NEWS: Allawi Praises Saudi "Help"

POLITICS: Allawi Praises Saudi "Help"

Multilateralism isn’t a good thing in itself. This is a terrible idea.

At this stage of the game, I shouldn’t have to describe what’s wrong with Saudi Arabia. Everyone from the neocon hawks to the anti-war leftists have done a fine job documenting the agreed-upon grievances. Their use of rivers of petrodollars to export Wahhabism, the most racist and violent form of Islam, to the rest of the planet is bad enough by itself. Their bankrolling of the Taliban is even worse. Their moral and financial support of Hamas and Islamic Jihad only logically follows.

The only troublesome point about the Saudi royal family that isn’t so widely known is that it is they, more than anyone else, who lobbied to keep Saddam Hussein in power at the end of the Gulf War. The last thing this corrupt and reactionary crime family wants is a free Iraq on its border.

And that’s precisely the problem. If more raw manpower is needed in Iraq, send in more Americans and beef up the training of locals. The last thing traumatized Iraqis need are uniformed Wahhabis on street corners with rifles.

Damn, you beat me to it...I think we should attempt to get NATO in this. We probably should've in the first place. I'm not sure the Saudi's need a Bigger influence in the region. I want to know how the leadership will distributed between security forces..
Interesting:

well, the saudis have learned one thing that bush will never. if ya can't beat it, INVEST!

but, really. people from the middle east in general know that thesaudis are a brutal, corrupt government who have a limited interest in islam. they are the number one target of al qaeda. on both ends the iraqis are fucked. terrible news.

Raoul.

NATO passed on it.

The French and the Germans let it be known that they would shoot it down if it came before the Military Council.

Much as I don't want the Saudi's involved there is a part of be that hopes that the experiance may help drive some of the social and political change that needs to happen in the Kingdom.

Personally I think the best possible nations for something like this will be Egypt and Kuwait. They have sufficant forces and will be coming from more progressive socioties.

Let me get this straight, you think A Saudi Military Presence in Iraq might change Saudi Arabia....is that what you seriously think? You think Egypt and Saudi Arabia are MORE PROGRESSIVE...you can't be serious!

Yeah, NATO passed on it for reasons we ignored. The French and Germans didn't exactly like the rush. We, could've and should've, only went in with serious multinational support (with NATO we could've had the UN). Had we given inspectors time we might have had been able to negotiate more support. We did rush into this of course we had the military to complete the occupation. Our military has been given a burden our politicians have not taken any blame for. While Bush says, Donald Rumsfeld is doing "A Great Job"...our military has to provide security for a country without any reasonable political leadership.

Wolfowitz,Rummy,Dubya, and Condie could've planned Iraq and Afghanistan much better. They squandered opportunities and wasted resources. We are not safer now than we were...oops ranting...


In my best Lewis Black Voice...which sucks but anyway...you think the Iraqi's will accept a Kuwaiti military presence!!!!


[Edited on Jul 29, 2004 by Raoul_Duke]

Hey, I'd love it if we had the man power to do it without needing help from other countries, but that's out.

I'd love it if France, Germany, Italy and say Belgium would really step up to the plate. But they won't.

Short of causing big issues at home England and Australia are as commited as I can see them getting.

As for Kuwaiti personel, would take a lot of work.

We cause a war if we let the Turks in.

I wouldn't trust Iranian, Syrian or Jordanian.

Qatar and the UAE don't have much of a military at all.

I'd love some suggestions here Raoul.

As for my views on the Kingdom. I dispise them. It would be my hope that observing the change that should be taking place in Iraq over the next 5 to 10 years will help to drive a movement towards the Kingdom becoming less the fiefdom of the House of Saud and more a real nation. But since that's not likely to happen lets just kill them all. Sorry, we can hope that Middle East makes the transition to a better form of government and socioty, and try to assist that process. Or we had better kill them all now before one of them unleashes a global plague that wipes out most of the human race.

Suggestions, Great...1) Bring some credibility back to the United States by electing a Progressive Leader, John Kerry. Then work to build a NATO coalition. Why stop now?...many NATO countries will work with us if we're not so arrogant and we'll show some promise in our foreign policy future. Help is not out ..the world is round and we share the same interests for the most part. He will show it's in the World's best interest to fight terrorism...and he will do it with international support and respect. Your suggestions seemed so solid and now you seem to abandon them...what's going on here? When did we lose our international support...we had it...hmm I wonder what happened.

We have to create a better economy to properly fund America at home and abroad...the Saudi's should've been part of the "Axis of Evil" but Iraq took their place, for convenience. If you think the Saudi's will change because of an Iraqi influence I fear you are misguided. The Saudi's won't change until the west doesn't need them anymore or if the Radicals take over...then it's ww3. At least we can agree the middle east needs to change...I say we can do it better in a different way.

Kerry has made it clear, a new direction will help The US and the World...and I like the positive direction the campaign is taking...I've been having parties all week at me place...I can't wait for the debates...

Then you and I disagree, (which is fine), I don't think that Kerry will be any more able to get NATO involved then Bush is. Maybe I'm wrong.

As for the House of Saud. I said I hoped it would have the right effect.

Otherwise we both agree that World War Three becomes a very real outcome.

You want to talk about damages to Civil Liberties? Think about what could/would happen if things like the Seattle attempt in 2000 started making it through the net. Or a dirty bomb gets set off in say Chicago.

As for the better economy..... I think the rest of the world would rather our economy suffers while we 'outsource/offshore' for the next 10 years and allow them to build their own economies.

The sad fact is that we (the West) blew it about 150 years ago. And then really messed it up 80 or so years ago. Throw in the aftermath of World War Two and you have the foundation for our current issues.

Course if you really want to point to the thing that got the ball really rolling? We should never have let the Sha of Iran fall. Without Khomeni we wouldn't have had to support Saddam and the Saudi's as much as we did. And heck with a strong U.S. ally on the border maybe the Soviets wouldn't have invaded Afganistan. I'd could offer an opionion on the admisistration that let that happen, but that wouldn't be constructive. Counter-Factualism can be fun. But only over beers.

Could be fun sometime. Anybody up for it?

Ok ...you got a point...we've been fucking up for a long time...but Honesty, I see a good option in the Kerry campaign. Dubya and civil liberties are polar opposites...and I don't think Civil Liberties need to be sacrificed in order to be safe...I wish the Bush Administration felt that way. Without International cooperation we will face a long term problem...and Bush doesn't see past the next few years.

Opens a Yuengling...and pours a shot of jager....


[Edited on Jul 29, 2004 by Raoul_Duke]

Look, maybe Kerry will be able to get them to commit where Bush hasn't been. But I would say it would be as much because he is a fresh face rather than because of anything he said or did.

Do you really think that France, Germany, Italy, Spain or Belguim would be willing to place troops in Iraq just because the guy sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office is different?

Look, Aschroft bother's me too. But just like most of the right wing groups kept quiet over the Patriot Act I think left wing groups would on the other side.

But I'd say Janet Reno was as scary as Ashcroft when came to Civil Liberties.

[Edited on Jul 29, 2004 by gaiseric]