“The US military bases and the presence of around 150,000 American soldiers in Iraq have made the United States one of the neighbouring states in the region.” – Prince Hassan, in a seminar on “Armament and Security in the Middle East” on Tuesday. [source]
The Prince also said he said he doesn’t expect US troops to withdraw from Iraq “in the coming years.” It’s interesting how every now and then Prince Hassan will say something that’s just a bit controversial in Jordan, or at least rubs the political powers the wrong way.
I like this guy and his comments from time to time, sometimes I wonder what if….
I think he deserves more than the Club of Roma.
So Ya Prince Hassan, and we (since very young) learned how to deal with neighbours … ihsan la sabi3 jaar.
MD, we always wonder what if….. but no no we have it good!
?
Why do you think what he said is any bit controversial or rubs the political powers the wrong way?
we live in a time when calling a spade a spade is considered controversial…..now thats an indicator of how astray we are…….
“we live in a time when calling a spade a spade is considered controversial”
i guess that answers Hamzeh’s question
Cheney said that they will not leave for a long time, even if the security situation improves. Why should we pretend that we didn’t hear?
Khalaf: you know those 3 little see/hear/speak no evil monkeys? there’s something to be said about their connection to foreign policy.
there should be a forth monkey…without a brain……
I don’t think Jordan’s political leadership, represented by the king and powerful figures, considers these statements controversial.
Statements are often labeled controversial because they might have negative consequences. What, in your opinion(s), are the negative consequences that Jordan’s political leadership thinks might arise from the prince’s statements?
“Statements are often labeled controversial because they might have negative consequences. What, in your opinion(s), are the negative consequences that Jordan’s political leadership thinks might arise from the prince’s statements?”
isn’t that a fallacy…where you state a “fact” but it’s really just your own definition and then ask me to prove it?
Yeah, controversies are not necessarily translative into elements bearing negative consequences for the top leadership. But I assure you, every statement Prince Hassan makes that makes headlines in the world press is complemented with various movements taken behind the scenes of Jordan’s political stage. And sometimes, like in the case of the Al Jazeera tape, it takes place in front of the curtain.
And that’s a fact 😀
Hamzeh,
I guess naseem means that it is controversial on the local front, because of the calls for ending the occupation. But as many said, only fools would assume that this will happen anytime soon, thus, in a way it is embaressing for the local political leadership. I mean till when can we sustain and afford to support a failed policy?
Don’t you think it would be embaressing also for jordan if for example Obama got elected? Won’t be considered a part of the previous admin?
But I am not worried, we now have our own caucus in the US congress 😉
Oh, and before I forget the aid to jordan is now projected to increase to 900 mils a year.
It’s true that I preceded my question with a statement that you can argue is not true, but I neither drew a conclusion from it, nor asked you to prove it (and it wasn’t a definition of controversy by the way). If anything, it was an attempt to explain what I meant when I asked my first question.
Your argument is that the political leadership in Jordan considers the prince’s statements controversial. I’m simply asking why. The answers I have seen so far are:
“we live in a time when calling a spade a spade is considered controversial”
which is a generalization that doesn’t really address this particular case, and
“I assure you, every statement Prince Hassan makes that makes headlines in the world press is complemented with various movements taken behind the scenes of Jordan’s political stage”
which is a bare assertion that doesn’t reveal any controversial aspects in the prince’s statements.
I don’t see any evidence to suggest that the prince’s comments are considered by the political leadership in Jordan controversial. They were simply statements that reflect the reality of the status of security in the region, and I don’t think these statements are contrary to anything that was stated by the King or any official in Jordan before.
But the prince didn’t say that the occupation is not going to end. He pointed out that US bases remain in Japan and Germany 60 years after the end of WWII. I don’t think anyone who calls for the end of occupation in Iraq would argue that the US is still occupying either Germany or Japan, and I don’t remember any Jordanian official saying that the US occupation in Iraq is going to end; they wouldn’t even call it an occupation.
But now you are speaking as an american! You can’t compare iraq to japan or germany! You can’t ignore the fact that OBL began his recruitment based on the bases that the US had in saudi arabia! If they maintain bases in Iraq that means more organizations like alqaeda will keep popping up! What the local politicians are trying to imply to the public is that it is going to end. And yes they call it occupation, I heard it many times from different officials.
Prince hassan stated a fact in non political way, in other words he said it as an observer while many assume that he is a politician, and I guess this is what makes it “controversial” because you don’t expect politicians to tell the truth as is 😉