Saudi Prince Abdullah

[ramon 0]

Not picking a fight, telling what I see.
They are all loyal to Iraq as a neighboring Islamic state. Most of the people over here are slightly racist to each other within their specific country (Emirates arabs don't like palestinians or Jordanians behind their back and like even less the pakistanis and other moslems), but once a brother Islamic country is threatened they become very loyal. The people in power here (Arabian peninsula...I am here right now unfortunately) use that "islamic brotherhood" idea to keep their people in check and to get them riled up with attention away from domestic problems (don't worry about clean water, the US is threateneing us) .
General consensus of the people here is that the Suadi prince is a winp for not being more forceful (i.e. embargo like the 70s). Many of the people I work with and in the emirates ingeneral are boycotting (I guess) american products.
As far as Iraq is concerened this is their (arab) veiw point over here.
1. Fact he had a 9 or 11 billion $ claim against Kuwait for a war against IRAN which Kuwait reneged on.
2. Fact our Secratary of State told Saddam we suppoted his claim in Kuwait (this was right before the invasion)
3. Fact King Husaain of Jordan (friendly to us) went over to Iraq to talk to Saddam before thi invasion.
4. Arab opinion..Hussain was a puppet for the US talking Saddam in to invading.
5. Arab Opinion, The US wanted Saddam to invade to start a war.
Remember I am giving their point of view as told to me.
ramon

[flyhi 24]

Quote

If you want to get off imported oil, natural gas is a good first step, because our domestic reserves of that are much higher than our reserves of petroleum. In fact, most cars will run on NG with only minor mods.

Just because I'm too lazy to look it up (all that pointing and clicking) and I know bill has it at his fingertips, "Whatever happened to coal gasification?" I thought there was enough coal under America to run the country for centuries. And I thought one of the tenets of the project was to make it a clean product. Is there too much of the bad coal (can't remember if anthracite or bituminous is the bad stuff)? Too costly to clean? No process to gassify it? At one time, I know some of the big thinkers thought it was a solution.
flyhi

[Milo 0]

Quote

Americans are starting to realise they DON'T need two sport-utes in every driveway.

Some Americans may think that way, but I think a lot more would be salivating over the thought of an 18 passenger, 15 foot tall 'Minivan' made by Kenworth.
With cupholders, of course.
milo

[billvon 3,070]

>Some Americans may think that way, but I think a lot more would be salivating
> over the thought of an 18 passenger, 15 foot tall 'Minivan' made by Kenworth.
I only hope that people will realize that there is more than one cost of the Kenworth RidicaMegaVan, and one of those costs is American lives. Seems like a high price to pay.
-bill von

[billvon 3,070]

>"Whatever happened to coal gasification?"
Nothing, it's alive and well. Why isn't it being used?
1. We have no shortage of natural gas, so there's not much incentive
2. We still have to figure out to do with the remnants, which are toxic and mildly radioactive - and we will have billions of tons of it if we gassify on a large scale
If we did want to go the coal-gasification route, step 1 is getting natural-gas cars out there. Once the demand for NG starts to outstrip our domestic supplies, then coal gasification might become economical.
As has been stated before, we have all the energy we need here in the US. Heck, we have more sunlight falling on the US than we could ever use as energy. It's just our demand for dirt-cheap energy that gives us problems. If we were willing to pay $3.00 per gallon for gas (still cheaper than just about anywhere in Europe) we'd have all the fuel we could use from synfuels and tar sands. If we were willing to pay $.25/kwhr for power, solar would pay for itself within 15 years and could supply 75% of our daytime power requirements.
-bill von

[skybytch 273]

Quote

this knuckle head, Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, I'm starting to get a real dislike for.

Check this out! Dislike? I'm fumin'!
pull & flare,
lisa
[subliminal msg]My website Go Now[/subliminal msg]

[quade 4]

Somebody needs a beatin' and it's not just the Prince.

Quote

Another FAA official, who asked not to be named, said the Saudis made the request directly to local airport officials in Waco. Aviation officials there complied with the request, he said, assigning male air traffic controllers to direct the flight.
Pallone said a female supervisor at the FAA's Waco approach control center stepped back and told a male controller to handle the prince's inbound flight.

This particular sup ought to be brought up on charges of sexual discrimination.

Quote

As for Abdullah's departure from Texas, Pallone said no FAA facilities changed staffing and that in fact a female air traffic controller in Fort Worth directed the prince's flight.

With any luck she said someting like, "Saudi 666, DFW, turn right heading 090 and get the fuck outta my airspace. Traffic 6 O'clock and 3 miles, 2 miles, 1 miles . . . good-day."
quade
http://futurecam.com

[billvon 3,070]

>Check this out! Dislike? I'm fumin'!
I can't get too worked up about them asking. We should have said "no" if we had a problem with it, not "yes" then get worked up about it later. It's like an american woman walking around Pakistan with shorts and a tank top - no problem from our point of view, but very rude to a Pakistani. It would be appropriate for someone there to say "Hey, you should wear a shalwar kameez" or something like it - then at least the clueless american would know how people felt. If she _still_ refused to cover up, then I could see the Pakistanis having a legitimate grievance.
Same thing here. If someone had said "We use female flight controllers, and we resent being told not to use them" he would have the opportunity to say "Oh, OK, no problem." If he said instead "No woman will direct my holy butt in US airspace!" then I could see having a legitimate grievance.
-bill von

[skyhawk 2]

i cant see any real problem the lady prob didnt want to do it either, remember though US ppl do it to, i.e there was a marine over in the middle east taking legal action against the defence force because they tried to make her cover up, sure we might not agree with the way things are but you have to respect there customs , it goes both ways
Opinions are like a-holes everyone has one, the only one that does you any good is yours and all that comes out is shit

[flyhi 24]

Quote

With any luck she said someting like, "Saudi 666, DFW, turn right heading 090 and get the fuck outta my airspace. Traffic 6 O'clock and 3 miles, 2 miles, 1 miles . . . good-day."

I got it! I got it! That gets a 9 on the "Subtle but Funny" scale.
flyhi

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

taking legal action against the defence force because they tried to make her cover up

This action wasn't taken against the host nation though, it was taken against the US military. You'll also remember that they laughed at her and told her to shut up. There is a difference between the leader of a country acting this way and a citizen. You respect the rules and customs of the country that you are visiting. I mean Bush doesn't visit France and require everyone there to take a shower and the women to shave does he? j/k
I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters.

[skyhawk 2]

yer but she was refusing to wear the clothes in the host nation
Opinions are like a-holes everyone has one, the only one that does you any good is yours and all that comes out is shit

[jumpjunky 0]

Gee that's funny, I was under the impression that the problem was the Israeli invasion of Palestine after the 1967 war and the subsequent continued violent occupation of Palestinian land in the form of settlements. I must also have been misguided in believing that the problem of an un-reached peace solution is due to the fast that Israel has outright refused to hand back all the land that they have taken. Does the fact that what Israel is doing is seen as an illegal occupation by the UN carry any weight? Does the fact that every time a resolution is put forward by the majority of member nations to call on Israel to pull back to pre-1967 borders the US vetoes it bother you at all?
I agree that the suicide bombing of civilians is appalling. It is equally as appalling when US made weapons are used to kill civilians on the other side as we have seen recently- or isn't it terrorism when a recognized army kills innocent people.
The original topic of this thread seemed to be some sort of indignation that a Saudi price dared to threaten America's economic interests in the region. I can't believe that anyone could get upset about this with a straight face knowing the amount of times that the US has done this to other countries.
BSBD
JP

[kmcguffee 0]

jumpjunky,
I don't agree with everything that Israel is doing but the history of this conflict doesn't start with 1967. Israel occuppied Palestine in order to establish a buffer zone between them and the other Arab nations that, up to 1967, had launched offensives against them a total of three times.

Quote

or isn't it terrorism when a recognized army kills innocent people.

Actually no it is not. If it is done intentionally it is a war crime. Take Milosevic for example. Is he being charged as a terrorist?

Quote

I can't believe that anyone could get upset about this with a straight face knowing the amount of times that the US has done this to other countries.

You probably need to reread the thread. With the amount of assistance we've given that country yes, I do find it wrong for him to threaten America.
I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters.

[FallRate 0]

That is funny. An Israeli invasion of Palestine? They did take control of land in Egypt (the Gaza Strip and Sinai Peninsula), Jordon (the West Bank) and Syria (Golan Heights) AFTER defeating the three countries in a war started by these three countries. Spoils of war. The Arabs should be happy the Israelis stopped where they did.
And as for Israel's unwillingness to "simply" give back the land, UN resolution 242 (November, 1967) would have provided for the return of this land if the Arab states would have promised to recognize Israel and respect its borders. The Arabs refused this, promising a continued fight against the existence of the Israeli state.
I'm not a huge supporter of Israel, but the idea that the current situation is entirely the fault of the Israelis is, quite simply, idiotic.
FallRate

[jumpjunky 0]

Okay; my intention was not to provide a completely biased view on the situation. I was responding to a message earlier on in the thread that was stating that Sharon was right and justified in his actions. Unfortunately the part I was responding to did not copy on my thread so it may have seemed a bit out of left field.
UN resolution 242 was a starting point and yes, the US did not oppose it. The point I was trying to make however was that since 1967 almost every other draft resolution put forward to the general assembly regarding the Israeli occupation has been vetoed by America. The UN has also continued to maintain its position that the Israeli occupation is illegal and should end.
In regard to my comments on army terrorism, again I was responding to a previous message which put all the blame on Arafat and the PLO. My aim was to highlight the fact that the conduct of the Israeli army could also be interpreted by some as an act of terrorism.
It is my personal opinion that the continued establishment of settlements on land that was not originally given to Israel could very well be interpreted as an invasion
My views may seem idiotic to some but I make no apology for them.