Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mark Steyn: Reality check
The Spectator (U.K.) ^ | 06/05/04 | Mark Steyn

Posted on 06/03/2004 6:02:21 AM PDT by Pokey78

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-65 next last
To: 91B

I think that could be a bigger problem then you allow. It would disrupt the world oil market, and that has real consequences. But with control of the KSA comes a military. Not competent by western standards, but if Jihadis control the SA military you can bet that the UAE etc will fall militarily immediately. Kuwait could be protected, but the rest of the sheikhdoms will be invaded.


21 posted on 06/03/2004 7:21:02 AM PDT by blanknoone (I voted for before I voted against it, didn't show up for the vote except once, but left too early)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
"No one’s in any mood to liberate Syria or destabilise Iran."

At least until November 15th, 2004. Then we pick up the next thread and Yank it.

22 posted on 06/03/2004 7:25:11 AM PDT by Uncle Miltie (Islam: Nothing BEER couldn't cure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Steyn bump


23 posted on 06/03/2004 7:25:13 AM PDT by Lyford
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Full post bump!
:O)
24 posted on 06/03/2004 7:35:56 AM PDT by metesky (You will be diverse, just like us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

Thank you for adding me to your list yesterday.


25 posted on 06/03/2004 7:40:33 AM PDT by texasflower (in the event of the rapture.......the Bush White House will be unmanned)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
"Washington needs to have solid, detailed contingency plans for securing the oil fields, and making sure the Hashemites are on stand-by to return to Mecca and Medina"

I nominate this as the idea of the week.

26 posted on 06/03/2004 8:10:35 AM PDT by Uncle Miltie (Islam: Nothing BEER couldn't cure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: arthurus

If we cut off the source of funds-western money buying Saudi oil-the jihadniks will not be able to export terrorism as easily. Besides, the unstated point of my post is that if the fundamentalists were in charge, they would run the KSA into the ground pretty quickly and get themselves ousted in pretty short order (probably replaced by a more pro-western government).


27 posted on 06/03/2004 8:50:08 AM PDT by 91B (God made man, Sam Colt made men equal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: blanknoone

I'm pretty sure that we could defend the UAE and Qatar with few problems. I have few fears of the Saudi army and a disasterous fight against us and the gulf emirates would only serve to destabilize the jihadis. Right now they are hiding behind the royal families robes, let's draw them out into the open where they can be destroyed.


28 posted on 06/03/2004 8:54:05 AM PDT by 91B (God made man, Sam Colt made men equal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Agent Smith; All
"...The real question do we have the brains and will to implement them...[sic]"

And the answer to that question is "no". We don't have the willingness nor the resolve to do what must be done.

Our country is absolutely frozen with fear and at the complete mercy of Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia has one small thing that strikes absolute terror in the heart of anyone contemplating any kind of action against the country. That one small thing is the 'Kaaba' - "The House of Allah" - The spiritual shrine of all of Islam worldwide.

We are not at war with terrorism. That is like saying we are at war with 'bad people who do bad things'. We need to face the facts. We are at war with Islam ~ Militant Islam to be exact, and Saudi Arabia is where this violent brand of Islam originates from and where it is being spread from, even today as we speak.

Saudi Arabia the homeland of Osama bin Laden and the the hijackers of 9/11 ~ and so we beat up on Afghanistan and Iraq... HELLO MCFLY!! WAKE UP!

Do we plan on killing miliant muslims for the next 20 years while Saudi Arabia's madrasahs continue to churn out more foot soldiers worldwide?

We didn't defeat Nazism by beating up on pissant countries in North Africa ~ We knew that to defeat Nazism we had to go to the source, we had to go to Germany. You want to kill a snake - you cut off the head.

And so... The big question is "Why are we unable to resolve this problem once and for all?" ~ The reason why is because we know and so does everyone else that it will become World War 3 and it will become nuclear. To make matters worse (if it possibly could get worse) is that years of open borders, diversity and multiculturism crapola has left us with 'nips in the wire'.

And so until we have the resolve to win and the will to ensure our own survival we will die the death of a thousand cuts. We lose.

The only thing the West is starting to have in common with Islam is their mutual hatred for Christianity.

29 posted on 06/03/2004 9:07:50 AM PDT by expatguy (Fallujah Delenda Est!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: 91B

You're right that we could beat them, but I'm not sure we'd get the chance. I think they'd fall before we could even get help there. We'd have to get troops on the ground BEFORE they attacked. If they were 'conquered' I don't think we'd have the political will to invade. It would have to be either amphibious or invade KSA itself. I'm not sure we'd do either.


30 posted on 06/03/2004 9:35:00 AM PDT by blanknoone (I voted for before I voted against it, didn't show up for the vote except once, but left too early)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: 91B
They won't be ousted by any inside forces. That's why we have to keep a presence in Iraq and Qatar, etc. We will have to do the job. Meanwhile we need to avoid the disruption in the first place. When we can maneuver us and them into a position where we can take out the Saudis without losing the oil or if we have substitutes lined up, it will be done.
31 posted on 06/03/2004 9:36:06 AM PDT by arthurus (Better to fight them over THERE than over HERE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
The West backs the Saudi regime as a bulwark against local destabilisation, in return for which they underwrite destabilisation of the West across the entire planet.

What exactly is ‘realist’ about continuing to back the Frankensaud monster? The present policy is all but certain to wind up delivering the peninsula and its oil into the hands of Osama’s buddies.

Is there any way we can get Steyn to be Secretary of State? Any way?

32 posted on 06/03/2004 9:39:23 AM PDT by Gritty ("Containment plays on your enemy’s terms:you try and stand still, he does all the running-Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

Interesting.

Finally, Henry Kissinger, the "man without a patriotism," is getting his due. Recall that it was K who inspired the "opening" to Red China, and strenuously advocates ignoring the mass murders of the regnant PRC slime...

Dustbin next, please???


33 posted on 06/03/2004 9:49:07 AM PDT by ninenot (Minister of Membership, TomasTorquemadaGentlemen'sClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole; Willie Green

Ping. Steyn has something here which is also interesting for the PRC thing...


34 posted on 06/03/2004 9:50:43 AM PDT by ninenot (Minister of Membership, TomasTorquemadaGentlemen'sClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: blanknoone
Right now we have plenty of troops in Qatar.

From this link "The US constructed its largest pre-positioning base outside the US in Qatar. Facilities were constructed in Qatar to support CENTCOM's prepositioning of military assets in the Central Region, in accordance with government-to-government agreements. The work is for both the Army and Air Force...< snip>The Army's newest and largest pre-positioned stock (prepo) facility opened in Qatar in August 2000."

In addition there are fully functioning Air Force bases in both Qatar and the UAE. Don't think that Pentagon planners haven't seen the possible eventuality of a Saudi uprising and taken steps to prepare.

35 posted on 06/03/2004 10:04:19 AM PDT by 91B (God made man, Sam Colt made men equal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: arthurus

Right now the terrorists are hiding behind the robes of the royal family. If it costs us temporary access to Saudi oil to get rid of them (both the corrupt royals and the Islamikazi terrorists) I'm sure we'll recover within a few years. If they continue with the present arrangement they will be able to use oil revenues to export Wahibism and then we will have a much bigger problem on our hands.


36 posted on 06/03/2004 10:08:47 AM PDT by 91B (God made man, Sam Colt made men equal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: 91B

I'd be much happier if there was an armor and a mech battalion with all that equipment. An air force base can't fight off a coordinated combined arms attack. All that equipment may even make it a more appealing target...they'd have to hit it quick.


37 posted on 06/03/2004 10:11:31 AM PDT by blanknoone (I voted for before I voted against it, didn't show up for the vote except once, but left too early)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: blanknoone

I'd lay you 100-1 odds that after an air attack from Al Udeid air base what remained of the new saudi force would never get within 50 miles of Doha (same with the UAE).


38 posted on 06/03/2004 10:14:44 AM PDT by 91B (God made man, Sam Colt made men equal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: 91B

I don't doubt we would dominate the air...I wonder whether we could hold ground. All the air dominance in the world is worthless if there is a hostile tank on your runway and a squad in the control tower.


39 posted on 06/03/2004 10:24:19 AM PDT by blanknoone (I voted for before I voted against it, didn't show up for the vote except once, but left too early)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: blanknoone

In order to take ground you have to be able to maneuver, if someone else dominates the air you can't maneuver. Holding ground you already own is a different matter (that's why air power is no substitute for invasion in offensive operations). Whatever force the new saudi regime would put against us would not be able to move and its' supply lines would be completely destroyed. No way would any saudi soldiers get anywhere close to our bases (or those of our allies).


40 posted on 06/03/2004 10:33:07 AM PDT by 91B (God made man, Sam Colt made men equal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-65 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson