What's new

Saudi's make shape the middle east

Garfield1966

Veteran
Joined
Apr 7, 2003
Messages
4,051
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
As if by default, the old son of the desert is now trying to lead on virtually every sensitive issue from the peace process to Darfur.

Full article

Perhaps had Bush not been so obstinate and listened to people who actually knew more about what was going on he may have been the one make the decisions. As it stands, he may end up just being a spectator.

It will be interesting how history looks nback on W and Co. My guess it is will not be pretty or he will just be a foot note.
 
As if by default, the old son of the desert is now trying to lead on virtually every sensitive issue from the peace process to Darfur.

Full article

Perhaps had Bush not been so obstinate and listened to people who actually knew more about what was going on he may have been the one make the decisions. As it stands, he may end up just being a spectator.

It will be interesting how history looks nback on W and Co. My guess it is will not be pretty or he will just be a foot note.

Take this quote into consideration:
"We have two nightmares," Saud told the president, according to Turki. "One is that Iran will develop a nuclear bomb, and the other is that America will take military action to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb."

B) UT
 
What point are you trying to make? Not a shot or anything.

The ‘present’ ruler of KSA knows that Iran having nuclear capabilities is a nightmare, not just for his own interests. He (and his country) can do nothing about it, but fear that we might because we would have a growing occupation in the ME even though we would save their a$$ (again).

He’s not the ‘peacemaker’ he is trying to portray. 😛
 
Not sure I ever thought that the Saudi King was the end all be all. Considering that most of the terrorists involved in 0/11 were Saudi I am quite suspicious of anything coming out of there. My main point was that Bush blew a opportunity to be a leader in the ME. Instead of opening up lines of communication and involving nations, he chose and still chooses to fight virtually everyone. His own party is abandoning him (mainly for political reasons). Bush has opened the door for people such as the Saudi King to have influence over the future of the ME that may result in an outcome that is less than desirable for the US.
 
You know there aren't too many Arabs who will condone attacking their own brother unless its the Sauds and their way of life is threatened.Bush isn't one to pussyfoot around if you've noticed and I don't think he cares one way or another what the popularity polls have to say 😉 So why wait and wait and wait...he got tired of the world pissing around (UN)before Iraq ll,high Noon in Baghdad....Don't think he really cares for being the Annointed One.
 
Not sure I ever thought that the Saudi King was the end all be all. Considering that most of the terrorists involved in 0/11 were Saudi I am quite suspicious of anything coming out of there. My main point was that Bush blew a opportunity to be a leader in the ME. Instead of opening up lines of communication and involving nations, he chose and still chooses to fight virtually everyone. His own party is abandoning him (mainly for political reasons). Bush has opened the door for people such as the Saudi King to have influence over the future of the ME that may result in an outcome that is less than desirable for the US.

If you haven’t noticed, they have been fighting each other for thousands of years and I doubt that any ‘out-side’ party will become ‘the’ peacemaker.

The ‘House of Saud’ is attempting an appeasement tactic to portray that they are a significant influence in the ME.

No doubt that they are as they spread their wealth around the globe in buying their influence without (publicly) committing to an agenda. (with our money I might add)

JMHO, the door was always there, but after we took out Saddam, the ‘House of Saud’ will try to fill the void.

Even though we consider ourselves ‘fart-smellers’ there are centuries of strategic political movements/alignments that are beyond our ‘political science’ majors.

B) UT
 
If you haven’t noticed, they have been fighting each other for thousands of years and I doubt that any ‘out-side’ party will become ‘the’ peacemaker.

The ‘House of Saud’ is attempting an appeasement tactic to portray that they are a significant influence in the ME.

No doubt that they are as they spread their wealth around the globe in buying their influence without (publicly) committing to an agenda. (with our money I might add)

JMHO, the door was always there, but after we took out Saddam, the ‘House of Saud’ will try to fill the void.

Even though we consider ourselves ‘fart-smellers’ there are centuries of strategic political movements/alignments that are beyond our ‘political science’ majors.

B) UT


Israel and Egypt have had a asting 'peace' for quite a while now. I think it is possible if approached the right way.
 
Israel and Egypt have had a asting 'peace' for quite a while now. I think it is possible if approached the right way.

Consider this.

Israel and Egypt have had a lasting peace after Israel kicked their a$$ back to the last century but was ‘coerced’ to not keep the territory they took from the ‘aggressors’.

If you use this as an example of sustained ‘peace’ then I’m all for it…!!! :up:

B) UT
 
This is a very good article -- thanks for posting -- I read it a few days ago on the WSJ editorial page. The author is very credible.

Personally I found interesting her observation 'the Saudis are better at pointing out problems rather than fixing them' -- how true.

Simple fact is that fifty years from now our kids will still be struggling with Islamic fundamentalists. This is not a short-term war and the USA (and the world) must think in different terms.

BTW, the Korean War "only" lasted three years. What would Hawkeye have to say about this conflict?
 
Israel and Egypt have had a asting 'peace' for quite a while now. I think it is possible if approached the right way.
Israel is the part that spoils it for the rest of the peace loving islamic fundamentalists.....in the ME.

Of course,ideally...remove Israel and everything is solved.... :lol: Then they'll go after each other 😉
 
Consider this.

Israel and Egypt have had a lasting peace after Israel kicked their a$$ back to the last century but was ‘coerced’ to not keep the territory they took from the ‘aggressors’.

If you use this as an example of sustained ‘peace’ then I’m all for it…!!! :up:

B) UT


A valid point. How ever, Jordan, Syria, and Lebenon were also involved in that a$$ kicking as well. So I think there is a little more too it than that.
 
. . .My main point was that Bush blew a opportunity to be a leader in the ME. Instead of opening up lines of communication and involving nations, he chose and still chooses to fight virtually everyone . . .

Yeah right.

B43 froze the great peacemaker Yassar Arafat out of the process 😛h34r: .

Do you mean "peace-loving" nations like Syria? I thought that we tried to talk to them but they were too busy planning to blow up Lebanon's prime minister.

And just what sort of "magic" can America conjur up in the ME? The Palestinians are incapable of governing themselves and providing ordinary services when given the opportunity. They elect a government which refuses to renounce terror or recognize Israel. Are these the sorts of governments that President Bush or any US president is suppossed to deal with?

Those other great helpful nations in the region don't step forward and do anything constructive about Palestine except howl when Israel gets tired of suicide bombings and builds a wall. Otherwise, nobody in the region is playing straight up ( Israel included ).

One question though.

Who is the first and only sitting US president to publically and formally criticize Israel's own policy in the region?

B43 !

How quickly they forget.

Barry
 
Back
Top