Saudi-Arabia bans US from using its bases

Xugumad · 11-04-2002, 12:30 AM

Nov-4-2002

"Saudi Arabia will not allow bases on its territory to be used for an attack on Iraq even if the United Nations approves military action, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said in an interview broadcast Sunday.

In the CNN interview, al-Faisal said more clearly that Saudi cooperation would not include permitting use of its territory for strikes against Iraq. "We will cooperate with the Security Council, but as to entering the conflict or using the facilities as part of the conflict, that is something else," Saud said.

Pressed about whether Saudi bases could be used, he gave a definite "no."

White House aide Mary Matalin responded obliquely when asked about Saud's comments in a separate CNN interview. "We have many friends and allies in the region, and we have many friends and allies around the world. There is no doubt that George Bush will not enter into any kind of conflict unless he's sure of victory," she said, according to AP.

Saud also said his government believed it was still possible to avoid war. "Iraq has made a very clear and unambiguous promise to the Arab countries that it will abide by the United Nations resolutions," he said."

... The plot <a href="http://www.antiwar.com/rep/hopsicker1.html">thickens</a>. <a href="http://www.albawaba.com/news/index.php3?sid=232481&lang=e&dir=news">Where</a> are <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64175-2002Nov3.html">'our'</a> allies when 'we' need them <a href="http://www.efreedomnews.com/News%20Archive/Attack%20on%20America/911Terrorists_1.htm">most</a>?

X.

Undertoad · 11-04-2002, 09:24 AM

Qatar.

Since 1996 the US has been building in Qatar. In March 2002 the base there became official. Buildup continued over the summer. You might remember it was discovered that a random (?) Saudi fired a shoulder-held missile at an outgoing US plane at about that time frame.

At this point the military operations don't even need the rights to fly over Saudi Arabia. The only thing they may need is the ability to ditch there if a plane is in trouble. They probably won't even ask for it.

The Saudis are certainly not allies, and things are getting worse not better. In fact some Saudis independently intend to cross the border into Iraq to help fight.

(Den Beste explains how things will go for them if they do: Someone ought to brief these young idiots on what happened to all the Pakistani jihadis who crossed into Afghanistan to fight Americans, and who died without ever even seeing an American face, killed by American bombs dropped by faceless American pilots five miles overhead, or by Hellfire missiles from Predators because an American 500 miles away pushed a button. And then they might want to consider just how easily they can be detected and bombed, once they've driven their air-conditioned 4WD Mercedes across the border into Iraq. JSTARS can pick them out of such an open expanse in an instant.)

The next question is whether Saudi Arabia is the "next" Iraq. How will they behave with a regime-changed Iraq and US forces controlling their northern border? What will the new middle east look like after a change in the balance of power? (I dunno.)

jaguar · 11-04-2002, 04:44 PM

Messy. If all the rubbish of every Iraqi citizen instantly defecting to the beloved americans who they think/know? has been keeping thier lives hell for the last decade and the army, including elite divisions hiding out all over a big city full of civvies instnatly falls apart and noone fires a chemical of bio weapon at anyone ill eat my fucking hat.

russotto · 11-05-2002, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jaguar
Messy. If all the rubbish of every Iraqi citizen instantly defecting to the beloved americans who they think/know? has been keeping thier lives hell for the last decade and the army, including elite divisions hiding out all over a big city full of civvies instnatly falls apart and noone fires a chemical of bio weapon at anyone ill eat my fucking hat.

Bad news for you, Jag -- remember the elite Republican Guard? Fell apart pretty quickly last time. Remember the elite fighter pilots who couldn't wait to defect to Iran?

MaggieL · 11-05-2002, 11:33 AM

And of course the Iraqis won't be using chem or bio weapons...they don't have any, remeber? Silly boy.

hermit22 · 11-05-2002, 05:24 PM

Except that sanctions have, according to some reports, galvanized the Iraqi people against the West (whether or not that's the fault of Saddam - which I think - or the sanctions, it doesn't matter in the minds of the people).

Except that here we are invading their country without provocation (again, in the minds of the Iraqi people). We are destroying their way of life because we (evil America) feel like it.

Except that because of the nature of this war, and the stated intent, it will be necessary to go into the cities and fight amongst the streets, where casualties are necessarily higher. Imagine if another country invaded your country and killed all your neighbors in an attempt to overthrow your despotic leader. Now imagine that you wouldn't fight back, if only to make sure you wouldn't be killed as well.

Undertoad · 11-05-2002, 07:17 PM

But if that's true about the sanctions it means there's "blowback" to the UN, multilateral, negotiation-oriented approach.

jaguar · 11-05-2002, 08:47 PM

Maggie I never doubted for as second that Iraq either has (most likely) and/or is developing an chemical, biological and nuclear capability. I never denied that. On the other hand I see no reason why it would be in the national interest of Iraq to sell or give these weapons to Islamic or other terrorists for direct sale or for use against a target inside the United States. I also see no evidence demonstrating a link between Iraq/Saddam and Islamic terrorist groups, particular Al Queda and certainly no evidence whatsoever of any kind of relationship that suggests that such a transaction has occurred or is likely to occur.

I'm sure Saddam would fall pretty quickly, I doubt the US would on the other hand be able to a: round of all WMDs up effectively or establish a stable long term democratic government nor assist stability in the region. Judging by the effectiveness of attempts to build a solid regime in Afghanistan I’d say the chances of the US pulling it off in Iraq are low at best. Some countries need to be held together by a strong dictatorship or they fall apart, Indonesia I believe will be a prime example of this. Irrespective of all this it will have a negative effect on US opinion in the region which is already at its nadir and help spur on the calls of Jihad throughout the region effectively demonstrating all the calls of American imperialism particularly once the exploitation of Iraqi Oil be western countries begins and Iraq becomes little more than the 21st centaury version of the British concept of the client state.

hermit22 · 11-05-2002, 09:49 PM

Uh...Indonesia's officially a republic, with a president, vice president, etc.

Undertoad · 11-05-2002, 09:58 PM

Some countries need to be held together by a strong dictatorship or they fall apart,

Bahrain is experimenting with adding Democracy.

jaguar · 11-05-2002, 10:05 PM

Since when were republics and dictatorships mutually exclusive? But it is a democracy at the moment, that is correct. Since the fall of Soeharto in '98. Since then independence movements have quickened pace in Ambon, Arche (forgotten the spelling), West Papua and others. The government has been ineffective in stopping this fragmentation. Domestic politics in Indonesia is one hell of a messy game and the military has ties all over the place, including Islamic extremists which has further complicated matters for a what is a very unstable government. It is a common opinion that Indonesia will slowly fragment, the only things Soeharto did bring were security though military rule and economic prosperity, when the money ran out he fell and security and sovereign integrity went with him.

We'll see what happens UT. Advanced political systems tend to come with economic prosperity too, there are a myriad of factors in these things obviously. Inflicting hardship on people no matter hwo you do it tends to have 'blowback'.

slang · 11-10-2002, 05:24 PM

OMG!!! How have you possibly come to this conclusion? Are you one of the many "anti-America Americans?

jaguar · 11-10-2002, 05:37 PM

Huh? I think you're misreading my comment. Look living under Saddam full stop obviously is not most peoples definition of fun but the sanctions, even though widely circumnavigated have had a negative impact on the lives of ordinary Iraqis which I'm sure the Iraqi government has exploited to its fullest potential. Therefore in the minds of ordinary Iraqis (and this is almost a direct quote) 'we may not like Saddam but we hate the United States'. I also didn't make a judgment of this, it was merely an observation. Furthermore I'm not an American which makes it difficult to be an anti-America American. So i instead i straddle libertarian and quasi-socialist tendancies as an Australian. I'm guesing if this was 30 years ago you'd be asking me if I was a red under the bed.

MaggieL · 11-10-2002, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jaguar
So i instead i straddle libertarian and quasi-socialist tendancies.

That's quite a straddle. Don't hurt yourself.

11-04-2002, 12:30 AM	#1
Xugumad Punisher of Good Deeds Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 183	Saudi-Arabia bans US from using its bases Nov-4-2002 "Saudi Arabia will not allow bases on its territory to be used for an attack on Iraq even if the United Nations approves military action, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said in an interview broadcast Sunday. In the CNN interview, al-Faisal said more clearly that Saudi cooperation would not include permitting use of its territory for strikes against Iraq. "We will cooperate with the Security Council, but as to entering the conflict or using the facilities as part of the conflict, that is something else," Saud said. Pressed about whether Saudi bases could be used, he gave a definite "no." White House aide Mary Matalin responded obliquely when asked about Saud's comments in a separate CNN interview. "We have many friends and allies in the region, and we have many friends and allies around the world. There is no doubt that George Bush will not enter into any kind of conflict unless he's sure of victory," she said, according to AP. Saud also said his government believed it was still possible to avoid war. "Iraq has made a very clear and unambiguous promise to the Arab countries that it will abide by the United Nations resolutions," he said." ... The plot <a href="http://www.antiwar.com/rep/hopsicker1.html">thickens</a>. <a href="http://www.albawaba.com/news/index.php3?sid=232481&lang=e&dir=news">Where</a> are <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64175-2002Nov3.html">'our'</a> allies when 'we' need them <a href="http://www.efreedomnews.com/News%20Archive/Attack%20on%20America/911Terrorists_1.htm">most</a>? X.

11-04-2002, 04:44 PM	#3
jaguar whig Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 5,075	Messy. If all the rubbish of every Iraqi citizen instantly defecting to the beloved americans who they think/know? has been keeping thier lives hell for the last decade and the army, including elite divisions hiding out all over a big city full of civvies instnatly falls apart and noone fires a chemical of bio weapon at anyone ill eat my fucking hat. __________________ Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life. - Twain

11-05-2002, 11:33 AM	#5
MaggieL in the Hour of Scampering Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Jeffersonville PA (15 mi NW of Philadelphia) Posts: 4,060	And of course the Iraqis won't be using chem or bio weapons...they don't have any, remeber? Silly boy. __________________ "Neither can his Mind be thought to be in Tune,whose words do jarre; nor his reason In frame, whose sentence is preposterous..."

11-05-2002, 05:24 PM	#6
hermit22 sleep. Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: So Cal. Posts: 257	Except that sanctions have, according to some reports, galvanized the Iraqi people against the West (whether or not that's the fault of Saddam - which I think - or the sanctions, it doesn't matter in the minds of the people). Except that here we are invading their country without provocation (again, in the minds of the Iraqi people). We are destroying their way of life because we (evil America) feel like it. Except that because of the nature of this war, and the stated intent, it will be necessary to go into the cities and fight amongst the streets, where casualties are necessarily higher. Imagine if another country invaded your country and killed all your neighbors in an attempt to overthrow your despotic leader. Now imagine that you wouldn't fight back, if only to make sure you wouldn't be killed as well. __________________ blippety blah bluh blah blah

11-05-2002, 08:47 PM	#8
jaguar whig Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 5,075	Maggie I never doubted for as second that Iraq either has (most likely) and/or is developing an chemical, biological and nuclear capability. I never denied that. On the other hand I see no reason why it would be in the national interest of Iraq to sell or give these weapons to Islamic or other terrorists for direct sale or for use against a target inside the United States. I also see no evidence demonstrating a link between Iraq/Saddam and Islamic terrorist groups, particular Al Queda and certainly no evidence whatsoever of any kind of relationship that suggests that such a transaction has occurred or is likely to occur. I'm sure Saddam would fall pretty quickly, I doubt the US would on the other hand be able to a: round of all WMDs up effectively or establish a stable long term democratic government nor assist stability in the region. Judging by the effectiveness of attempts to build a solid regime in Afghanistan I’d say the chances of the US pulling it off in Iraq are low at best. Some countries need to be held together by a strong dictatorship or they fall apart, Indonesia I believe will be a prime example of this. Irrespective of all this it will have a negative effect on US opinion in the region which is already at its nadir and help spur on the calls of Jihad throughout the region effectively demonstrating all the calls of American imperialism particularly once the exploitation of Iraqi Oil be western countries begins and Iraq becomes little more than the 21st centaury version of the British concept of the client state. __________________ Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life. - Twain

11-04-2002, 09:24 AM	#2
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Qatar. Since 1996 the US has been building in Qatar. In March 2002 the base there became official. Buildup continued over the summer. You might remember it was discovered that a random (?) Saudi fired a shoulder-held missile at an outgoing US plane at about that time frame. At this point the military operations don't even need the rights to fly over Saudi Arabia. The only thing they may need is the ability to ditch there if a plane is in trouble. They probably won't even ask for it. The Saudis are certainly not allies, and things are getting worse not better. In fact some Saudis independently intend to cross the border into Iraq to help fight. (Den Beste explains how things will go for them if they do: Someone ought to brief these young idiots on what happened to all the Pakistani jihadis who crossed into Afghanistan to fight Americans, and who died without ever even seeing an American face, killed by American bombs dropped by faceless American pilots five miles overhead, or by Hellfire missiles from Predators because an American 500 miles away pushed a button. And then they might want to consider just how easily they can be detected and bombed, once they've driven their air-conditioned 4WD Mercedes across the border into Iraq. JSTARS can pick them out of such an open expanse in an instant.) The next question is whether Saudi Arabia is the "next" Iraq. How will they behave with a regime-changed Iraq and US forces controlling their northern border? What will the new middle east look like after a change in the balance of power? (I dunno.)

11-05-2002, 07:17 PM	#7
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	But if that's true about the sanctions it means there's "blowback" to the UN, multilateral, negotiation-oriented approach.

11-05-2002, 09:49 PM	#9
hermit22 sleep. Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: So Cal. Posts: 257	Uh...Indonesia's officially a republic, with a president, vice president, etc. __________________ blippety blah bluh blah blah

11-05-2002, 09:58 PM	#10
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Some countries need to be held together by a strong dictatorship or they fall apart, Bahrain is experimenting with adding Democracy.

11-05-2002, 10:05 PM	#11
jaguar whig Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 5,075	Since when were republics and dictatorships mutually exclusive? But it is a democracy at the moment, that is correct. Since the fall of Soeharto in '98. Since then independence movements have quickened pace in Ambon, Arche (forgotten the spelling), West Papua and others. The government has been ineffective in stopping this fragmentation. Domestic politics in Indonesia is one hell of a messy game and the military has ties all over the place, including Islamic extremists which has further complicated matters for a what is a very unstable government. It is a common opinion that Indonesia will slowly fragment, the only things Soeharto did bring were security though military rule and economic prosperity, when the money ran out he fell and security and sovereign integrity went with him. We'll see what happens UT. Advanced political systems tend to come with economic prosperity too, there are a myriad of factors in these things obviously. Inflicting hardship on people no matter hwo you do it tends to have 'blowback'. __________________ Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life. - Twain Last edited by jaguar; 11-05-2002 at 10:09 PM.

11-10-2002, 05:24 PM	#12
slang St Petersburg, Florida Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 3,423	who they think/know? has been keeping thier lives hell for the last decade OMG!!! How have you possibly come to this conclusion? Are you one of the many "anti-America Americans?

11-10-2002, 05:37 PM	#13
jaguar whig Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 5,075	Huh? I think you're misreading my comment. Look living under Saddam full stop obviously is not most peoples definition of fun but the sanctions, even though widely circumnavigated have had a negative impact on the lives of ordinary Iraqis which I'm sure the Iraqi government has exploited to its fullest potential. Therefore in the minds of ordinary Iraqis (and this is almost a direct quote) 'we may not like Saddam but we hate the United States'. I also didn't make a judgment of this, it was merely an observation. Furthermore I'm not an American which makes it difficult to be an anti-America American. So i instead i straddle libertarian and quasi-socialist tendancies as an Australian. I'm guesing if this was 30 years ago you'd be asking me if I was a red under the bed. __________________ Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life. - Twain Last edited by jaguar; 11-10-2002 at 08:14 PM.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)