Huh? They're reporting on a thinktank's report? How is that rhetorical drivel?
And I really don't see how this is an example of how people think Saddam is omnipotent. Does this make Sharon omnipotent, given that he genuinely does have nukes?
>> I doubt it. Insurrection has been put down easily enough in the past -
just
>> look at Syria. Saudi Arabia might be a problem, but then the oil's easily
>> defensible. Mecca might fall, but so what? It might even be a good thing
for
>> the US - it would separate the religion from the oil.
>
> We can no more predict the contagion effects in the ME than we can predict
> next Wednesday's Dow Jones prices.
And yet you can predict that "it would be *long* time before the US could exit- presence in the region." Could we have a little consistency here. please?
The question is not what will happen (relatively unpredictable, though the Middle East's history gives a few pointers. Also the fact that the governments involved have been standing up to the US, might protect them from the rage of their populations), but whether the US will be able to contain it. In the past the answer has been yes and I don't see why that would be any different today.
The only real exception is Saudi Arabia, and that's a total unknown. Might be bad, might be nothing, might be good. Nobody has a clue.
> Your cheapening of the consequences of Mecca's fall is an example of the
kind
> of hubris Muslims deplore in Westerners.
Oh it would have a huge effect on Muslims, but unless it was taken over by the jihadists, I don't see how it would affect the west. All the west cares about is oil, which is elsewhere in Saudi Arabia. Separating that oil from Mecca could only be a good thing for the west.
> Saudi Arabia has the potential of being a big problem in the next decade
and
> the idea of US occupation there ought scare the pants off of everyone.
Only in the holy lands, and why would the US occupy them? What's the point?
> Like I said about a year ago, challenging the very rhetoric of the "war
> against terror" should remain a goal in the Gramscian positional
> sense.........
There's nothing wrong in acting against Al-Quaida. The problem is that the US is using it as an excuse to do other things, or conducting that "war" in a very poor fashion. If Al-Quaida could be eliminated without the loss of innocent lives, would you still oppose such actions?
Cian