That is certainly true as well, but the Saudis have that rare ability to fall into a pile of fecal matter and come out smelling like the proverbial rose. Following 9/11, the US applied only temporary pressure to them. Once things got moving in Iraq, they were needed once again, so I would think they are banking on their status as one of the few western-friendly nations in the region to pull them through any mess.

However, success in Iraq, a peaceful Palestinian state, and an amicable end to the Iranian nuclear program crisis could alter this standing. It does make one wonder how committed to solving the problems of the Middle East the Saudis actually are. It is blatently in their best financial interest to have things remain at status quo.

http://www.worldwar1.com/

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar...ne/ww2time.htm

Lesson #1 of the first half of the 20th Century: Isolationism does not work.

That's only because we went about applying the techniques incorrectly. Now I'm not a history major and I can't tell you exactly, but never was the US truly in an isolationist state.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but have we ever TRULY tried to establish isolationism? In history, have we EVER tried?

Of course the US was never a purely isolationist state. Just like Communism, true isolationism is impossible. We do not grow/make/bake/produce every single thing and item that we need here in the US. No nation does. With that established, one finds that the US has need for trade partners and, hence, allies. Once you have those, you have entanglement in world affairs.

Essentially, US isolationism was the turning of a "blind eye" to the world affairs. However, the cutting of all ties with all nations is an impossibility.

FYI: I was not a history major either.

We never had the chance! Decades after independence we were at war with France and the Barbary Pirates. Then we were at war with England again. < Everyone is picking on us! Then the civil war made us increase trade with allies and cut off trade of the other side. Then there was that massive military build up in 30 or so years before WWI. The rest you know.

To quote him:
�We can either fight them over there or fight them over here, and my family is over here.�

Haha, and their families are over their... Do they matter at all?

Who is more important to you, your family or some family you've never met in a nation that is a threat to your family?

Haha, I thought you would have fully understood me by now...

We are ALL important: You, me, my friends and family, and your friends and families... And in most cases, my enemies are the MOST important, more so than my own friends...

:huh:

If you had to chose between protecting your family and a family you didn’t know, who would you pick? (you can only pick one...)

Of course I'd choose my family. Obviously.


But if we didn't go to war, then my family would be protected...

And so would theirs...


And respectively, if they don't go to war, then their families would be protected...

And so would mine...



You can go ahead and call me a wussie, a non-patriotic un-American citizen, or a Californian hippy... Really, you can call me whatever, but this is the general consensus over here...

But the other side did go to war with us. It would be nice if people didn't go to war with each other but people do, we have a right to defend ourselves and we are (can you name a war where we were the agressor and not defending an ally? You might have to go back a century...)

On the contrary I believe that sedition (the modern version of the term) is one of the most important forms of Patriotism. I just think you're wrong in this case.

And to me, you're not exactly right, but you're not exactly wrong either... One day I might see things your way, and possibly you might even see things my way.


I just don't think that the US ever fully explores it's options before it blatantly enters into war with supposedly "unstable" nation states... LEAVE IRAQ ALONE! All we want and need from them is the constant exportation of oil... And all they need from us is a constant importation of food and other goods.

We don't gotta bust their doors down and tell them what to do...

I got nothing to comment on this but I think its worth quoting since it maybe one of the best exchanges in the General Topics section in a while. :up:


Its not that Iraq was unstable it was that is was criminal. It broke its post '91 agreement, we offered them the chance to correct its action, and they didn't. So they paid the penalty.

Iraq did not invade Kuwait in 1991 looking for food.


One note on the Saudis: I think the invasion of Kuwait in '91 made them realize their vulnerability, thus they try to remain friendly to the western powers. The current situation over there will never stabilize the region, and I think they need these fighters should the west eventually pull out of the region.
I hope they get them....they would be more likely to be able to defend themselves rather than get the western powers involved.

Again...deterrents do work, they'd be less likely to be attacked by their neighbors.

RickC