Author Topic: A View from the Eye of the Storm (Read 14239 times)

Seeker · « **Reply #75 on:** June 19, 2004, 03:59:20 PM »

Toad said:

"I'm beginning to drift towards the idea that the day will come when more countries than just the US are ready to declare a "War on Militant Islam". "

Never.

But make it a war on militant religion and you may be on to something. Your branch Davidsons; your Ashcrofts, your Nettanhyus (sp?) with thier "higher truths" and even your Mormons scare us over here as much as any scripture spouting immam.

It scares me rigid to think your President makes war descions guided by his imaginary friend. Once you go that way; you can rationalize anything.

Toad · « **Reply #76 on:** June 19, 2004, 04:00:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
credibility problem which makes the rest of the world shy away from the fight as much if not more than if this whole thing was accepted for what it is, carefully spelled out and prosecuted as such.

We disagree here.

The rest of the world may just be sticking their collective heads in the sand and hoping the jihadis won't notice them. They don't want any part of this fight. For some it's political, for some it's simply risk aversion, for some it's probably both.

For example, the Russians apparently warn us of Iraq's intentions to damage the US and then vote against the US in the UN/SC.

I don't think changing the "name of the game" is suddenly going to bring allies rushing to our side. They are going to have to experience it for themselves, which is one thing the author points out.

I think the Iranian nuke program will show this quite clearly. Let's see what the UN does when Iran basically tells them to go fly a kite. Seems there almost there.

Let's see what our "allies" do then. My bet is nada.

It's going to take explosions in their own countries before any "name change" is going to change their postures.

IMO.

Toad · « **Reply #77 on:** June 19, 2004, 04:08:39 PM »

Dunno Seeker.

Imagine that the French had stuck to their "no headscarves in school" position and then carbombs started popping in Paris.

The loony faction of the Muslims has always been of the type that "knows what's best for YOU". They seem to have this need to make folks conform to the Quran.

When they finally come to your country.... maybe you'll change your mind.

The Moors.......... how far did they get again?

Nash · « **Reply #78 on:** June 19, 2004, 04:19:55 PM »

Well, yeah. Likely.

But in the meantime, as long as the US is going for it, it might be better served if it realistically came to terms with this thing.

I don't know how you even fight a war on terror, let alone measure the results.

It may seem like a small thing to some, this term and its significance. But calling it what it actually is would reflect a change in thinking not only of what it is, but how to effectively deal with it. It'd represent a leap into reality.

A leap I am certain even the US doesn't want to take. So I really don't know how can this be won, currently.

Seeker · « **Reply #79 on:** June 19, 2004, 04:22:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad

When they finally come to your country.... maybe you'll change your mind.

They've (terrorists) been in my country for almost a centuary with broad American backing.

Do you see why America's sudden war on terrorism strikes us as a bit hollow?

I've yet to see a Euro leader shaking Bin Ladin's hand; what ever you may think of the french.

The pictures of Gerry Adams in the white house are public domain...

At the same time; right now; all across the western world; there are terrorists being harboured because; right now; they're the "right" sort of terrorists; the enemies of our enemies.

And in ten years; we'll be fighting them too.

In just the same way as we supported Bin Ladin against communist Russia; and we supported Saddam against radical Iran; think and wonder for a moment: Which man of violence that my government is currently supporting will be plotting to kill my son in ten years time?

Haven't you wondered why niether the White house nor Downing street can come out and say:

" we will not support men of violence" ?

Maybe because the next Bin Ladin is being financed right now to kill Bin Ladin - and what happens when he does? Will that "freedom fighter" calmly say "thanks for the contract job; I'll get on with my real life now"?

I think not.

Toad · « **Reply #80 on:** June 19, 2004, 05:23:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sixpence
[ We can, however, tie saudi money and citizens to al-qeada, yet turn a blind eye to it.

You make an invalid assumption here. I think there's evidence that we are not "turning a blind eye" and that we have tried to pressure the Saudis into some reforms. What would YOU have us do? Do you want to antagonize them (with the concomitant results on the US) and hope they change faster that way?

painting muslims, as a whole, "dysfunctional", you do not find that bias?

Read it again. What he actually said was:

Quote

entire Moslem region is totally dysfunctional

He's right if you compare it to any other "civilized region" as a whole. What regions do you feel are the most violent at present?

Again, you are painting with a broad brush.

I'm not painting anything, nor is he. Once again, to help you out, here's what he actually said:

Quote

"The problem is that the civilized world is still having illusions about the rule of law in a totally lawless environment."

That's the problem statement. The question was what do you do.

Clearly, there are a lot of "lawless environments" in the "Moslem region" he discusses. Your solution/comment/whatever is........ it doesn't happen in Jordan or Egypt.

I guess we somehow make these lawless areas into Egypt or Jordan clones? Wave a wand or what? Wait.. I know.. it's the Saudi/Amreekan connection again.

Your getting close, the US is fighting terrorists and supports the saudi government, who support terrorists. Kinda like a dog chasing it's tail.

Quote

"For 30 years, the U.S. worked to buttress the status quo in Saudi Arabia," Saleh Mani, a political scientist at King Saud University in Riyadh, said at a conference at the Center for Contemporary Arab Studies at Georgetown University in late January. "Now it wants regime change. It's not the status quo policy it used to be."

That was January of this year.

Nash · « **Reply #81 on:** June 19, 2004, 05:29:00 PM »

Bush wants a regime change in Saudi Arabia? First I've heard of that.

Toad · « **Reply #82 on:** June 19, 2004, 05:30:58 PM »

Gerry Adams has indeed been to the White House and had his hand shaken. So has Yassir Arafat; more times than Gerry even. S

What do you make of that?

Is it possible the US tried to help work out a peace agreement between Sinn Fein/Provos and your government?

"The enemies of my enemies" idea; do you have a better idea?

Just go it alone and take them all on at once then?

Toad · « **Reply #83 on:** June 19, 2004, 05:33:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
Bush wants a regime change in Saudi Arabia? First I've heard of that.

Here's a bit more of it and a link

Quote

No issue currently rankles the Saudi royal family more than the Bush administration's talk of promoting political reform. President Bush's latest plan, the Greater Middle East Initiative, is scheduled to be formally unveiled in June at the summit of the Group of Eight leading industrial powers in Sea Island, Ga.

"For 30 years, the U.S. worked to buttress the status quo in Saudi Arabia," Saleh Mani, a political scientist at King Saud University in Riyadh, said at a conference at the Center for Contemporary Arab Studies at Georgetown University in late January. "Now it wants regime change. It's not the status quo policy it used to be."

During a visit to neighboring Yemen in late March, Prince Saud, the foreign minister, said that U.S. "ideas and proposals" amounted to "flagrant accusations against the Arab countries and people."

U.S.-Saudi Relations Show Signs of Stress - Reformers Labeled 'Agents of America'

Toad · « **Reply #84 on:** June 19, 2004, 05:39:23 PM »

Middle East initiative unveiled

The impetus for this to be on the G8 agenda came out of the Bush Admin.

I know that will disappoint so many out there in internet land.

I think it disappointed a lot of Arab leaders, including the Saudis.

ravells · « **Reply #85 on:** June 19, 2004, 06:02:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lada
What exactly do you mean Ravs ?

Well, lada, if you look at the civil war in the Sudan and the Iran Iraq war, Iraq invading Kuwait (to name but three, I'm sure there are others), these are Arabs fighting other Arabs.

As an Arab friend of mine said...I don't really see what the west is too worried about, the Islamic world are so busy fighting one another, they'll never be united on one front...although interestingly our press is presenting them one way, so maybe one day it will become a problem of our own making.

Ravs

Seeker · « **Reply #86 on:** June 19, 2004, 06:14:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Gerry Adams has indeed been to the White House and had his hand shaken. So has Yassir Arafat; more times than Gerry even. S

What do you make of that?

A very well put point; but to follow you :

Quote

Originally posted by Toad

Is it possible the US tried to help work out a peace agreement between Sinn Fein/Provos and your government?[/B]

Yes, of course; which would lead one to believe that dialogue; and not a "If you're not with us then you're a Fenian bastard the SAS should take out" was more productive.

Quote

Originally posted by Toad

"The enemies of my enemies" idea; do you have a better idea?

[/B]

Yes; I do. Would you really ally Hussein or Bin Ladin again?

Nash · « **Reply #87 on:** June 19, 2004, 06:15:24 PM »

Ah, had no idea - thanks for the info and link. I also appreciate the fact that while your links are sometimes cumbersome in BBS debates, I never have to be skeptical of the credibility or source of them...

But political reform does not a regime change make:

Bush: "And you mentioned my friend, the crown prince of Saudi Arabia. He and I have discussed reform before. He understands the need to reform. You know, it's not going to meet the expectations of every American. But nevertheless, he understands the need to speak to the hopes and aspirations of his people."

Maybe Saleh Mani can explain how asking the Saudi government to speak to the hopes and aspirations of his people translates into regime change.

And it's no longer the "Middle East Initiative"... It's been retitled to "Partnership for Progress and a Common Future with the Region of the Broader Middle East and North Africa", or ""PPCFRBMENA" for short.

Continuing to water down the idea that the US is getting tough on the Saudis is the fact that Bush and Saudis publicly maintain that the ties between the two countries remain strong, and that this PPCFRBMENA is something that is to be brought about by the countries it pertains to, themselves. Stuff like education reform and women's rights.

Against the backdrop of WWIII, this doesn't seem all that serious to me.

Toad · « **Reply #88 on:** June 19, 2004, 07:09:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Seeker

not a "If you're not with us then you're a Fenian bastard the SAS should take out" was more productive.

Can you be certain that the carrot would work without the stick waving in the background?

There has to be a desire for the violence to stop on both sides; how did your government foster that desire in the Provos?

Without the SAS and the pressure they applied, could the White House have any effect?

Yes; I do. Would you really ally Hussein or Bin Ladin again?

I'd love to hear it in some detail.

Would I ally with SH or OBL again? Depends on the threat, doesn't it?

Would you shake hands with the devil in time of extreme peril if doing so would save your country?

We all made nice with Joe Stalin when we needed him didn't we? Not a very nice fellow at all. What would your solution have been then Seeker? Would you still have shunned him and gone it alone had you been Sir Winston?

Toad · « **Reply #89 on:** June 19, 2004, 07:17:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
Maybe Saleh Mani can explain how asking the Saudi government to speak to the hopes and aspirations of his people translates into regime change.

Perhaps better to ask him why HE views that simple request as "regime change?"

Maybe what you see in print is not what is being said behind closed doors? Nah........

Would you really be suprised if the US and SA didn't wash all their dirty laundry in CNN's tub?

Continuing to water down the idea that the US is getting tough on the Saudis is the fact that Bush and Saudis publicly maintain that the ties between the two countries remain strong,

Well if you were POTUS, what would YOU say about a long standing ally that has been both the giver and recipient of major favors? Same question if you were running the Kingdom.

There's no denying this has been a long and very mutually beneficial relationship between the two nations. You think they're going to pitch into each other now? Both governments are under stress; do they need a little "ally anger" to add to the pile?

something that is to be brought about by the countries it pertains to, themselves. Stuff like education reform and women's rights.

Well, duh! You think the G8 are going to impose this stuff by force of arms? Nope, this is "smoky room" negotiation. I'm sure there's a lot of quid pro quo that we're not hearing. Along with some bluster and attempted intimidation.

Against the backdrop of WWIII, this doesn't seem all that serious to me.

You have to start somewhere don't you? Isn't this a small step on the path outlined by the author of the piece I started with here?

Better to do nothing? Or do this?