Why are we giving enriched uranium to Saudi Arabia?

[chomerics]

None....

But that's not the question which justifies the solution.

If a nuclear power in the Middle East is unavoidable, is it better to contol them or is it better to have them operating in an inky black void.

I agree it is better to control them, no questions asked, but why START a program with them, why not let them start their OWN program and then give them what they need. Why help them along????

If North Korea with their 40 billion GDP could obtain a bomb, what makes anybody think Saudi Arabia and their 572 billion dollar GDP could not? And we aren't going to embargo Saudi to stop them...

I am not arguing that they could not, but why help them along and give them the keys to the candy store when you don't have to? make them do the leg work, and then come in, right now, we are giving a country that has no nuclear energy program one. We are placing nuclear power in another country in the Middle East, which is not the most tranquil place in the world.

If they had already invested billions of dollars into a program, I would agree it is in our best interest to have control, but as of right now, they have not even stated a desire to obtain nuclear power, they don't need to, they are sitting on oil. Why push them in that direction?

[Corcaigh]

As I stated before, what is the grade of uranium we are giving them? That makes all the difference in the world on that issue does it not? If we are giving them high enriched uranium, it could be used for a bomb, if we are giving them low enriched it could not. I am assuming nothing, and in fact on the first page I asked the question, and until it is answered, the topic remains on the table. If it is say 5% yea, I agree with you, if it is say >20% I disagree with you. I don't know the number, but I am also not ignoring the question either.

The quote in YOUR very first post ...

"The White House said Washington and Riyadh were also to sign an agreement on nuclear cooperation that would clear the way for Saudi Arabia to receive enriched uranium for its reactors, without the need to master the fuel nuclear cycle itself as Iran has done."

... made it clear that our co-operation was in return for the Saudis not developing their own nuclear fuel cycle. If we are supplying them weapons grade material, why would we give a **** whether they had their own nuclear fuel development cycle? Your argument makes absolutely no sense. Give it up. You made an incorrect assumption about dual use based on your lack of knowledge of the subject. The thread is over.

[JMS]

I did in the other post. . . if we are going to do this for SA, why not Iran? Why not Syria? Why does SA need the energy, yet the other countries in the ME with less oil, and more energy needs do not? Who are we to say "you can have the technology and you can not"

We have offered Iran nuclear fuel through the Russians. And We have agreed to build nuclear reactors for N. Korea as part of our agreement with them.

Syria is another matter. They don't have the financial resources for a bomb program and they don't have a bomb today. If they did pay for and develope their own nuclear program, we would likely provide them with fuel in exchange for monitoring rights.

It is our way of doing business over there that got us into trouble in the first place, and this is along those lines, we should not be going hand in hand to what ever the house of Saud wants, and instead should look out for our OWN best interests. Unfortunately the foreign policy decisions of the past 25 years concerning the ME have all been abysmal failures.

Well our strategies for nuclear non poliferation actually go back to Truman, who came up with the share technology in exchange for monitoring philosophy. Eisenhower continued his policies.

The first Gulf war was a result of us arming Hussen.

Not a single Iraqi weapons system was American under Saddam. Saddam was always a Soviet Client. Reagan/Bush did help him procure soviet weapons with Saudi and Kuwaiti financial assistance, because that was prefferable than having Iraq and likely Saudi and Kuwait fall under Iranian control.

I think those moves were very defendable today, even with hind site.

The second was a result of megalomaniacs thinking they can transform the world through brute force. It is scary to think that our government thinks only of the next quarter, never the next decade.

Well, I agree on the premise... Bush is a moron. I just think this perticular example is an instance of continuing with a policy which was inplace before bush took office, and is a lesser of two evils, rather than a Bush created policy which I think have been universally poor.

There are any number of reasons why we should not be doing this, but the most important is the message it sends to the rest of the world, and it makes everything else we say ring hollow. What is so different about Saudi Arabia and Iran? One outright condems us, the other does it behind closed doors. They both fund terrorists, and the 9-11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. They both preach anti-American sentiment in their streets, and in their mosques. They both have oil. Why are we friends with one and not the other?

Saudi isn't a state sponsor of terror, Iran is. Their isn't a comparison between Iran and Saudi. I'll give you this though. There is a comparison between some eliments of both populations.

Does anyone realize that this is part of the reason why everyone hates us? It is how blowback happens, and why I think it is a bad idea. Your friends now will be your enemies in 20 years, and everything you do to pimp them up, you in turn have to destroy to take them down. It is a never ending saga of perpetual war where you chose one side one day and the other side the next, it is not how we should be doing business as a country.

Chom, we are being consitant here. We have offered Iran nuclear fuel in exchange for monitoring.

Furthermore, the EU was already Iran’s biggest trade partner, so any further trade and economic benefits would have to have been substantial from Tehran’s viewpoint. The last straw for Iran was the European demand that in exchange for economic assistance and technology transfers in the nuclear field, Tehran would have to permanently give up its right to control the nuclear fuel cycle — something which had no legal basis. The Iranians eventually realized that little was on offer. Indeed, as one EU official in Brussels privately admitted, “the package was an empty box of chocolates”. The Bush Administration was also exerting a much influence — direct and indirect — on the process.

http://meionline.com/features/415.shtml

The difference is Iran wants to control their nuclear fuel cycle, and Saudi has agreed not to, so far.

[chomerics]

Saudi's have been talking about this since the 1970s.

Their energy needs are growing rapidly and they have a huge need for water desalination which requires enromous amounts of energy.

If we don't sell the Saudi's nuclear power generation technology, France, Britain, Russia or any number of other countries will be more than happy to earn a few trillion dollars of that business. French President Nicolas Sarkozy has already made a number of 'sales calls' to the Middle East offering their nuclear technology as those countries have huge energy needs and know that fossil fuels won't last forever.

You are starting to sound like your neighbor MassSkinsFan with your isolationist approach.

This in news to me, ok, I'm convinced. . .it is a good idea provided. . . we are giving them less than 20% enriched uranium and we know exactly where the material is at all times.

I don't trust SA any more than I trust Iran, they are both from the same cloth if you ask me. . .but you guys have argued enough good points to make me change my mind on the issue.

[Corcaigh]

I don't trust SA any more than I trust Iran, they are both from the same cloth if you ask me. . .but you guys have argued enough good points to make me change my mind on the issue.

If, on occasion, my candle can shine a little light in the dark, then it's been a good day.

[nonniey]

I was going to offer a defense and good one has been offered (Giving them the uranium for their reactors prevents giving them the ability to manufacture weapons grade material, additionally we'de have a great measure of control on its use). But there is a but. Why do the Saudi's have a need for nuclear reactors in the first place? For the Saudis, like Iran, it only makes sense to use oil burning power plants

[chomerics]

Not a single Iraqi weapons system was American under Saddam. Saddam was always a Soviet Client. Reagan/Bush did help him procure soviet weapons with Saudi and Kuwaiti financial assistance, because that was prefferable than having Iraq and likely Saudi and Kuwait fall under Iranian control.

I think those moves were very defendable today, even with hind site.

I disagree, I think we should have stayed out of their business, and let them fight it out. I don't think you can defend adequately what we did, because of what happened after.

I was also not talking about the arms themselves, but the money paid to him in order to purchase everything. When I say we "armed Hussen" I am saying we gave him money and technology to build his army. Heck, all of his biological and chemical weapons were based on our technology.

Well, I agree on the premise... Bush is a moron. I just think this perticular example is an instance of continuing with a policy which was inplace before bush took office, and is a lesser of two evils, rather than a Bush created policy which I think have been universally poor.

Saudi isn't a state sponsor of terror, Iran is. Their isn't a comparison between Iran and Saudi. I'll give you this though. There is a comparison between some eliments of both populations.

I disagree completely. I don't think there is a difference between Saudi Arabia and Iran when it comes to terrorism. Does Saudi Arabia fund terrorists? Do they send money to terrorist organizations? I think the answer is yes to both of them.

The difference is Iran wants to control their nuclear fuel cycle, and Saudi has agreed not to, so far.

Yea, I gave a my bad in the previous post, you guys have convinced me it is a good idea provided we don't give high enriched uranium.

[Larry]

If, on occasion, my candle can shine a little light in the dark, then it's been a good day.

Hey, where do you come off taking credit for this?

It was my clever use of

• Underlines
  
• Itemized lists
  

that won the argument.

[JMS]

If they had already invested billions of dollars into a program, I would agree it is in our best interest to have control, but as of right now, they have not even stated a desire to obtain nuclear power, they don't need to, they are sitting on oil. Why push them in that direction?

First off Saudi Arabia has experessed a desire for nuclear technology. And they have signaled the willingness to invest in that technology. We aren't leading this train. We can't wait for them to develope the technology, spending billions to do so; and then expect them to abandon it in exchange for our tardy assistance for something they've alerady gotten on their own.

If they already spent the billions for the capacity, why would they turn away from domestic fuel production?

[Redskins Diehard]

Hey, where do you come off taking credit for this?

It was my clever use of

• Underlines
  
• Itemized lists
  

that won the argument.

I thought my analogy to marijuana early in the thread would have done it. Should have saved it for closing arguments....

Quite possible the most productive controversial topic I have seen here in my tenure:cheers:

[chomerics]

First off Saudi Arabia has experessed a desire for nuclear technology. And they have signaled the willingness to invest in that technology. We aren't leading this train. We can't wait for them to develope the technology, spending billions to do so; and then expect them to abandon it in exchange for our tardy assistance for something they've alerady gotten on their own.

If they already spent the billions for the capacity, why would they turn away from domestic fuel production?

Reread my subsequent posts, I did not know they have been after the technology for a while. . .

[DGreenistheBest]

I was going to offer a defense and good one has been offered (Giving them the uranium for their reactors prevents giving them the ability to manufacture weapons grade material, additionally we'de have a great measure of control on its use). But there is a but. Why do the Saudi's have a need for nuclear reactors in the first place? For the Saudis, like Iran, it only makes sense to use oil burning power plants

To build and power this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=550548&in_page_id=1811

[Corcaigh]

Hey, where do you come off taking credit for this?

It was my clever use of

• Underlines
  
• Itemized lists
  

that won the argument.

'cause he waived the surrender flag in a reply to me.

I did notice an annoying echo in here as I was making my points.

And Chom respects the argument from authority, not nice formatting.

[nonniey]

LMAO, hell I've been posting here for years, they started monitoring it right after the Patriot Act was past, I bet they have an entire 50 page dossier on my sorry ass

You're so full of yourself. It is only 7 pages.

[JMS]

I disagree, I think we should have stayed out of their business, and let them fight it out. I don't think you can defend adequately what we did, because of what happened after.

I agree as a general prinsiple, the ends do not justify the means. I also will retreat from my previous post which implied they did.

However, in this case; what did we do exactly? We told Saudi and Kuwaitis that we wouldn't be annoyed with them if they loaned money to Iraq for soviet weapons. We further told the soviets that It would be ok by us if they helped out Iraq. It's not like we paid for weapons, or even supplied American weapons. We just let it happen, and we didn't use political pull to stop it from happenning.

Quite frankly Iraq is a country of 28 million with a majority Shia.. Iran is a country of about 65 milion. If Saudi and Kuwait hadn't paid for the weapons it's not likely Iran wouldn't have made short work of them.

I was also not talking about the arms themselves, but the money paid to him in order to purchase everything. When I say we "armed Hussen" I am saying we gave him money and technology to build his army. Heck, all of his biological and chemical weapons were based on our technology.

First off we didn't give Saddam money. Saddam was a soviet client, not an American client. We just didn't complain when Saudi and Kuwait loaned Iraq money. Those loans and Saddams decision not to repay them along with Kuwait's decision not to forgive them, were a huge reason for the first gulf war.

Second off, Iraq did get biological material from us, but their weapons were not based on our weapons. Iraq did not get any WMD weapons technology directly from the US government. Even though their was leakage from private industries. Even so, none of Iraqi weapons could be claimed to have been based on American technology. Not their tanks which were Russian. not their AA system which was German. Not their anti ship missles which were French.

American biological weapons are based on binary technology where two innert components are saftly stored separately and only combined to create the active weapon just prior to use. The Iraqi's didn't have anthing like that.

Iraq was using WWI style mustard gas and bacterial weapons which weren't much more sophisticated.

I disagree completely. I don't think there is a difference between Saudi Arabia and Iran when it comes to terrorism. Does Saudi Arabia fund terrorists? Do they send money to terrorist organizations? I think the answer is yes to both of them.

Iran has been mentioned prominently on the State Departments report on Terrorism which is requited to be given to congress bi anually. They have been for two decades. Saudi Arabia's Government is not on that report and has never been on that report.

There is a huge difference between private citizens like Timothy McVeigh supporting and purpetrating terrorism and the Government of the United States supporting on purpetraiting terrorims. That's the distinction which exists between the Saudi Government and the Iranian government.

As far as Saudi population goes there is no doubt that the population is largely Xenophobic anti western fundimentalists. That is not true of the royal family and the small but growing middle class the royals are trying to foster, which are both pro western. The Royal family is actively trying to change the culture of it's population via supporting western education and cultural exchanges and it's middle class. Let's not forget that oil in the kingdom was only discovered in the early 1930's and that prior to that Saudi's basically lived an isolated life of a third world country mostly unchanged for 1000 years....

Today a young Saudi has his choice of free educations both domestically in the Madrases or in Europe or the United States. If he chooses a European or American University education his yearly stipend paid by the government is more than doubled for his lifetime. Other than mandating it's populous spends time in the West, the Saudi's are doing all they can.

[twa]

Uranium suitable for power generation is not in any way useful for weapons production.

I think everyone would be happy if the Iranians would adopt this approach - we supply enriched uranium in quantities to satisfy their interest in nuclear power generation and in return they shut down their enrichment facilities provide inspection access that proves they ar not operational.

Nice to see reason used

We have in fact offered Iran the same deal IF they quit enriching their own.

Naturally they have refused

[JMS]

Reread my subsequent posts, I did not know they have been after the technology for a while. . .

Sorry, I'm catching up with the discussion... carry on..

[DGreenistheBest]

Hopefully were trading it for a ****load of their delicious oil.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/16/bush.saudi.arabia/index.html

[chomerics]

IHowever, in this case; what did we do exactly? We told Saudi and Kuwaitis that we wouldn't be annoyed with them if they loaned money to Iraq for soviet weapons. We further told the soviets that It would be ok by us if they helped out Iraq. It's not like we paid for weapons, or even supplied American weapons. We just let it happen, and we didn't use political pull to stop it from happenning.

First off we didn't give Saddam money. Saddam was a soviet client, not an American client. We just didn't complain when Saudi and Kuwait loaned Iraq money. Those loans and Saddams decision not to repay them along with Kuwait's decision not to forgive them, were a huge reason for the first gulf war.

And we also gave them everything else they needed as well . . .

The CIA, including both CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to Iraq. My notes, memoranda and other documents in my NSC files show or tend to show that the CIA knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, munitions and vehicles to Iraq.[9]

Second off, Iraq did get biological material from us, but their weapons were not based on our weapons. Iraq did not get any WMD weapons technology directly from the US government. Even though their was leakage from private industries. Even so, none of Iraqi weapons could be claimed to have been based on American technology. Not their tanks which were Russian. not their AA system which was German. Not their anti ship missles which were French.

It is how we do business, you know this as well as I. We give them the ability to create the weapons, supply them with material, and let them do the dirty work. We sell them weapons from other countries so our hands are "clean" even though our fingerprints are all over the place.

I think you are taking the tact that we were not as involved in propping up Iraq as I think we were. I don't know what you believe, but we were in bed with him, propped him up, and gave him the resources (is that a better word) needed to stall off Iran. We created the beast in other words, by bedding ourselves with someone we should never have been dealing with in the first place. It is the entire methodology of how we do business over there that the problem arises from. They have every reason in the world to hate us as Americans because of our governments actions in the ME, and it is high tiime we stopped it.

In 1982, Iraq was removed from the U.S. Department of State list of terrorist-supporting nations to ease the transfer of dual-use technology to that country. According to investigative journalist and award-winning author Alan Friedman, Secretary of State Alexander Haig was "upset at the fact that the decision had been made at the White House, even though the State Department was responsible for the list."[11] "I was not consulted," Haig is said to have complained.

About two of every seven licenses for the export of "dual use" technology items approved between 1985 and 1990 by the US Department of Commerce "went either directly to the Iraqi armed forces, to Iraqi end-users engaged in weapons production, or to Iraqi enterprises suspected of diverting technology" to weapons of mass destruction according to an investigation by House Banking Committee Chairman Henry B. Gonzalez. According to the investigation, confidential Commerce Department files also reveal that the Reagan and Bush administrations approved at least 80 direct exports to the Iraqi military.

Iran has been mentioned prominently on the State Departments report on Terrorism which is requited to be given to congress bi anually. They have been for two decades. Saudi Arabia's Government is not on that report and has never been on that report.

Iraq was removed from the list when we wanted something from them. The so called "list" is nothing more than a tool used by politicians to justify sanctions against one country, while being friends with another. is there any doubt in your mind that money from the Saudi gov't goes to Hammas? Right there that should make you take pause. . .

There is a huge difference between private citizens like Timothy McVeigh supporting and purpetrating terrorism and the Government of the United States supporting on purpetraiting terrorims. That's the distinction which exists between the Saudi Government and the Iranian government.

How so? What have the Iranians done towards US interest that the Saudis have not in the past decade? Who have they supported that is any different from who the Saudis have supported? Just because one is "supposedly" our ally, and the other is part of the "axis of evil" does not mean they are not doing the same things, it just means our government turns a blind eye to one and not the other, and that IS a problem. It is our MAIN problem IN the middle east.

As far as Saudi population goes there is no doubt that the population is largely Xenophobic anti western fundimentalists. That is not true of the royal family and the small but growing middle class the royals are trying to foster, which are both pro western. The Royal family is actively trying to change the culture of it's population via supporting western education and cultural exchanges and it's middle class.

I completely disagree, why do they let Whabbism fuel the fire? Why do they not put a stop to the Anti American sentiment? Why are they funding Wahhabism? It is the state religion that feeds the fundamental hatred of the US. They are not actively trying to change it, they embrace it, and we are turning a blind eye to it.

Other than mandating it's populous spends time in the West, the Saudi's are doing all they can.

I think that is BS, if they were doing all they can, there is no way they would be funding, and promoting a religion which preaches hatred of the US, plain and simple. . .

[Predicto]

I really learned a few things in this thread.

Go Tailgate! :applause:

[JMS]

And we also gave them everything else they needed as well . . .

Knew, approved, and assisted? Isn't the same as gave, sold, or paid for.

We didn't give Iraq much of anything. As I said not a single Iraqi weapon system under Saddam was American. American money never flowed from congress to Iraq. The transfers which can be linked to the US were mostly purchases of equipment which any civilian with a credit card could procure.. Osiliscopes, PC's, that type of thing and even that was not significant. Not like Germany, France and Russia which were all actively supplying Iraq and Saddam weapons..

It is how we do business, you know this as well as I. We give them the ability to create the weapons, supply them with material, and let them do the dirty work. We sell them weapons from other countries so our hands are "clean" even though our fingerprints are all over the place.

Well you are right that we do a huge business in weapons. But this isn't how we do buisness. Saddam's Iraq did not pay the United States for weapons. We did not profit in anyway from Iraqi weapon sales. Thus this wasn't how we do business traditionally.

I think you are taking the tact that we were not as involved in propping up Iraq as I think we were. I don't know what you believe, but we were in bed with him, propped him up, and gave him the resources (is that a better word) needed to stall off Iran. We created the beast in other words, by bedding ourselves with someone we should never have been dealing with in the first place. It is the entire methodology of how we do business over there that the problem arises from. They have every reason in the world to hate us as Americans because of our governments actions in the ME, and it is high tiime we stopped it.

Language needs to be precise here. We did prop him up, we did not give him resources, nor did we create him, nor profit monitarily from those deals which did.

We were concerned with the security of important allies in the region. We helped and enabled them in taking a coarse of action which we agreed with. That might be a fine point, but it's a meaningful one.

There is a huge difference between Iraq and any number of countries in the world which actually are Amrican clients.. Israel, Columbia, Egypt, or Iran under the Shah. You can't use the same argument or paint us just as responsible for the acts of Saddam as you can in these other instances when questionable acts are taken by people carrying American riffles, who step out of American Humbies, and Fly American fighters and Helicopters.

I think if you expand our responsiblity when we aren't, you actually diminish our responsibility where we are.

Iraq was removed from the list when we wanted something from them. The so called "list" is nothing more than a tool used by politicians to justify sanctions against one country, while being friends with another. is there any doubt in your mind that money from the Saudi gov't goes to Hammas? Right there that should make you take pause. . .

But Chom there is a big difference from not prosecuting our allies for enabling Iraq on their dime, and supplying Iraq weapons ourselves on our dime. We certainly did the former, but not the latter.

How so? What have the Iranians done towards US interest that the Saudis have not in the past decade? Who have they supported that is any different from who the Saudis have supported? Just because one is "supposedly" our ally, and the other is part of the "axis of evil" does not mean they are not doing the same things, it just means our government turns a blind eye to one and not the other, and that IS a problem. It is our MAIN problem IN the middle east.

Well the Iranians have blown up our airplanes, invaded our embasy, and provided weapons to be used against our allies (Israel) on a massive 100's of millions of dollars scale.

As for your assertion public private support are the same things, you could make the same argument against Amerian citizens and Al Quada. It would be just as meaningless logically. American citizens kill more American citizens every year than Al quada, Timothy McVeigh blew up the Oklohoma federal building just like Al Quada blew up the Pentagon.

The fact is the Saudi government doesn't support terrorism and never has even if some of their citizens have. That is a meaningful distinction, even if as you say the ends are not significantly different.

I completely disagree, why do they let Whabbism fuel the fire?

Whabbism is the state religion of Saudi Arabia, always has been. King Abduel Aziz came to power based on support of Whabism....

There is a fundimental historical difference between religous extreamism and secularism in the Middle east and West.

The history of the west is one where totolitarian radical religions suppressed people( Catholic Church ) only to be reformed by nationalistic secular leaders.. ( Refomation, Protestant Schisms).. Thats why in the west historically we trust secular leadership over religous leaders, as more reliable.

That history is certainly on the minds of the writers of the American Constitution and separation of church and state amendments.

In the Middle east it was the exact opposite. In the Middle east it was despotic totolitarian radical secularists who suppressed enlightement and cast the people into their dark ages. It was religous leaders like Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab who introduced reforms on the nationalistic secular leadership for the benifit of the people.. (in general).. That is why to this day religous leaders in the ME are more trusted than secular leaders. It's purspective.

Why do they not put a stop to the Anti American sentiment?

Much of the Anti Americna sentiment has sprung up over the last few decades because of American occupations in the region as well as our support for Israel which most Arabs see as a return to imperialism and occupation which they just got rid of in the early mid 20th century.

Even so how can your government outlaw an idea. All they can do is try to tempor it. How long did it take the United States to end segregation? 200 years? Saudi has only been around for 80 years and have spent a lot of that time elivating themselves from the third world to first world status.

Why are they funding Wahhabism?

Saudi Arabia has been dealing with religous fanatics all their history. They're tactic is to use a stick and a carrot. When the fanatics attacked the grand mosque in Mecca in 1979, killing hundreds of pilgems and holding hundreds more hostage; it fundimentally changed the kingdom. The purpotrators of the attack were tried and beheded, but Saudi also implemented reforms which granted more power and funding to those who sympothized with the attackers. They implemented Sharia, islamic law in the country and gave the religion leaders more financial suuport and power inside the kingdom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Mosque_Seizure#Aftermath

In hind site this could be seen as a mistake, as it has lead to the funding of some Madrasses which were very anti western prior to 911. Since 9/11 the Saudi's have taken stops to tempor the messages coming from thise madresses they support.

It is the state religion that feeds the fundamental hatred of the US.

There is no doubt that controversial acts taken by Israel are front page news in the region daily. There is also no doubt that America is closely associated with Israel and that most Arabs are very frusterated with this relationship. It's also true that our two gulf wars and occupation of Iraq haven't helped the situation.

They are not actively trying to change it, they embrace it, and we are turning a blind eye to it.

I was in Saudi Arabia when the first westerner was murdered there in more than two decades(*). A British Aerospace contractor was shot to death at a traffic light in Ryadh while driving with his wife and children by Al Quada. The gunmen were apprehended when Saudi commuters followed their van and cell phoned police about what happenned with the wearabouts of the vehicle. That evening I drove 14 miles across the city on an errand every stop sign, every traffic light, every intersection had a Saudi policeman or soldier stationed their with a weapon. It's simple not true Saudi government embraces this radicalism.....

(*) Reality Brits and Americans were killed during the 1990's; but the Saudi's claimed they killed each other in a war on bootleggers... All I know is what I've read...

Most of the industry in Saudi Arabia is run by ex-patriot American, british, and Europeans. It's not true Saudi turns a blind eye to their problem with fundimentalism. It's not true they aren't actively engaged in fighting this problem.

What is not well understood is the scope of the problem. I lived in the Al Faisaliah Tower compound in down town Riyadh.. ( actually the compound is the little building to the right of the tower.. )

This building was one of the largest and modern buildings in the city before the kingdom center openned up it was the largest and most modern. It was not uncommon for me to hear automatic gun shots outside my window on any given night. Fifteen twenty minute gun battles. Once or twice a week.

I had to walk two blocks to my office in Riyhadh, It wasn't uncommon for me to hear someone yell... F- America, or Osama Bin Laudin is Great!!!.... on my two block walk.. Happenned 3-4 times a week. Now I was there during the war and that definitely hightenned the troubles; but I was struck by how prevalent their problem was, in the general populous...

Counter that with the fact that I worked in an office of Saudi's, I regularly traveled to a government complex which was mostly saudi's and I never had any problems... There is just a huge difference between the Royals, and the middle class Saudi's I worked with and the average Saudi on the street.

BS, if they were doing all they can, there is no way they would be funding, and promoting a religion which preaches hatred of the US, plain and simple. . .

It's hard to understand but that religion is the religion of 99% of Saudi's. It's the only religion which can be practiced in Saudi. The Saud's have co-existed in a power sharing arrangment with Wahabism for hundreds of years ever since Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab first came to live and reform under the protection of Muhammad ibn Saud in Diriyya in 1740.

[SkinsHokieFan]

I really learned a few things in this thread.

Go Tailgate! :applause:

Certainly one of the better threads in here in a while, and I have learned quite a bit. Which is why I kept my mouth shut after my first 3 or 4 posts

[Corcaigh]

Certainly one of the better threads in here in a while

In spite of your contributions

[rdsknbill]

Fair enough, and I will admit when I am wrong, I will edit it out.

Of course I do man, he is on my myspace page! That is the first thing I thought of when I saw the GFY comment, he is a freakin riot :laugh:

You know what?! Politics aside, we are on the same page, ok SORTA? How do you feel about lacrosse? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[Jumbo]

I thought my analogy to marijuana early in the thread would have done it. Should have saved it for closing arguments....

Quite possible the most productive controversial topic I have seen here in my tenure:cheers:

I really learned a few things in this thread.

Go Tailgate! :applause:

You know what?! Politics aside, we are on the same page, ok SORTA? How do you feel about lacrosse? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

To preserve the dignity and indeed the sanctity of this very special moment in tailgate history, I will now perma-ban everyone in the thread.