Actually, Bin Ladin's family did not get their money from oil. Bin Laden was the 17th of 57 children of a Saudi construction magnate. His father's family was responsible for much of the construction during the Saudi Oil boom years, but the did not earn their money directly from oil. His father is a billionaire many times over.

He also is not a fundamentalist. He draws on fundamentalists views, but he is not considered part of that group. He is takfiri. He draws on his views from fundamentalisms but more importantly Sayyid Qutb, who was a radical that hated Western culture/history/society. Qutb believed you are either a muslim who accepts his ideas or you reject them and thus, you are an infidel and so you must die as well whether you are muslim or not. That is how Bin Laden rationalizes the killing of his fellow muslims. Bin Ladens worldview is that all transgressions anywhere at anytime in the world against muslims are the result of Satan who takes on the form of the United States. So for example, when the Phillipine government fights ethnic Muslims in its southern islands, America is responsible. So it is the duty of every muslim anywhere in the world to kill americans. That's his Jihad. The solution he has presented to us is this, we can convert to his version Islam and be saved, or we must die. Those are the choices. There is no opportunity for diplomacy.

He has a ready audience in disenfranchised young males who were educated in the muslim run schools and universities of the oil rich countries. The governments in these countries typically made a deal with the fundamentalist groups in them. The deal goes like this... Hey, we know you don't like secularized government and we don't want you to start a revolution and fuck everything up so if you leave us alone, you can run all the schools lower and higher education, and we will place you in state run institutions so you can run them too and have a job and of course you can run all the religious functions. So the schools typically have NO classes that would present a worldview of History, Sociology, Art, Art History, Music, Philosophy... anything that would be construed as "Liberal Arts" that has a worldview is missing, everything is Islam centric. BUT, they focus very heavily in hard sciences, engineering, mathmatics, medicine and of course Islam, Islam, Islam and more Islam. So what has happened is that several generations of men, (no women allowed in University) who went to school during the oil boom years and got advanced degrees are now out in the work place and there is no work at all. The oil boom years are over in the gulf states, the explosive growth in their economies is over and gone. Because everything is a state run monopoly, their economies have not developed significantly from the 1970's, they are backwards in this regard. Some of them interestingly enough, actually blame the U.S. for this because we helped them develop their natural resources. So you have this huge pool of highly educated men that have a very very narrow worldview that have no way to make a living and they are pissed off. Enter Osama Bin Laden.

Osama himself may not be a big deal but what he represents is a very serious problem for the U.S. and the stability for that entire part of the world. That is one reasons we are in the process of nation-building. It is an economic issue almost more than anything else. The economic backwardness of many the middle easter countries just breeds these types of situations.

... or, we could just Nuke Canada AND Cuba.

---

<img src="http://www.boincstats.com/stats/banner.php?cpid=b3c0c2639ea110901bd0970a1c22efcd">

If Petroleum was discovered in the Mona Passage between PR and the Dominican Republic or gold was found to be in the rainforest preserve at Yungay, it's a good bet the status of the island would change within two years regardless of what any islander had to say about it...cc

>At any rate, it was solved through diplomacy.

I have to stop you right there, as diplomacy was NOT the key factor during the Cuban missle crisis. We did not reach an agreement, Kennedy gave the Russian an ultimatum. Turn the boats around or be attacked, no if's, and's or but's about it. The difference being that Osama didn't try to make a power move, he attacked civilians and the United States does not negotiate with terrorists. We returned fire.

You're trying to compare apples to oranges (Cuban missle "crisis" and 9/11 "attack") Not only are they different fruit, they don't even come from the same orchard, therefore the US response to each was equally different.

However, I make the terrorist comparison because Castro certainly had only 2 intentions. Terrorise America by placing an enemy nuke less than 100 miles from our border, or launch a nuclear attack. Since I don't think he is a "mad man", I can only assume he was trying to flex his muscles right under our nose.....at the time, that was unacceptable.

> If Petroleum was discovered in the Mona Passage between PR and the Dominican
> Republic or gold was found to be in the rainforest preserve at Yungay, it's a
> good bet the status of the island would change within two years regardless of
> what any islander had to say about it.

Yeah, it's called JOBS.

More mainlanders would move into the region, establish residency, and start voting.....not to mention life doesn't sound so bad right now. Tropical island paradise, protection by the American military, AND you don't pay any taxes!!

How could you NOT take a job in the oil or gold industry under those conditions?

.

---

<a href="http://www.brainsmashr.com"><img src="http://www.brainsmashr.com/signature.gif"><img src="http://brainsmashr.com/boinc/counter_big.php?id=305369&amp;project=seti&amp;ctx=white&amp;cva=red&amp;cbo=white&amp;cbg=black&amp;linethickness=2"></a>

It's so typical of brainsmushed to conveniently forget that we placed Moscow-aimed nuke missiles adjacent to the USSR in Turkey prior to the 'Cuban' missile crisis and the missiles were not removed from Cuba until we had agreed to remove our missiles from Turkey......

Was it called the 'Turkey' missile crisis?......

........... no, that wouldn't fit with our pop-culture image of being the innocent American, now would it?

---

>>>More mainlanders would move into the region, establish residency, and start voting....., AND you don't pay any taxes!!....How could you NOT take a job in the oil or gold industry under those conditions?

I pay taxes- As much as I'd pay in the states. I do not have to deal with the IRS. If there was a God, I would be thanking him for this.
Recent incursions by mainlanders include the removal of 27 acres of mangrove adjacent to a nearby bay. Inspite of 5 years of objection by powerless island environmental agencies, an inland basin for 60 foot Hatteras yachts was constructed where Puerto Rican security guards work for minimum wage maintaining watch over the 14 ft high walls.
When waste oil and garbage flows out into the bay from this facility, I have a number to call in the states to report the pollution. Suffice to say the EPA is not much worried about the livelihood of fishermen, who have moved to more remote areas where costs are prohibitive but there's still some clean water. The bay still looks nice, but you wouldn't want to swim in it.
Should drilling platforms pop up in the area, workers will arrive from Texas and Louisiana and fly home when they go off rotation. Imported LoneStar longnecks may make a few bucks for smart barkeepers.
Money generated here flows off- to be spent by others, elsewhere.
It's the American way and not likely to change...cc

> It's so typical of brainsmushed to conveniently forget that we placed
> Moscow-aimed nuke missiles adjacent to the USSR in Turkey prior to the 'Cuban'
> missile crisis and the missiles were not removed from Cuba until we had agreed
> to remove our missiles from Turkey......
>
> Was it called the 'Turkey' missile crisis?......
>
> ........... no, that wouldn't fit with our pop-culture image of being the
> innocent American, now would it?
>
Also, as part of the deal was the retirement of our B-47 bomber and the USSR getting of their Badger bombers to be completed within 5 years.

---

I think we... need more nukes, since the old ones will eventually get rusty.

Bounce Jupiter.

You are confusing the nuclear weapons capability, nuclear balance of power and nuclear proliferation.

Those are three distinctly different concepts. They are not all nuclear proliferation.

---

<img src="http://www.boincstats.com/stats/banner.php?cpid=b3c0c2639ea110901bd0970a1c22efcd">

We don't even know if the current yields are fissionable! I've heard (from somwhere, I forget where) that as much as 50% of our current stockpile wouldn't detonate if the nukes were launched.

I'm OK with replacing existing nukes (functional and malfunctional alike) with new, equal TNT-equivalents. I see that as maintaining an arsenal. But from my perspective, adding new bombs just raises the already high stakes. The only question in my mind is what does one do with the old weapons-grade uranium and plutonium from the replaced nukes...

>I have to stop you right there, as diplomacy was NOT the key factor during the Cuban missle crisis. We did not reach an agreement, Kennedy gave the Russian an ultimatum. Turn the boats around or be attacked, no if's, and's or but's about it.
True, and the Soviets listened for the exact same reason - We scared the living you-know-what out of them too ...o0(BTW: This reasoning was part of the reason why I got slandered by that professor I mentioned earlier)

>The difference being that Osama didn't try to make a power move, he attacked civilians and the United States does not negotiate with terrorists. We returned fire.
Deservedly so! Morbid as it may sound, I could fathom attacking the Pentagon - It's a military installation. But the WTC was a civillian institution - A dishonorable target. Let's find UbL the SoB and bring him to international tribunal before I find him and wring his neck.

"Don't mess with Texas"?
Try "Don't with New York!"

---

> We don't even know if the current yields are fissionable! I've heard
> (from somwhere, I forget where) that as much as 50% of our current stockpile
> wouldn't detonate if the nukes were launched.

Who is "our" do you have a mouse in your pocket? ;-) Is that worldwide? or what? I can't speak for "everywhere else" but that figure is not at all applicable to the U.S. nuclear stockpile. :-) That is not the way it is managed.

---

<img src="http://www.boincstats.com/stats/banner.php?cpid=b3c0c2639ea110901bd0970a1c22efcd">

> Who is "our" do you have a mouse in your pocket? ;-) Is that worldwide? or
> what? I can't speak for "everywhere else" but that figure is not at all
> applicable to the U.S. nuclear stockpile. :-) That is not the way it is
> managed.

Generally, the smaller the amount of fissionable material, the more difficult it is to begin the chain-reaction that results in an explosion. (Precise charges, carefully positioned around the nuclear material must force it into a critical mass.) The US does have low-yield weapons, and there has been speculation that such weapons might not work, but an aggressive test program in the 50's and 60's probably gave the engineers enough data to design these weapons so that they would work. Deterioration of the weapons is another matter.

> Generally, the smaller the amount of fissionable material, the more difficult
> it is to begin the chain-reaction that results in an explosion. (Precise
> charges, carefully positioned around the nuclear material must force it into a
> critical mass.) The US does have low-yield weapons, and there has been
> speculation that such weapons might not work, but an aggressive test program
> in the 50's and 60's probably gave the engineers enough data to design these
> weapons so that they would work. Deterioration of the weapons is another
> matter.

Agreed.

Just an FYI though, the govt was conducting nuke testing until 1992. Another thing is that testing continues but without fission. Ever hear of Sandia Labs, Lawrence Livermore, Minnesota Supercomputer Center? They have been running simulations to test the viability of nuclear stockpiles for years. Both high and low yield weapons to make sure the damn things work when they're supposed to and remain inert otherwise. Otherwise they are dismantled and are not part of the stockpile.

That is why the proposition that up to 50% of the U.S. stockpile is a dud, is not true. It is not managed that way. Other countries, who knows. If you live in the U.S though, you can find some pretty specific info about this. Also, I used to work with the MSC so I know what they do.

Here is another related article that's intersting.
http://www.computerworld.com/governmenttopics/government/itgovernment/story/0,10801,98556,00.html

---

<img src="http://www.boincstats.com/stats/banner.php?cpid=b3c0c2639ea110901bd0970a1c22efcd">

"We simply cannot understand why Canada would, in effect, give up its sovereignty....... '

"We did not give up sovereignty," Martin responded. "We affirmed sovereignty."

---

The Air Force, saying it must secure space to protect the nation from attack, is seeking President Bush's approval of a national-security directive that could move the United States closer to fielding offensive and defensive space weapons, according to White House and Air Force officials.

The proposed change would be a substantial shift in American policy.

***************************************************************************

Vladimir Yermakov, senior counsellor at the Russian embassy in Washington, on Tuesday told a conference on space militarisation that Russia was working through diplomatic channels to urge the US not to move towards fielding weapons in space. But he said Russia would have to react, possibly with force, if the US successfully put a "combat weapon" in space.

*********************************************



In April, the Air Force launched the XSS-11, an experimental microsatellite with the technical ability to disrupt other nations' military reconnaissance and communications satellites.

Another Air Force space program, nicknamed Rods From God, aims to hurl cylinders of tungsten, titanium or uranium from the edge of space to destroy targets on the ground, striking at speeds of about 7,200 miles an hour with the force of a small nuclear weapon.

A third program would bounce laser beams off mirrors hung from space satellites or huge high-altitude blimps, redirecting the lethal rays down to targets around the world. A fourth seeks to turn radio waves into weapons whose powers could range "from tap on the shoulder to toast," in the words of an Air Force plan.
****************************************************************

additional reading and links

Washington Post

---

> It's so typical of brainsmushed to conveniently forget that we placed
> Moscow-aimed nuke missiles adjacent to the USSR in Turkey prior to the 'Cuban'
> missile crisis and the missiles were not removed from Cuba until we had agreed
> to remove our missiles from Turkey......
>
> Was it called the 'Turkey' missile crisis?......
>
> ........... no, that wouldn't fit with our pop-culture image of being the
> innocent American, now would it?
>
Also, as part of the deal was the retirement of our B-47 bomber and the USSR getting of their Badger bombers to be completed within 5 years.

Steve I have got to know if the aircraft you are using in your current avatar is real, if so can you tell me what is.

Thanks Lou.