Ok, let's look at this idea - Saudi Arabia, primarily Sunni, moving in with a major military force to "protect" the Sunni areas of Iraq.....hmmm....The reaction of the Shiites - gosh, darn golly by goodness, I wonder what they would say?

I suspect that you would guarantee a vicious and extensive pre-emptive civil war between Shiite and Sunnis, effectively pusing out what few moderates haven't ducked out already due to car bombings out of the process. You would push the Shia's into the arms of Iran even more firmly as they would see this as an absolute betrayal by the Americans and iran as their only potential protector.

This is definitely a non-starter and very probably would be a regional disaster.

The last piece of the equation would be that the most radical elements of Al Quaeda have traditionally been Saudi (as is Bin Ladin himself). Given the strong strain of militant Wahabbism in Saudi Arabia - do you really want to encourage that mix?

Brian;

Why don't you write about something you actually have experience with? For example, how about an article on how Denny Hastert dodged the draft to stay out of Vietnam...(?)

Deano,

I understand your concern, but I do not agree with your assertions. First of all, I would have agreed with your assertion that the presence of Saudi forces would provoke an hysterical response from the Shiite majority a year ago, maybe even six months ago. However, I find the prospect of a Shiite dominated military leading the charge into Anbar Province to be a far more dangerous possibility. As I have said here before, the priority should be to end the violent "insurgency" that has tortured innocent Iraqis for the last 2+ years, Shiite and Sunni alike. My question to you is, why not secure the Sunni dominated areas with a world class military, operating under US leadership, that also happens to be comprised of men who share the same religious beliefs? As I stated above, deployment of Saudi forces should be strictly for the purposes of securing and opening dialog with the Iraqi minority, which is already exercising violent means at a scale which would be difficult to escalate.

I think the Saudis were clear in what they asserted, and have been asserting for weeks- if the US is forced to leave and create a vacuum in which the Sunni population faces certain persecution at the hands of Muqtada al-Sadr's militia, the Saudis are going to intervene. It would be the single greatest stain on the foreign policy record of the United States if we were to succumb to petty domestic politicking and allow such a situation to even become conceivable. I know very well that the American public doesn't support the Bush "surge", but I suspect the collective sense of embarrassment that would reverberate throughout the country following such a horrible defeat. If Americans are anything, they are proud.

I am interested to hear what you think.

As for MCH,

Why don't you get off of my case. When you have something intelligent or thoughtful to say please share. But if you are just going to treat me like a stupid, little, spineless kid, please just keep it to yourself. Honestly, you are just ensuring that the otherwise considerate and reflective individuals who comment here will simply disregard you as a crack pot who doesn't even bother to answer responses to your own blather. When you decide to act your age, which I suspect is probably at least double mine, you may muster an actual thought. Why don't you go spout your nonsense about draft dodging to one of the many Clintonista's that I am sure publish here. Please don't post that crap on my articles.

emmy writes:

Brian;

Why don't you write about something you actually have experience with?

Why are you picking on him, emmy?

All you write about is who should go to war...

Take your own advice.

Honestly, you are just ensuring that the otherwise considerate and reflective individuals who comment here will simply disregard you as a crack pot who doesn't even bother to answer responses to your own blather.

You must be new here, Brian. The rest of us already either ignore him or make fun of him.

As for Saudi intervention, it would be met by immediate Iranian intervention and the result would be a war in Iraq worse than what we have now.

On the one hand - the humanitarian hand - that would be a terrible thing. From the point of view of the US and the civilized world, maybe not so bad.

Dave

Cvil war between Shiite and Sunnis... It sounds promising. Just imagine a civil conflic between Shiite and Sunnis grows into a full-scale regional war in the mouslem world. I wonder, what would be the strategy of the US and other western troops in this possible war

Coupla quick points:

======

Saudi intervention would lead to a regional disaster/escalation/potential WWIII.

...Which could be a good thing, relatively speaking; a larger civil war among Islamic factions could have many positive side-effects for the US.

Discuss.

=====

re: Saudi Army --

Pentagon Official: "Man, they've got some great weapons."

Army General: "How do you know?"

Uncle Sam: "I looked at the receipt."

======

B.Edwards: "I do not pretend to be an expert on Middle Eastern politics. But I do think the status quo in the region is unsustainable, and without innovative solutions nothing is going to change."

Wow. Goin' out on the ol' intellectual limb, aren't ya?!

CLARITY-IN-THINKING TIP: This sentence shows you've had way too much Washington Blather influence on your thought processes (as one would suspect from your time spent with Dennis "Super-Size It" Hastert).

Purge brain immediately! Stating the obvious using 'big words' is not necessariily "having an original idea".

Here in Texas, we call it "bullshit".

Edit. You don't get paid by the word.

=====

B.Edwards: "...And certainly the new Democratic majority in the US Congress, with all their talk of "US forces standing down and Iraqi forces standing up."

Um, excuse me, this has been the BUSH Admin. MANTRA for almost three years. Get yer facts straight when you try to implicitly insult the Democrats.

=====

SPEAKING OF WHICH...

B.Edwards: "...But in view of far-left rhetoric about the Saudi government during the 2004 election, I doubt the Democrats are willing to embrace the most controversial US ally, especially with the hype of the 2008 election already heating up."

Should have read: "...I doubt the Democrats are willing to embrace the most controversial US ally, especially since they are the biggest stealth supporter of radical Wahhabis, terrorist training camps aka "madrassas" -- and the home-nation of the 9/11 TERRORIST HIJACKERS."

Thanks in advance -- for fixing the above sentence.

=====

almost forgot:

above bit re. weapons & receipt -- from a routine by the late, great Bill Hicks


(ironically, at the time he said it [pre-Gulf War I], he was talking about a war with Iraq!)

comment #3:

B.Edwards: "...if the US is forced to leave...the Saudis are going to intervene. It would be the single greatest stain on the foreign policy record of the United States if we were to succumb to petty domestic politicking and allow such a situation to even become conceivable."

Wow.

I'm not sure how you get from:

America leaves + SA intervenes = greatest strain on foreign policy

That's quite a leap...

But maybe that wasn't the important aspect: I think you were only trying to set-up your "succumb to petty domsetic politicking" bit, implying that wimpy, anti-war Dems/liberals are "the problem".

You're subtle -- but not subtle enough. And I'm starting to think you're a dick.

======

More crap from #3:

"I know .. the American public doesn't support the Bush "surge", but I suspect the collective sense of embarrassment that would reverberate throughout the country following such a horrible defeat. If Americans are anything, they are proud."

Man, if it were permissable, I'd say, FUCK YOU, BRIAN.

If you don't see how FUCKING HEINOUS this sentence is, you don't have a brain.

This is the kind of talk 'MCH' abhors: protecting some fantasy-collective 'pride' by sending American soldiers to die as political/self-esteem CANNON FODDER.

I'll beat him to the punch: maybe you would like to voluteer to risk your LIFE in order to protect Americans from a sense of "embarrassment"??

The military was originally formed to PROTECT AMERICA, not some abstract like 'pride'.

======

BTW: "Pride" goeth before a fall.

"Why are you picking on him, emmy?"
- Clavvy

Because he's content to stay home and send someone else to fight and die in a war he's promoting.

"Take your own advice."
- Clavvy

Uh, I'm opposed to the invasion/occupation of Iraq, and to anyone who "supports" the war - as long as someone ELSE does the fighting...which is what I write about.

I wonder, what would be the strategy of the US and other western troops in this possible war

One would hope it would be to stay as far the hell away as possible.

Dave

Agreed, Dave: one would indeed hope that the US would have the sense to disavow any involvement & take the opportunity to get the hell out & stay out, but considering W's macho shithead delusions of competence & combat, I doubt it.

MCH, we all know your position, how about saying something different for a change? We will stipulate, as the lawyers say, that all non-vets of serving age have little credibility when pronouncing on war issues.

Alas, Brian & Clavos, if you publish here, you do indeed run the risk of being nittered to death by those who harp on one point, even as I have been guilty of on occasion. It could be worse: MCH COULD carry on a one-party commentary much as does the nutcase over on the Fatima thread-!

"MCH, we all know your position, how about saying something different for a change?"

...ummmmmmmmm,

...ummmmmmmmm,

...Hey Nancy, how 'bout those Bears!!!???

I meant, you could expand your commentary to include, say, lists of those currently in power who do NOT have relatives serving, or expound on the past history of policy failures when wars are waged by those who have zilch experience, (or not, especially if they happen to let the experts run the wars, like Roosevelt), etc.

Something besides the simple statement.

getting back to speculation on the effect of a Saudi intervention in Iraq, it would be entertaining to see all the stinking barbarians at each others' throats. If we were lucky, they'd all kill each other off & then we could move in. If we were smart, we'd seed the entire area - Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Isreal, Palestine, Egypt, etc. - with ebola, Marburg, or pulmonary-form Plague & let nature take its course. It's such a pity that area isn't subject to tsunamis or volcanic activities.

I'm just me, Nancy, sorry. Although I appreciate the advice (and the support, whenever). I work 50-60 hrs a week, besides being involved with several volunteer organizations...don't have time for lengthy debates.

OK. Didn't mean to nag; just figured if they wanted 'more' of you - expound on it. Well, never mind; I can talk enough for 10 people, sometimes.

MCH,

If your a Bears fan then you couldn't be that bad. Sorry for losing my cool, but you could make brief comments on something else once in a while. And to be clear, I am not opposed to serving, and have put significant thought into enrolling in officers school with the Marines. However, to insist that those of us who haven't served yet should by default be opposed to wars generally is just silly.

Shark,

You need to take some valium or something, because you take this stuff too seriously.

"If it were permitted I would say FUCK YOU, BRIAN."

Well, if I could respond, I would probably say F#$% YOU TOO, but since your and editor I probably would get thrown off. So in that case, I will simply suggest that you chill.

To everyone else, I must say, you guys all really hate either Bush or Muslims, and seem to care very little about the future of the Middle East. I have put a great deal of thought into the last two articles and most of you just dismiss me as a kool-aid drinking, Bush/Hastert-loving idiot. I appreciate the few of you who take me seriously and are mature enough not to lose their cool and start swearing and calling me names.

If D'oh is out there anywhere I would like to hear what you have to say.

"However, to insist that those of us who haven't served yet should by default be opposed to wars generally is just silly."
- BEvans

That's not what I'm insisting on.

I'm against anyone who hasn't served promoting sending SOMEONE ELSE into harm's way...or pretending to know what combat is like...or calling anyone opposed to the war a "pinko" or a "commie"...or comparing traffic fatalities to being killed in combat...or comparing Max Cleland to "a gigantic thalidamide baby"...or likening serving in combat to giving a vehicle a tuneup...etc, etc...

And since you're new, all of which pertains to certain BC posters.

MCH is incapable of understanding the basic fact that some people want government to do its job, which may include making war in some cases, and that the choice to support generals and elected officials in determining when to use military force isn't the same as ordering troops into combat yourself. But that's because he's a simpleton.

BTW, MCH. Were you aware that 50% more people died last year from drowning than died in 3 years fighting in Iraq. Let's ban water now and arrest anyone who promots its use.

Dave

MCH,

Since I am relatively new, as you said, I am not aware of these other comments, which I agree with you are stupid. However, as you say yourself, you are "opposed to anyone who hasn't served promoting sending anyone else into harms way", which is exactly what I am talking about. In this country we have a volunteer military, and everyone who joins should understand that they are putting their lives on the line. I am grateful for every single person who has the courage to make such a sacrifice, but I generally assume that if they are sent into harms way, they acknowledge that this was their decision, not somebody else's. If you believe military service should be mandatory, then that is fine, but as long as we have a volunteer military it should be perfectly acceptable for some of us to share our thoughts on how the military is used, as long as they aren't ignorant like the ones you mentioned above. I appreciate your perspective and I hope from here on out we can avoid these types of exchanges. GO BEARS!!!

which is what I write about.

Repeating the same single point endlessly and boringly isn't writing, emmy.

Okay Brian - first the Saudi military is of decidedly uneven quality, despite their high spending. During the first Gulf War when the Iraqi's made their only offensive move of the war, the Saudi troops departed Khafji so rapidly the Marine recon unit in the city didn't even realize they had been essentially abandoned by their allies. Things might have improved in recent years but I would not ever describe them as "fully trained and self-reliant". I would have profound doubts over their ability to manage the situation or to stand up under insurgent pressure.

I agree that yes, the Sunni insurgents might not directly attack the Saudi forces (Al Quaeda would, the Shiites would), but they would almost certainly use the Saudi presence as an opportunity to expand their own political and military positions, re-arming militias and developing their own standing army to oppose the "elected" official government of Iraq. How you can not see a civil war breaking out is beyond me...

The Sunni minority essentially ruled Iraq since colonial times. The current batch were top level Baathists in Saddam's government and used to sitting on the "top of the heap" and bluntly, many of them would be focused on using the Saudi presence as a proxy to climb back into power.

I understand fully why the Saudi's would come in - it has zero to do with protecting the Sunnis and everything to do with blunting the encroaching influence of Iran.

In addition, you really don't want to mess about with the stability of Saudi Arabia. An extra-curricular activity such as occupying part of Iraq might prove to be a catalyst for political instability within Saudi. It is on shaky ground as is - and an Islamic revolution in Saudi Arabia would be a geopolitical disaster - a real one, unlike the manufactured excuses for war that the Bush adminsitration has been steadfastly trotting out in to justify Iraq.

I've noted in recent weeks a tendancy for people to start throwing out weird-ass suggestions that the war be "solved" by turning it over to China, or Saudi Arabia, or the UN....I think the this is very much a desperation ploy. There is no easy, magic solution and no one stupid enough to fall for blandishments to step in and take it over so the US can quietly declare victory (again) and slip out.

There is no easy way out. You need to realize that. It will not be cheap in resources, nor in lives, nor in time. You will be there, in some form or another, for another ten years, even if the Democrats win the next election because it is very easy to proclaim "bring the troops home" when you are not in power and do not have to acknowledge the potential geopolitical fallout.

The reality is that you are now far past the point of a manageable solution. You are to a great extent, strategically boxed in by this misadventure. Willy-nilly abandonment of Iraq will embolden Iran, exacerbate the instability in Saudi Arabia, give Al Quaeda the biggest recruitment tool it could ever hope for (the second biggest being the Iraq war itself), and generally destroy US foreign policy credability (what is left after Bush et al finished with it).

The only real hope for a manageable solution is if you can blunt the active insurgency over the next one to two years and force the Sunnis into recognizing the new political reality of having to work with the Shiites, while simultanously trying to rip out the radical shiite militias that are now infesting the political system....all while building up a (hopefully) democratic governing structure, constitution, and infrastructure.

Can it be done? Doubtful. You might be able to blunt the insurgency somewhat over the next two years -with a concerted effort - by which time economic improvements might start to reduce the insurgency's appeal. Once you have enough Iraqi troops at least reasonably trained you can pull out and reduce troops.

It won't be clean, it won't be easy and it won't be nice.

And it might not work.

Cheery news ain't it?

"BTW, MCH. Were you aware that 50% more people died last year from drowning than died in 3 years fighting in Iraq. Let's ban water now and arrest anyone who promots its use."
- Dave Nalle

Nalle once again proves how far removed from the horrors of actual sacrifice he is (safely inside his fortified compound), by comparing being killed in combat to accidental drownings.

Nalle once again proves how far removed from the horrors of actual sacrifice he is (safely inside his fortified compound), by comparing being killed in combat to accidental drownings.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ...

MCH, did I mention that the rate of unplanned prengancies among enlisted women is 42% higher in Iraq than it is among those not deployed in Iraq, and 83% higher than the general population of the same age? So our soldiers in Iraq are MAKING lives, not losing them. Isn't that reassuring?

Dave

Oh, and just to add to that earlier statistic, the number of children born to military personnel deployed in Iraq exceeds the number born to an equivalent number of people in the general population by so much that deploying soldiers to Iraq is actually responsible for more than twice as many additional births as there have been deaths in the war.

Dave

re: Nalle's statistics:

...and with the Average American Family having 2.3 children -- and with 3024 DEAD AMERICANS as of this morning --

that means BUSH & CO. have created SIX-THOUSAND, NINE-HUNDRED and FIFTY FIVE (6,955) AMERICAN ORPHANS.

====

in other words, Dave, STOP. PLEASE STOP. For the love of gawd, STOP.

====

Clavos, re. your constant "zzzzzz"

Shark sez "zzzzzzz"

ie. If you don't like it, don't read it.

====

re: BRIAN -- "..."I know .. the American public doesn't support the Bush "surge", but I suspect the collective sense of embarrassment that would reverberate throughout the country following such a horrible defeat..."

This is still one of the most ignorant, fucked up remarks posted around here in a long time.

====

A semi-intellectual blowhard whose goal is to implicitly insult the dreaded Democrats/liberals -- or to write sentences that sound 'good' -- but are relatively meaningless: "I do not pretend to be an expert on Middle Eastern politics. But I do think the status quo in the region is unsustainable, and without innovative solutions nothing is going to change."

Practicing for a career in American politics.

heh.


====

PS: WHAT DEANO SAID.

"some people want government to do its job, which may include making war in some cases, and that the choice to support generals and elected officials in determining when to use military force isn't the same as ordering troops into combat yourself."

Dave Nalle


What does this mean?

Aren't you for less government?
Or are you only for a government that supports only your ideals?

You can't have it both ways Nalle. You are either with us or you're for Big Government.

Clavos, re. your constant "zzzzzz"

Shark sez "zzzzzzz"

ie. If you don't like it, don't read it.

Thanks, shark, but I think I'll just keep on doing what I've been doing...

What's that Clavos?

Waiting for Dave to say something and then you following up with your agreement and accolades?

One wonders (at least I do) if you and Dave aren't one and the same person.....

Aren't you for less government?

Of course, always.

Or are you only for a government that supports only your ideals?

Absolutely, because my ideals are the best ones for the nation, as they include absolute freedom of thought, action and expression.

One wonders (at least I do) if you and Dave aren't one and the same person.....

No, I'm the one with the silly cowboy hat and he's the one who looks a bit like Billy Joel.

Of course we don't have pictures of you and shark to go by. You guys could be the same person, since you both make no sense at all.

Dave

Aren't you for less government?

"Of course, always." - Nalle

Or are you only for a government that supports only your ideals?

"Absolutely, because my ideals are the best ones for the nation, as they include absolute freedom of thought, action and expression."

Then since the majority of Americans do not support the war and the majority of commenters on this site think your a fraud, WE THE PEOPLE demand you leave.

How's that?

Martin, who ever said I supported the war? That's your delusional fantasy.

As for commenters thinking I'm a fraud, you and Marthe apparently form a majority of two?

Dave

Who's Marthe? And how is it pronounced?

What's that Clavos?

Stalking MCH's stalking of non veterans, martin.

Then since the majority of Americans do not support the war and the majority of commenters on this site think your a fraud, WE THE PEOPLE demand you leave.

One flaw in your thinking, martin:

This site is not a democracy; it's a privately owned entity the rules for which are decided by its owners, not the mob.

One other thing:

Who appointed you leader of "THE PEOPLE"?

Obviously Clavos you know little about democracy and confuse it, like Dave does, with socialism.
We the People doesn't need a decider.
WE decide.
WE have spoken.

YOU should listen.

#37 -- Martin Lav

"Who's Marthe? And how is it pronounced?"

LOL

YOU have spoken, martin, I don't see anyone with you.

And it doesn't matter, anyway, martin, as BC is a private site, and you're NOT the decider for it.

One thing I DO know about democracy, martin: if left unchecked, it invariably descends into mob rule, and the mob doesn't have a mind.

Thankfully, the USA is not a democracy, martin. It's a republic. You do remember your history; Franklin's response to Mrs. Powel's query, don't you martin?

Or are you having difficulty remembering?

#35 -- Martin Lav

"Then since the majority of Americans do not support the war and the majority of commenters on this site think your a fraud, WE THE PEOPLE demand you leave."

40 -- Martin Lav

"Obviously Clavos you know little about democracy and confuse it, like Dave does, with socialism.

We the People doesn't need a decider.
WE decide.
WE have spoken.

YOU should listen."

First of all Martin, no one likes the war, but for you to say the majority of Americans do not support the war is saying you alone speak for everyone as fact when really it is only your opion.

The Dem's take over of the House and Senate in November does not support your assertion for the following reasons

If you go bake and look you will find that the Dem's ran there central campaign on a new direction for the war in Iraq and used it to counters Bush's "stay the course". You will also find back then, as now, the Dem's did not have a plan, only a campaign slogan. The slogan worked and the American people spoke and said they wanted to see a change in direction in Iraq.

You are the only one that said the Americas do not support the war. That my be your position and you have a right to it, but to try and mind read the majority of Americans and say they share your exact thought is not logical. It's just your opinion,

I think your wrong and I think the majority of Americans do support the war, it is my option that they spoke and said lets get the cluster fucks out of the way and get this f+++++g thing under control.

There are big differences it our opinions. I hope your wrong.

I suggest you take your doctoral opinions out our democracy and go pound sand.

I believe martin has come out as a supporter of what jefferson called the tyrrany of the majority, which is a crappy way to run a country.

As for support for the war a recent poll showed over 70 percent of the population hoped that bush's escalation would be successful. People are sick of the war but they haven't given up.

Dead on, Lumpy.

Here's an interesting quote from De Tocqueville I just found in an opinion piece written by Mike Rosen and published in the Rocky Mountain News:

Alexis de Tocqueville, writing in Democracy in America in the 1830s, cautioned that democracy could be taken too far, noting that "there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level, and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality in freedom."

"As for commenters thinking I'm a fraud, you and Marthe apparently form a majority of two?"
- Dave Nalle

Me and Shark make four...

Wow! It's a whole movement!!!

A Four Man March On Austin!!!

Clav quoted: "There exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level."

Beautiful philosophy ... nothing like cutting down the wankers and tall poppies. It's worked for us Down Under. You guys ought to try it some time :)

STM, in a truly liberal society the hand of the powerful should always be extended to lift up the downtrodden and provide them with opportunity. That's the very heart of liberalism. And by that I mean the good kind of liberalism which built this country, not the destructive perversion of those ideals we see in play today.

Dave

Nah, bugger the powerful ... power to the people, which is where it should be. Let the ordinary, knockabout folks run the place, and let them dictate to those who would be powerful if they could be. That idea's built a good country here, and I hope it stays that way.

Each to its own Dave ... remember, this country was founded by convicts and immigrants with either a hatred or a healthy disrespect for authority.

Different place to the US. God 'elps those who 'elp themselves so bugger the big wigs and the would-be's if they could-be's.

No one's ever truly prospered in this country by thinking they're any better than anyone else. It truly is built on an egalitarian spirit and you get chopped down pretty quick if you try it on.

Like I wrote on another thread recently, try getting into the back seat of a cab in Sydney (unless you're a woman) instead of riding up the front with the driver and see what kind of reaction you get.

It's indicative ....

Stan,

Yer a good mate, but I think you left out the best and most important part of that quote:

and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality in freedom."

IMO, Mate...

Yes Clav, naughty old me ... I did do that didn't I - on purpose of course, but I rather suspect you already bloody know that it was a judicious piece of editing. It was written by an American of course, so it doesn't apply here :)

Um, Stan, old boy:

Alexis De Tocqueville was writing about America, but he was actually a Frenchman.

He traveled extensively in America during the early nineteenth century. From those travels came his best-known work, "Democracy In America", which was published in 1835. The quote, of course, is from it.

We don't give Americans prissy sounding names like that, mate!

Well bugger me, Clav ... I should have known someone who'd write something like that could only be a duplicitous bloody Frenchman.

I'm surprised the French are given any street cred at all these days in the US. At least you've finally woken up to what the rest of us have known for centuries: can't trust the buggers.

I'm half joking of course - I actually don't mind them. I've always found them to be good people once you work out what's going on.

Except for the waiters, of course.

What (as you asked me a couple of nights ago) are you doing up at 0152, mate? Sunday morning? Planning on sleeping in?

I'm at work mate ... it's 2am Sunday here. Just about to knock off, however, and drive home (in my French diesel-powered car! I can't believe I bought one, but it's actually not bad. It also has the steering wheel on the proper side). Have had to stay back a little as we've had a bit of sports action, and a cop was shot down the bad end of town tonight just a hop, skip and a jump from the office so the cops are everywhere, flying over in helicopters and what have you.

Stan,

Did we not have several discussions recently about gun control, in which you pointed out the primary benefit was elimination of gun related violence?

a cop was shot down the bad end of town tonight

Must have been an American tourist who did the shooting? :>)

Ah, yes, I thought you'd pick up on that. The best I can offer, and it's true, is that it's unusual. Nevertheless, I still prefer to stay off the streets when the cops are zooming around angry. They've spared no expense, either. The trains are shut down while they go on the hunt for the two shooters and you'd think they were getting ready to invade Iraq. Can't say I blame though for being a tad pissed off.

STM, here in the US the cops generally support - quite vocally - private ownership of guns, because on the whole it makes their jobs much easier when honest citizens are able to defend themselves and when criminals have a genuine fear that any victim could potentially strike back.

Dave

Ah, but that's in the US, where lots of cops actually really like guns in their private lives.

The opposite is true here: cops generally don't like guns on the streets, period. And they certainly don't want a proliferation of them out in the community like there was in the old days.

Every man and his dog had a gun here 10 years ago, and there were shootings all the time. There are a lot less now, although the demise of the old-style self-policing criminal milieu (most of them were shot or locked up in a gangland war in the mid-to-late '80s. To say the place was like a modern-day version of prohibition-era Chicago then wouldn't be too far off the mark) has led to an increase in other violent crimes committed by gangs of younger criminals of various ethinc origins.

But there have been less cop killings since the ban.

Just a minute here--there will be no march on Austin that includes THIS bird.

Dave's freezing his ass off there and it's 85 degrees here in Central Mexico! I am not nuts.

When he finally starts having to EAT those frozen dog turds on the porch of his trailer, justice will have been served.

Now, if you sandbox standbys do not mind, I would like to comment on the topic.

Not on Dave's piece, however, as it is not written in standard English--nor any of the other languages that I read.

First, I DO have a trickle of experience of the Middle East. I have BEEN to Saudi, and you couldn't pay me enough to drive there--those folks still think they are racing camels in the sand!

They allegedly cause every traffic accident in Jordan and Bahrain.

Saudi women have drivers who drive them across the bridge to Bahrain. The women take the wheel in Manama and drop the drivers off to get drunk as skunks (Saudi is dry) and then go spend the entire day shopping at Seef Mall for the teeny tiny jeans and tops they wear under those black abayas and jeweled cell phones.

Then they pick up the driver, pour a thermos of hot coffee down his throat--and he drives them back across the bridge to Saudi.

But seriously:

1. There are plenty of Saudis in Iraq. Many are actively leading the Sunni resistance, and more have joined the fray since the lynching of Saddam Hussein.

2. As several folks mentioned, adding Saudi military to the picture would only increase the number of Sunnis out to revenge the death of Saddam, among other things.

(I have never heard one single person in the Middle East mention that Iraqis are better off since the US invasion. Considering that Saddam Hussein does not have that many fans outside of Iraq, that's a clear indication that things are VERY bad there.)

2. The Saudi military is a joke. Putting those jokers in Iraq would yes, get them out of Saudi--but it would just be pouring gasoline on the enormous flames of ineptitude already raging there.

3. At this moment the latest Cromagnon at the helm of the Pentagon is trying to beef up defensive and offensive capability in the Gulf(There is a fairly large, vulnerable US navy base in Bahrain 3 blocks from where I used to live--one of the reasons I justcame back to Mexico....) in case Iran decides to close the Straits of Hormuz. Sending a bunch of Saudi troops north into Iraq would be at odds with the current scheme.

4. The Saudis ALWAYS play both ends against the middle--not just Osama Bin Laden--this offer makes them look like good guys and if they were taken up on it would be a great opportunity to beef up the non-military Sunni Saudis already fighting in Iraq.

I could go on and on, I suppose, but then I would start to feel creepily like Dave Nalle.

Oddly, when she has no ideological axe to grind, Moonraver makes a little bit of sense. Of course, she still can't rein in the personal attacks, but her assessment of the Saudi situation is not bad.

As for how many Saudis are already in Iraq, where do you think the 10-20 thousand Al Qaeda who are there came from? As is their SOP the leaders are Saudis and the cannon fodder come from the poorest nations in the region like Yemen and Sudan.

Dave

The deal here, Dave, although you don't seem to get it, is that I NEVER have an ideological axe to grind.

I have no adherence whatsoever to any ideology except maybe something called Keep Your Nose Clean Pragmatism.

YOU, in the majority of your posts, DO have an ideological axe to grind.

If that was not a rhetorical question you asked, I can tell you that a fair number of those Al Quaeda fighters in Iraq came from Jordan, also.

In this case you did not put forth a big raft of survivalist looking for commies under the bed propaganda, so by writing a comment based on my experience, LIKE I ALWAYS DO, I did not step on your big pointy...boots.

I'm afraid you're not an entirely objective judge of your own behavior, MR. You clearly feel an ideological allegiance to Chavez and other socialists, because when their flaws are pointed out in a relatively objective and straightforward manner you immediately become defensive. I think most people who have seen your behavior here would agree or say that I was being overly kind in my description.

Dave

Dave, Nobody elected you to speak for the readers of this site.

(Of course clavos would say that it's not a democracy, but a dictatorship but he knows where he can go with his cubano culero chachacha.)

1. Don't tell me how I feel. I am here to tell YOU how I feel. You do NOt speak for me--or for anyone else.

2. You have never OBJECTIVELY or STRAIGHTFORWARDLY pointed out the flaws in ANYTHING, Dave. Everything you write that I have read has been couched in the Commies under the Bed language of propaganda.

3. If you have written ANYTHING that is OBJECTIVELY or STRAIGHTFORWARDLY critical of ANYTHING, please publish it. I would like to see it.

4. Your kindness and 3 bucks apiece will buy us all a cup of coffee at the Third World Exploiting Starbucks.

Um, moonbeam,

I NEVER have an ideological axe to grind.

What the hell is this...

Your kindness and 3 bucks apiece will buy us all a cup of coffee at the Third World Exploiting Starbucks.

Oh, and BTW: it's 5 bucks.

1. Don't tell me how I feel. I am here to tell YOU how I feel. You do NOt speak for me--or for anyone else.

I'm not telling you how you feel, I'm telling you how others perceive you - something which you clearly have no consciousness of judging by your behavior.

Dave

You just made my point, clavos.

If its now 5 bucks for a cup a java at Starbucks and the price paid to producers has not risen--which it has NOT--then they are exploiting Third World producers even more now than they were a month ago.

Just how is that an ideological issue?

I am sure the coffee bean producers here in Chiapas and Veracruz would dearly LOVE to hear your explanation of that one.

You claim that your opinions are facts and that my facts are ideological statements.

What the hell is THAT?

No, Dave, You are telling me how YOU perceive me.

And I could not care less--even if you were multiplied by a hundred.

moonie,

then they are exploiting Third World producers

They're exploiting First World yuppies, who could go to Waffle House (too redneck and declassé for them) and get the same cup for $1.00. Or better yet, brew it at home for less than 50 cents.

And most of the "Third World" producers are big corporate plantations or coops who charge whatever the buyers will pay -- when they have a freeze, the price goes up; when there's a good harvest, it goes down. Starbucks has to compete against all the other wholesale buyers for its beans.

Meanwhile, Starbucks' prices are so outrageous they insulate the company from the vagaries of the futures market, but they rip off only the people stupid enough to pay them because it's trendy.

Well, well--clavos knew the price of that trendy cup.

If it really IS five bucks.

I did not know.

What does that say about us?

Here in Mexico--where I live, and which has traditionally been a fairly big coffee producer for the world market--the majority of producers are coops and families, largely in the states of Chiapas and Veracruz.

But youwouldn't know that since you clearly are not a Mexican.

I have NOTHING against the yuppies (is that term still in use?) being exploited by Starbucks.

No one is forcing them to pay the Starbucks price.

Here in the Third World, as you pointed out yourself, producers are paid what the buyer feels like paying. The deal is take it or leave it.

Here in the Third World, as you pointed out yourself, producers are paid what the buyer feels like paying. The deal is take it or leave it.

Actually, I pointed out that the buyers have to pay what the market (supply and demand) makes them pay. Because there are thousands of buyers, they are competing against each other for the available supply of bean. Small harvest=high price; large harvest=low price. To protect themselves against huge buyers is exactly why the small producers form co-ops: more clout in the market.

Because the growing of coffee is regionalized worldwide, with each region having distinct characteristics, the market is further fragmented on a regional basis, enabling some relatively small producers to charge a premium for their product, e.g.: Jamaica and Hawaii.

Because it features coffee from a number of different coffee growing regions, Starbucks doesn't wield nearly as much power as it would if it were buying only from Mexico, for example.

BTW, Mexico ranks 7th among the 70 nations considered to be producers by ICO, the OPEC of coffee.

Well, well--clavos knew the price of that trendy cup.

If it really IS five bucks.

I did not know.

What does that say about us?

Since the price of a cup of Starbucks is hardly a secret here in the USA, nothing much.

But, Clavos, I don't live in the US.

At the Starbucks and at the Seattle's Best in Bahrain less than a month ago the price of a tall cappuccino was 1 dinar 100 fils, which at a fixed rate of exchange against the dollar of $2.65 to the dinar, was $2.92.

I have no idea what it is at a Starbucks in Mexico City, as I patronize a local coffee place.

Thanks for copying that stuff from your Internet search and NOT attributing the source.

That's another form of lying called plagiarism.

But, Clavos, I don't live in the US.

I know, you live in México (¡pobre México! The country will never recover until you metiche gringos go home), as you never tire of telling us; which is why I answered your rhetorical question asking what it says about us with "not much," because you DON'T live in the US, and I DO -- DUH!


Thanks for copying that stuff from your Internet search and NOT attributing the source.

That's another form of lying called plagiarism.

You say you're a teacher, and you don't even know what plagiarism is?

What exactly are you saying is plagiarized? I wrote every word of that comment. I failed to give you this link to the source, true, but that's NOT plagiarism.

I have been reading student plagiarism since 1968, clavos.

You only have one writing "style", and that was not it.

I am going to recommend, AGAIN, that you take a basic English class at Miami Dade CC. Your prof will teach you that all of the things you routinely do here and crow about getting by with are not acceptable:

1. Lying

2. Plagiarizing Internet sources of information

3. Plagiarizing from The Miami Herald

4. Putting statements with no documentation to support them or putting links that either directly contradict your statements or have only tangential reference to them or which are not documentation at all but someone else's opinion.

5. Reliance on propaganda instead of facts, information and reasoned argument.

And a host of other sins.

It's time to repent.

Clavos,

Are boat sales really that slow on a Saturday afternoon?

t's time to repent.

You're right, I repent AND regret.

I deeply regret even trying to debate with you.

I've never seen anyone claiming the credentials you claim resort so frequently and ineffectively to baseless and vitriolic ad hominem attacks and name calling.You have NO civility.

I don't have all your fancy degrees; mine is just a BA in English Lit with a minor in writing, but I know low class when I see it.

Have fun.

Franco #76:

Actually, yes, often.

I don't work in a store or dealer; I'm a broker.

I work with clients from all over the US and the world, with a specialty in LatAm clients, and my time is set by their requirements when they come to town to shop. Sometimes I'll work for two weeks without a day off, and other weeks maybe only a day or two. Today, obviously, no work.

Sometimes the work requires that I travel to the Mediterranean (for example), or to Italy, or Mexico, often to Argentina and Brasil (they build a lot of boats there) to pre-inspect a boat for a client.

I also help clients who are having a boat built to order by managing the project for them and coordinating the work of the shipyard and other suppliers on their behalf.

Aside from my love of boats, that flexibility (and the travel) is one of the things I most like about the job.

"I know low class when I see it." said Clodvos, dodging another mirror.

You hurt Clodvos's feelings, Moonraven, and now he's in a snit. Shame on you.

Another class act...

Why does Moonraver keep saying that Clavos has claimed to be Mexican? As far as I can recall he's never done any such thing. He's claimed to be fluent in Spanish - and proven it - and he's claimed to have spent a lot of time in Mexico. That isn't the same as actually being a Mexican. It actually puts him on much the same footing as Moonraver.

Dave

You apparently missed it, Dave, but a long time ago I did tell her (I forget on which thread), that because of being born in Mexico City to American parents, I have dual citizenship, as do both my younger siblings.

But, as she has stated repeatedly, she doesn't believe that, or anything else I've posted for that matter.

C'est la vie...

Given her heavy emphasis on the delusion of race, having white parents pretty much disqualifies you from being a REAL Mexican.

Perhaps we can get together and share some tamales and baba ganoush as we celebrate our birthplaces, though I'm sure Marthe doesn't believe I was born in Lebanon either.

Dave

Dave strokes the pouty Clodvos. Not a pretty picture at all.

Dave:

This is cool!

I've got almost as many troll groupies as you do these days!

Although some of 'em are two-timing us...

Doesn't it make you feel special? You must be doing something right.

Dave

Fu.k it's hot here today ... 47C at one stage; still around 40 late at night - don't know what that is farenheit ... bloody really hot, anyway.

But it's nothing compared to some of the red-hot comments on this thread ...

47C = 116.6F!!!

40C = 104F

Whew!!

STM

Police men don't support extensive gun ownership. Guns get stolen out of households and its those guns that put their lives off course in great danger.

Dave forgot that there were other people on the thread and got carried away, lying to someone afar.

Police men don't support extensive gun ownership. Guns get stolen out of households and its those guns that put their lives off course in great danger.

Zedd, don't accuse me of lying when you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

Virtually every police organization in the US vocally supports private gun ownership and they are outspoken on the positive impact which the private ownership of guns has on law enforcement.

Read this article it both details the reality of police support for gun rights, and explains where your misconceptions - which are shamefully common - originate from.

Dave

Dave, I spent a little time on the site you linked to and learned that it is a non-profit lobbying group, not actually an official police representative body.

The LEAA Mission
The Law Enforcement Alliance of America is the nation's largest non-profit, non-partisan coalition of law enforcement professionals, crime victims, and concerned citizens united for justice.

With a major focus on public education, LEAA is dedicated to providing hard facts and real-world insights into the world of law enforcement and the battle against violent crime. LEAA fights at every level of government for legislation that reduces violent crime while preserving the rights of honest citizens, particularly the right of self-defense.

With this goal in mind, LEAA is dedicated to:

* focus the political debate on criminal behavior and criminal punishment

* communicate the shared opinion of the majority of law enforcement officers that gun control is not an effective method of crime control

* supporting legislation that helps target and punish criminals and protects law enforcement

* providing critical information essential to law enforcement agencies, such as breaking the news on the attempted Federal takeover of state and local police departments.

I linked there because it was easy and they had an explanatory article and they are speaking for a bunch of different law enforcement groups.

The alternative is to provide links to lots of specific law enforcement groups speaking out against specific gun bans, which I can also do, but it's kind of a pain.

One of the most recent examples of this would be in the recent attempt to ban handguns in San Francisco. See the last paragraph in the article from the LA Times at IndyMedia.

To quote the article:

San Francisco's ban also was opposed by the San Francisco Police Officers Assn., which said the new law nullified "the personal choice of city residents to lawfully possess a handgun for self-defense purposes."

In most cases what you'll see when gun rights are raised is the police leadership backing the politicians and the police officers, retired officers and officers associations supporting gun owners.

I can dig up more examples, but the truth is that there aren't a lot of successful efforts to ban guns in America, so the opportunity to oppose such bans is limited.

Here's another interesting article, though. It looks at police officer support for allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons.

Dave

1. I am happy to see that now the monitor of this thread has gotten wise to Dave's lying about his sources. To the best of this poster's knowledge, the only real sources he has posted (ones without an ideological axe to grind)--and ONLY at my insistence--have directly contradicted his claims for them.

Actually, Clavos did NOT tell me at anytime that his parents were both US citizens and that he just HAPPENED to be born in Mexico City.

At that time he was trying to convince me that he was more of a Mexican than I am, and he conveniently neglected to indicate that he is just another redneck racist.

I owe all the cubano culeros in South Florida and apology.

Maybe the cubanos would be interested in trying some of my homemade mutabal--which is only called baba ganoush in Lebanon. Put a little variety in their diet, anyway....

Christopher, I posted a lengthy response with additional links, but it seems to have disappeared. Weirdness. I think I can dig up some of the links again, however.

I posted the original LEAA link because it was a single place to go to and see an article which explained the situation, especially the confusion caused by the fact that police leadership generally backs the politicians, while officers organizations, retired officers and active duty officers come down on the side of citizens gun rights.

Specific examples are also limited by the fact that gun control laws don't often get very far in the US because there's such widespread opposition. But there are a few good examples around.

The first is the recent gun ban in San Francisco, where the SFPOA which represents officers there came out strongly against the gun ban. Check the last paragraph of this article from the LA times at IndyMedia which says:

San Francisco's ban also was opposed by the San Francisco Police Officers Assn., which said the new law nullified "the personal choice of city residents to lawfully possess a handgun for self-defense purposes."

Martita says:

Actually, Clavos did NOT tell me at anytime that his parents were both US citizens and that he just HAPPENED to be born in Mexico City.


From my comment #93 in this thread:

Marthe,

I was born (of American parents) and raised in México. Como adulto, he trabajado mas de tres décadas en empresas mexicanas, y por supuesto, hablo español.

Alzheimer's, Martita?

There goes ol' Dave throwing up that sticky brown stuff again: guess he's trying to cover his ass.

Eventually folks--and now hopefully even the not very well-informed ones--get onto bullshitters like you.

Sorry, ol' Dave: I am used to referring to ALL people in this continent as Americans.

Apparently Clavos bent the truth, though, when he said he was RAISED in Mexico?

It really doesn't matter, as clavos has repeatedly demonstrated that he knows nothing about Latin America.

I do not need to see his school records through high school.

I really do not care.

I wasn't aware that links to news articles were brown and sticky. Do you ever get tired of lies and personal attacks? Is there no limit to how much you're willing to humiliate yourself and look like a clown?

Dave

Marta says:

Apparently Clavos bent the truth, though, when he said he was RAISED in Mexico?

Didn't bend shit, martita. Stayed there until I went off to prep school in the US at age 15.

Ten years later, after school, college and service in Vietnam, I was back in Mexico, where I began a thirty year career of working for Mexican companies in both Mexico and the US that also involved travel all over Latin America.

In 1998, when the law was changed, i applied for and received my Mexican passport, as did both my siblings. So Martita, unlike you, la gringa metiche, I AM a Mexican.

You really DON'T care how stupid you look, do you?

To quote your favorite despot:

"Desde la P hasta el A."

Keep it up, Dave.

And keep deluding yourself that no one with a normal IQ sees through your bullshit. You almost NEVER put links to anything unless forced.

Yep, they diappeared--right off this thread.

The dog always ate your homework, too.

This bird is out of here. Gotta score tortillas again.

Moonie, very interesting vignette of life in Saudi Arabia (#61); when were you there, & why? Were you able to ask any Saudi women how they felt about living that way (the shrouds & all)? Is there any kind of movement among them to get rid of that sort of thing so they could, for instance, drive themselves, or is this not an issue for them? Thanks.

MR, I'm an editor, I know exactly why they disappeared. They had a word in them that got them flagged as spam. Since I'm an editor I fixed it.

As for posting links, anyone who has been on this site for any time at all knows I'm fanatical about providing documentation.

But keep the lies coming. The only person you hurt is yourself.

Dave

You know, if you kids want to spend all of your waking hours on this pointless petty, infantile back-and-forth, we can ask Eric to set you up a special comment area.....

"It gets stm all hot and bothered and back and forth it goes, endlessly"

Been on the chardy again Emry, or is mum getting worried about you being up so late?

I still don't understand why moonraver continues to make statements which can be disproven just by scrolling up on the same page. Is she insane or just remarkably dim wittee?

Dave, if I understand the sites you link to correctly, there are none that are actually official police force sites.

What I'd like to see is where, say, the equivalent of the Metropolitan Police, the London police force, are officially campaigning for an armed citizenry.

You seem to be producing organizations that individual officers join, like the SFPOA. What is the official argument of the San Francisco Police, for example?

Moonraven: although I dispute many of Dave's political perspectives, which I find a heady mixture of formula, cliché, old school 20th Century thinking and plain old foolishness mixed with a large dollop of wishful thinking, I find your responses to him to be far worse.

Not only do you keep adding entirely unnecessary personal characterisations that add nothing to the debate, your arrogant and patronising style of engagement is not helping your arguments at all. If indeed you are the scholarly type you profess to be, are you satisfied with your performance here on this site?

For your information, Dave has never called for you to be banned and I, as Comments Editor, have refrained from editing your remarks only because Dave has had the incredible patience and good manners to continue debating with you.

You may note that, in my remarks in comments above, I am disputing his persepective in an entirely non-confrontational way, even though I find his views so utterly wrong.

"You seem to be producing organizations that individual officers join, like the SFPOA. What is the official argument of the San Francisco Police, for example?"

My guess is, like cops everywhere, they'd like to see less guns able to find their way onto the streets, rather than more.

I know for a fact that police in States like NY find it disheartening that some neighbouring states have very lax handgun laws, some have few or no controls, which means the guns are purchased legally and then lo and behold, find their way to NY - particularly NYC.

No cops want a proliferation of guns, not officially anyway.

Maybe she just likes insulting & confronting everybody gratuitously. Some occasional people are like that. Or maybe she's PMS - that makes one very touchy & nasty-tempered, too.

Nancy,

Newsflash: PMS stops after menopause.

Christopher,

Your concern about the effectiveness of my arguments has been duly noted. We are clearly very different people with very different debating styles.

Mine is confrontational.

I also do not have a stake in this site, so our situations are very much apples and oranges.

I also suspect that reasoned and moderate debate (not wanting to appear confrontational) by those on the left in the US is one of the most obvious reasons why the confrontational witchhunting commies under the bed and God in every garage style of the right has been very successful in excluding both reason and moderation from the processes of both domestic and foreign policy.

But, I suppose that's a bit gratuitous on my part, as I only pay the price on the occasions I have to show my US passport.

You folks are living in hell every day.

No, only when you show up on this site & harangue everybody endlessly & pointlessly. On the other hand, I really, really liked your little vignette on women of Saudi Arabia. THAT was interesting & I could wish for a lot more like that. If you'd condescend to answer a question: why do they (Saudi women) put up with having to wear a burka? Why not just tell the men to go to hell?

Glad to hear that PMS doesn't go on forever. I missed that part in school.

(Moonraven - Chris is an Englishman living in Spain)

On an informational note, Nancy wrote:

"Moonie, very interesting vignette of life in Saudi Arabia (#61); when were you there, & why? Were you able to ask any Saudi women how they felt about living that way (the shrouds & all)? Is there any kind of movement among them to get rid of that sort of thing so they could, for instance, drive themselves, or is this not an issue for them? Thanks."

Nancy,

If you actually read these threads instead of just hopping in from time to time to peck at my eyes, you would know that I just returned from the Middle East, spent several months there as well in 2005, and that I am an educational consultant to universities in Latin America and the Middle East.

Not that I see giving personal information of that sort is a requirement for posting here....

In all exactitude, I have not spent a great amount of time in Saudi. But given the bridge from Saudi to Bahrain, I have spent a lot of time with Saudi students--and SOME time in Saudi.

In any case my experience with Saudi folks is pretty much limited to folks from 18 to 45 years old--and that may have been indicated by my post about the young women making trips to Seef Mall.

However, folks are very open to talking about their lives there--or at least with me. (Possibly because I also frequently wear abayas--as I am tall and statuesque they look good on me and I also frequently wear them here as well as in the US--and respect the traditions of the folks around me.) Or maybe because they just don't have a foreign audience all that frequently.

In all of the Middle East, largely due to globalization of products and companies (Gap, Zara, Starbucks, Seattle's Best, McDonalds, Dairy Queen, etc.) rather than to a any campaign by western governments to induce democratization, social changes are happening. Mostly to young people.

Saudi held its first municipal elections in 2005, and two of my students were unsuccessful candidates (but they thought the experience had been "fun"). Baby steps, but better than nothing.

Elections are now becoming commonplace in the region, actually--though no power changes hands because of them.

Young people are torn between intense pressures from family (even more intense than family stuff here in Latin America) to maintain traditions and all the western images they see on cable t.v., in movies and in magazines of different ways of dressing and different lifestyles.

In Bahrain, for example, not all women wear abayas (they are not shrouds, by the way--those are for cadavers). Some dress like young women in the west--jeans that require a Brazilian depilation and stringy tops above the navel. Others wear the traditional garments and headgear. Others wear a traditional abaya over the western clothes--with or without headgear.

Bahrain, which Bahrainis see as a fairly boring place with nothing to do for young people, is a hot spot for the Saudis--and they spend as much time there as they can.

Most of the Saudi women I know would prefer not to wear the full black regalia all the time, as they like "funkier" clothes (I have two young friends who even have started a garment business and they do not produce traditional clothing), and because black absorbs heat.

The issue of having to have a driver is not that big a deal for the women I know--but it must be very tough and very limiting for women in low-income families.

Every woman is different. In countries like Bahrain where there is a lot of variety in dress and lifestyle, it can still cause a lot of anguish for a young woman who decides to "uncover" to deal with familial pressure. Or it can take place with little or no fussing and fretting.

I have mixed feelings about the social changes I see there. On the one hand, more women are working and receiving a professional education. On the other hand, I am resistant to the homogenization of cultures and to the spreading of destructive foodstuffs.

Moonraven: "Your concern about the effectiveness of my arguments has been duly noted. We are clearly very different people with very different debating styles. Mine is confrontational."

Gotta run, kids!

I have an erection to deal with!

xxoo
S



PS: moongal, got any jpgs? : )

I didn't catch what you do or where you go because I don't frequent all that many threads here, altho it may seem sometimes like I'm ubiquitous.

I thought the women were forced to wear burqas in SA, altho I had read that Bahrain was a sort of Free Zone as far as women's rights were concerned. What about schooling - are they allowed to attend university with men?

Just a suggestion, I'd like to see an article about life as a woman in S.A. - what they can & can't do, etc. & why they tolerate it. There aren't too many Muslim or Saudi women online to ask or describe. Thanks for the info. I appreciate your answer.

I wrote the above before reading your second question, about why women in Saudi don't tell the men to go to hell.

In all countries in the world that I am familiar with, recent history has included the struggle of women to be treated as equals in their societies.

This morning when I was buying my morning newspaper in the zocalo of my small town here in Central Mexico there was a Women's Parliament meeting for our region going, and the speaker reminded the audience that although men and women were equal under the law, and that women had received the right to vote in 1922, that there were still a host of de facto inequalities against which to struggle.

These kinds of struggles and successes do not happen overnight.

The idea that a Saudi woman should tell men to go to hell is the kind of recommendation that gives folks from the US a bad name overseas. It is seen as the usual Ugly American telling everybody to do things the way they are done in the States. Its offensive.

Asking questions (depending on how they are phrased), developing the habit of active listening, giving reasoned advice when it is solicited--those can be useful behaviors that allow one to get to know folks from a different culture and form friendships with them.

In Saudi, women don't feel that they want to confront the society. They try to find creative ways to express themselves and do what they want.

I am not implying that it is easy--after all, women did not vote in the Saudi elections last year--even though there is actually nothing in Saudi law that forbids it. They were told, "Next time". If that doesn't happen, they will figure something out.

It will happen pretty soon.

Nancy,

In Saudi approximately 60% of the university degrees are awarded to women.

Of course, I HAVE had some women tell me that they are studying and getting degrees because otherwise they would be sleeping in their houses from boredom....

And no, Saudi women have their own universities--no men.

That's one of the reasons why there are so many of them studying in Bahrain.

Moonraven and Shark! Do I hear wedding bells?

Nancy,
I used to live in Iran and the majority of middle and upper class people preferred the western styles and "progression" under the Shah, the poorer, apparently more religious folks, preferred the chador and the "morals" associated with it. Consequently, no more Shah, no more US.

While many muslim women, may want more freedoms, including dress, vocation, driving etc.....I believe their only reference to these "freedoms" coming from the US appear to be mainly bad.
Our King BUSH has effectively set democracy in the middle east back by another 50 years with his current crusade and I would gather that any sort of moderation that once again is taking hold in Iran is starting to erode itself.

My mom used to live and work underground in Saudi and her view is that most Muslim women in Saudi respect hold their dress as kind of a badge of honor, while privately the wish they had some more liberal views within their men folk.

Christopher,

Was that an infantile comment you just posted?

Or was that the comment of a mature person who should have better manners?

Martin,

It's a complex question--sort of like the chicken and the egg--as the Saudi men complain that their MOTHERS are the ones forcing them into arranged marriages.

I guess that means their Mother F_ckers....

Could you explain that statement in English--without the possessive form of they?

No Moonraven it's what is known as a joke.

I've thought about your remark that your debating style is "confrontational" and decided that it isn't acceptable.

I confront Dave all the time, and I'd confront Clavos too for his political views; however, I don't do it with such juvenile aggression and rudeness as you employ, which I find too tedious to read. Shark at least uses comedy to lighten up the relentless bile - and has even been known to write articles too...

"No Moonraven it's what is known as a joke. I've thought about your remark that your debating style is "confrontational" and decided that it isn't acceptable.

You have a sense of humor too, Chris. You just don't realize it.

Ruvy: I'm one of the funniest guys you'll never meet!

Anything you say Chris. Lemme know when you start doing stand-up on podcasts and I'll try to tune in...

Christopher #125,

Well said, Mr. Comments Editor.

I can't believe, however that you would even remotely find reason to confront me for my political beliefs, as moderate and centrist as I am...

Clavos: if your views are indeed moderate or centrist I would have to respond - only in the USA!

Brian asks: "if D'oh is out there anywhere I would like to hear what you have to say."

All I have to say is that you should just stop writing about Iraq/Middle East issues...seriously. Your writing on the topics so far has shown not only a severe lack understanding, but also the relentless desire to be part of the spin machine and bash your political opponents needlessly rather than proving the points you are attempting with facts and rational analysis.

Stick with shit you know, you do have the ability to write coherently, but you won't be taken seriously by anyone with a triple digit IQ as long as you are couching partisan vitriol within piss poor analysis of a complex situation that your own words have proven you know nothing about.

Only said something because you asked, didn't want to leave the request unsung.