Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 35

Thread: Saudis to support Sunni insurgency?

  1. #1
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like

    Saudis to support Sunni insurgency?

    this is some more good news. Such good friends of ours, the Saudis. It's really such a mystery why 15 of the 19 9-11 bombers were Saudi nationals.

    from NYT

    [quote]
    December 13, 2006
    Saudis Say They Might Back Sunnis if U.S. Leaves Iraq
    By HELENE COOPER

    WASHINGTON, Dec. 12 — Saudi Arabia has told the Bush administration that it might provide financial backing to Iraqi Sunnis in any war against Iraq’s Shiites if the United States pulls its troops out of Iraq, according to American and Arab diplomats.

    King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia conveyed that message to Vice President Dick Cheney two weeks ago during Mr. Cheney’s whirlwind visit to Riyadh, the officials said. During the visit, King Abdullah also expressed strong opposition to diplomatic talks between the United States and Iran, and pushed for Washington to encourage the resumption of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, senior Bush administration officials said.

    The Saudi warning reflects fears among America’s Sunni Arab allies about Iran’s rising influence in Iraq, coupled with Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. King Abdullah II of Jordan has also expressed concern about rising Shiite influence, and about the prospect that the Shiite-dominated government would use Iraqi troops against the Sunni population.

    A senior Bush administration official said Tuesday that part of the administration’s review of Iraq policy involved the question of how to harness a coalition of moderate Iraqi Sunnis with centrist Shiites to back the Iraqi government led by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki.

    The Saudis have argued strenuously against an American pullout from Iraq, citing fears that Iraq’s minority Sunni Arab population would be massacred. Those fears, United States officials said, have become more pronounced as a growing chorus in Washington has advocated a draw-down of American troops in Iraq, coupled with diplomatic outreach to Iran, which is largely Shiite.

    “It’s a hypothetical situation, and we’d work hard to avoid such a structure,” one Arab diplomat in Washington said. But, he added, “If things become so bad in Iraq, like an ethnic cleansing, we will feel we are pulled into the war.”

    The Bush administration is also working on a way to form a coalition of Sunni Arab nations and a moderate Shiite government in Iraq, along with the United States and Europe, to stand against “Iran, Syria and the terrorists,” another senior administration official said Tuesday.

    Until now Saudi officials have promised their counterparts in the United States that they would refrain from aiding Iraq’s Sunni insurgency. But that pledge holds only as long as the United States remains in Iraq.

    The Saudis have been wary of supporting Sunnis in Iraq because their insurgency there has been led by extremists of Al Qaeda, who are opposed to the kingdom’s monarchy. But if Iraq’s sectarian war worsened, the Saudis would line up with Sunni tribal leaders.

    The Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Turki al-Faisal, who told his staff on Monday that he was resigning his post, recently fired Nawaf Obaid, a consultant who wrote an opinion piece in The Washington Post two weeks ago contending that “one of the first consequences” of an American pullout of Iraq would “be massive Saudi intervention to stop Iranian-backed Shiite militias from butchering Iraqi Sunnis.”

    Mr. Obaid also suggested that Saudi Arabia could cut world oil prices in half by raising its production, a move that he said “would be devastating to Iran, which is facing economic difficulties even with today’s high oil prices.” The Saudi government disavowed Mr. Obaid’s column, and Prince Turki canceled his contract.

    But Arab diplomats said Tuesday that Mr. Obaid’s column reflected the view of the Saudi government, which has made clear its opposition to an American pullout from Iraq.

    In a speech in Philadelphia last week, Prince Turki reiterated the Saudi position against an American withdrawal from Iraq. “Just picking up and leaving is going to create a huge vacuum,” he told the World Affairs Council. “The U.S. must underline its support for the Maliki government because there is no other game in town.”

    Prince Turki said Saudi Arabia did not want Iraq to fracture along ethnic or religious lines. On Monday a group of prominent Saudi clerics called on Sunni Muslims around the world to mobilize against Shiites in Iraq. The statement called the “murder, torture and displacement of Sunnis” an “outrage.”

    The resignation of Prince Turki, a former Saudi intelligence chief and a son of the late King Faisal, was supposed to be formally announced Monday, officials said, but that had not happened by late Tuesday.

    “They’re keeping us very puzzled,” a Saudi official said. Prince Turki’s resignation was first reported Monday in The Washington Post.

    If Prince Turki does depart, he will leave after 15 months on the job, in contrast to the 22 years that his predecessor, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, spent as ambassador in Washington.

    In Riyadh, there was a sense of disarray over Prince Turki’s resignation that was difficult to hide. A former adviser to the royal family said that Prince Turki had submitted his resignation several months ago but that it was refused. Rumors had circulated ever since that Prince Turki intended to resign, as talk of a possible government shake-up grew.

    Prince Saud al-Faisal, Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister and Prince Turki’s brother, has been in poor health for some time. He is described as eager to resign, with his wife’s health failing, too, just as the United States has been prodding Saudi Arabia to take a more active role in Iraq and with Iran.

    The former adviser said Prince Turki’s resignation came amid a growing rivalry between the ambassador and Prince Bandar, who is now Saudi Arabia’s national security adviser. Prince Bandar, well known in Washington for his access to the White House, has vied to become the next foreign minister.

    “This is a very high-level problem; this is about Turki, the king and Bandar,” said the former adviser to the royal family. “Let’s say the men don’t have a lot of professional admiration for each other.”

    Hassan M. Fattah contributed reporting from Dubai, United Arab Emirates.


    [/quote]

  2. #2
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,751
    Post Thanks / Like
    I heard some folks on Air America last night talking about how we (America) MUST STAY in Iraq, how we have a moral obligation, how pulling out would be very bad, and how we should use the threat of leaving with Iran to get them to stop helping the incergency/civil war.

    This, from Democrats.

    How does that make you feel Bit, knowing that the Left now feels (apparently) that staying, changing tactics but stying for the long term, is now the correct course of action? How you feel about that?

  3. #3
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    acutally you'd think a lunatic leftist like bitonti would think this is a good thing...he constantly calls the ME a bunch of animals- so you've go the Shiites backed by the Iranians and Sunni backed by the Saudi's and the muzzies are all killing each other...


    ..................

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish]
    How does that make you feel Bit, knowing that the Left now feels (apparently) that staying, changing tactics but stying for the long term, is now the correct course of action? How you feel about that?[/QUOTE]

    Bush screwed this country - we should never have gone in the first place.

  5. #5
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,751
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti]Bush screwed this country - we should never have gone in the first place.[/QUOTE]

    That has nothing to do with what I asked you Bit.

  6. #6
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,874
    Post Thanks / Like
    At this point I don't care. Let them kill each other, they will do it if we stay or not. I thought the conflict in Northern Ireland was bad that was a mild skirmish compared to this.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    US
    Posts
    244
    Post Thanks / Like
    how can the Bush clan live with themselves,, what a absolute Joke,, I cant imagine the terror attacks that will hit this country in 10 years,, what a absolute joke this Adminstration has turned out to be

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    US
    Posts
    244
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=MnJetFan]At this point I don't care. Let them kill each other, they will do it if we stay or not. I thought the conflict in Northern Ireland was bad that was a mild skirmish compared to this.[/QUOTE]


    Difference is US didnt get involved and instigate what has gone on in Northern Ireland,, US has had its hands on what is going on in Iraq,,, it is only a matter of time before we start to feel it on our shores

    What a sad joke this adminstration has turned out to be

  9. #9
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    Maybe the saudi's will first consult nancy pelosi's soon-to-be "intelligence" chief:

    [i]"Al Qaida is what - Sunni or Shiite?" Jeff Stein, the Congressional Quarterly magazine's national security editor, asked Reyes. "Al Qaida, they have both," came the reply. "You're talking about predominately?" asked silvestre reyes, before venturing: "Predominantly - probably Shiite."[/i]

    Classic! If these next two years weren't so dangerous, it would be so much fun.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    US
    Posts
    244
    Post Thanks / Like
    repubs are a joke,, just admit defeat and lets hope the dems can wipe your a$$es again

  11. #11
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    7,422
    Post Thanks / Like
    [url]http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blantiwar-iraq911.htm[/url]

    [url]http://www.willthomas.net/911/Bush/[/url]

  12. #12
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Renaissance10]repubs are a joke,, just admit defeat and lets hope the dems can wipe your a$$es again[/QUOTE]

    I believe you meant to type jihadists.

  13. #13
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Spirit of Weeb]I believe you meant to type jihadists.[/QUOTE]


    is there a difference between the two??

    think about it....they use the same talking points...need an American defeat to further their agenda and say "I told you so"...have an affinity for tyrants....

  14. #14
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]is there a difference between the two??

    think about it....they use the same talking points...need an American defeat to further their agenda and say "I told you so"...have an affinity for tyrants....[/QUOTE]

    ... cheered when Rummy resigned and they both rejoiced the Iraq Surrender Groups report.

  15. #15
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Spirit of Weeb]... cheered when Rummy resigned and they both rejoiced the Iraq Surrender Groups report.[/QUOTE]

    exploit the deaths of GI's to further their cause....

  16. #16
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,776
    Post Thanks / Like
    Ignore the deaths of GI's and tell families they are insignificant in the grand plan.


    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]exploit the deaths of GI's to further their cause....[/QUOTE]

  17. #17
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish]I heard some folks on Air America last night talking about how we (America) MUST STAY in Iraq, how we have a moral obligation, how pulling out would be very bad, and how we should use the threat of leaving with Iran to get them to stop helping the incergency/civil war.

    This, from Democrats.

    How does that make you feel Bit, knowing that the Left now feels (apparently) that staying, changing tactics but stying for the long term, is now the correct course of action? How you feel about that?[/QUOTE]


    ok warfish

    to answer your question we can't just "stay" in Iraq - that's not working clearly. No one on either side thinks just hanging around will change anything.

    They can either increase or draw down. Neither has much of a chance of success. the increase of troops (a.k.a. extend and accelerate) would be a last ditch desperation attempt with no real backup position.

    If they try that and it works, that would be great. Far more likely scenario they try it and it fails we are looking at massacres all over Iraq and a massive power struggle between Saudi and Iran with Iraq in the middle.

    So you ask me what do I think of it? We as a nation have several very poor options. We know that leaving will definately not work, but we also know that staying and ramping up has a small chance of success, in the end that is probably what will happen. No one likes to admit defeat.

    At the end of the day this will be considered one of the worst wars, if not _THE_ worst war in the history of the union. It was poorly run with no real goals and no way to achieve these goals. People will say that Vietnam is worse, i feel that not learning the lessons of Vietnam makes Iraq actually worse. We've seen this show before.

    I've said it before i will say it again, anyone who seriously supported this conflict should be contrite and apologetic. It was a bad idea from the beginning but people were too jammed up about 9-11 to think about it objectively. I was here talking about how hard it would be, how the troops would suffer, how we would eventually lose and was called many bad names, not the least of which was traitor. I deserve better than that, because from the beginnging of the debate I've wanted only what's best for the country. What did you want? What were you motivated by? Im not sure it was objective analysis.

    And here we are, faced with several options, all of them bad. I don't blame the people who want to ramp up the troops, these are good people that want to make sure the sacrifices made in Iraq are not in vein. Unfortunately there's very little realistic chance of victory, it's just a matter of accepting that as a fact.
    Last edited by bitonti; 12-14-2006 at 07:43 AM.

  18. #18
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,751
    Post Thanks / Like
    Bit, if the hypocricy in your world view wasn't so obvious, I would applaud most of your post above. But you clearly hold left and right to VERY different standards when judging their choices and actions. When Bush wants to send more troops, it's evil, when the left choose to, it's "good people trying hard". When the left gets elected on "getting us out now", you love it, but when they completely flip, and suddenly want higher troop levels for longer (as the right has wanted as well), you suddenly change your tune and applaud them, and suddenly quiet your "we can;t win, must get out now" rhetoric.

    That is what saddens me about you Bit, you're analytical and exceedinly intellgent, but you seem to consciously choose to be blindly biased. A little less bias, and a little more true objectivity from you would make you one of the best posters we have in this little subforum.

    Supporting the removal of Saddam was not wrong Bit. How it was carried out was what is wrong. There is no situation on this earth that does not have a solution. None. There is no war that cannot be won. None. It's all in planning and followthrough andc force of will to do what it takes. Bush gets very few points beyond trying to something good....his planning, execution and the rest has been horrid. But we both know the left has treated him as if he was the enemy, and Saddam (and Islamofacism) our friend.

    Supporting the effort doesn't make anyone evil, nor should I or anyone else be "contrite" as you suggest. Wanting a terrorist mass murderer out to improve our safety is never wrong. But criticism on the handling of it IS legit.

    My opinion only, of course.

  19. #19
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    Warfish you are reading bias where there are none - read my post again i never specified which political side the people were who wanted to send more troops. For the record, Republicans who want to send more troops are good people too.

    Maybe you believe there is a bias in my message implied by my previous postings but this is not the case.

    If you really paid attention to what I posted for objective reasons, you'd be complimenting me on my foresight and apologizing for the rudeness of your side, if not the direct rudeness of yourself.

    Remember when teh Mission Accomplished sign was put up, you and all the rest of them came to this forum to GLOAT about how only 150 people died and my predictions of a rough road were so far off the mark. Liberal pansy commie traitor i was called.

    Here we are with nearly 3000 dead and 20000 with life changing injuries, who was right and who was wrong?

    One more point, removing Saddam Hussain was in fact a huge mistake it's about time you and the rest of the right realized that. Besides the fact there were no WMD, Saddam was a stabilizing force in an unstable region. With a mixed Shia/Sunni population Iraq was a buffer between Saud (sunni) and Iran (shia) - as it turns out the world was a better place with Saddam than without it. We are only seeing the beginning of how bad it is going to get in Iraq and the Middle East at large. There was a power vacuum created when Saddam was toppled and something is going to fill it.

    At the time i said we were better off with the devil we knew than the devil we didn't, again people called me a fool.

    Note i don't want pats on the back what i do want are apologies for those who debated me in a rude fashion. It's turns out I'm a patriot too.

  20. #20
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    7,422
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti]Warfish you are reading bias where there are none - read my post again i never specified which political side the people were who wanted to send more troops. For the record, Republicans who want to send more troops are good people too.

    Maybe you believe there is a bias in my message implied by my previous postings but this is not the case.

    If you really paid attention to what I posted for objective reasons, you'd be complimenting me on my foresight and apologizing for the rudeness of your side, if not the direct rudeness of yourself.

    Remember when teh Mission Accomplished sign was put up, you and all the rest of them came to this forum to GLOAT about how only 150 people died and my predictions of a rough road were so far off the mark. Liberal pansy commie traitor i was called.

    Here we are with nearly 3000 dead and 20000 with life changing injuries, who was right and who was wrong?

    One more point, removing Saddam Hussain was in fact a huge mistake it's about time you and the rest of the right realized that. Besides the fact there were no WMD, Saddam was a stabilizing force in an unstable region. With a mixed Shia/Sunni population Iraq was a buffer between Saud (sunni) and Iran (shia) - as it turns out the world was a better place with Saddam than without it. We are only seeing the beginning of how bad it is going to get in Iraq and the Middle East at large. There was a power vacuum created when Saddam was toppled and something is going to fill it.

    At the time i said we were better off with the devil we knew than the devil we didn't, again people called me a fool.

    Note i don't want pats on the back what i do want are apologies for those who debated me in a rude fashion.[B] It's turns out I'm a patriot too[/B].[/QUOTE]

    Bravo. There was never any doubt here....I also felt the same harshness and cruelty because I disagreed with some out there.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us