It's beginning
[quote]Saudi Arabia's leaders have made far-reaching decisions to prepare for an era of military disengagement from the United States, to enact what Saudi officials call the first significant democratic reforms at home, and to rein in the conservative clergy that has shared power in the kingdom.<hr></blockquote>
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/09/international/middleeast/09SAUD.html?ex=1045458000&en=10f37fa385a1f4de&ei=5 062&partner=GOOGLE" target="_blank">NY Times</a> (news.google has secondary sources, but not the original article)
This sort of thing can't even begin to happen unless Saddam goes away. Abdullah can't force this down Sultan's throat unless Saddam goes away. We can't afford to leave Saudi Arabia unless Saddam goes away. Iraq is the pivot. Perhaps even more interesting, this strongly suggests that not only is Abdullah sure the US is going to invade Iraq, but he wants us to.
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/09/international/middleeast/09SAUD.html?ex=1045458000&en=10f37fa385a1f4de&ei=5 062&partner=GOOGLE" target="_blank">NY Times</a> (news.google has secondary sources, but not the original article)
This sort of thing can't even begin to happen unless Saddam goes away. Abdullah can't force this down Sultan's throat unless Saddam goes away. We can't afford to leave Saudi Arabia unless Saddam goes away. Iraq is the pivot. Perhaps even more interesting, this strongly suggests that not only is Abdullah sure the US is going to invade Iraq, but he wants us to.
Comments
Too much power and money in the hands of an elite minority will only lead to large dissatisfaction among its people and history tells us that this is not desirable.
Let's hope if there must be war, it will be strat of a new peaceful era.
I think its great that you value democracy higher than you the egostic interests of your country.
Please remind your president about that next time he has to make decisions about Pakistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan...
<strong>You DO know that the saudis are a lot more anti america than their rulers?
I think its great that you value democracy higher than you the egostic interests of your country.
Please remind your president about that next time he has to make decisions about Pakistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Don't start this. You're a european youth who is for better or worse very supportive of the EU system, and clearly very impressable by european media. Let the American population via the Republic make its own decision. We have our reasons to attack Iraq, just as Europe has its reasons to rally behind the UN. I don't care to elaborate, since I know you've heard the rhetoric before. All I care to say is that Bush's war drums aren't as entirely misguided as you claim them to be.
I´m not supportive of EU.
I´m not young.
I don´t have my info about those states from the media but from IR classes, CIA factsbook and other more serious sources.
But I am european
[ 02-09-2003: Message edited by: Anders the White ]</p>
<strong>You DO know that the saudis are a lot more anti america than their rulers?
I think its great that you value democracy higher than you the egostic interests of your country.
Please remind your president about that next time he has to make decisions about Pakistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan...</strong><hr></blockquote>
This such tired, anti-Bush rhetoric.
Quote from the article:
"and to rein in the conservative clergy that has shared power in the kingdom"
Classic NY Times liberalism. True, the "conservative" clergy is probably a threat...and nearly fanatical. It's the fact that they are called "conservative" that bothers me. This tactic, labeling right wingers as conservatives, while failing to do the same with the extreme left, is a classic one.
I think Bush has a larger understanding of this than anyone is willing to admit. He knows the international implications. Rather than destabilize, it will stabilize the region. I would be ALL for US troops leaving the area...when it can be done, that is.
[ 02-09-2003: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
Unfortunately the NYT has a some kind of special relationship with the Saudis. You'd think the nation's leading news paper could be independent of fanatical islamic dictatorships?
<strong>
Classic NY Times liberalism. True, the "conservative" clergy is probably a threat...and nearly fanatical. It's the fact that they are called "conservative" that bothers me. This tactic, labeling right wingers as conservatives, while failing to do the same with the extreme left, is a classic one.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sometimes I feel like the only person who realizes this. I don't feel so alone today. yay!
<strong>
This such tired, anti-Bush rhetoric.
Quote from the article:
"and to rein in the conservative clergy that has shared power in the kingdom"
Classic NY Times liberalism. True, the "conservative" clergy is probably a threat...and nearly fanatical. It's the fact that they are called "conservative" that bothers me. This tactic, labeling right wingers as conservatives, while failing to do the same with the extreme left, is a classic one.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is such an idiotic missunderstanding of the basic use of the term . . . IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN USED LIKE THIS
whenever the group under disccussion is reletive to the rest of its context in favor of strict rules based on tradition and military then they are called conservative: any group that wants to maintain the traditional rules and regulations is called conservative . . . It has NOTHING to do with the American Conservatism except that they also, in some fashions can be said to want to maintain some 'traditional' values.
That reveals the three of yours kneejerk stupidity when it comes to calling the media 'Liberal'
It has always been the way of talking about the relative tradition and closedness to change vs revolution and opennes to change perspective: . . . when the Soviet Union was in power the term Conservative was used to indicate the powers that wanted to maintain the 'Tradition' of Communism suppoerted by military (what you would call 'Liberal')
So: its the age old nomenclature that is unversally recognized and has nothing to do with the 'Liberal Media'
geezuz . . . you people are paranoid . . . its unbelievable
<strong>While the Times is probably the least accurate of any "respected" newspaper I actually think its more Sulzberger than liberal. For truly distorted news though check out the New York Post.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The New York Sun seems to have most everyone beat when it comes to journalistic bullshit.
I have seen European governments referred to as "liberal" dozens of times.
The cry of the oppressed white conservative American.
<strong>"Conservative" is a political science term that fits the ruling family of Saudi Arabia like a glove...</strong><hr></blockquote>
In the article the word was also used to describe the clergy in SA. It's pretty clear that from the perspective of political science the term "conservative" doesn't fit the Wahabis of SA at all. Culturally they are certainly conservative. But politically they are radicals not conservative.
[ 02-09-2003: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
<strong>
In the article the word was also used to describe the clergy in SA. It's pretty clear that from the perspective of political science the term "conservative" doesn't fit the Wahabis of SA at all. Culturally they are certainly conservative. But politically they are radicals not conservative.
</strong><hr></blockquote>Many fundamentalist leaders here in the states would be considered Radical politically and yet their ideology, both culturally and politically is called 'conservative' . . . it has to do with their notion of maintaining order, militancy etc based on notions of traditions . . . .
more generally, it an be seen to describe a preference for looking back in time and 'conserving' what has been rather than looking forward and 'liberally' experimenting
Fundamentalisms kind of cross the wires generally in that they mix it up: being both forward, radical and backlooking; traditional . . . fascisms are similar . . .in many ways the radical politics of much of the Fundamentalists around the world bear all of the traits of traditional fascism
<strong>It's pretty clear that from the perspective of political science the term "conservative" doesn't fit the Wahabis of SA at all. Culturally they are certainly conservative. But politically they are radicals not conservative.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They are conservative. By the very definition they are conservative. Perhaps they are radically conservative, but they are conservative.
Anyway, I read that article late last night. I would have no problem respecting their request at any time. It's the same as the controversy in Southg Korea, except South Korea is a hell of a lot more of a truly representative government. In either case, we will respect their requests. In the case of Saudi Arabia, we will let them fall on their face if that's what they want.
<strong>
They are conservative. By the very definition they are conservative. Perhaps they are radically conservative, but they are conservative.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's no such thing as a radical conservative. It's a contradiction of terms.
from Webster's:
Conservative n. 1. One who, or that which, preserves from ruin, injury, innovation, or radical change; a preserver; a conserver. 2. One who desires to maintain existing institutions and customs; also, one who holds moderate opinions in politics; -- opposed to revolutionary or radical.
[ 02-09-2003: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
<strong>This whole argument just points out why I hate the terms "liberal" and "conservative" in the first place to pigeon-hole genral attitudes.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This whole argument shows how irritatingly sensitive the whining white male conservative American is. You can't use THEIR word anymore without express written consent, even if you use it for what it meant before they decided to make their own oppression an agenda.
Don't want to hurt their feelings, after all, by using the word how it has been defined for decades.
[quote]<strong>There's no such thing as a radical conservative. It's a contradiction of terms.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A political radical is one who proposes radical changes and diversion from standard social order. This does not apply to the ruling part in SA or the clergy. They are both conservative.
There is no agenda being pushed in that article, and listening to the richest and most powerful group of people in the world whine about how they are treated unfairly makes me want to pull a Charles Whitman.