posted on April 29, 2004 08:53:39 AM new
"They (Europe) have major centres of problems that are just boiling up," Mr Murdoch told his audience. "Paris is surrounded by vast blocks of tens of thousands of apartments -- all Muslim, all no-go areas for police, and totally lawless.
"There is more danger of terrorist attacks coming than what we have here."
Saudi Arabia, he said, also created a dark cloud on the horizon for the world's economy.
"I think the most outstanding thing to worry about, if we are talking about urgency, is in the Middle East, and it is with Saudi Arabia."
"Saudi Arabia is really the swing.
"If there was a revolution there it would happen overnight, and you might see oil go from $US40 to $US80 or $US90 a barrel, and that wouldn't simply affect us. It would bring China and Japan and all those countries into a pretty terrible state."
posted on April 29, 2004 10:17:28 AM new
Reamond - you are one of those that thinks we should go in and attack the Saudi's. Well, if we do and we remove the House of Saud from the throne, what Murdoch predicts could become a reality. They are world economy friendly a "regime" as you are going to find. The extremists that are currently waging war against them would be infinitly worse.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on April 29, 2004 10:41:18 AM new
I agree that Saudi Arabia is a 'swing'....and that their actions do affect us greatly.
But I'm still on the fence as to whether or not they're friend or foe. It's about 1/2 of each to me. I remain skeptical but understand we are dependent on their 'friendship'.
posted on April 29, 2004 01:22:06 PM new
The House of Saud is for the House of Saud. As one of their members said ' Our Saud Family Kingdom has been around for 800 years, the United States a little over 200 years, who do you think has the better honed survival skills ?'.
what Murdoch predicts could become a reality.
It will happen anyway. Saudi Arabia is exporting terrorism and terrorism funding. If the Saud family doesn't handle the problem, who will ?
But in any event, we had more evidence of Saudi Arabia aiding terrorists than Iraq. If we must invade and occupy a country, Saudi Arabia should have gone before Iraq.
posted on April 29, 2004 01:38:40 PM new
reamond - okay then who after SA? And where does NK fit in the picture of threats to our country, in your opinion?
posted on April 29, 2004 02:48:47 PM new
I am not certain that invading SA is the right thing to do.
The Saud family are ruthless crooks, their population is more radical than Iraq's Shiites.
We need to get our foot on the Saud family's neck and make some demands and see that the demands are carried out.
First would be to for them to smash the Wathabi radicals, and cease its export of money and ideology.
Without some compelling reason such as WOMDs, the question to be asked is if our invading and occupying a country will produce better results than their present state.
Since there were no WOMDs in Iraq, we would have been better off not invading Iraq, and once we found no weapons, put Saddam back in power with stern warnings and a set of rules to follow - or else.
Syria offers the same problem, as does Pakistan and Afghanistan.
We should be covertly supporting and fostering the liberal factions in Iran - which we probably are.
Invading and occupying these countries is like sleeping with a cobra. You have to go to sleep sooner or later and once the snake bites you're dead and the snake bites when it wants to - not when you're prepared.
Iraq has become just like Vietnam- Fallujah etc., will have to be "destroyed" to "save" it.
I am concluding that Kerry offers a more plausible plan. Fighting terrorism is more of a policing than a military endeavor.
Policing includes using exisiting foreign leaderships and governments to hammer the terrorist groups. It must also include cooperation among all countries involved.
It also includes having control of our borders. If they can't get into the country in the first place, they can not bring harm. But this too will be easier with cooperation.
This may at first sound strange but the world also needs a second Super Power to compete against us.
This second SP will offer c conventional opponenet and control of terrorists.
Many of these terrorist groups were at one time or another aligned with either the US or the USSR.
We each controlled these entities and had rules of engagement that were managed and controlled. These controls are now gone.
As the lone Super Power, we now have a target on our back for the whole world. We don't know who our enemies are, or when a friend will become a foe.
There is no enetity except ideology and petro-dollars to controll the terrorists now. The money moves secretely and the ideology is preached in the streets and mosques.
North Korea needs only an assination and a very stern warning from China, the US and S Korea.
Invading NK would be another disaster like Iraq. Perhaps not so much terrorists, but once we collapse the government we have to then fill the vaccum and spend our money to rebuild the country.
Democracies has never succeeded at being imperial.
posted on April 29, 2004 03:15:41 PM newI am concluding that Kerry offers a more plausible plan. Fighting terrorism is more of a policing than a military indeavor.
How would your "policing" policy have worked against the taliban? Issue a warrant for Mullah Omar's arrest? Without a threat of military action from us, why would Pakistan (or other Arab countries) risk their hides by helping us?
It will take a long time, but democracy will succeed in Iraq. If Iraq succeeds, Iran will fall to democracy and eventually the rest of the Arab World.
"I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
posted on April 29, 2004 03:53:31 PM newI am not certain that invading SA is the right thing to do. I thought you just recommended it?
We need to get our foot on the Saud family's neck and make some demands and see that the demands are carried out. And what would we use as leverage, when they have what WE need?
smash the Wathabi radicals Yes, I've read about that group....scary...
and cease its export of money and ideology. How do you see us doing that?
Money -we're already working on that....but ideology??
the question to be asked is if our invading and occupying a country will produce better results than their present state. Easy with 20/20 hindsight...harder before then.
Since there were no WOMDs in Iraq, etc.
no proof of that.
we would have been better off not invading Iraq, and once we found no weapons, put Saddam back in power with stern warnings and a set of rules to follow If we hadn't invaded how would we know there were no weapons [according to your opinion]? I don't think many would agree that saddam should be put back in power - for ANY reason. Especially after finding all those 5+ year olds in jail/prison....and all the mass graves....bodies in buildings [in boxes]
supporting and fostering the liberal factions in Iran - which we probably are. We did that in Iraq and then didn't have the *whatever* to support them when they did rebel against saddam - so they failed and naturally being untrusting of the US.
Iraq has become just like Vietnam Again I don't agree.
I am concluding that Kerry offers a more plausible plan. Really???? Well that would be the first I've heard of any PLAN. All I here coming from him is what's being done wrong. Other than he has said he'd like to put our troops under the control of the UN. We should only act if we have UN approval... And he has said he'd like to get more UN involvement - help. But I don't see that as happening because I don't believe Bush has been the cause of the lack of support for this war. It's been their own concern for their own countries interests and the FEAR factor, imo.
It will be interesting to hear what comes of the UN investigation of the oil-for-food program...and who, which countries benefitted most...besides saddam.
Fighting terrorism is more of a policing than a military endeavor.
I'm not clear on what you mean....like we're doing in NK....or like we were doing under the clinton administration...bribing???? How can you force a country to allow anyone to 'keep an eye' on what they're really doing? Impossible, imo.
Policing includes using exisiting foreign leaderships and governments to hammer the terrorist groups. I believe we're seeing that in action now. Many countries have joined this administration in going after terrorists.
And just recently I've been pleasantly surprised at the clerics in Iraq who were FINALLY speaking out against what the terrorist in Iraq were doing.
It also includes having control of our borders. I do agree there....both our Northern and Southern boarders.
But this too will be easier with cooperation. And just how do you force others to cooperate? Getting Canada to cooperate has been an ongoing struggle....and they complain it's too expensive for them. Last I read they aren't doing much about the terrorists in their own country.
This may at first sound strange but the world also needs a second Super Power to compete against us.
I believe we will soon have that.....and China will be it. I'd rather we don't. Guess I'm not yet seeing the benefit of that happening.
We don't know who our enemies are, or when a friend will become a foe. I agree....and while I've been chastised here many times....that's why I believe we need to rely on what our intelligence and other intelligence says...just like we did in Iraq. I believe when our interests are attacked...like in 1993 and on...we need to deal with it right then. Not sit by hoping it won't happen again. Because right or wrong...good or bad...it's all we have. If it's believed there is a threat....I don't think we need handwringing....we need to take action.
There is no enetity except ideology and petro-[etc.]...and...The money moves secretely and the ideology is preached in the streets and mosques[/i]. That's why I'm hopeful our being in Iraq can change things. If countries around Iraq can see the Iraqi people enjoying a freedom they've never known...they may just want it for themselves.
North Korea needs only an assination and a very stern warning from China, the US and S Korea. Easier said than done...and I believe against our laws to go after world leaders. Isn't it? Plus we could hardly get China to the negotiating table. And SK is to afraid of them. Should we ever withdraw our troops totally from there....they'd bow to the NK pressure in a NY minute.
Democracies has never succeeded at being imperial. I don't see Iraq as being much different than Europe was after WWII. Get things settled down....slowly reduce our troop numbers...
posted on April 29, 2004 05:05:32 PM new
Reamond.- I am curious as to how you reconcile you accusations of of Sudi support for AQ with the continued attacks against the Kingdom and Bin Lauden and AQs vow to rid the Kingdom of the House of Saud? Just last week over 40 people were killed in a suicide attack against government offices. I'm just curious as to that fits into your hypothesis.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on April 30, 2004 10:02:15 AM newI am curious as to how you reconcile you accusations of of Sudi support for AQ with the continued attacks against the Kingdom and Bin Lauden and AQs vow to rid the Kingdom of the House of Saud? Just last week over 40 people were killed in a suicide attack against government offices. I'm just curious as to that fits into your hypothesis.
The nature of the government in SA is nothing like ours. It is a throwback to the middle ages, including all of its intrigue and double dealing among ruling family members.
As example, when Prince Bandar speaks, he doesn't speak for the whole Saud family or the people of Saudi Arabia, he speaks for himself and perhaps a few of his close relatives.
The Wathabi sect has its own police force and is in charge of education.
Then there is the other Saud family members awash in cash and with an agenda to to ascend to the leadership of the country or they have a political/religious agenda. Several have expressed hatred of America and support for radical Islamic terrorist groups.
Now all three of these factions may align themselves with each other as the situation dictates. Sometimes the family will stick together, sometimes the family is fractured.
So who bombed the security office in Saudi Arabia and how does it "fit" ?
The bomb could have been from any of the factions in SA or a combination of them.
Al Qaeda has already denied any involvment in the bombing.
Bin Laden isn't much different than a disgruntled family member when it comes to the Saud family. There are many family members that would like to see the present leaders removed.
The royal family could have done the bombing. It sure produced a much needed sympathy wave for them here in the US.
I don't think many would agree that saddam should be put back in power - for ANY reason. Especially after finding all those 5+ year olds in jail/prison....and all the mass graves....bodies in buildings [in boxes]
I'd rather we don't. Guess I'm not yet seeing the benefit of that happening.