Keith Hudson wrote:
[snip]
> So let me ask an alternative question. Why are Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld so
> intent in raising stress levels so dangerously right across the Middle East?
>
> Because they (and Crown Prince Abdullah) were humbled when the SA
> government declined to confirm the huge gas projects in March. This was the
> last straw in the matter of an increasingly obdurate and anti-American SA
> government ever since Gulf War I.
>
> I suggest that the anti-Iraq policy is already having an effect. Not on
> Saddam Hussein, necessarily, but certainly on other Muslim countries. Iran
> has gone very quiet lately and has actually delivered up some Al Qaeda
> terrorists (even though only to Saudi Arabia). Musharrif in Pakistan has
> taken broad powers to himself so he can continue in power and get on with
> rooting out Al Qaeda more effectively in his country. But, most of all,
> Saudi Arabia is being taken to the very brim of a volcano. The Wahhabi
> faction within the SA government must now be extremely frightened.
I think this makes a lot of sense. I can't be sure it's
true, but it seems to "connect the dots" a lot better than the other
alternatives we've heard.
So, Keith, let me ask you to shed light on one more question,
which looks to me like the question behind the question you answered
so reasonably:
Why doesn't Dubya implement measures to dramatically
raise the MPG of America's motor vehicle fleet and also
to drastically cut the number of miles driven, thus resulting
in multiplicative improvements? Why? Why Why?
Any insight?
\brad mccormick
>
> But frightened people are also potentially dangerous people and, of course,
> Bush and Co must be aware of this. They are taking a calculated risk in
> provoking a possible fundamentalist uprising in SA. But the risk of not
> doing anything and watching the Wahhabi supporters in the governing royal
> family gaining strength from month to month and year to year is even
> greater -- with the certainty that, ultimately, the present SA policy of
> favoured oil supplies to America (both of quantity and price) would be
> revoked.
>
> I suggest that every time Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld make an anti-Iraqi
> speech they are actually speaking in code to the modernists in the Saudi
> Arabian royal family. They are saying: "Get on with it. Root out Wahhabism
> (or at least deny it the lavish government funding they are now receiving)
> and bring your country into the 20th century."
>
> Bush and co know that Bush's father failed to get re-elected, not because
> he didn't push on to Baghdad during Gulf War I, but because of the state of
> the American economy. This is what the present policy is about. It is to
> protect the economy of America in the coming years -- perhaps for at least
> a couple of decades because during this period no other source of oil and
> gas in the world could possibly replace the imports from SA. (And, on top
> of that, SA could easily start deflecting future supplies to a rapidly
> growing China via joint ventures with Sinopec since 1997.)
>
> Keith Hudson
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------
>
> Keith Hudson,6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
> Tel:01225 312622/444881; Fax:01225 447727; E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ________________________________________________________________________
--
Let your light so shine before men,
that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16)
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)
<![%THINK;[SGML+APL]]> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Visit my website ==> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
