Rice, Gates meet Saudi King amid Iraq concerns

US President George W. Bush’s top diplomat and defense chief held talks with Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah Tuesday amid concerns in Washington that the oil-rich kingdom is bankrolling Sunni militants stoking an insurgency in Iraq.

Ishmael

“And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.”
—Genesis 16:12

Perilous Times

“This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
—2Timothy 3:1-2a

”But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.”
—2Timothy 3:13

The dinner meeting came after Rice and Gates met counterparts from the Gulf states, Jordan and Egypt in the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, extracting renewed promises of help in Iraq and reaffirming Washington’s commitment to the creation of a Palestinian state.

A key part of the visit by the two US officials is to discuss a multi-billion-dollar military aid bonanza for Washington’s friends in the region, which Shiite Iran is accused of “destabilising.”

The pacts are worth 20 billion dollars (14.6 billion euros) for Saudi Arabia, 13 billion dollars for Egypt, 30 billion dollars for Israel and reportedly valued at least 20 billion dollars for the other Gulf states.

“All of Iraq’s neighbors could do more to stabilize Iraq,” Rice told reporters Tuesday ahead of the talks with the Saudi ruler, without singling out the most powerful Sunni Arab ally of the United States.

The US ambassador to the United Nations, Zalmay Khalilzad, complained Sunday that Saudi Arabia and other neighbors who were “friends” of the United States were undermining efforts to stabilize the war-ravaged nation.

Saudi Arabia and several other Sunni Arab nations are worried over Iran’s allegedly increasing influence on the Iraq government.

Details of the meeting with King Abdullah were not available but Rice and Gates are scheduled to hold a media conference Wednesday with her Saudi counterpart, Saud al-Faisal.

With Saudi Arabia accused of allowing Sunni militants into Iraq to fight US forces and Iran accused of equipping Iraqi Shiite militias doing the same, the United States, the six Gulf Cooperation Council states and Egypt and Jordan called in a joint statement for “an end to all interference in Iraq.”

The statement called for the prevention of “the transit of terrorists to Iraq” and an end to the “supply of arms and training to the militia and extra-governmental groups” in the war-torn country.

The United States has also prodded Saudi Arabia to follow up on is pledge to write off Iraqi debts and is banking on the oil kingdom to participate in Bush’s planned international Middle East peace talks this fall.

The meeting seeks to bring together Israel, the Palestinians and their neighbors with Rice, whose Middle East tour is partly aimed at gauging support from the region for the talks aimed at forging a final status Israeli-Palestinian agreement.

Bush is keen to see the establishment of Israel and Palestine states side by side before he leaves the White House in January 2009.

Rice warned that if unnamed “determined enemies” were successful in Iraq, “then this whole region is going to be chaotic,” while Gates sought to allay what he said were regional fears of a precipitous US withdrawal from Iraq.

“There is clearly a concern … that the US would somehow withdraw precipitously from Iraq, or in some way that is destabilising to the entire region,” Gates said.

But, he added, even those at home calling for US troops to quit Iraq were increasingly aware “of the need to take into account the consequences if we make a change in our policy and the dangers inherent in doing it unwisely.”

  1. jen-o, 31 July, 2007

    so rice and gates reaffirmed washington’s commitment to the creation of a palestinian state…

    huh?
    what does washington have to do with land that is within another sovereign nation?

    how would washington like it if another nation decided to try and force america to create a native american state OR a mexican state within our country… afterall, both of these groups actually WERE here on the land before us… perhaps the international community would like to relentlessly pressure us into carving out sizable chunks of land for mexican and native american states… texas sounds good… of course, all of the american citizens living on that land would have to be relocated… (just as the jews in samaria and judea were)… i think the international community should get involved in our sovereign nation’s affairs and create a plan for this… yeah, a road map even…

    of course, the native americans and mexicans are NOT hostile terrorists whose every waking thought is only evil toward us and whose every action is bent on our destruction… for that, we would have to create another state, an islamic state… i’m sure the saudis would be happy to send some folks over here to populate it… and perhaps our FRIENDS and ALLIES would be willing to give this islamic state an arms package… because i am sure those nasty americans would try to defend themselves when they were attacked by the terrorists…

    oh surely we can gather some international support for such a wonderful plan and road map to peace!

  2. Linda, 01 August, 2007

    Jen-o,
    Hey, you’re scaring me! You’re giving them bad guys too many ideas.
    But, I’m afraid you’re wasting your breath on Washington, ‘cuz they currently seem to have a case of the LOCS syndrome (Loss Of Common Sense).

  3. Dave Lucas, 01 August, 2007

    “what does washington have to do with land that is within another sovereign nation?

    how would washington like it if another nation decided to try and force america to create a native american state OR a mexican state within our country… afterall, both of these groups actually WERE here on the land before us”

    Amazing insight Jen. Perhaps one day you will realize that this has always been the primary foreign policy of this “Christian” nation as you call it. You think maybe the Iraqis feel the same as you do about their own country? How about the Indians that lived here before they were slaughtered? Did you know that William Penn, a Quaker, settled Pennsylvania and the Christians at that time lived and traded peacefully with the native Indians for 75 years until the settlers turned on them along with the government?

    “William Penn was the first great hero of American liberty. During the late seventeenth century, when Protestants persecuted Catholics, Catholics persecuted Protestants, and both persecuted Quakers and Jews, Penn established an American sanctuary which protected freedom of conscience. Almost everywhere else, colonists stole land from the Indians, but Penn traveled unarmed among the Indians and negotiated peaceful purchases. He insisted that women deserved equal rights with men. He gave Pennsylvania a written constitution which limited the power of government, provided a humane penal code, and guaranteed many fundamental liberties.”

  4. jen-o, 04 August, 2007

    dear dave,

    huh?
    when did i call this a christian nation?

    personally, i believe that the number of actual christians in this nation are but a remnant… as i believe also that the number of christians on the planet are but a remnant… oh there are TONS of people who CALL themselves christian, but that doesn’t make it so…

    some of the people who call themselves christian are actually anti-christ… and MANY people who describe themselves as “christian” don’t have a clue what christianity is… they go to churches and listen to pastors who preach a social gospel, or a psychological feel-good message, or a how to get ahead in the business world message, et cetera… most pastors in america preach anything BUT the gospel of Christ…

    in addition, look at what our nation has been promoting: abortion, homosexuality, immorality, “hollywood lifestyles”, etc.

    so, no, i wouldn’t call this a christian nation…

    that said, i think you missed the point of the analogy i was making in my post… the point WAS that washington’s committment to the creation of a “palestinian state” (by carving out chunks of land and giving them to people whose stated intention is the destruction of israel) is something that washington would NEVER consider doing themselves… washington would NEVER consider doing what it is attempting to FORCE israel into doing… that WAS the point!…

    i do not know what william penn has to do with that… but, i will agree with you that penn was a “hero” in the sense that he wrote the pennsylvania ‘frame of government’ which was a precursor to our ‘constitution’… i guess you could call him a “hero” for laying out the democratic principles which would be the foundation for our ‘constitution’… in spite of the fact that penn himself had very worldly ambitions and was highly involved in governmental affairs… afterall, in order to market his colony of 45,000 acres given to him by the king, he had to deal with the “indian” problem; and there were only 2 options: kill them off or buy them out… and penn chose the latter as he (and his agents) began the process of buying land from native leni lenape (delaware) tribal chiefs according to the 1682 treaty, which was an agreement to exchange land for goods and money… the leni lenape expected payment for a quit claim to vacate the territory and the ‘treaty’ would demonstrate penn’s claim and clear title to the land to investors as penn marketed his colony throughout europe in many different languages…

    so although i commend penn for not slaughtering the native tribes, i’m not sure his motives were entirely altruistic…

    anyway, dave, so what do you think of my analogy?

    p.s. linda, i’m sorry for scaring you… i often scare MYSELF… LOL… as for washington, they are too self-absorbed and self-centered to consider anything i say…

    shalom to all,
    jen-o

  5. Dave Lucas, 06 August, 2007

    the point WAS that washington’s committment to the creation of a “palestinian state” (by carving out chunks of land and giving them to people whose stated intention is the destruction of israel) is something that washington would NEVER consider doing themselves… washington would NEVER consider doing what it is attempting to FORCE israel into doing… that WAS the point!…
    ======
    Yes, it would and yes it will. Washington is ruled by Satan, like all countries are.

  6. jen-o, 06 August, 2007

    dave,

    i am aware of the fact that satan is the god of this world (and that includes washington)… but are you telling me that you think (and predict) that washington is going to carve up america and give chunks of american land to our enemies??

    carving up the land of israel was not israel’s own idea… but you think america is going to do this to itself?…

    p.s. so i guess this means you don’t much like my analogy then…

    p.p.s. i still don’t know what william penn has to do with all of this…

  7. Dave Lucas, 07 August, 2007

    Washington is going to back the division of Israel. Count on it.

Copyright © In The Days