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

Skip to comments.

Don't Weaken Arafat, Saudi Warns Bush
The New York Times ^ | 01/27/2002 | ELAINE SCIOLINO

Posted on 01/26/2002 5:24:48 PM PST by Pokey78

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 last
To: Pearls Before Swine
If they got rid of Arafat, Hizballah, Hamas etc etc the Palestinian people would have their state in no time. They just can't seem to see that. The Arab world, if it was really interested in seeing them have a homeland would do everything possible to see to it these terrorist groups were shut down. It would remove a huge thorn in all their sides.
41 posted on 01/26/2002 8:43:47 PM PST by McGavin999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
Actually, a distraction is what is in order right now. I'm sure the royal family is aware of the corruption of some of the members of the family. They could start by announcing they have just discovered absolute proof of this and make a big show of confiscating their wealth. They could make a big fuss over exiling them on a small pension and giving their jobs to qualified Saudis.

This would so stun the people that they could then continue their "war against corruption" and eventually they could "discover" that the fanatics had been short changing the people by restricting the education......etc.....etc....etc. Might just work.

42 posted on 01/26/2002 8:56:03 PM PST by McGavin999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Some days you want to attack Iraq, some days Somalia, some days Lebanon, some days Syria...

While attacking all of the above works for me, it is actually our media speculating and attempting to second-guess our Commander-In-Chief, that has such reports flying.

Islamists choose not to comprehend that their countries will not be bombed if they cooperate in ridding their nations of the terrorist cells that threaten our nation (and many others). The Phillipines is a perfect example. Unable, but desiring to get rid of their terrorists, they are allowing US troops to train their own soldiers so that they do the job themselves.

As for the statement that Arafat is a man of peace -- that should have had a major barf alert!!

43 posted on 01/26/2002 9:24:39 PM PST by bjcintennessee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dallas
If we don't deal with Islam now, then our children are going to have to pay.

No, our Daddys did not deal with Islam, and WE are going to pay. (Just wanted to clarify)

44 posted on 01/26/2002 10:52:24 PM PST by American in Israel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: American in Israel
I'll rephrase....

If we don't deal with Islam now, then our children will have to deal with a even more dangerous Islamic super-power.

45 posted on 01/26/2002 11:21:58 PM PST by Dallas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
The difference between Bush Senior and Bush Junior policy is that under Bush Senior the Saudis could still be pumped for lots of contracts for his pals. Now, the rot has set in and the situtation is so obviously pre-revolutionary (this looks so much like France, 1789) that the old rules just don't apply any more. A foreign policy based largely upon a strategic-economic relationship with Saudi Arabia just doesn't fit the facts anymore because...

1. The Saudis can't afford to provide lush construction projects for our high tech sector or buy armaments and as a result they have no more John Connally-style American apologists. The cozy days of the Houston-Riyadh partnership are over.

2. They are insolvent and primed to be the next big debt crisis. They don't have the money to buy their way out of pursuing contradictory policies. It is in the interest of American financial interests to step back from this ticking time bomb.

3. Their ruling elite is like the French aristocracy of 1789. Venal, gutless, morally degenerate, incompetent, parasitic, loathed by its people, self-loathing, incapable of reform. The only way out of this mess is a revolution and the more distance we put between ourselves and the Saudi princes the better.

46 posted on 01/27/2002 8:08:50 AM PST by Tokhtamish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: McGavin999
That's not a bad thought. The House of Saud is in an untenable position for the long-term, and possibly even the short-term.

They have to come up with a gameplan that ensures their own survival. That means somehow diminishing the power of the clerics in the country because the population is being brainwashed into opposing policies that the royal family supports. It means that they have to increase support and loyalty from their own people.

In the past, they have been able to buy the support through lavish government spending. Now, oil revenues don't even cover government expenses anymore and the kingdom is running a deficit. Spending has dropped significantly on a per capita basis.

The trick is going to be how to reform the royal family without causing a palace coup, especially from those like Abdullah who are more aligned with the clerics than we'd like.

But the royal family, the ones who support the US presence and the pro-western outlook need to come up with a a bold plan of action. If they don't, they could find themselves lined up for a mass beheading before too long.

47 posted on 01/27/2002 8:15:40 AM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
Free Republic often produces a surprising forum that shows more intelligence than expected -- that's happening here.

I'm reminded of the book "Revolt in the Desert" by T. E Lawrence, where Arabs were effectively led into battle by Lawrence against the Turks. The key ingredients in that war happened to be leadership and money, and the British provided both -- the junior officer, Arabic speaking Lawrence provided leadership over what were otherwise warring tribes; and the British commanding general, Allenby, provided Lawrence with the necessary gold to pay tribal chieftains for their help -- and the Arabs swept North, on Allenby's desert flank, to capture Damascus and expel the Turks.

This time, Arabs see Israel as the enemy and the Saudies have the gold; so ...

The whole world is in trouble if a terrorist shows up to lead the Arabs.

48 posted on 01/27/2002 9:17:27 AM PST by thinktwice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: thinktwice
Osama, of course, was that Arab. He had the gold, and he had the support of many of the Arabs.

But Israel wasn't the enemy, at least not the primary one. He chose the USA, because he deemed it the influence that needed to be removed, much like the Ottoman Empire.

Bin Laden's desire, and even expectation, was that he could unite all the arabs, and perhaps all of Islam, against the USA. He hoped to provoke a Jihad against the West and drive it out of the Islamic world.

But he underestimated us and he certainly underestimated our President. We are not the Ottoman Empire, and Osama is no Lawrence of Arabia. Had we not responded in the fashion in which we did, it's possible that Osama could have succeeded. I'm not sure. Instead, he's either on the run or his corpse is rotting in some collapsed cave in Afghanistan and his followers are being tracked and hunted down.

Will another leader arise? It's certainly possible. The conditions that created an Osama bin Laden are still in place. But the world has taken note of what happened to terrorists and their accomplices in the former Taliban government.

The fate of the world hung in the balance immediately following September 11, but the outcome now is shifting in our favor and against those who would challenge us.

49 posted on 01/27/2002 9:34:28 AM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Tokhtamish
Right on. I hope the "bankers" don't ask for "bail-outs" (our money) to support the Saudis. They own, I heard, $100 billion in US and other bonds. They should pay up those. Probably it's considered property of the rulers rather than the country, though.
50 posted on 01/27/2002 3:16:00 PM PST by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
You have missed it about the Ottoman Empire.

Osama Bin Laden is not in the least an Arab nationalist. In his first tape he viewed the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in WW1 as a Western "aggression" against Islam. It concerns him more to have a Sunni core state than to have independent Arab states and since 1918 there has been no core state.

This is pre-1648 thinking. Just as the Holy Roman Empire saw itself as the Counter-Reformed Church's enforcer against heresy. just as Imperial Russia saw itself the protector of Orthodox Christians everywhere, so Osama wants a restored Caliphate to be he enforcer and protector for Muslims everywhere.

It is true that the momentum has swung in our direction. Has America's response been weak millions across the Muslim world would have flocked to the banner of someone who defied America and got away with it. India and Pakistan would almost certainly be at war today. A fantastic way to take the steam out of a radical cause is to kill a lot of fire eaters. We annihilated the militaristic far right as a major political force in Europe and Japan and we can do likewise to Islamism.

51 posted on 01/28/2002 5:43:29 AM PST by Tokhtamish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

Comment #52 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 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