So Saud al-Faisal publically expresses Saudi fears that Iraq is irrevocably headed into a civil war that will draw in and destabilise the surrounding powers. He specifically stated that Iran was "interfering" by giving Shi'a Iraqis weapons and other materiel support. The unspoken element, of course, is that Saudis will be compelled by public opinion to support Iraqi Sunnis to offset the Iranian position. It is startling for a Saudi foreign minister to make statements like this that are not very supportive of U.S. positions and also to show cracks in the public facade of Saudi strength. Saudi, of course, is not a homogeneous culture - and I think that these statements also reveal a concern of the Royal family that their hold on power is slipping. As others have pointed out on this forum, a Saudi Islamic revolution would be catastrophic for the U.S. economy and a severe blow to the military situation for U.S. forces in the regions. I think we're seeing the beginnings of a split between Saudi and American positions - primarily in the interests of survival for the al-Saud family.
Too late. Prepare for the Royal Flush in Riyadh, immediately followed by the Giant Sucking Sound on Wall Street.
Iran is sticking its big nose into affairs, in iraq like bin laden, thay want the yanks & brits tied up there unofficially. The recent charade in basra between Shi'a militia, & uk troops, has all the hallmarks of iran, especially when the brits are pressing hard for iran, to be reffered to the security council. Iran and osama bin loony laden, want our forces there, because it helps to build up hatred across the middle east towards the west, we are playing into there hands by staying. We need to get out now, and focus our attention on Iran, who are using the fact that we are stuck in iraq, to do what the hell they want with there, nuclear ambitions. Irans nuclear plant needs taking out, with a longrange bombing attack, if they do not back down to the security council. It is ridiculous, there has been hardly no trouble in basra, then just when the UK is attacking iran politically, and its crunch time, for it to be referred to the security council, all hell is breaking loose in basra. Syria is playing the same game to trying to keep us there, by letting armies of insurgents to cross its border, into iraq. We are playing this war, all wrong we are playing into there hands, syria, iran, bin laden are laughing there tits off at us. Gorilla wars go for years, even decades, the only way is out now, before this leads up to a dirty bomb, in the west, the militants are getting massive finacial aid, because of whats happening in iraq.
The Saudi's have a stake in keeping Iraq unstable. When the day comes that Iraq has it's majority rule govenment in place, and when they start to sell oil to the US in vast quantities, the US will kiss the Saudi's good bye. The royal family of Saudi Arabia knows it can only stay in power with the support of the US. They now know the US will leave them to their own fate as soon as it gets another steady source of oil. The Saudi's have not worried too much in the past, figuring the US would never succeed in Iraq. But as the days go by and it looks more and more like success is getting closer and closer, the Saudi royal family is getting nervous. Their recent statements are a prelude to "justifying" whatever they have planned.
The very last thing the Saudis want is an unstable Iraq. With Saddam they knew what they were getting; a counterweight for Iran and somebody scary enough to make the al-Sauds look reasonable. You must be a Fox-watcher (which, by the way, is as of today part owned by Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal - but that's another story), because you are one of a rapidly shrinking group of people who believe that "success is getting closer and closer". A guy like Saud al-Faisal would never dare criticize U.S. policy on his own - he is speaking on the explicit order of the king and his cabinet. His statement is an example of "distancing"... expressing concerns about the actions of the U.S. while leaving unspoken the implicit threats it poses to Saudi stability. The Saudis have a lot of discontent brewing at home, not least of which is the fate of the Sunni minority in Iraq should the Shi'a gain the upper hand. What the Saudis are likely desperately afraid of is that Iranian support for the Shi'a insurgents will become de facto occupation. The U.S. wouldn't stand for it, and the Saudis would be forced by public opinion to support the Sunni insurgency Thus appearing to support the U.S. in the eyes of regional powers and appearing to support Ba'athists in the eyes of the Bush administration. A no-win situation. About all the Saudis can do now is to totally repudiate the Americans and try to broker a three-party security arrangement for the former Iraq. It may be too late even for that.
te jen: "because you are one of a rapidly shrinking group of people who believe that "success is getting closer and closer". I suppose you are basing that statement by the posters on this forum. The real truth of the new Iraq is of course hardly reported by anyone. It doesn't make for good "headline news". The fact that the majority of Iraqis, the Shiites, are going to finally get to control their country is success and it IS getting closer and closer.
No shit, but not the way you think. You and I obviously aren't going to agree, so I'll set a reminder in my online calendar for September 26th, 2007 and we'll discussed what happened. Deal?
"When the day comes that Iraq has it's majority rule govenment in place, and when they start to sell oil to the US in vast quantities, the US will kiss the Saudi's good bye.", Giskard Funny you should mention this, for here is the true reason for the invasion of Iraq. With the Saudi government paying off its mullahs and then turning a blind eye to where that money goes, and with their impending demise, Bush thought it a good idea to gain a second source of oil. Not a bad idea for America's future if it was actually possible to nation build in the middle east.
Yep. In spite of being incredibly naiive, the neocon oil grab was also stupid, as it turned out. What kind of idiot wants 2 more years of disastrous proof?
The Shiites have this way of telling people that they will become Islam, and they have this way of killing people who try to leave it. That is why they are a majority. These are not true Islam, and it might be said that true Islam does not exist because no one has entered it voluntarily, not Shiite or Sunni. Westerners are accusing the Sunnis of murder and of insurrection but the Shiites use US supplied weapons and uniforms in Iraq to hunt down Sunnis and kill and torture them. It's not enough that the Sunnis pretend to be Islam, they also have to be Shiite to satisfy the Shiites. When you force people to be Moslem, or Christian, or Buddhist, or Mormon, there are no true adherents to these faiths. There may be some who serve out of what seems to be genuine love, but that's a Stockholm Syndrome. Hellfire and brimstone have displaced the true love of God and as long as there is hellfire and brimstone preaching, as long as people are induced to join out of fear, as long as there are any threats and fighting, there are no true religions on Earth.
No idiot does. But maybe Giskard is interested in symmetry and the repetition of history. It's been two years since the U.S. "took" Iraq, and two more years should satisfy him as to the success or failure of the task. After all, it only took four years for the U.S. to defeat the Japanese empire, so an equal period should be much more than enough to subdue a country already in ruins. Of course, it's also possible that the Bush apologists will never pull their heads out of the sand. But if they think things are going so well then maybe they ought to go over and pitch in.
This thread is definitely worth revisiting and reviving, both for a review of what worst-case scenarios have not (yet) come to pass, as well as for those rosy forecasts that also failed to materialize. As for the Saudis, it is interesting to contemplate on the second anniversary of this thread the following story... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/09/19/bcnsaudi119.xml Are you out there, buddhaman386 and Giskard?
