Saudi prince tries to bring terrorist to Crawford

[cowtown]

While Mr. Bush has continued since late 2001 to downplay Saudi involvement in 9/11, his close Saudi buddy, the prince, tried to bring a suspected terrorist to the Crawford, Texas ranch for his meeting with the president.

While the FBI stopped the guy, I cant help but wonder why Mr. Bush continues kissing the buttocks of a government who funds terrorists.....

[ftp]http://us-politics.news.designerz.com/us-turns-away-saudi-delegation-member-officials.html[/ftp]

[Patriot]

6 Errors Common to Political Misperception:

A Journey into the World of Theory with your host, Patriot of Rant Web.



1. Assuming an overt act connotes an overt intention.

• The murder of Archduke Ferdinand by the Serbian mafia, Black Hand, led Austria to believe in 1914 that Serbia meant to declare war, when in fact, it had been Serbia's intention to avoid further strife by taking out the henchman of imperialistic policies.

2. Assuming a covert act connotes an overt intention.

• The assasination of Lincoln by John Wilkes Booth was initially thought to be cause for a defeated South to rise again. It wasn't.

3. Assuming an overt act connotes a covert intention.

• Clinton's humanitarian interventions in Rwanda and Kosovo were thought by some to have been intentional decoys to draw attention away from domestic shortcomings as per Waco and Ruby Ridge. They weren't.

4. Assuming all variables are visible.

• The French and Indian War (1757) was thought to have been a secure gamble for the French on the basis of unshakable Indian alliances. But the hidden variable of British bribes pulled the alliances apart and France was defeated.

5. Assuming all constants are hidden.

• The Vichy government of fallen France, which capitulated with the Nazis, failed to follow Charles deGalle's advice on initial war-planning tactics because they believed the German strength could not be accounted for. Had they done otherwise, France may not have fallen.

6. Assuming all constants are visible.

• Hitler's confidence in the expansion of the Third Reich led him to attempt a massive invasion of Russia. Thinking he would be successful because smaller European nations had fallen quickly, he was stunned to be decimated by Russian General Giorgi Zhukov at Leningrad.

The starter of this thread has committed Error #1, Error #4, and Error #6.


We maintain good relations with Saudi Arabia for the following reasons:


A) It is one of America's major oil suppliers.

B) It sits in a strategic location.

C) It is in the process of becoming westernized.


The Muslim world is predominately and adamantly anti-western. To win a friend in that region is an accomplishment indeed. Thus, it behooves us to build bridges and not burn the ones we've already built.

[cowtown]

It's an odd position today's neo-conned Republicans find themselves in. Having to defend the Saudi government on internet discussion boards and all...

[Patriot]

Cowtown:

That's a rather shortsighted view. I'm certainly not defending the Saudi government per se. Just between you and me, the entire region stinks-- both of attitude and petrol.

The real issue is quite simple: how can we best maintain our global American grip. Believe it or not, we have a better handle on the world with Saudi Arabia as an ally.

1. We have more oil resources (which slows the need for development of our own digging sites in forested and glacial areas of the US); thus better preserving our own environment.

2. We have established a neutral buffer zone in a region that is rife with violence, allowing us a key entry point in time of war.

3. Saudi Arabia, for all its shortcomings, is becoming more and more reliant on the west. They need us as much as we need them. It's the concept of supply and demand. We buy what they have to sell. The upper echelon of Saudi leadership wouldn't purposely risk the loss of a major customer. That would be bad for business.