bluelight

Yesteday Bush held a speech in which he claimed the democracy which he will restore in Iraq will spread in the Mideast and liberate the Palestinains giving them a nation of their own....


I just wonder will he also invade Saudi Arabi to restore democracy there or is it part of the plan that this will happen by itself?


BlueLight

The_Neon_Cowboy

Saudi Arabia ..... should be next .... al-qudia is there too ..... 18 of the terroists from sept 11th came from Saudi Arabia , and wrere Saudi Arabian citizens.

__________________

bluelight

Knowing that the Bush family is deep into business with the royal family of Saudi arabaa (the dictators) do you think that is likely?


BlueLight

JavaFox

Can we really be expected to solve all the world's problems? We're too busy enforcing the will of the UN right now. Maybe your government is interesting in fixing Saudia Arabia, Bluelight?

On an unrelated note, I think it's interesting how the British don't really get pulled into debates about the Holy Land. Why is up to Israel, the Palestinians, and the US to fix this problem? Wasn't the land now called Israel previously a mandate of the British Empire?

raid517

It depends what TV channel your watching JavaFox. The UK and Israeli governments have had just as many meetings with Israel as has the Bush administration - which on the round, has not been that many. The US (and to a lesser extent the UK) government have in recent year more or less completely backed off from Israel and has pretty much left her to conduct her own affairs. The UK government's policies (for reasons a lot of the UK population are not always that clear about) tends anyway to reflect those of the US, in that pretty much any serious efforts in constructing a working peace plan for the Mid East have largely been abandoned. Indeed this is what many people see as the crux of the problem; while the US and its friends go charging about the world bombing this or that regime into the dust, they are failing to address the true cause of Mid East terrorism, which is the Israeli/Palestinian question. If only these two parties could be made to agree on a deal, much of the reasoning behind international Muslim terrorism would disappear in an instant. But the work is not being done - and no one is clear why. The US is even prepared it seems to spend billions prosecuting wars that serve only to avoid the issue.

In any case I think the UK government recognised a long time ago that its influence in the region had dwindled. They at that time became the subject of both Israeli and Palestinian terrorism - and pretty quickly realised it was a no win situation. So I guess the decision was made to let them fight it out among themselves. However I think the US' influence in the region is far more significant (the Jewish economy practically runs on American money) and due to some very strong cultural ties, the USA has a much better chance of influencing events in the region. This is at least one situation that it has been proved cannot be solved via warfare. But will the US and the world continue to ignore the Palestinian problem? I fear it will, although I suspect that if events continue to deteriorate as they have over the last year or so, it is not an issue that can be avoided indefinitely.

Q

JavaFox

That post was quite insightful, though I wonder how you think the war on Iraq is "avoiding the issue," when Saddam has publically praised and funded Hamas and Hezbollah, the two big impediments to peace in Israel. I wonder how ridding Iraq of long range weaponry poised to strike Israel can be called "avoiding the issue." The fact of the matter is that there can never be peace in Israel so long as leaders such as Saddam are allowed to hold on to power and it is only in perhaps in an alternate universe where this can be refuted.

raid517

Well I think its more localised than this. You can claim that bombing countries will make a difference, but the grievance lies in these (allegedly) oppressed peoples hearts. Clearly therefore you will only deal with this problem when you deal with what they see as the main issue, which is the Palestinians lack of a homeland. Terrorist actions are in any case rarely sanctioned by states. They are usually the result of a small group of determined individuals acting independently. It doesn't matter how many countries you crush, you will still never be able to stop these small cells of resistance from forming. The only way to fight these people is the way it has been done successfully in Europe (and particularly the UK) for the last 50 years or so, which is through special forces and good covert police work. Even then eliminating them completely is unlikely. Only when the issues really do begin to be addressed can hope for peace in this world ever be restored.

Q

bluelight

I posted this explicitly to point out that dictators that serve you and who you control do not risk being attacked in any sense for being dictators.


Britain...Palestine....Israel...Well you are wrong...completly wrong...Britain has been more active than you have been on this issue the last 1.5 years since Bush got in to office.

Im not gonna go in to examples but....Britain has as opposed to Usa spent a lot of energy just trying to get Israel to talk.

Somerthing Bush hasent even considered doing until he foud use of the argument two days ago by saying occupying Iraq would mean a Palestinian state ......


I remeber clearly.......very very ....clearly.......the same thing being adressed by Usa to the Palestinians "Let us go to war and stay calm and you will have your state"

of course..as always the Palestinians did NOT get anything ...


BlueLight

JavaFox

Uh... Bush has been supporting the creation for quite some time now. So you are wrong, Bluelight.

bluelight

Creation of what?

A Palestinian state?


In what way?

By supporting Sharon who does not want to get rid of the settlements onb occupied territory and who n0w rules with one party who`s leader has stated that Israel should teach Egypt a lesson by bombing the Assuan water system which woulf of course create a catastrophe and with another party whos leader claims that all Palestinians should be removed from both Palestinian and Israeli ground...something that would be one of the biggest etnical cleansing ever.... there are even peole in Sharon`s own party in favour of this..


Why is it Bush gives his FULL support to these people that are obvious ...well im not gonna say the word....


While at the same time he wants to dictate to the Palestinians that they must get rid of their democratically elected leader...

Yet again...no sense either for tactics or reality...and a way of acting that clearly shows that their real intent is not to create an independent Palestinian nation.

Usa is ...taking sides...and the side that USA supports will never accept a reasonable Palestinian state.


BlueLight

DallasStar

I don't see why the US has to butt into Saudi Arabian politics.
The Saudi Arabian people are happy with their government.
Why, then, does Bush need to care?

Also, by bombing or attacking Saudi Arabia, Bush wouldn't be "protecting" homeland security.
He would only be taking actions that would give the terrorists more reason to attack.
He would also be driving the oil prices through the roof.

__________________
"A picture of my existence... would show a useless wooden stake covered in snow... stuck loosely at a slant in the ground in a ploughed field on the edge of a vast open plain on a dark winter night." --- Franz Kafka

raid517

Well I don't get it. There have been virtually no high level talks these last two years and virtual silence from the Bush administration over the Palestinian problem. I think a lot more effort needs to be made to cure this problem than has been the case so far. The UK government can try to get both parties to talk, but really it hasn't got that much influence beyond a few basic trading links. The US on the other hand should by all accounts have a massive influence on Israel, and if the US administration said jump the Israelis ought to design new and technically innovative ways so that they can jump higher for you. Unfortunately things seem to be the wrong way round in that regard right now.

It just seems obvious to say that if you want to deal with terrorism you have to deal with what have been identified as the root causes of that terrorism, the prime candidate in this case being the lack of a Palestinian state. Sure you can run all over the world chasing those who perpetrate terrorism, but until you address the underlying causes, the problem is never likely to go away. If though you do work to take away the main motivations for terrorism, the problem should virtually disappear.

I for one sure hope people realise this soon and start to address these issues, otherwise this world will have entered a perpetual state of war. There will come a time when people are tired of this (I personally am already tired of it) and will demand that something be done to resolve it. People will want their normal lives back sooner rather than later. Is it healthy to consider the prospect of raising the entire next generation in a state of perpetual fear? I sure hope not. This issue will not go away until the Palestinian question is addressed - and for the sake of peace and security - and for the wellbeing of my own kids in this world - I certainly hope that happens soon.

Q

bluelight

Well Raid...It will not.There will be no Palestinian state.Israel will never accept an independent state and the Palestinians will not accept a solution like the "Homelands" situation in SouthAfrica which is as far as Israel will ever go and thus also Usa.


Bluelight

raid517

I don't quite get that either. I heard Bush say that recently too, that a war in Iraq would eventually lead to the creation of a Palestinian state. I would like to know by what chain of reasoning a war in Iraq will lead to the creation of a Palestinian state - and thereby resolve the single underlying issue in this entire dispute? I ask because I simply can't see it - although perhaps someone else here with and insight into Bush's 'logic' in this matter can? If this was all proved to my satisfaction to be part of some larger grand plan, and that peace in the region would eventually be restored and that this issue would be addressed, I don't care which extremist Mid East state America bombs to make it happen, just so long as I can be convinced that it will happen. If though in 5 years, or however long it takes, all that has been achieved is that half the Mid East has been levelled - the Palestinian question has still not been addressed and terrorism is still an issue, I think an awful lot of people in this world will have very good cause to be extremely bitter about the US' policies in this regard. All of whatever the US will have done, no matter how well intentioned you claim it to be, will be regarded by many to have been nothing more than one big lie. Going by past experience, I wonder which of these scenarios will prove to be the most likely?

Q

JavaFox

Actually, this is really incorrect. The Sadiuis are really UNHAPPY with their government. In fact, if we didn't support the leaders there, they would probably be overthrown. Whether or not we should support the House of Saud is a bigger question.