Friday, March 18, 2011

The MENA Catch 22

What's the U.N. and the Western powers going to do? Demand individual rights for Libyans but not for Saudis? Or is Totalitarianism OK for Saudi Arabia but not for Libya?

This has just opened a whole other can of worms for the West.

Good luck, fellas.

21 comments:

westexas said...

I wonder if we might see US military action supporting the Saudi rulers against rebel forces in Saudi Arabia at the same time that the US is attacking the Libyan ruler, in support of rebel forces in Libya.

Greg T. Jeffers said...

That's kinda sorta the problem of with consistency we've been having in the age of Oil....

Anonymous said...

It's funny you say this, I have been thinking this for a couple days now. You could cut the irony with a knife.

Dextred

Anonymous said...

I know the press has put the democratic/freedom spin on these rebellions but there is no evidence these will lead to democratic governments. There is evidence that it could lead to less pro American regimes though if the Muslum Brootherhood really does gain more power in Egypt for example.

The US can and should defend its allies and support those fighting against its enemies.

There is no conflict here if you write the media out.

ChrisInGa

Anonymous said...

I’m thinking that if we start shooting folks in support of the Saudi royal family we will probably go from a situation where a portion of the population of the Middle East hates to a situation where the whole population of the Middle East hates us. Now that nuclear power is dead, it would stick us with supporting the Saudis and occupying Iraq until the bitter end. Unfortunately, I think that is highly probable.

Best,
Dan

dennis said...

We could end up fighting for the Saudi rulers. Then turn around and fight them for Israel. All while being based in Afghanistan. Just in time to bring Democracy to Iraq. Good thing Pakistan and India are on our side. What would the world do without us!

PioneerPreppy said...

The Golfer in Chief may finally have bumbled into doing something right for a change or for a second time IMO.

As long as the nations of Islam can fight and squabble among themselves the better. More power to them just send the expat refugees back please. Let the rebels fight those in power and let the Shia's fight the Sunni's.

For maximum satisfaction we let the Libyan rebels give it their best effort and now that we know they are gonna loose we can jump in with International support and take that freak K or Quaddafi or however it's spelled out. Wouldn't matter whether we sent every military unit we had in at day one or let that scumbag live we (Westerners) are always going to be hated and always going to be the bad guys in MENA. So why not let them weaken each other a bit and then jump in to assure that the terrorist funding, mouth breeder ends up at the end of a rope? After Lockerbie etc I will cheer his death.

Same with Iran. Let them continue to fight among themselves it is not the job of our sons to fight for their liberation.

I cannot disagree with the way the various policies have worked out in MENA at all. Now we either need to take over Afghanistan or get out of there next.

They need our money and food just as much as we need their oil and anything that weakens them as a whole is good for us.

What we should be doing, and if Obama has any brains and didn't just stumble unto these current policy actions, he is already doing. Is covertly stirring up trouble against the Saudi royals and against the Iranian regime at the same time. While also pitting Iranian backed Shia's against Sunni's everywhere they can.

Hypocritical? Who cares when dealing with MENA.

Anonymous said...

There is a chance we are following Stalin’s Warsaw Uprising model, if anyone is a student of Stalin it’s probably the golfer in chief. However, I don’t want to see us fighting over there, and certainly not in support of the House of Saud. My friend’s boys are worth more than that whole god forsaken region.

Perhaps now that the government and rebels have weakened themselves, we can get Egypt to step in and “temporarily” take over “for the sake of humanity.” The Egyptians stamp out what remains of the more extreme elements, pump the oil, and use the proceeds to feed their starving population. What is not to like?

Best,
Dan

Anonymous said...

I doubt we will have to worry about Kaddafi much longer. To date:

* We have seized $30 billion from him.
* England seized £ 20 billion of his liquid assets.
* He is calming to have bankrolled Sarkozy’s campaigns.

Machiavelli’s infamous maxim to "never wound a prince" comes to mind. He doesn’t have a chance. Too many people need him dead.

Best,
Dan

Anonymous said...

PP,

I don't really care about the hypocrisy either. My point is that everyone and I mean everyone on the left including the man/child have been blasting US involvement for 10 yrs now and then they go throw us in the mix of another war and say "well it is for humanitarian reasons" as if getting rid of Saddam or the Taliban did not have the same moral equivalent.

I tend to agree that we need the oil and fact is we do have to hold it together as long as we can, unless we want to be riding bicycles to work. This are some interesting times that is for sure.

Dextred

Anonymous said...

What I get a kick out of, is that the UN actually thinks they can do this entirely from the air.

What a joke. If Gadhafi ignites the oil wells just like Saddam in 1991, what are they going to do then?

ChrisInGa

Greg T. Jeffers said...

"Let them continue to fight among themselves it is not the job of our sons to fight for their liberation."

My sentiments EXACTLY.

PioneerPreppy said...

Dex my friend I wasn't aiming any of my mini-rant at your posts. You are of course correct it is hypocritical and foolish and a far cry from what the Obumbler was preaching.

I was just pontificating my own non-PC opinion which is "I don't care" and to let them bleed until we can go in and take care of unfinished business with Gadahfi. He needs to be put down like sick dog in my opinion.

No matter who takes over eventually, they will deal with us in the end. China may have money but we have them beat on food production and in the end you cannot eat money.

Now if we had a true oil producing friend that followed our political ideology, human rights, was moderately religious and not totally anti-west I would be all over helping them defend themselves. We don't, no matter what we do will be wrong, they will all hate us so let them bleed.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of hypocrisy

Best,
Dan

Seamus said...

Yeah, Dex, God forbid we have to ride our bicycles to work. It's better to mess with people simply because we're addicted to oil, correct? Why is our oil under their sand?

Anonymous said...

The more they fight each other in the MENA, the slower will come the oil. The tail will be extended, and we will get used to it sooner. No American boys will die or get their legs blown off. Hard medicine but a win all around as far as I can see.

If KGQadaffi is overthrown, tribal warfare will follow. There is no better end game in Libya than Iraq. Let them blow each other's asses off for a change, or let the French and Germans and our other detractors have a go at it. Either way, no more of our boys should die.

I saw John POS Kerry on the news this morning explaining that the flying missiles had nothing to do with war. HA!

Regards,

Coal Guy

Anonymous said...

If the $Trillions we have already spent blowing shit up in the ME had been spent on energy infrastructure in the US, we'd be far ahead right now.

Regards,

Coal Guy

PioneerPreppy said...

HAHA now the Arab league is complaining about US involvement in Libya.

Ok they started complaining like Friday I think. No win situation period.

Anonymous said...

Pioneer,

Yep, that didn’t take long.

Best,
Dan

Anonymous said...

I am watching the news, and one thing that stands out is that none of these Middle East experts seem to have a clue about the regions propensity to absurd hyperbole. E.g. when Kaddafi states that he is going to “go door to door, in closets and kill the rats,” he probably means he will try to kill the rebel leaders and do a few drive by shootings on their supporters. When Arafat claimed that “the whole world will be in flames,” it meant that parts of his presidential compound would be in flames. When some group is calling themselves the such and such martyrs brigades, it means that they are a platoon sized group of hoodlums. Etc, etc...

We should not base our policy on their inane rantings.

Best,
Dan

Anonymous said...

Pioneer,

Yep, that didn’t take long.

Best,
Dan