WikiLeaks cables portray Saudi Arabia as a cash machine for terrorists

[Molon Labe]

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.

[PoliCon]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.