See, kids? You don't need these pesky 'equal rights' if you have oil/money.

Why haven't we turned that area of the world into a glass parking lot?

The fundie muslim view on women seems to be that they are so powerful by virtue of their sex appeal, that we poor, weak men have no defense against their charms. So how is it that a non-muslim man can be on a beach full of women in bikinis and not run amok?

Yeah, I'll take western modernity, thanks. That way we get to hold men responsible for their actions, AND we get to see women in bikinis.

"Why haven't we turned that area of the world into a glass parking lot?" JimP

uh, because of all the innocent people who live there? or do you believe that because we have the MIGHT to destroy them, we have the right to do it?

How is that different from the way they treat their women? How is that not "guys have might, therefore only they have rights"?

"See, kids? You don't need these pesky 'equal rights' if you have oil/money." DrCos

You realize that Saudi Arabia is NOT actually part of the US, yes?

What makes you believe that a sovereign nation has to follow the precepts of what you believe to be right? They don't believe in their own laws any less than we do, and it is only in the last century that we even began to treat women as anything approaching equal.

Is this the newest thing we should go to war for these days?

I understand the motivation, but really, who would be hurt the most in such a war?
There are a LOT of questions you need to ask before you start going on such thought excursions, but one of which should be, how do you help without harming?

IF you think it's the Oil Wealth that contributes, why not buy oil from our friends in Canada, rather than ambivalent merchants in OPEC?

realize that no matter how much we would like to rescue women who have a difficult life like that, some don't WANT to be rescued, and others will be hurt more by your rescue than by staying the way they are.

EVEN IF/When we could figure out a way to affect this rights issue, there is no reason at all for the Saudi govt. to change. Our understandings and rights are built on precepts that they don't agree with at all. so the change must be subtle and slow.

Not, "in order to save you from this oppressive regime, we are going to bomb you to death."

You don't actually save things by destroying them, oddly enough.

That woman's eyes are stunning. Even in cultures where a woman's hotness must be kept under wraps, she still looks hot?

What makes you believe that a sovereign nation has to follow the precepts of what you believe to be right? They don't believe in their own laws any less than we do, and it is only in the last century that we even began to treat women as anything approaching equal.

SwissArmyD, so if Saudi Arabia, or some other country, had slaves, it would be wrong for people in countries that did not have slavery to criticize them for it? Is any law or policy that a country has okay, and above criticism, as long as they believe in it? Also, is it wrong for someone who committed a murder in the past, now regrets what they did and has completed their prison sentence to talk to kids in gangs and tell them that it's not right to murder a person?

That woman's eyes are stunning.

Couldn't agree more.

I'd give a lot for her eyes. Not my freedom to dress as I please, though.

There may be more room understanding than we'd thought.

Her eyes aren't that pretty... They're just young, brown, cosmetically adorned, and all that your hungry gaze can see of a human face.

Sharia DOESN'T WORK, people.

Those are Western brows, certainly. I didn't watch the video. Someone's playing dress-up for the news team, right?

I wasn't arguing for Sharia. I was just saying that even in a culture where beauty is opressed, people try to accentuate beauty. Or sexuality. Whatever.

Meloni: I was just saying that even in a culture where beauty is opressed, people try to accentuate beauty.

According to a 2010 article in The Financial Times: Saudi women spent $2.4 billion on cosmetics, one of the highest per capita sums in the world.

"Why haven't we turned that area of the world into a glass parking lot?" JimP

"criticize them for it?" JimP

From my understanding there is a difference between nuking a country to glass, and criticizing them for something they do which you believe to be bad.

I certainly believe in talking 'bout stuff, even trying to twist their arms a bit. Forcing them to do something is a whole different thing... More to think about and such.

You realize that Saudi Arabia is NOT actually part of the US, yes?
Yes, but let someone attack them, and see how fast we rise to defend our, er, their oil.

My point was that there is a lot of tolerance for things which are morally wrong when there's money (especially oil money) involved.

And if you don't think it's morally wrong, please feel free to move there.

SwissArmyD, Jim P and I are different people. Yes, there is obviously a huge difference between criticizing a country for its laws and, as Mr. P suggested, nuking them for it.

I thought you were suggesting that even criticism was unwarranted. My mistake and apologies.

> Yes, but let someone attack them, and see how
> fast we rise to defend our, er, their oil.

Hey there, DrCos!

Care to guess, without looking it up, what percentage of United States oil consumption comes to us from Saudi Arabia?

No, don't cheat... Just go ahead and guess! C'mon, it'll be fun!

(Like JDT, I'm starting to think you're not a real doctor.)

From the State Department website on Saudi Arabia...

Human Rights

Despite generally good relations, the United States remains concerned about human rights conditions in Saudi Arabia. Principal human rights issues include abuse of prisoners and incommunicado detention; prohibitions or severe restrictions on freedom of speech, press, peaceful assembly and association, and religion; denial of the right of citizens to change their government; systematic discrimination against women and ethnic and religious minorities; and suppression of workers' rights.

Concerned, probably. Overly critical, not likely.

I had just woken up and had not made my eloquence roll yet.

The problem is that these countries have resources the rest of the world desires. If there were an efficient, equivalent, energy source, they would be left behind and alone.

As it stands now -- the rest of the world supports their bad behavior. The bad behavior continues because they are funded.

I don't agree with nation building. I wish there were a way to transport the state of Israel to somewhere in the U.S. lock, stock, and barrel. After that the rest of the world no longer buys oil from them and let them die on the vine.

> If there were an efficient, equivalent, energy
> source, they would be left behind and alone.

You say that as if it were a solution. Afghanistan was essentially "left behind and alone" after we lost interest in it as a proxy in the Cold War... And within a decade or so, monsters were [A] wiping away every trace of modernity the country had every known, especially for women and [B] using it as a base of operations for international terror.

We don't have the luxury of trusting that primitive cultures will maintain primitive distance from us... If there's one lesson to be learned from the last twenty years, it's that primitives will always want to lash out.

And as a moral matter, we have no excuse for leaving that much of humanity in murderous, infectious squalor... Not even in places like Afghanistan, which have no assets, whether human or material, for us to exploit.

The problem isn't that bad people are too tightly connected to us, the problem is always / always / always that they're too loosely connected.

And that includes the Middle Eastern oil producers. We take their hydrocarbons and give them petrodollars (or more often, 'PetroEuros' or whatever the correct term is nowadays). Beyond that, we're counting on good luck to bring their cultures into modernity. As Amy notes, it's not working out: Those people hate Lady Gaga with a ferocity that you wouldn't believe.

I stole that thought from this guy. That's a short version of his speech. (Listen closely to the bit about the treaties he discusses at 5:08: History is shimmying towards us with a wide-open blouse.)

Here's a longer version from 2004, a good way to burn through a rainy afternoon indoors. And of course he does books.

In other words: As a 21st century American, you're in the "nation building" business whether you "agree" with it or not. Sorry.

The good news is there's nothing going on out there –whether the problem is religious fundamentalism or racial insanity or uncrossable geographic features or belligerent neighbor states speaking funny languages– that we haven't experienced, and pretty much conquered, within our our own borders.

And the world is looking to us anyway. Again, check out the brows on the freeze at the top of the page. (That eyeshadow's gotta be Maybelline...)

And as a moral matter, we have no excuse for leaving that much of humanity in murderous, infectious squalor...

What about the majority of the African continent? What about North Korea? As a moral matter we should be in all those countries.

Not even in places like Afghanistan, which have no assets, whether human or material, for us to exploit.

Afghanistan Mineral Wealth May Be Greater Than Estimated: $3 Trillion
huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/17/afghanistan-mineral-wealt_n_615449.html

Please Google "afghanistan mineral rights china". If they really liked us we would have the rights.

As far as the 5:08 comment -- did you listen to part 3 of 3? Basically until the U.N. is fixed or disbanded the U.S. is fucked.

Just google "ban land mines". And tell me the difference between an IED and a command det line mine?

> What about the majority of the African continent?
> What about North Korea? As a moral matter we
> should be in all those countries.

Well, when you watch the whole show you get his plan to deal with those places as necessary.

> Afghanistan Mineral Wealth May Be Greater
> Than Estimated

So then we'll all be watching forward to lots of foreign direct investment there... I guess I don't see your point. If there were a land rush going on, I think we'd know about it. There are many sad places in the world, and Afghanistan is one of them. Who said anything about them "liking us", and why would that mean they'd pass us their mineral rights?

> until the U.N. is fixed or disbanded the
> U.S. is fucked.

Barnett handles this nicely. We're the guys with the Leviathan force: The G-20, who will be paying for its deployment one way or the other, are the ones who ought to be signing off on expeditionary (rather than our defensive) targets.

Meanwhile, the teenage meat-beaters who imagine the United Nations to be an honorable representative of mankind's universal aspiration to peace and understanding should no more be consulted about these ventures than the Ducotti Park fuckups should be consulted about student loan repayment or the bundling of mortgage-backed securities.

This presentation covers this topic very well.

Crid! I would have guessed around 20-25%, but find these Actual numbers:
Saudi Arabia accounts for 10-12% of total US imported oil.
The US accounts for 10-12% of total Saudi Arabia exported oil.

Barnett handles this nicely. We're the guys with the Leviathan force:

I watched the video -- he has some valid points. The issue is that his prediction of Muslim maturity is wrong. Muhammad (610–632) "founded" Islam about 590. He and his followers then went out and kicked ass all over the middle east and southern Europe for a generation or two.

And the Christians went then kicked their asses back to their own little corner of the world.

Then during Europe's stupid civil wars we kicked their asses again. But when was the last time you heard about the Christians throwing a crusade? How about the Jews? What about any other religion throwing a burn party of their enemies in this century?

Europe is screwing up by letting the Muslims ghettoize themselves. That gives them the ability to have their own little slums. The kids aren't saying they are "sushi". They are breeding a bunch of little terrorists.

In the U.S. -- by pushing back when we can and saying you have to adhere to western community standards you'll get the sushi kids. But the sushi kid going back to the middle east won't do shit. Look at Anwar al-Awlaki -- he was a U.S. born citizen.

The mullahs actually need Israel to survive. If they can't blame the Jews for the problems with their society, they would actually have to look at themselves.

That is why I would move Israel out of the area and then let them figure what the fuck they want to do.

The other issue is that the U.S. is broke. If the G-20 was actually paying for the leviathan to come in and kick ass and we go home on Sunday to watch football it would be great.

As it stands now, we go in, waste our blood, treasure and honor. Then you have the G-20 come in and say fuck the Americans, set up some puppet government, and leave. Ten years later, that government is falling. We then either prop it up with arms or money. Rinse and repeat.

> find these Actual numbers:

No, you were explicitly asked to guess. You cheated.

The larger point is that we could readily turn away from them if we needed to. Our defense of them isn't about our own energy needs, it's about keeping a lid on world affairs.

> The issue is that his prediction of Muslim
> maturity is wrong

I think you're rambling. If he makes a point about "Muslim maturity", I missed it. You're being cynical and heartbroken and all mopey for reasons I can't understand. We've got the biggest gun in the world, as well as the most productive workers, the best farms, the best computer guys, and a few other blessings I'm not awake enough to list.

If the United States as deeply screwed as you claim, people elsewhere are screwed indeed.

He talked briefly about some Muslim woman/women revolting against the patriarchy and going back to Europe and the Middle East and bringing them into the modern world. He also mentioned the disconnected countries.

We have the biggest gun, but we don't have the Sys Admins.

I agree that we have the best of many things. The problem is that the liberty to use them is steadily being eroded away. The more central planning by the progressive left will screw us. We used be the bright shining beacon on the mountain that everyone aspired too be. Now we're bright light on a hill.

So, basically, what you're saying is there need to be some changes.

There needs to be many changes. I don't trust the clowns in Congress, or the White House.

At this point, I'd vote for Bozo. I want a professional clown. Not these amateurs.

>No, you were explicitly asked to guess. You cheated.
I did guess. And then I looked them up.