UK :
Israel:
Home | Business | Mid East | IDF| Judaism | Readers Stories | Muslim Zionism | Anti-semitism alerts | Forum |Today’s Weblog

author biography
Ted Belman is a retired lawyer living in Toronto.
Belman runs Israpundit, a pro-Israel weblog.

author website
by this author
by this author:
Why Barack can`t win
Can Israel withstand US pressure?
Obama, The Jewish Left And AIPAC
Liberal Jews support Obama in part because they blame the Jews too
Why I wouldn`t vote for Obama
`Obama will win the nomination but lose the election.`
Stand with Israel if you want to fight Antisemitism
Don`t muddy the waters
Why pass this resolution now or at all?
SDEROT MATTERS
Time for a new and different Palestine Mandate
Israel should end the `occupation` of Gaza.
THIS IS WAR
The Way Forward
The Real Tragedy in Israel
US would rather be friends with her enemies than friends with her friends
Jews and America have been good for each other
Annapolis will lead to Dhimmi status for Israel
Jerusalem IS a Jewish issue



related articles Eight Senior Republican Appointees Challenge Official Account of 9/11
Might the Saudis Blow Up Their Oil Infrastructure?
Paving the path to dialogue
But do they have matzah in Jeddah?
Saudi King Calls For Interfaith Dialogue
Livni, in Qatar, lobbies for support against Iran, ties with Arabs
Tit for Hariri Tat for Mughnieyh?
Editorial in Saudi Paper: Arab-Israeli Peace Is Possible
Burning the candle at both ends
Israel`s chief rabbi in favour of Saudi`s proposal for inter-faith talks
Churches in Saudi Arabia?
Saudi cleric warns against giving money to terror charities
Saudi Arabia`s Anti-Terror Campaign
What’s to Negotiate?
Jerusalem Conference: Saudi Arabian Bankers Fueling Global Islamic Jihad
An outstretched hand
Saudi minister calls for Israeli response on talks
Saudi prince threatens UK: Corruption probe could end anti-terror cooperation
Trigger a Middle East Nuclear Holocaust to Defend "The Western Way of Life"
Gulf Arabs see Israel stopping Iran bomb: adviser
Iran`s oil bourse could topple the dollar
The Arab’s Bad Mood
Terrorism Denial: The Bloody Handshake Between the Far Right and the Far Left


The US should have invaded Saudi Arabia, not Iraq
Filed under Middle East, Opinion Editorials, Terrorism around the world, Islamic fundamentalism, Oil, Saudi Arabia & the Gulf – on Sunday, May 11, 2008 – By: Belman, Ted

What the best response to 911 should have been, is still the matter of heated debate. Obama wants out of Iraq and into Afghanistan and Pakistan bombed. Democrats generally argue we should have stayed in that theater and not gone into Iraq and what they want to do now is correct the administrations mistake. Hillary shares this view except for the bombing of Pakistan.
 
I don’t get it.
 
They know chaos would ensue in Iraq but argue its not America’s problem. But it is. If you remove Afghanistan as a safe haven, the terrorists will go elsewhere, possibly to Iraq or Sudan or Somalia. The Iraqi government is not strong enough to prevent the fracturing of the country creating chaos throughout the adjacent countries. Between the Middle East and Afghanistan, its a no-brainer. The Middle East has the oil.
 
There is no question that we are worse off for having invaded Iraq, and will be worse off still if we get out. But what else should America have done. What was the proper response to 911? It wasn’t a matter of revenge, it was a matter of making a difference.

Bush announced his war on terror but never really fought it, not really. What War on Terror?
Fifteen of the nineteen 911 highjackers were Saudis. The Saudis are financing jihad all over the world. Whether in the madrassas, the universities, the mosques, the prisons or the schools they are relentless in their zeal to propagate Islam including Sharia. They are the enemy, not terror.
Ralph Peters makes this point in a NY Post article, SAUDI STICK-UP
    WANT to know a key reason why you’re being robbed at the gas pump? Well, my fellow Americans, you’re being punished – for giving Iraqis a chance at democracy.
     
    The Saudis ordered President Bush not to remove Saddam. The last thing that the despotic bigots in Riyadh wanted was change in the Middle East – especially change that empowered common men and women, Shia Arabs and Kurds.
He complains about The Vast Power of the Saudi Lobby. and says,
    They only care about Islam. They’d sacrifice tens of millions of Muslims to further their perversion of the faith.
I strongly disagree. It is not the perversion of their faith but the prorogation of it.
In 2003 Rachel Ehrenfeld published a book Funding Evil in which she accused the Saudis of doing so and Perters agrees. Ehrenfeld was attacked in the courts for libel and held her ground in New York resulting in the Libel Terrorism Protection Act to protect American journalists and authors from overseas defamation lawsuits.
Peters recommends, that
    when referring to Islamist terrorists or the Saudi royal family that nurtured them for so long, let’s stop using the term “Islamo-fascists.” As horrid as Italian or Spanish fascists could be, they were enlightened humanitarians compared to either al Qaeda or our Saudi “friends.” Let’s just call fanatics “fanatics.”
Again, I disagree. I go with “Islamists” thought this word and others like it, has been barred by the State Department.
 
Peters goes further, “The stunningly hypocritical Saudis have used their wealth to cut out Islam’s heart. The faith of Mohammed, peace be upon him, has no greater enemies.”
 
Can you believe this. Mohammed is the author of Jihad and Peters is wishing him peace? It doesn’t get weirder than that.
 
At least he concludes
    “In the heat of the moment, Iran appears to many to be our worst enemy in the Middle East. While the nut house government in Tehran is a deadly problem, it’s ultimately one of lesser scale. Our greatest enemy, anywhere, is Saudi Arabia, the cradle of terror.
Suppose that six years ago, the US had invaded Saudi Arabia after punishing the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan. The US would have proceeded to secure the oil fields and secure the oil supply and revenue. To avoid an insurgency, the US could have expelled all dangerous personnel and brought in oil workers from around the world including the US. This revenue would go first to reimburse the US for costs and then to create a fund for the poor in the Middle East and Africa. This money would have earned the US lots of good will and friends.
If the US would have thus cut off the head of the snake, the body would have withered away.
 
But the US would never do it.
 
The opinions and views articulated by the author do not necessarily reflect those of Israel e News.

del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | reddit | Tailrank | Technorati |

Email This Article ... Printer Friendly ... Export to plain text document ... Export to MS Word Document ...




Talkback comments can be read by clicking on the blue headline, and replied to if you are logged in. An icon shows beneath the headline, if the writer has opted to receive emails. Clicking on will enable you to send a private email to the writer.

Please log in to post comments. We encourage Talkback participants to avoid posting comments that violate our code of conduct. Thank you for your co-operation.

Username
Password
Remember Me


First time here? Click here to register  Password reminder

 

all channels

search

Search News For: Search In:               Search Help

newspoll

forum
Click here

Israel e News RSS Israel e News feed

About us | Features | Islamic fundamentalism |Xtian Zionism| USA | Entertainment| Erotica | Authors | Donors | Contact us
copyright ©2006 israelenews.com all rights reserved