explain some things to me

[townes]

I realize that i live in an alternate reality as far as values and policy priorities go, but i could really use some explanations from the right about how they can support the policies of this adminsitration.

I'm not asking how they can justify it, only how you can sign off on it.

Specifically:

War and long term occupation in Iraq.

Obstruction of stem cell research (sorry Flagg, it's how i see it)

Opposition to international land mine treaties.

Opposition to environmental treaties.

Faith based government-essentially a theocracy.

Out of control spending (debt ceiling just raised again)

Elimination of social services to the neediest americans. (e.g..gross expansion of homeless population)

More tax cuts for wealthiest 1% and more corporate tax breaks, at the same time individuals are getting audited at a 200% + rate over previous years.

Privatization of government services at huge cost increases (e.g..Halliburton and Triereme)

If you don't support these things just say so, if you do, I would love to hear why?

[dchester]

townes,

I'll talk about the first one you listed, War and long term occupation in Iraq. From my perspective, it dwarfs the other issues you listed (and in my opinion if Kerry had been able to convince more people that he would have done as well, or better, than Bush on winning the war and setting up democracy in Iraq, he would have won the election).

I can sign off on it because I think it is what is needed to end what has been the status quo in the Middle East. I will admit that my biggest fear with Bush's policy is it won't be big enough. By that, I mean I would like to see something like a "Marshall Plan" for the Middle East. Unlike Rumsfeld and others, I do think nation building could be a great thing. It's just that it will take a decade or longer to do the job properly. I'm just not sure that there is enough public suppport for something as large as what I'd like to see, but I think Bush will get closer to what I would want than Kerry would have. Since deep down inside, I don't think Arabs are any different from anyone else, and if given the chance to raise their families in peace and persue happiness, I think they would opt for that (and that sure wasn't happening under Saddam). Even though it wasn't easy, nation building worked in Germany and Japan, and if we are determined enough, it can work in the Middle East.

Here is an excerpt from an article published a year ago in MSNBC:

Judging the occupation

NEW YORK, May 16, 2003 - Just over a month since the enemy disappeared, the occupation appears to be faltering, as evidenced by anarchy on the ground and battles raging between rival U.S. bureaucracies. U.S. officials take heat for allowing members of the former regime to reclaim their former posts and for allowing a power vacuum to persist. Water, medical supplies and electricity are in short supply. Casualties continue to mount, and Washington increasingly worries that a new tyranny will rise from the ashes of the dictatorship only recently vanquished. Welcome to Berlin, June 1945.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3070640/
________
Honda P series history (http://www.honda-wiki.org/wiki/Honda_P_series)

[O_P_T]

dchester said it well on the war bit.

If a truly democratic Iraq can be created it would be a major accomplishment in the battle against Islamic terrorists.

Regardless of what one thinks the root cause of terrorism, it will serve to combat that.

If one thinks that poverty and helplessnes causes terrorism, then Iraq will serve as a symbol that their life can change and improve their hope.

If one thinks that regional governments are using terrorism as a way to deflect anger against them, then Iraq will serve as an example of what democracy can do for the average citizen and have the "Arab street" ask why not here?

There is no doubt that the question is still in doubt and the road ahead is perilous and full of plenty of opertunities to fail. Yet do we have any choice but to continue to try?

As far as environmental treaties, I assume you mean Kyoto?

First GWB didn't kill this treaty, the US Senate passed 95 to 0 a resolution that basicly refuted Kyoto (http://www.opic.gov/GeneralOPIC/senateresolution98.htm)

So that treaty was dead on arrival had it been submitted to the Senate anyway. Clinton never submitted the treaty for this very reason.

As far as the science behind Kyoto, its not uniformly accepted that its true.

Look here (http://www.cea.org.uk/files/tce_9_01_CC.rtf), here (http://sitewave.net/pproject/s33p36.htm), here (http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/Testimony-baliunas.htm) , orhere (http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/TestimonyOf-Richard.htm)

This (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-03/nsfc-pet031203.php) link provides information on how warming in the arctic isn't always due to man's actions.

It's often claimed that the 1990's is the hottest and most extreme climate on record, this (http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0304/05climate/) story shows that not to be true.

This (http://www.john-daly.com/index.htm) site has a lot of good info refuting the human induced climate change theory.

[Ballbustah]

Bush and Rumfeld fumbled the ball. There is no reason to have confidence in what Bush and Rumsfeld are doing.

I know that there will be unrest in Iraq and that everything may not be right for a while but the fact remains that the current President and his Sec of Defense really screwed up this thing. Bush decided to invade Iraq on false information. The inaccuracies were completely off base and we really shouldn’t have gone there.

If Bush had let the inspectors complete their job then the whole thing would have been a mute point.
But No.... Bush had to talk to God and force what in essence was a wrong decision. I have no confidence in Bush... These throngs of people who feel that Bush must see this through are making a big mistake... Because Bush is a dumb dumb... and he will make mistakes over and over again.

[townes]

Good responses, but I'm taking off for the day so i will have to address them later.

OPT-I wasn't referring to Kyoto, but to their overall rollback of forty years of environmental protection legislation.

later,

townes

[O_P_T]

Originally posted by townes
OPT-I wasn't referring to Kyoto, but to their overall rollback of forty years of environmental protection legislation.


Well Look at this (http://www.techcentralstation.com/091704F.html) for one explination.

[townes]

Basically that says that the Bush Administration believes in a cost-benefit approach towards the environment.It's an industry regulated approach toward the environment that simply doesn 't work, as making more $ is the ever motivating factor and reserving resources for the future is at the bottom of a long line of priorities.

[townes]

Originally posted by dchester
townes,

I'll talk about the first one you listed, War and long term occupation in Iraq. From my perspective, it dwarfs the other issues you listed (and in my opinion if Kerry had been able to convince more people that he would have done as well, or better, than Bush on winning the war and setting up democracy in Iraq, he would have won the election).

I can sign off on it because I think it is what is needed to end what has been the status quo in the Middle East. I will admit that my biggest fear with Bush's policy is it won't be big enough. By that, I mean I would like to see something like a "Marshall Plan" for the Middle East. Unlike Rumsfeld and others, I do think nation building could be a great thing. It's just that it will take a decade or longer to do the job properly. I'm just not sure that there is enough public suppport for something as large as what I'd like to see, but I think Bush will get closer to what I would want than Kerry would have. Since deep down inside, I don't think Arabs are any different from anyone else, and if given the chance to raise their families in peace and persue happiness, I think they would opt for that (and that sure wasn't happening under Saddam). Even though it wasn't easy, nation building worked in Germany and Japan, and if we are determined enough, it can work in the Middle East.

Here is an excerpt from an article published a year ago in MSNBC:

Judging the occupation

NEW YORK, May 16, 2003 - Just over a month since the enemy disappeared, the occupation appears to be faltering, as evidenced by anarchy on the ground and battles raging between rival U.S. bureaucracies. U.S. officials take heat for allowing members of the former regime to reclaim their former posts and for allowing a power vacuum to persist. Water, medical supplies and electricity are in short supply. Casualties continue to mount, and Washington increasingly worries that a new tyranny will rise from the ashes of the dictatorship only recently vanquished. Welcome to Berlin, June 1945.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3070640/





Dchester, I actually believe in Nation Building, unfortunately that's not what is going on in Iraq, nor was it ever the goal or plan. I also agree that the real goal should be to help the middle east develop better societies, what I don't agree with were the true motivations and the approach they took to achieve them. This is an ideological war, not a war of necessity, and there is nothing in actual fact that made it necessary. I also believe that it's the most counterproductive thing we could have done to achieve the actual goals that both of us agree on.

I think you are right about a Marshall Plan, and the reason i say that they never had a plan is the obvious chaos and state of affairs they have put the military and Iraquis in, but also because no such "Marshall Plan" was on their table when they took the actions they took. This fact makes clear that their motivations were not the purpose of nation building.

The real reasons for the invasion and occupation of iraq are ideological. They lie in the neo-conservative philosophy that has been gaining power in republican think tanks over the past forty years. This philosophy is as anti-conservative as it gets, but has attached itself like a barnicle to the populism of the christian right. The neo-cons control the financial apparatus and the christian right gives them a power/value base to work from. The neo-cons chose W to be their candidate, and used his kinship to christian conservatives to gain popular support from the base. W knew NOTHING about foreign policy, and that was exactly what the neo-cons wanted, as it gave them an empty tablet to work with. Cheney's in Charge, and W does as Dick says.

The neo-cons believe in the marriage of the worlds most powerful corporations, and the world's most powerful government. The Neo-cons also believe in an "internationalist" approach to the world, running 180 degrees against traditional american conservative values about non-interventionism. (This is why W said he wasn't a nation builder, only to end up nation building). They saw war in the middle east as a way to intermarry this government with the world's biggest corporations, by privatizing all government functions to these very companies, without bid, without documentation, without divulging who is getting how much and for what????

It was never "just about the oil," but always about the MONEY, and power. The reason they refused to share contracts for international support is because that would have negated the very purpose of going there to begin with.


I see the solutions in an approach that is the opposite of the one this country has undertaken. I see it in condemning and sanctioning the truly nasty repressive countries in the middle east, and supporting all those who want to provide democracy and human rights to their people. The Saudi's are among the worst, and they are our allies, the Iraqui's were a secular society, anti-thetical to religious extremists, and we attacked them. It makes absolutley no F*cking sense whatsoever, unless you return to ideology and greed.


So:

Make Jerusalem an international Holy City-no one owns faith.

Provide a huge multi-national peacekeeping force to Palestine with the ability to provide security for Israel.


Provide the funding to rebuild Palestine and turn military aid to israel into infrastructural aid to Israel.


Condemn and sanction the repressive governments throughout the middle east.

Respect the wishes of countries who don't want the U.S and our culture or markets there. Stop building military bases in Iraq. How the hell do we send a message we want them to be sovereign when we are building bases to stay there?



Create a Marshall plan that is based more upon a micro-loan system that enables individuals and small groups to start businesses.

Demonstrate a respect for all faith's in this country, as the muslim hating is only making us look more racist and less humanitarian. Condemning torture and abiding by the Geneva Convention would be a good start. The U.S. is a secular country, which is a great grewat thing. It simply means that all faith is valid.

The greatest threat to religious extremists is secularism, and this is what al-queada fears most from the west, the adaptation of secular societies thoughout the muslim world.


We are now in a true cultural war i both domestically and nternationally, but it's not the Christians against the Muslims, it's theocracy against religious freedom, i.e.secularism.

[townes]

NEWSFLASH!

Neo-Conservatives are actually??????












FASCISTS!!!!!




Within the next three years we will all witness true conservatives fleeing the Republican Party due to this very fact.

Neo-Conservatives do not care about the deficit (witness Cheney, who said it didn't matter)

Neo-Conservatives believe in privatizing government and policy to the world's largest corporations. (Witness Cheney's blacked out energy policy created by the oil, energy, and power companies). Instead of saving thru privatization they have turned it into a no-bid world where they can simply take as much as they ask for.

Neo-Conservatives don't believe in the civil liberities or rights of civilians or workers, but support free markets where their massive international corporations can exploit the cheapest labor with the least regulation, thus massive outsourcing and it's support from this administration.


Neo-Conservatives have their roots in Lenin's Internationalism, and American Conservatives surely don't.

That's a fact!

[dchester]

Originally posted by townes
Dchester, I actually believe in Nation Building, unfortunately that's not what is going on in Iraq, nor was it ever the goal or plan. I also agree that the real goal should be to help the middle east develop better societies, what I don't agree with were the true motivations and the approach they took to achieve them. This is an ideological war, not a war of necessity, and there is nothing in actual fact that made it necessary. I also believe that it's the most counterproductive thing we could have done to achieve the actual goals that both of us agree on.

I think you are right about a Marshall Plan, and the reason i say that they never had a plan is the obvious chaos and state of affairs they have put the military and Iraquis in, but also because no such "Marshall Plan" was on their table when they took the actions they took. This fact makes clear that their motivations were not the purpose of nation building.

The real reasons for the invasion and occupation of iraq are ideological. They lie in the neo-conservative philosophy that has been gaining power in republican think tanks over the past forty years. This philosophy is as anti-conservative as it gets, but has attached itself like a barnicle to the populism of the christian right. The neo-cons control the financial apparatus and the christian right gives them a power/value base to work from. The neo-cons chose W to be their candidate, and used his kinship to christian conservatives to gain popular support from the base. W knew NOTHING about foreign policy, and that was exactly what the neo-cons wanted, as it gave them an empty tablet to work with. Cheney's in Charge, and W does as Dick says. I think the Iraq issue is more complicated than a lot of the rhetoric on both sides of the fence. I think there are several reasons why we went into Iraq, and I don't think oil, or money, was one of them. I really do think security was one of them. That aspect of the equation is something like this. It tells the Arab dictators that if we even think you're involved in trying to do us harm, you're history. It is forcing them to deal with the terrorism issue, lest we do it for you. I also think building some democracies in the Middle East was a reason, although I think the scope of this task was greatly underestimated.

Rumsfeld has made more than his share of stupid statements in my opinion, and clearly he was opposed to nation building. I just think that when all is said and done, Bush will realize (actually I think he has already) that Nation Building is the only way to succeed in building a democracy there. But I realize that wasn't the thought initially.

BTW, I have no issue with Cheney.

The neo-cons believe in the marriage of the worlds most powerful corporations, and the world's most powerful government. The Neo-cons also believe in an "internationalist" approach to the world, running 180 degrees against traditional american conservative values about non-interventionism. (This is why W said he wasn't a nation builder, only to end up nation building). They saw war in the middle east as a way to intermarry this government with the world's biggest corporations, by privatizing all government functions to these very companies, without bid, without documentation, without divulging who is getting how much and for what????

It was never "just about the oil," but always about the MONEY, and power. The reason they refused to share contracts for international support is because that would have negated the very purpose of going there to begin with. I don't know how much of this neo-con comspiracy stuff I really believe (it makes me think of Hillary's "vast right wing conspiracy"). I'm sure that some probably do think the way you describe, but I'm not ready to think that Bush or Cheney are among them.

I see the solutions in an approach that is the opposite of the one this country has undertaken. I see it in condemning and sanctioning the truly nasty repressive countries in the middle east, and supporting all those who want to provide democracy and human rights to their people. The Saudi's are among the worst, and they are our allies, the Iraqui's were a secular society, anti-thetical to religious extremists, and we attacked them. It makes absolutley no F*cking sense whatsoever, unless you return to ideology and greed. One thing, I believe Osama wanted the US to attack Saudi Arabia (to do what he couldn't do), and I'm glad we didn't fall for it.


In the end, it's solutions that interest me, and not all the whinning. I like that you have listed some ideas (some of which I've seen before).

Make Jerusalem an international Holy City-no one owns faith. This has been proposed before, and rejected by both the Israelis and Palestinians. To pull this off, it would require a military presence (possibly the US) to enforce it.

Provide a huge multi-national peacekeeping force to Palestine with the ability to provide security for Israel. Israel is more than capable of providing it's own security. What this force needs to be able to do is maintain order in the Palestinian state (once it is defined).

Provide the funding to rebuild Palestine and turn military aid to israel into infrastructural aid to Israel. We basically bought peace between Israel and Egypt, so I'm not opposed to trying it again with the Palestinians (assuming they get some type of credible government).

Condemn and sanction the repressive governments throughout the middle east. Agreed

Respect the wishes of countries who don't want the U.S and our culture or markets there. Stop building military bases in Iraq. How the hell do we send a message we want them to be sovereign when we are building bases to stay there? I strongly disagree about the bases. We need them to be sucessful in nation building. There are large areas of chaos in Iraq, and it won't get better unless we stay for the long term.

Demonstrate a respect for all faith's in this country, as the muslim hating is only making us look more racist and less humanitarian. Condemning torture and abiding by the Geneva Convention would be a good start. The U.S. is a secular country, which is a great grewat thing. It simply means that all faith is valid.

The greatest threat to religious extremists is secularism, and this is what al-queada fears most from the west, the adaptation of secular societies thoughout the muslim world.

We are now in a true cultural war i both domestically and nternationally, but it's not the Christians against the Muslims, it's theocracy against religious freedom, i.e.secularism. You have a point about the conflict between secularism and religion. We are also seeing it in this country with Democrats being perceived to be anti-Christian. Now I certainly don't want, nor do I think we have, a theocracy in the US, but that's what Israel is (I think), and they are no threat to us. If the majority of Arabs want a theocracy, it's silly to think if we set up a democracy, that they won't get it in due time. What people on all sides need, is a little more tolerence and accomodation of people with differing points of view.
________
bho hash oil (http://trichomes.org/hashish/bho-hash-oil)

[townes]

Originally posted by dchester
I think the Iraq issue is more complicated than a lot of the rhetoric on both sides of the fence. I think there are several reasons why we went into Iraq, and I don't think oil, or money, was one of them. I really do think security was one of them. That aspect of the equation is something like this. It tells the Arab dictators that if we even think you're involved in trying to do us harm, you're history. It is forcing them to deal with the terrorism issue, lest we do it for you. I also think building some democracies in the Middle East was a reason, although I think the scope of this task was greatly underestimated.



dchester, you say there are several reasons for going to War with Iraq, but list only one, security, after dismissing two obvious ones as insignificant (oil and money.)

(Not trying to be a dick, just stating my case, as i have alot of respect for you.)

You're argument is that the War and Occupation "sent a message" to the totalitarian societies in the Middle east not to support the religious extremist terrorists who want to harm the west. And that this provides greater security.

Right?


1) I don't believe that "sending a message" is a legitimite reason to go to war. Estimates are that over 100,000 Iraquis have been killed or wounded, and thousands of U.S and allied forces have suffered the same fate.

I believe you are absolutely right that this is a big reason they took this action, but I disagree 100% that it was justifiable.


2)The U.S attacked a the only muslim country in the Middle east that didn't harbor Al Queada. In fact, the U.S attacked the only muslim country in the middle east that didn't have a terrorist on the FBI's top 100 most wanted list at the time of the decision to go to war in Iraq.

Pretty amazing that their wasn't a single Iraqui on the world's 100 top terrorist list. Wouldn't you agree?

In fact, Al Queada viewed a secular Iraq as a primary objective, which is to turn the entire middle east into muslim theocracies. They were mortal enemies, which is why theories that suggested that Hussein would pass along WMD to them were bankrupt.

You don't give the psychopath who wants to kill you a loaded machine gun.

Just doesn't happen.


3)Creating security through destablization is an incredibly risky approach to these issues. I think it's undeniable that we have grossly destabilized the middle east, and the repercussions are on their way.

4)Helping create a middle east of tolerance and security requires an incredible investment on many levels. It is impossible as long as we support corrupt monarchies and theocracies, while decrying those who are similar in nature, but corrupt enough to play along with shortsighted political games for self preservation of the status quo. I.E. we can tolerate a nasty religiously extremist Saudi monarchy as long as they play ball with us.


I have outlined before my beliefs on how best to resolve the isues that confront us in the middle east, so I won't go back into them unless you ask.

[townes]

Originally posted by dchester


You have a point about the conflict between secularism and religion. We are also seeing it in this country with Democrats being perceived to be anti-Christian. Now I certainly don't want, nor do I think we have, a theocracy in the US, but that's what Israel is (I think), and they are no threat to us. If the majority of Arabs want a theocracy, it's silly to think if we set up a democracy, that they won't get it in due time. What people on all sides need, is a little more tolerence and accomodation of people with differing points of view.


Competing interests----democracy/liberty for all.


Those who wrote The Constitution understood this completely.

Freedom is only possible for anyone when it's guaranteed for everyone.

On the one hand democracy suggests that the will of the majority is the law of the land.

On the other hand the only guarantees of liberty were those the framers set forth, as they were primarily concerned with the rights of all citizens, especially the minority.

The irony is that minorities will some day be the majority in this country.

Bet we'll be looking closely at a different interpretation of the true intent of the founders then.

Won't we?

It's not the majority that matters, it's an equal playing field for everyone.

At least that's the way i see it.

[Mark_Henderson]

Originally posted by townes
Neo-Conservatives don't believe in the civil liberities

I'm just curious, did anyone hear what the result was of the voting on that nonbinding referendum that was on the Mass. ballot about refusing to implement any federal laws that curtailed civil rights? I assume that a nonbinding referendum has no more importance than an internet poll, but I was curious what the results were.

[townes]

Originally posted by Mark_Henderson
I'm just curious, did anyone hear what the result was of the voting on that nonbinding referendum that was on the Mass. ballot about refusing to implement any federal laws that curtailed civil rights? I assume that a nonbinding referendum has no more importance than an internet poll, but I was curious what the results were.

Mark, I wasn't aware of this. However, the Supremes commitment to States Rights is as thin as the air it abounds in. The Gore decision , the decision by the Bush Justice department to go after Medical marijuana, Assisted Suicide laws, and the administration's newfound love for constitutional amendments demonstrates that their support for State's Rights is only lip service.

The Bush Adminisitration has attacked State's Rights in each of these situations, and has also created unfunded federal mandates (e.g..No Child Gets Ahead), which have long been a primary point of contention for States Righters.

In short, they will ignore States Rights and state legislation whenever they see fit.

[dchester]

Originally posted by townes
dchester, you say there are several reasons for going to War with Iraq, but list only one, security, after dismissing two obvious ones as insignificant (oil and money.)

(Not trying to be a dick, just stating my case, as i have alot of respect for you.)

You're argument is that the War and Occupation "sent a message" to the totalitarian societies in the Middle east not to support the religious extremist terrorists who want to harm the west. And that this provides greater security.

Right? I was trying to say it sent a message to the various dictators in charge of the governments in the Middle East (The message is, "You could end up just like Saddam"). As far as oil and money being a reason, while I accept that it's obvious to you, it isn't to me at all. I don't know why people would think we are going to get more oil by having this war (as I think it would have been easier to just play ball with Saddam (like Russia and France were doing)).

Another reason for this war in my opinion (and this is difficult to explain, so I don't often try), is that 911 changed people's perception about the state of the world (and the Middle East in particular). Some people don't like it, but I'll use the WWII analogy. Japan attacked us, but we still felt it was important to invade Germany first, where as if Japan had not attacked us, we would not have gone into Germany.

After 911, I felt that the Middle East was very unstable, and doing nothing, was not an option. I do think that establishing democracies in the Middle East is needed, not just for our security, but for the people living there. I think if Arabs have the opportunity to persue happiness, they won't be so concerned with killing people (like 911 clearly demonstrated they were).


1) I don't believe that "sending a message" is a legitimite reason to go to war. Estimates are that over 100,000 Iraquis have been killed or wounded, and thousands of U.S and allied forces have suffered the same fate.

I believe you are absolutely right that this is a big reason they took this action, but I disagree 100% that it was justifiable. I accept that you'll never agree with me, but I think removing Saddam was justification enough (although I agree that sending a message by itself, is not a sufficient reason for war).


2)The U.S attacked a the only muslim country in the Middle east that didn't harbor Al Queada. In fact, the U.S attacked the only muslim country in the middle east that didn't have a terrorist on the FBI's top 100 most wanted list at the time of the decision to go to war in Iraq.

Pretty amazing that their wasn't a single Iraqui on the world's 100 top terrorist list. Wouldn't you agree?

In fact, Al Queada viewed a secular Iraq as a primary objective, which is to turn the entire middle east into muslim theocracies. They were mortal enemies, which is why theories that suggested that Hussein would pass along WMD to them were bankrupt.

You don't give the psychopath who wants to kill you a loaded machine gun.

Just doesn't happen. Bush had good reason (in my opinion) to believe Saddam had WMDs (CIA said it's a slam dunk case, UN thought he had them which was why they sent in inspectors, UN inspectors getting stonewalled by Saddam raised suspicions, Saddam had used them before, etc);   It sent a message to other Arab governments;   And Saddam very much deserved to be removed from power.


3)Creating security through destablization is an incredibly risky approach to these issues. I think it's undeniable that we have grossly destabilized the middle east, and the repercussions are on their way. 911 made me think things were already extremely unstable. I don't see how things could be any worse. I think a weak response (say like Clinton dropping a few bombs) was just as risky as a strong response. The problem with any difficult choice is that you can rarely be certain. But risky, I'll agree with you on.


4)Helping create a middle east of tolerance and security requires an incredible investment on many levels. It is impossible as long as we support corrupt monarchies and theocracies, while decrying those who are similar in nature, but corrupt enough to play along with shortsighted political games for self preservation of the status quo. I.E. we can tolerate a nasty religiously extremist Saudi monarchy as long as they play ball with us. Speaking for myself, I'm very much in favor of spending big money to rebuild the Middle East, along the idea of the Marshall plan in Europe afer WW II. As for supporting corrupt monopolies, we could certainly do less of that, but I do also think it's important to send a message that we will work with governments that work with us. There are many shades of gray that one must deal with in the art of diplomacy, but that doesn't mean that we couldn't also work harder to get the Saudis to reform.


BTW, I've been busy lately, thus the slow response. Take care.
________
Chrysler Royal (Australia) (http://www.dodge-wiki.com/wiki/Chrysler_Royal_(Australia))