PDA

View Full Version : Saudis, Expatriates Dread Bush’s Second Term



walford
11-04-2004, 04:39 AM
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1&section=0&article=53927&d=4&m=11&y=2004&pix=kingdom.jpg&category=Kingdom
Citizens and residents of Saudi Arabia dreaded the news of George W. Bush emerging winner in the US presidential election, as they watched the results unfolding from Tuesday night through yesterday. They were glued to their TV sets like Americans in their country and people elsewhere in the world. They looked fearful that Bush was poised to win a second term in the White House.

Yasin Alireza, a Saudi businessman, said: “It (Bush’s re-election) will be a sad day, as we’ll see more of the kind of problems we have faced during Bush’s first term of office. We don’t expect anything good from this agent of (Israeli Prime Minister Ariel) Sharon in the White House.”

Shadi Zahid, a Saudi media management executive, said: “It (Bush’s victory) will be hell for the Arab and Islamic world. Arabs and Muslims will now have to be together and united much more than before. Israel and Palestine will see more bloodshed (during Bush’s new term). There will be no peace in the world.”
That's up to you. We have not initiateed violence. The bloodshed will end when you stop attacking. So long as you find it necessary to deliberately blow up women and children, expect responses. Those in the West who say 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter' and 'they have no other choice, but to attack civilians' are even more responsible than the killers themselves. They are the ones who give the terrorists the idea that their tactics bring sympathy and are thus effective.

Kaswar Choudhury, a senior Bangladeshi expatriate, said: “The result is expected as the Kerry lobby was very weak from the beginning. The result shows that Americans wanted a decisive president who could control the whole world and world economy. They wanted a strong leader. Bush may be good for the Americans but not for the world.”

Muhammad Shahid, an Indian business executive, said: “Bush’s election is a misfortune not only for the Arab world but also for America because he has been leading the country through chaos and confusion. He is not interested in negotiations to resolve any issue.
We need to understand what they mean by negotiation. Do they give any ground in negotiation? Do they honor the terms of formal agreements? Review their history.

He has only been talking of a road map for Palestinians and has given a free hand to Sharon.
Bush is in no position to give or take away any free hand to Sharon. Israel has even spied on the US for crying out loud! Any criticism of what Israel is doing without any balancing criticism of what is being done to them [other than apology/justification] is as absurd as it seems.

He has been killing and maiming people in Iraq. Americans are suffering and it is their misfortune that they will have to suffer for four more years.”
Whereas the Iraqi people were so much better off under Saddam. No mention of his atrocities, instead all of the suffering started AFTER Saddam was ejected. Notice there are very few interviews of ordinary Iraqi citizens about what they think.

Syed Ehsanul Haque, convenor of Pakistan Repatriation Council, said: “(Republican) Bush’s election is not surprising. He has better credibility than (his Democrat rival John) Kerry. Democrats are not considered to be pro-Arab. Bush was blamed for being pro-Pakistan and pro-Saudi Arabia, because they are all involved in war on terror. Bush’s election is good for us, especially Pakistanis, because we have a better understanding of Bush. We have not tested Kerry at all. So from that point of view we welcome Bush’s re-election.”

An American insurance executive, who chose to identify himself as John, said: “Osama Bin Laden’s threat of fresh attacks on the United States seems to have caused the last-minute swing among voters in favor of Bush. Until then it looked as though Kerry would emerge victorious in the photo-finish.”

Dominic Austin, a British courier company executive, said: “This was a chance for Americans to replace Bush who has done harm to America and the world. All his policies have boomeranged.”
Well we Americans still remember what it was like under Bush's predecessor. No thank you. We don't need any more high-altitude bombings in response to terrorism or more missile technology transferred to the PRC.

People in Riyadh reacted with a mixture of indifference and hope.

Walid Abu Khaled, director of communications at BAE Systems, said: “President Bush’s victory will not make any difference to the Arabs, since it is clear who influences the US foreign policy vis-à-vis the Middle East. Maybe, he will try to do things differently in his second term.”

Saudi financial consultant Mutasher T. Al-Murshed said he does not anticipate any change in the United States’ Middle East policy, which would continue to be pro-Israel.
'Pro-Israel' means that we will not assume a moral equivalency between HAMAS and the IDF -- in tactics or objectives.

However, the Kingdom cannot ignore the fact that both countries need each other in their mutual interest. In order to rebuild relations with the Kingdom, President Bush would have to accept the fact that Saudi Arabia was honest in its dealings with the US by forewarning the consequences of invading Iraq. “Our relations with the US should be based on transparency and recognition of shared interests,” he said.

Shiraz Ghumman, a Pakistani who studied in the US, said President Bush would try to extricate his country from the Iraq mess by turning over a new leaf. However, as far as Iraq is concerned, it could end up as one of the puppets of the United States.
Pretty much what we've been hearing from the Western Left.

Seiyuuki
11-04-2004, 05:01 AM
Yasin Alireza, a Saudi businessman, said: “It (Bush’s re-election) will be a sad day, as we’ll see more of the kind of problems we have faced during Bush’s first term of office. We don’t expect anything good from this agent of (Israeli Prime Minister Ariel) Sharon in the White House.”

That pretty much make everything else pointless.

cut
11-04-2004, 10:37 AM
I think the saudi business men are right, you have to understand that businessmen in the arab world are all against AQ. Why? Because bad relations with the US is bad for business and it means that arab countries will stay develloping. That pisses people off they have a **** life because of the terrorists and there's nothing they can do about it. The reason they don't want Bush is because he pushes them away, that is not the way to defeat terrorists.

Bush in power means continued attacks in Saudi Arabia, which no one likes except the terrorists. They wanted Kerry not because they support terrorists but because they want a way out.

aartamen
11-04-2004, 11:03 AM
Majority of Arab's life are "****" as you put it because they live in authocratically ruled countries with backwards infrastructures and customs.

BusterHyman
11-04-2004, 01:04 PM
That is good they are worried. They should be.

cut
11-04-2004, 01:19 PM
Majority of Arab's life are "****" as you put it because they live in authocratically ruled countries with backwards infrastructures and customs.

exactly, and you think they like that or choose to live that way? People used to like america because it was by making friends with america that you defeat this way of life. Now Bush's america is only intrested in liberating people through war.

aartamen
11-04-2004, 01:59 PM
People in Iraq who made friends with America depending on their luck got slaughtered or achieved a degree of freedom. And it's hardly productive, as has been pointed countless times, for the Arab masses to huff and puff about the US and Israel while their most pressing problems reside with the people ruling them.

usa320
11-04-2004, 02:00 PM
Now Bush's america is only intrested in liberating people through war.



There is no better reason to go to war than to make other men free.

aartamen
11-04-2004, 02:05 PM
Quoting Val Kilmer's character - There's only so much hypocricy that I can take.

walford
11-04-2004, 02:31 PM
Now Bush's america is only intrested in liberating people through war.
You know how close the election was -- there is no such thing as Bush's America.

Many Americans -- including Bush -- are hoping that people will liberate themselves w/o US intervention, which we do not prefer [your cartoonish characterization notwithstanding]. We are especially hoping for this for Cuba and Iran. They are not offensively militarized and thus do not warrant the attention of our armed forces.

Iraq was a different story. We abandoned them when they rose up against Saddam. To add insult to injury we put sanctions on Iraq so that Saddam would not be able to feed his people and his military machine. He chose the latter [and our good 'friends' were only to happy to sell them to him also]. The suffering that ensued was then blamed upon the United States.

Saddam's regime was a festering canker that had to be removed, because he would have continued to fill mass-graves and would have launched a war as soon as he felt comfortable to do so.

All of these things you know very well but choose to ignore them in the blindness of your hatred for our president. All of this simply encourages the terrorists, because they have every right to believe that they are seen by people like you as righteous freedom fighters who are justified in their actions.

cut
11-04-2004, 03:06 PM
Now Bush's america is only intrested in liberating people through war.
You know how close the election was -- there is no such thing as Bush's America.

Many Americans -- including Bush -- are hoping that people will liberate themselves w/o US intervention, which we do not prefer [your cartoonish characterization notwithstanding]. We are especially hoping for this for Cuba and Iran. They are not offensively militarized and thus do not warrant the attention of our armed forces.

Iraq was a different story. We abandoned them when they rose up against Saddam. To add insult to injury we put sanctions on Iraq so that Saddam would not be able to feed his people and his military machine. He chose the latter [and our good 'friends' were only to happy to sell them to him also]. The suffering that ensued was then blamed upon the United States.

Saddam's regime was a festering canker that had to be removed, because he would have continued to fill mass-graves and would have launched a war as soon as he felt comfortable to do so.



that's not what I meant by Bush's America. Bush won the election therefore he once again represents America as do his decision even if every in the country doesn't agree with it.

The US (under Bush) chooses to wait for countries to liberate themselves as you say, that is not the way the Cold War was won.

Republicans prior to Bush were tolerated because of this, but republicanism under Bush seems to neglect that aspect.

What he is doing is make this turning this into christianity vs. islamic fundamentalists, in the cold war it was communism vs. choice, now it should be islamic fundamentalism vs. choice.

The best to defeat Iran or Cuba is the same; trade. It worked in Europe didn't it? Going after communists in Western Europe was never on the agenda.



All of these things you know very well but choose to ignore them in the blindness of your hatred for our president. All of this simply encourages the terrorists, because they have every right to believe that they are seen by people like you as righteous freedom fighters who are justified in their actions.

Once again, the world is not black and white, firstly I don't hate Bush I dislike his foreign policy and his public persona. You automatically assume that means that I was against the war in Iraq, that's bollocks. I thought the war in Iraq was necessary but like many others I thought the timing of it was appalling. Had Bush known he was going to get a second term I'm sure he would have waited.

cut
11-04-2004, 03:09 PM
Now Bush's america is only intrested in liberating people through war.



There is no better reason to go to war than to make other men free.

absolutely, but it is not the only way, it is not always the most cost efficient way and certainly, it is not always the best/easiest way.

I have nothing against us going to war to make other men free, unless there is another way which is better and more importantly won't make us loose ground ideologically.

walford
11-04-2004, 04:00 PM
The US (under Bush) chooses to wait for countries to liberate themselves as you say
No I said we PREFER that countries liberate themselves. So long as they do not threaten their neighbors or export revolution, we prefer to use other means of pressure. Iran does however sponsor Hezbollah and is sending Jihadists into Iraq which may indeed merit some attention in the future. The regime needs to feel some consequences for such activities.

that is not the way the Cold War was won.
No indeed. During that period, if a totalitarian regime was being installed with Soviet/Cuban help, our gov't felt it necessary to interfere with that process. That was the correct thing to do. The Cold War was won in a strategic sense by Reagan's 'Full-Court-Press' doctrine which entailed outspending and surpassing Soviet military capabilities to a point where they could no longer effectively threaten us.

What he is doing is make this turning this into christianity vs. islamic fundamentalists, in the cold war it was communism vs. choice, now it should be islamic fundamentalism vs. choice.
You know very well that Bush has repeatedly said that this is not a war against Islam, saying that the terrorists have hijacked that religion. He has made concerted efforts to reach out to Muslims. It is the Wahabbis who are trying to make this into a Holy War, hoping that they will have ready recruits among all of the world's 1.4Bil Muslims.

The best to defeat Iran or Cuba is the same; trade. It worked in Europe didn't it? Going after communists in Western Europe was never on the agenda.
Oh, yes our friends in Europe and Canada cheated our embargo against Cuba, but it was still insufficient to loosen his grip on power, nor alleviate their poverty. Allowing a dictatorship to continue to exist by facilitating a growing economy is immoral in any case. Financial pressure is the best means of overthrowing a regime. Most people don't care about politics but they do care if they have a job and can afford to live with reasonable comfort.

I thought the war in Iraq was necessary but like many others I thought the timing of it was appalling. Had Bush known he was going to get a second term I'm sure he would have waited.
I think that 'the War' should have been completed in 1991. More waiting would have only resulted in a strengthened Saddam. Our 'friends' who were selling him weapons and skimming the Oil-for-Food program were also agitating to have the sanctions lifted. Thus Saddam would have had more fine Western-made ordnance with which to kill us later.

There was no circumstance in which the OFF cheating nations would have supported any forcible removal of Saddam. They liked him right where he was. As with many in the US State Dept., his brutatlity was seen as proof that he was a 'stabalizing' influence.
http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2003/oct_2003_30.html