort friend from foe. This anarchy was advertised to every player interested in fighting Americans in Iraq. If we had removed Saddam and his family, and turned the country to the Ba'ath party we could have removed any threat from Saddam, while maintaining the status quo, and thus order in Iraq. The U.S. let ideology get ahead of diplomacy and national self interest, and that was a mistake.




Invading Pakistan would create a cascading destabilization of the whole region and that's why we're avoiding it. Plus as is generally the case - in the next election, things will change.
I agree. We cannot fight them the same way we've fought armies in the past. We need to take lessons from our own war for independence.

We need a new way of fighting these parasites.



As I have said - you trust China much more than I do.

I don't trust China, as I have said. I trust the more and more capitalistic Chinese to follow their self interest, and finally realize the benefits of individualism. I think this will happen if the Chinese continue their monetary policy which positively affects their export numbers, but negatively affects the standard of living for the Chinese laborer. In the next 10 to 20 years, we will see a U.S. post WWII industrialization effect take place among the Chinese. I think by 2020 the Chinese will be more capitalistic American than America. The Chinese aren't working their butts off for nothing and despite the great firewall, they are starting to figure it out. Personally, I wish them the best of luck.

Molon Labe
12-09-2010, 08:05 AM
Then make your case for what is non-intervention without it being isolationism. I do not see any way to have one without the other.

*snip*.

I'm sorry you don't understand them. I've provided links about this for those who wish to understand it. I can't make you read them.

You're the one making the accusation that non intervention is inferior. You're the one laying the ad hominems, and platitudes about it.

What I'm basically saying in that long rant above is that see if you can get out of the cellar of the heirarchy of disagreement and make your case instead of schlepping out the "conspiracy" tripe, the meme about "isolationsim" and the ever popular refute of................"nuh uh"

Malloc shows you how to do this above.

http://scienceblogs.com/ethicsandscience/upload/2009/08/Disagreement-hierarchy.jpg