Has bin Laden won if the U.S. military changes its deployment in Saudi?

I say we pull every computer, bed, and load-bearing wall out of Prince Sultan Air Base and move it to either Bahrain or Qatar. We are welcome in those nations. The Saudis can go screw themselves, especially when a friendly Iraq starts really pumping that oil...

The Saudis seem to think that they're doing us a favor by letting us protect their hides. Prince Abdullah seems to think that once the US leaves, his government will be safe. Never mind that the 30,000+ members of the Saudi royal family suck up almost all of their GDP and leave nothing for the average citizen. Never mind that there is only rule of law (and shar'ia at that) when the royal family allows/wants it. Never mind that they have a slightly less democratic system than the Taliban had. Kick the US out, that will solve the problem...

No, Saudi's problems have nothing to do with the royal family's corruption. It's the infidels...

What luck Saudi Arabia has that the seemingly only prince who doesn't like to shop and party in America is the crown prince, and happens to be running things right now (King Fahd likes the US, but he's indisposed...). Prince Abdullah has never liked us.

The royal family is destined to fall. It will fall even faster if we leave... I say: Great!

I would love it if the day after we were kicked out of Saudi, Saddam invaded. The door is wide open if we leave, and he still has plenty of military muscle to overpower the Saudis... I think I'd let him murder about 30,000 Saudis (the royal family) before I sent in the tanks to stop him.

I want us to leave anyway. I don't want a single American to die protecting that corrupt, despotic, despicable kingdom. I want the royal family to fall. They deserve it. Their people deserve it.

Not to mention, going after Saddam will be so much easier if we don't have to get the Saudis' permission to do it. They might not thank us - they'd probably decry us publicly - but I don't really care what they think. Check that: I don't care at all what they think.

 

What Treeman said !!

 

Who cares if we leave? Just because something bin Laden wants actually happens doesn't mean the US has actually lost anything. If the cost of a strategic placement becomes too high... you end it. In this case, I can't see that our presence in the region will even suffer.

 

I have been to Saudi Arabia a few times and the situation there leaves much to be desired. The people in Saudi are sick and tired of their corrupt, Royal regime that essentially lets no money trickle down and that live their extravagant lives off of the Oil money in that country that should be used for education, building infrastructure and to create new jobs, not so some "Royal" of which there are thousands, can buy Rolls Royces in every different color.

The sad part is that Saudi Arabian's see the United States Army there not to protect Saudi Arabia from Iraq or any other nation, but as a protector of the Royal Corrrupt regime from its own people. They see this and there is no freedom of speech, assembly or business that doesn't involve the royal family.

The people are frustrated and that I believe is one reason why 11 of the 19 suicide September 11th individuals was from Saudi Arabia. They point at the United States as the puppets of their government and the ones keeping them in power. Essentially the United States in accordance with the broken units of Standard Oil, placed the Saudi family in Power, and helped them to maintain it. The Saudi Arabian's see that their country makes so much money from Oil, yet that money is pushed into the American/ western economies and not to help the people of the nation.

The form of Islam praticed (FORCED ON PEOPLE) in Saudi Arabia is called Wahhabism. It is a very strict, rigid form of Islam that is very different than most of the world. It has very striking parrallels to the Taliban regime. This is so because the Taliban came to be in the Maddrassa's (Religous Schools) in Afghanistan, Pakistan, the former Russian republics and Kashmir. These schools were funded by the Saudi's and taught this Rigid, harsh view of Islam. These schools primarily brought in very poor, uneducated individuals who's only form of education was this Wahhabism form of Islam. This is where the roots of the Taliban came to be. The extreme form of Wahhabism (extreme Islam) is the violent side condoned by Al-Queda and Osama bin Laden. Bin laden and others were schooled in this form of religion and then are expected to see the actions of the world differently??? The Saudi's created this problem and the US actually pushed for it because it had two goals. Firstly, find religious extremists, that were very anti-communism to fight Russia and secondly to overpower what they felt was the threat at the time, Shiite Islam in Iran. The US felt that with the Wahhabist ideology, Iran would be pitted against the rest of the middle east.
It was a folly of stereotyping of the Shiite (Iran) as the only groups that had a propensity towards extremism.

So Essentially the US and the Standard Oil groups funded the Saudi Family to rule Arabia, and to do so with such control the Saudi family pushed the Wahhabism form of Islam, which funded schools to expand this to limit Iran's power for the US and to fund Anti-Communism groups. Now that the people are rebelling in Saudi, the US forces there are seen as the enemy propping up an oppressive, corrupt regime that is doing countless injustices to their own people while they travel the world lavishly at the expense of their people.

 

Putting aside the debate re: the evil that is or is not the Saudi Royal family, there is an issue here.

Assuming we pull out....

Americans and those friendly to the American POV can believe that we pulled out because of our long-stnading issues with the Saudi government.

But what about the other POV? It could very easily be argued that we pulled out of SA because of a *new* issue rather than prior ones. The new issue being the increased hostility the Saudi family has shown to us since 9-11. It could be argued (and is probably true) that they are being more hostile to us as a direct result of the 9-11 attacks and the associated increase in their domestic resistance towards US influence.

Then, if we pull out, it would appear that the terrorists achieved one of their stated goals. That's a little scary, because there is no better motivation than success.

I think we'll end up building a new base in a more friendly country and slowly and quietly exit SA.

 

I agree with the above about the horrible condition of Saudi Arabia from a democratic and economic justice stand point.

Traditionally the US has uncritically supported middle eastern dictators like the Saudi King,and Sadam prior to the Gulf War -- provided they support our oil objectives and foreign policy positions, like our support for the occupation of post 1967 borders by Israeli.

These are the type of foreign policy positions that makes the Arab world dislike us.

The Arab people, as oposed to their rulers, don't dislike the democratic ways we have at home. In fact, they wish that we would stop propping up their dictators, so they could have some democracy, and a piece of the action, too.

Interesing that now that we think we can possibly replace Saudi oil with that from Kazekistan? and the other ex -soviet muslim republics we can start discovering the lack of democaracy in Saudia Arabia. Laura Bush for instance might eventually be talking about the condition of women's rights in Saudia Arabia, like she did about the plight of women in Afghanistan, prior to the fall of the Taliban.

 

There he goes again... It's all our fault. It is our fault that the Islamic world has no democratic tradition. It is our fault that the Saudi people are oppressed. It is our fault that Syria, Iran, etc. don't have democratic govts. It is our fault that the world isn't flat...

No, it has nothing to do with Islamic governments blaming the US and Israel for every bad thing that has ever happened in the world. Of course not. No, it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that their educational systems are geared for Islamic and anti-Western thought. No, that couldn't be why the Arabs hate us...

Just out of curiosity, glynch, what do you think is going to replace the Saudi royal family when they have their revolution? Are you thinking a US-style 1776 democracy? I'm thinking more along the lines of France's Reign of Terror, except with a Wahabbi slant...

Let's play a game. It's called "Name that Shining Example of Arabic/Islamic Democracy?" (Hint, Iran is not a democracy)

Turkey, and only because Ataturk forced the army to ensure a secular govt. (they're not Arabs, BTW)

Hmmm... Anyone else? Nope. I wonder why that is?

TL:

The Islamic world will see it as a victory for Osama and the Islamic world. That's fine; I really don't care what they think.

Truth is, this has been brewing for some time - long before 9/11. Personally, I'd regard it as one of the more pleasant outcomes of the war.

We will relocate to a friendlier nation in the area; our presence in the Gulf is not goint to disappear. We've already got a significant presence in Oman, UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, and Kuwait; take your pick. If anything, this will give us more options, as we won't have to get the Saudis' permission to take a piss...

 

Iran is more democratic than the NATO ally we gives tons of money to Turkey, or Egypt which gets almost as much as Isreal every year.

To see this story with its related links on the Guardian Unlimited site, go to http://www.guardian.co.uk

Another kind of freedom
When MP Jackie Ballard lost her seat, she realised a dream by going to Iran - where she found life for women not at all as westerners imagine
Jackie Ballard
Sunday January 06 2002
The Observer


Losing your seat as an MP is a fairly brutal process - one minute you are in gainful employment, the next you are out on your ear. So what do ex-MPs do? When I became the former honourable member for Taunton last June I had no intention of waiting for a phone call that might never come or hanging around to see my successor make a hash of the job (or worse, to watch him do it well!).

I was lucky enough to have £25,000 redundancy money and no dependants and I realised that for the first time in my life, at the age of 48, I was free. I am divorced, my daughter had just graduated and started work and my mother, although not always in the best of health, did not need me to look after her. I decided to combine two of my passions and to pursue something completely different. I first became involved in politics because I was (and am) an inter- nationalist. I believe we all have a responsibility for other people in other lands and I want to see developing countries get a fair share of the global cake, while retaining their own cultural identities. My second passion is Iran. I was at university in the 70s with a number of Iranian students and developed an interest in the culture and a desire to see the country. This desire was not fulfilled until I was approached for help by an Iranian constituent in Taunton. We became friends and he invited me to his country for a holiday in October 2000.

I am now on my fifth visit to the country, researching and writing my thesis while learning the language, Farsi.

Long before September 11 it seemed to me that the apparently acceptable face of racism in Britain, even among liberals, was anti-Islam. Of course, this is usually disguised as concern for human rights, especially women's rights, in Islamic countries. But how many "liberals" who blame the religion for denial of women's rights, especially the compulsory wearing of hijab (a headscarf and roopush or coat), blame protestantism in Britain or catholicism in Mexico for endemic domestic violence? How many of them see paedophilia as a symptom of a Christian or western culture in which children should be "seen but not heard"? I'm not the only liberal or non-Muslim who is getting sick to death of the racism which parades itself as liberal concern.

How many western commentators have lived in Islamic countries and looked beneath the surface at Muslim women's lives? I am now on my fifth visit to Iran. Each time, I have stayed with Iranian families and each time I have worn hijab outside the house. The interpretation of hijab - covering - varies widely in Iran from young women who wear short coats over tight trousers and chiffon headscarfs over most of their hair to older women who choose to wear the all- enveloping black chador . Many of the young women resent the law which says they have to be covered in public, but they take great exception to anyone who thinks that they are to be pitied or patronised.

The other day I had lunch with three Iranian women - one is a widow of 50, bringing up three children, who has not worked outside the home since her marriage; another is a 25-year-old graduate who is living at home and desperately looking for a job; and the third is a 32-year-old lawyer who lives with her parents because she is unmarried.

They talked about their lives and what they thought about the west - only the older woman had been out of Iran. She felt sorry for western women who not only have to bring up children and run a home, but also have to go out to paid employment. She thought in that respect Iranian women were more free, although economic realities now mean that many younger wives go out to work. Interestingly, in Iran it is the men who do most of the shopping, whether their wives go out to work or not. The young women were resentful of the fact that they felt western women looked upon them as "wilted flowers" (their words), when the truth is that they are assertive and have more freedom (apart from the dress code) than they did before the Islamic revolution.

Women in Iran are in many ways among the most assertive and socially independent women I have met. Women can and do work - more women take engineering degrees in Iran than in the UK, there are more female university vice-chancellors than in the UK and more women in parliament than, for example, in Germany.

Women in Iran have other freedoms denied to many in the west. I have a British friend, for example, married to an Iranian, who has a one-year-old child. Rather than finding the baby (who is still being breastfed) a barrier to resuming her academic career she has been given help and encouragement, including a work-based creche, by potential employers. She also will happily feed her baby in public - in restaurants (not in the toilets) and in shared taxis, and no one complains or comments.

Of course, since the beginning of time men and women have tried to make themselves attractive to one another and it is no different in Iran. Eyes and noses are the main features you notice and on my first visit to Tehran I was surprised to see a number of people with plasters on their noses. I wondered what accident they had all been involved in but in fact there is a roaring trade in plastic surgery to correct perceived deformities.

I find it refreshing not to see naked or half-naked women on posters advertising everything from cars to ice-cream. On the other hand, I am reliably informed that Iranian men see it as their duty to make sure their wives are satisfied in bed - not a responsibility I think many British men are familiar with. Women also keep their own names after marriage, whereas in the west the woman who does this is still seen as an oddity.

It is many years since British women have felt free to walk the city streets after dark without fear of attack. I feel very safe here. If you walk down a street and see a group of men you don't cringe inwardly, thinking you may face whistles or catcalls, or even molestation. If women dress in a sexually provocative or attractive way, perhaps it is not surprising that men respond to them as sexual beings rather than as professional women or mothers or shop assistants. I am not saying that a woman who wears a short skirt is "asking for it" but I do think western women ought to examine their complicity in a society in which men are given "come-on" signals and "don't dare" messages in confusing profusion.

One of the reasons I love Iran is that it is a land full of contrasts and there is so much more to it than the stereotyped image portrayed in the west. A few vignettes may give an idea - but only a visit will really inform.

One day my friend Tina drove the front of her car into a jube (drainage channel) at the side of the street. Within seconds, six men appeared from nowhere and lifted the car out for her; they then walked off with no expectation of reward.

In the UK local authorities pay "community development workers" to try to create strong interdependent communities. In Iran people feel a natural sense of community, even in a huge city like Tehran. And this extends to visitors to the country. I have been overwhelmed by the hospitality I have received from people who until two months ago were complete strangers. There are two million Afghan refugees in Iran and half a million Iraqi refugees. Not so long ago Iran fought a bitter war against Iraq and yet the refugees don't face the sort of hostility or violence that some asylum seekers in the UK encountered last summer.

It is a land of contrasts and contradictions. Homosexuality is a capital offence, yet men (just good friends) hold hands openly in the streets and transsexuals can have new identity cards to show their new gender and are then allowed to marry. This enlightened attitude is only found in a few EU states - not including the UK. Nowhere in the world is all good or all bad but I think it's time "liberal" opinion started to try to understand Islam better and to learn something about the culture of the Middle East, instead of offending millions of people with inaccuracy and ignorance.

Copyright Guardian Newspapers Limited

 

Do I have to explain to you again the difference between feudalism and democracy, boy?

For at least the tenth time, Iran is not a democracy.

The mullahs own the land (and the people), they control the army, they control the presses, they nullify any election that doesn't please them (witness Tehran mayoral elections), and they kidnap and/or kill any political opposition that goes so far as to actually challenge their rule.

I wish that Khatami had some real power there. But any time he pisses the mullahs off, he is subject to their wrath.

And oh, BTW - the mullahs are not democratically elected officials. They maintain their power due to their landowning and religious status, not the people's wishes.

Why do you think Iran's people are so close to revolution, boy?

Turkey is not a perfect state - their policies towards the Kurds need to be completely changed. But their elections aren't frauds as Iran's are, thanks to Ataturk and the army.

Exactly what is your problem with secular democracy, boy?

 

Interesting perspective. Most of what I know about the rights of Iranian women comes from the book "Behind the Veil" by a news correspondent who lived in Iran for a time... and from Iranian immigrants in the US (my fiance's sister is dating an Iranian).

I think there's a reason beyond economics that very few Iranian women would return to Iran.

 

You know, on most issues, I can see the logic in your thoughts, but when I read your posts, I always end up disagreeing with you. I think I finally understood why. You don't seem to think public perception is worth anything. I, on the other hand, believe there is a tremendous amount of value in looking at and understanding another side of an argument. It just may save you from sending out an unintended message to the world.

If we abruptly exit SA, the message here would be that terrorism is an effective way to achieve your goals. If this is the message that the "Islamic world" hears, you better care. Next time the attack may hit even closer to you.

 

TL:

When did I say that public perception isn't worth anything? I fully understand thast it is extremely important, but in this case I do not realistically believe that we can do all that much to change it.

If you'll notice, I continually point out that Arabic and Islamic governments consistently spew out anti-US/andi-Israel propaganda in order to deflect anger away from themselves. That is a hardcore fact, and it is something that we have very little power over. If these governments would stop their anti-US/Israel propaganda campaigns and address their own shortcomings in an honest fashion, I think that would go a long way towards mending the perception of Arabs/muslims that the US is evil. Alas, that is out of our control.

And since it is out of our control, I am not going to worry about it. I am certainly not going to fall for that same propaganda as so many here appear to have done.

The perception that our foreign policy has fueled their hatred for us surely exists. The reality is that our foreign policy has probably done more to benefit them than harm them, although that is not a popular idea (and one that is never put forth by their govt-controlled presses), and is thus ignored. The perception exists, but it does not match reality, and there really is no way for us to change that perception. Only the ME governments can do that, and I am not going to hold my breath...

I am simply not going to waste my time and energy - and put our national interests at risk - in order to correct a lie that we are not responsible for creating. Besides, haven't you noticed the Arabic/Islamic tendency to reject any idea that doesn't already fit their world-view (OBL evidence, Karine-A shipment, etc)? You can't change the mind of someone who doesn't want it to be changed - especially when you don't control the information mediums they have access to.

BTW, I doubt our exit from Saudi will be abrupt. It will be gradual, and as low-key as we can make it. It is in both our and the Saudis' interests to do it that way...

 

I have a problem with your notion that the only democracy has to be completely secular. If democracy is what the people want, well what if the people want religion in their state? Let them have it.

Read a little about Iranian democracy coming from something left of Buchanan and you might be suprised.

Turkey's democracy is kept in place thanks to the army? I hope others are amused by the irony in that statement. Attaturk is also the man who has derailed freedom of religion in Turkey. In Turkey women can't wear the veil or hair-covering in public institutions. Men can't have excessively long beard and go to university, etc.

 

boy:

As long as the overthrow of the US govt isn't in their stated agenda (as in the case of Iran's mullahs), then fine.

I truly have no problem with any ME govt that is not inherently anti-US. Big surprise here: I'm a US citizen who actually cares about our national security. If there is a government out there - anywhere - that focuses its energies on killing me, then I am going to oppose it any way that I can.

The single criteria for judging alliance possibilities is their level of hostility towards the US. That is simple pragmatism. When nations start ignoring their national security interests and replace them with a desire to see fundamentalist Islamic Wahhabiism as the global paradigm, let me know. Because someone has fallen asleep...

If they don't oppose us, then fine. I am 100% supportive of any Arabic/Islamic democracy that will not work for our overthrow. Problem is, not a single one exists (excepting Turkey).

And as far as Turkey goes - God/Allah bless Ataturk for having the foresight to prohibit any fundamentalist impulses. He knew what a threat it could become in the future. Might I remind you how the Ottoman Empire self-destructed?

You appear to think that Islamic democracy and Islamic fundamentalism can actually coexist in a peaceful state. Do I really need to point out again why this is historically unfeasible?

I'm really just curious why you seem to admire Iran's govt so much.

 

Yet you do realize that Iranians feel that American government is against their system and hence they want to oppose this system? You don't see a 'cycle of violence' or such going on here?

YOUR hypocritical arrogant attitude is what pisses the rest of the world off. Look at polling data from Latin America and see how much they abhor that attitude. If something is wrong for America its wrong for Iran or Panama too. Self-righteousness stinks.

When Saudi is criticized for their human rights violations and intolerance of religion but Turkey isn't. When Iran is condemned for their system but brutal dictatorships of Egypt are supported financially. Iran is more democratic than Turkey. Iran has more rights for women, more education, hell it even has more freedom for political organizations than Turkey. In Turkey if you have a beard and you want to run for office your a evil Islamic fundamentalist who is threatening to overthrow the pure Attaturk-styled secular government.

It's funny how you can manage to bash 'Wahabi Islam' even though for the past 150 years the WEST is the one that promoted it. At first to break up the Ottoman Empire and next to take oil from Saudi cheaply. The Chechens were the evil Sufi Terrorists, next the Iranian became the Shi'ite Terrorists, now its Wahabi Terrorism. Saddam and Qaddafi are Seculare terrorists. It's not a matter of religion at all, but a matter of the arrogant remaining self righetous arrogant bastards.


And yeah, prove to me how historically an Islamic Democracy doesn't work. Show me where its been given a chance.

 

Treeman, I never claimed it was all our fault that there are no democracies in the middle east. As you state there are other important reasons such as education and political development.

Agreed, Iran has not had a democracy since the US overthrew the last one in the fifties to further the interests of oil companies. Afterards we backed the dictatorial shah.

You yourself say that Saudi is not a democracy and is ruled by a corrupt royal family and that we are supporting the king against his own people. In that case we are blocking the possibility of democracy developing once he is overthrown.


Will they have an instant 1776 democracy once they overthrow the dictator (the king)? I doubt it. It will probably require a lot of development. But overthrowing the king is obviously a first step.

In other posts you say you were honest enough to admit that you only want democracy in the middle east if it would advance current US foreign policy objectives regarding oil and Israel to cite two concerns.

Why complain about lack of democracy in the middle east, if you don't support it?

It is hypocrisy to be opposed to democracy in that region, but then criticize them for lack of democracy.

 

I'm uncertain about the possibility of a "religious" democracy. That is not to say that the people of such a state could not be deeply religious. Or to say that it could not be "offiicially" religous yet still be governed in a secular manner.

The problem with religion in government is that it's a parallel hierarchical system. If religion participates in government, then the structure of the democracy would, at least in part, be subsumed (or vice versa) into the alternate structure. Such a system is not democratically based... but rather dependent upon the supposed will of an external being. Not exactly a democratic principle, eh?

Furthermore, democracies occur in a perfect state when all social groups are capable of competing for government action. When one side or another is favored, the system is tilted. Right now in the US, we have the problem of corporations wielding undue influence in comparison to citizen action groups. IMO, the greatest problem concerning our Middle East policy is that oil companies and Jewish PACS are better organized and have more money than Arab PACS.

Religion just exacerbates this to the nth degree, because religion, especially in a religious society, touches every part of someone's life. So instead of having free competition of ideas... you develop excessive strictures. We have a democracy... but but but... the Koran (Bible, Torah, etc) says you can't do that!

Incidentally, I think you're a bit too hostile toward America. Americans are self-righteous (I'll give you that). But I think you make the mistake of extrapolating American actions that are really governed by elites to all Americans (America, after all, isn't *that* democratic in foreign policy... no country is). America has plenty of faults... but it's still one of the better places to live in terms of 1. having individual rights and 2. being wealthy (though some of the wealth was "ill-gotten," not most of it... the developing world really overvalues itself as a source of industrial wealth).

 

Hmmm... Where to start?

boy:

Ya know what? The US government is against their system (if by 'system' you mean form of government). Ya know why? Because they are against our system of government. They seek the defeat of "The Great Satan", and they aren't too shy about it.

I still do not understand where you got the idea that Iran has a great democracy. It really baffles me. Either you're completely full of it and are aware that you're lying, or someone has severely misled you.

Your government teacher should be fired.

You mean my attitude of "I'm not gonna bend over for you"? Excuse me, but I refuse to take responsibility for any fictional evils that you percieve me to have committed.

Get a better education and then come back and see me. I'm actually pretty reasonable when I don't have to deal with a constant stream of propagandistic lies hurled my way. Our government is the same way.

We have repeatedly criticized the Turks for their treatment of the Kurds, and we view their crackdown on fundamentalism as a welcome policy (for reasons that you will obviously never understand, no matter how many times it is explained to you).

Guess what? The Egyptian govt doesn't seek our destruction!!! Gee, that couldn't have anything to do with it...

Oh. My. God.

You just refuse to admit the reality that Iran does not have a real democracy, don't you? Get it through your thick skull: the mullahs run the country, not Khatami.

I will simply repost this: The mullahs own the land (and the people), they control the army, they control the presses, they nullify any election that doesn't please them (witness Tehran mayoral elections), and they kidnap and/or kill any political opposition that goes so far as to actually challenge their rule.

It is just as true today as it was yesterday.

Yeah, that's why we do it. So that we can remain self righteous arrogant bastards. Doesn't have anything to do with the fact that these people want us dead. Naw, that couldn't have anything to do with it...

Your parents should get their money back from whatever school you're enrolled in.

glynch:

That depends on whether the democracy (or whatever follows) is hostile towards us. If they are not hostile towards us, then more power to them. But if they're hostile towards us, then why the hell shouldn't we oppose them?

Nations act in their own interests. They oppose nations and governments that are hostile towards them. That is a fact of life, and it is never going to change as long as the world is filled with competing nation-states.

Read my first post in this thread. I want the king (the whole family) to fall. I'm just not overly optimistic about who will replace him/them. You see, they've been brainwashing their populace for the last few decades with anti-US/anti-Israel propaganda, so...

I would fully support any democracy that is not hostile towards the US. I have repeatedly said that. I am simply not confident that any non-secular democracy would not be hostile towards us.

Our government would fully support any democracy that was not hostile towards us. Don't you think we'd rather deal with a popularly elected representative instead of these corrupt a-holes? There's just no alternative right now. If that changes and a viable, non-hostile alternative pops up in the future, then great. But no one's holding their breath.

Yes, it would be hypocritical if that were the case. But since it's not... Thanks for misreading virtually every statement I have made on the subject.

Fact: They have no democratic tradion. That is unarguable.

Fact: Treeman will support any non-hostile democracy, and has repeatedly stated that position.

Fact: Treeman is not going to stand on one toe until they develop a democratic tradition.