• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Saudi Warns U.S. That Iraq May Face Disintegration

vitoprimo

Member
Saudi Warns U.S. That Iraq May Face Disintegration

By JOEL BRINKLEY
Published: September 23, 2005

WASHINGTON, Sept. 22 - Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, said Thursday that he had been warning the Bush administration in recent days that Iraq was hurtling toward disintegration, a development that he said could drag the region into war.

"There is no dynamic now pulling the nation together," he said in a meeting with reporters at the Saudi Embassy here. "All the dynamics are pulling the country apart." He said he was so concerned that he was carrying this message "to everyone who will listen" in the Bush administration.

Prince Saud's statements, some of the most pessimistic public comments on Iraq by a Middle Eastern leader in recent months, were in stark contrast to the generally upbeat assessments that the White House and the Pentagon have been offering.

But in an appearance at the Pentagon on Thursday, President Bush, while once again expressing long-term optimism, warned that the bloodshed in Iraq was likely to increase in the coming weeks.

"Today, our commanders made it clear," he said after a meeting on Iraq with senior military officers, "as Iraqis prepare to vote on their constitution in October and elect a permanent government in December, we must be prepared for more violence."

American commanders have repeatedly warned that insurgents would try to disrupt the voting, as they did before legislative elections in January.

Mr. Bush said that if the United States left Iraq now, it could turn into a haven for terrorists, as Afghanistan was before the fall of the Taliban.

"To leave Iraq now would be to repeat the costly mistakes of the past that led to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001," he said.

Prince Saud, who is in Washington for meetings with administration officials, blamed several American decisions for the slide toward disintegration, though he did not refer to the Bush administration directly.

Primary among them was designating "every Sunni as a Baathist criminal," he said.

Saudi Arabia styles itself as the capital and protector of Sunni Islam, and the prince's remarks - at times harsh and at other moments careful - were emblematic of the conflicted Saudi-American relationship.

A senior administration official, reacting to Prince Saud's remarks, said, "The United States values and respects his view, and we all share a common concern for the future and stability of Iraq." He declined to be identified, under administration policy.

Prince Saud said he met with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last week and added that American officials generally responded to his warnings by telling him that the United States successfully carried off the Iraqi elections and "they say the same things about the constitution" and the broader situation in Iraq now. On Thursday, in fact, the senior administration official said, "The forward movement of the political process is the best answer."

Prince Saud argued: "But what I am trying do is say that unless something is done to bring Iraqis together, elections alone won't do it. A constitution alone won't do it." Prince Saud is a son of the late King Faisal and has been foreign minister for 30 years.

The prince said he served on a council of Iraq's neighboring countries - Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Iran and Kuwait as well as Saudi Arabia - "and the main worry of all the neighbors" was that the potential disintegration of Iraq into Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish states would "bring other countries in the region into the conflict."

Turkey, he noted, has long threatened to send troops into northern Iraq if the Kurds there declare independence. Iran, he asserted, is already sending money and weapons into the Shiite-controlled south of Iraq and would probably step up its relationship, should the south become independent. Saudi Arabia has long been wary of Iran's influence in the region, given that it is a Shiite theocracy.

"This is a very dangerous situation," he said, "a very threatening situation."

David E. Sanger contributed reporting for this article.


Was Prince Saud al-Faisal the same guy seen holding Bush's hand a few weeks ago?

Naaah, couldn't be.
 
How can this be? Wasn't it about 6-9 months ago Cheney said the insurgencey was on its last legs? (hehe)

Could it be the Bushies are so out of touch with reality they really think things are going well?
 
To leave Iraq now would be to repeat the costly mistakes of the past that led to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001
I wonder what the costly mistake of invading and occupying Iraq is going to lead too?

I agree that we cannot just pack up and leave, we already screwed the pooch, now we have to figure out how to abort the nasty offspring our pooch screwing is going to produce! Unfortunately I don't see anybody in the Political Limelight that I would have confidence in fixing that situation, least of all the Dub.
 
vitoprimo, you need to add comment to your OP per forum rules.




One thing that has been missing from the post-invasion Iraq is input and calm rhetoric from the rest of the Middle East. It's like they're all on the sidelines holding their breath and hoping the ideologues were right (plus, I'm sure they were glad Saddam was gone and didn't want to criticize too much). Their involvement would have been better than letting things fester as they have. And why Rumsfeld's resignation was rejected, twice no less, is beyond me.
 
Originally posted by: conjur

One thing that has been missing from the post-invasion Iraq is input and calm rhetoric from the rest of the Middle East. It's like they're all on the sidelines holding their breath and hoping the ideologues were right (plus, I'm sure they were glad Saddam was gone and didn't want to criticize too much). Their involvement would have been better than letting things fester as they have. And why Rumsfeld's resignation was rejected, twice no less, is beyond me.
Their involvement would have been better than letting things fester as they have.
Saddam may have made them nervious, however, after seeing what happend with Kuwaitt, they did not want to take any chances.
The track record against punishing Saddam by the world was a failure.
Saddam had the ability to reachout and touch people anywhere in the world that he disagreed with.

And why Rumsfeld's resignation was rejected, twice no less, is beyond me.
[/quote]
To accept a resignation under the circumstances that were happening would be to admit failure in planning/executions and leadership.

Few politicians have a small enough ego to do so.

Consequently, he was forced to follow the actions that were being publically anounced, and politically driven, rather than implimenting a proper solution.


 
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
To leave Iraq now would be to repeat the costly mistakes of the past that led to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001
I wonder what the costly mistake of invading and occupying Iraq is going to lead too?

I agree that we cannot just pack up and leave, we already screwed the pooch, now we have to figure out how to abort the nasty offspring our pooch screwing is going to produce! Unfortunately I don't see anybody in the Political Limelight that I would have confidence in fixing that situation, least of all the Dub.

It may already be too late to salvage anything.
 
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
To leave Iraq now would be to repeat the costly mistakes of the past that led to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001
I wonder what the costly mistake of invading and occupying Iraq is going to lead too?

I agree that we cannot just pack up and leave, we already screwed the pooch, now we have to figure out how to abort the nasty offspring our pooch screwing is going to produce! Unfortunately I don't see anybody in the Political Limelight that I would have confidence in fixing that situation, least of all the Dub.

It may already be too late to salvage anything.

Bush got a second term . . . you don't change captains in the middle of a disaster, eh.
 
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: conjur

One thing that has been missing from the post-invasion Iraq is input and calm rhetoric from the rest of the Middle East. It's like they're all on the sidelines holding their breath and hoping the ideologues were right (plus, I'm sure they were glad Saddam was gone and didn't want to criticize too much). Their involvement would have been better than letting things fester as they have. And why Rumsfeld's resignation was rejected, twice no less, is beyond me.
Their involvement would have been better than letting things fester as they have.
Saddam may have made them nervious, however, after seeing what happend with Kuwaitt, they did not want to take any chances.
The track record against punishing Saddam by the world was a failure.
Saddam had the ability to reachout and touch people anywhere in the world that he disagreed with.
Not so sure about that last one. Esp. after the '91 Gulf War.

And why Rumsfeld's resignation was rejected, twice no less, is beyond me.
To accept a resignation under the circumstances that were happening would be to admit failure in planning/executions and leadership.

Few politicians have a small enough ego to do so.

Consequently, he was forced to follow the actions that were being publically anounced, and politically driven, rather than implimenting a proper solution.
And now we're stuck with the cluster-fvck, no-win situation in Iraq. The body counts will keep going up but no real progress will be made.
 
our local national guard came home this week after a year in iraq. talking to them you come away with a different feeling abt what you hear and see on tv abt the war. they say it is bad and dangerous. but the news media only shows that part. they say it will take awhile but the iraq people will take over and it will be a democratic country. lets hope this happens.
 
There has been speculation that Iraq could degrade into a civil war since around 1996.

I don't think we should pack up and leave, but I think we may have to set our goals slightly lower than the middle eastern utopia that Bush envisions.
 
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
To leave Iraq now would be to repeat the costly mistakes of the past that led to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001
I wonder what the costly mistake of invading and occupying Iraq is going to lead too?

I agree that we cannot just pack up and leave, we already screwed the pooch, now we have to figure out how to abort the nasty offspring our pooch screwing is going to produce! Unfortunately I don't see anybody in the Political Limelight that I would have confidence in fixing that situation, least of all the Dub.

It may already be too late to salvage anything.

Bush got a second term . . . you don't change captains in the middle of a disaster, eh.

Apparently not even when the captain is a million tons of lead.

 
If the Arab countries like SA are so concerned about Iraq disintegrating, why don't they pitch in on the effort instead of standing back in judgement?
 
Originally posted by: slyedog
our local national guard came home this week after a year in iraq. talking to them you come away with a different feeling abt what you hear and see on tv abt the war. they say it is bad and dangerous. but the news media only shows that part. they say it will take awhile but the iraq people will take over and it will be a democratic country. lets hope this happens.
"Let's hope that happens."

Huh? "Hope"?

The plan as it is unfolding isn't showing promising results. The insurgents are as deadly as ever, the ability of the Iraqis to defend themselves is wishful thinking at best, and the nascent Iraqi military and police are riddled with insurgents.

The plan so far is leading to either a theocracy as malignant as Iran, a civil war, or an Iraq fractured into three (or more) parts.
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
If the Arab countries like SA are so concerned about Iraq disintegrating, why don't they pitch in on the effort instead of standing back in judgement?
Do you mean interfere in the actions of a sovereign nation? If not that, then what?
 
Originally posted by: vitoprimo
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
If the Arab countries like SA are so concerned about Iraq disintegrating, why don't they pitch in on the effort instead of standing back in judgement?
Do you mean interfere in the actions of a sovereign nation? If not that, then what?
How about putting some money and manpower into the reconstruction? How about doing their bit to properly secure their borders to keep foreign terrorists from entering Iraq? How about pitching in on the security effort?
 
TLC, if you expect Saudi Arabia to help prop up a "democracy" in Iraq, think again. It isn't in the royal family's interest to do so. Their goals have been met. Saddam Hussein is deposed.

Iraq was ruled by a Sunni minority that is now seen as oppressed by the Sunnis of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and every other Sunni country. Iraq is predominantly Shia. Where is Mecca? Ding! Ding! Ding! You are correct sir! Saudi Arabia. Not many Shiites make the pilgramage to Mecca or Medina.

The Bush adminstration and neocon hangerson fell for the lone voice of a Shia socalled exile.

How the background of the region was so easily disregarded is one for the history books.
 
Originally posted by: TRUMPHENT
TLC, if you expect Saudi Arabia to help prop up a "democracy" in Iraq, think again. It isn't in the royal family's interest to do so. Their goals have been met. Saddam Hussein is deposed.

Iraq was ruled by a Sunni minority that is now seen as oppressed by the Sunnis of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and every other Sunni country. Iraq is predominantly Shia. Where is Mecca? Ding! Ding! Ding! You are correct sir! Saudi Arabia. Not many Shiites make the pilgramage to Mecca or Medina.

The Bush adminstration and neocon hangerson fell for the lone voice of a Shia socalled exile.

How the background of the region was so easily disregarded is one for the history books.
So you agree this is nothing but faux alarmism from the Saudis, wrapped up in crocodile tears?
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
How about putting some money and manpower into the reconstruction? How about doing their bit to properly secure their borders to keep foreign terrorists from entering Iraq? How about pitching in on the security effort?
Let me see if I understand the train of thought here:

Some nations decide to invade Iraq to oust its leadership and replace that leadership. (Let's ignore the justification given for these decisions. I think it's fair to say we agree that one key goal of invaders was to oust Iraq's leadership.)

Iraq's replacement leadership is having a difficult time restoring order to the country.

The nations responsible for the invasion insist that everything is unfolding according to plan.

Iraq experiences increasing lawlessness. The replacement leadership proves unable to restore order.

One of Iraq's neighbors alerts the nations responsible for the invasion that Iraq is spiraling out of control and that this may lead to Iraq's disintegration. The neighbor expresses concern that such a development could drag the region into war.

Do I understand you to suggest that Iraq's neighbors should now join hands with the invading nations?

You realize that such action (i.e. "join hands") on the part of Iraq's neighbors would be perceived by the Iraqi's and others in the Middle East as condoning the actions and motivations of the original invaders. Where do you suppose this might lead?


 
Originally posted by: vitoprimo
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
How about putting some money and manpower into the reconstruction? How about doing their bit to properly secure their borders to keep foreign terrorists from entering Iraq? How about pitching in on the security effort?
Let me see if I understand the train of thought here:

Some nations decide to invade Iraq to oust its leadership and replace that leadership. (Let's ignore the justification given for these decisions. I think it's fair to say we agree that one key goal of invaders was to oust Iraq's leadership.)

Iraq's replacement leadership is having a difficult time restoring order to the country.

The nations responsible for the invasion insist that everything is unfolding according to plan.

Iraq experiences increasing lawlessness. The replacement leadership proves unable to restore order.

One of Iraq's neighbors alerts the nations responsible for the invasion that Iraq is spiraling out of control and that this may lead to Iraq's disintegration. The neighbor expresses concern that such a development could drag the region into war.

Do I understand you to suggest that Iraq's neighbors should now join hands with the invading nations?

You realize that such action (i.e. "join hands") on the part of Iraq's neighbors would be perceived by the Iraqi's and others in the Middle East as condoning the actions and motivations of the original invaders. Where do you suppose this might lead?
Do you realize that most Iraqis are happy Saddam is gone and don't give a fvck about the rest? They just want to get on with their lives while countries like Iran, SA, and Syria are screwing with their lives?

You're so stuck on the whole "illegal war" BS and talking points that you can't even understand that that is all gone and done and can't be changed and it's time to move on.
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
If the Arab countries like SA are so concerned about Iraq disintegrating, why don't they pitch in on the effort instead of standing back in judgement?
Why should the neighbors "pitch in"? None of Iraq's neighbors ever requested that Iraq be invaded.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
So you agree this is nothing but faux alarmism from the Saudis, wrapped up in crocodile tears?
What do you mean by "faux alarmism" and "crocidile tears"? The Saudis seem to be expressing a legitimate concern that events in Iraq might destablize their country and other countries in the Middle East.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
... it's time to move on.

Good idea.

Originally posted by: vitoprimo
...

One of Iraq's neighbors alerts the nations responsible for the invasion that Iraq is spiraling out of control and that this may lead to Iraq's disintegration. The neighbor expresses concern that such a development could drag the region into war.

Do I understand you to suggest that Iraq's neighbors should now join hands with the invading nations?

You realize that such action (i.e. "join hands") on the part of Iraq's neighbors would be perceived by the Iraqi's and others in the Middle East as condoning the actions and motivations of the original invaders.

Where do you suppose this might lead?
Where will this lead, TasteLikeChicken? Let's move on.
 
There's nothing left for the US in Iraq. They despise everything about us. We set their country on fire and now we stand around and complain, that they don't know how to extinguish the inferno. We did it, all by ourselfs and the Iraqi's hate our guts. They should. Iraq does not face disintegration.... Iraq is disintegrating.

Oh, so I don't sound like a hater; here's the solution. Remove every single American from Iraq, leave them all of our military equipment and give them 100 billion dollars in cash.
 
Americans don't listen to outsiders. They listen to the lies that are released from Washington DC, via the news, b/c they can't believe that their own President would lie to them (but it's for their own good 😉
 
Originally posted by: vitoprimo
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
If the Arab countries like SA are so concerned about Iraq disintegrating, why don't they pitch in on the effort instead of standing back in judgement?
Why should the neighbors "pitch in"? None of Iraq's neighbors ever requested that Iraq be invaded.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
So you agree this is nothing but faux alarmism from the Saudis, wrapped up in crocodile tears?
What do you mean by "faux alarmism" and "crocidile tears"? The Saudis seem to be expressing a legitimate concern that events in Iraq might destablize their country and other countries in the Middle East.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
... it's time to move on.

Good idea.

Originally posted by: vitoprimo
...

One of Iraq's neighbors alerts the nations responsible for the invasion that Iraq is spiraling out of control and that this may lead to Iraq's disintegration. The neighbor expresses concern that such a development could drag the region into war.

Do I understand you to suggest that Iraq's neighbors should now join hands with the invading nations?

You realize that such action (i.e. "join hands") on the part of Iraq's neighbors would be perceived by the Iraqi's and others in the Middle East as condoning the actions and motivations of the original invaders.

Where do you suppose this might lead?
Where will this lead, TasteLikeChicken? Let's move on.
Whatever happened to RunsLikeChicken?
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

How about putting some money and manpower into the reconstruction? How about doing their bit to properly secure their borders to keep foreign terrorists from entering Iraq? How about pitching in on the security effort?

How would securing their own borders prevent foreign terrorists from entering Iraq? Are they supposed to fight to keep terrorists within their own countries? 😕

Considering that OIF was an American flight of fancy in the first place, and Iraqi security forces and police are being executed en masse on a weekly basis, it seems to me any other Arab leader would have to be insane to send his own troops to be blown up or shot in the back of the head simply to bolster what they increasingly feel is an untenable occupation by the Great Satan.
 
Back
Top