Well-informed Arab diplomatic sources said that the American administration informed the Iraqi opposition that the decision of the military campaign against Iraq has already been made, and that what is taking place now is a production scenario, and that the few coming weeks will be decisive in this regard and that the Iraqi opposition has to finish its preparedness.
To this effect, Arab diplomatic sources indicated remarkable political developments that greatly enhanced the American efforts to prepare for the war against Iraq. On top of these developments, a Saudi - American deal finalized during the “warm meeting” held between the US President George Bush and the Saudi ambassador in Washington Prince Bander Bin Sultan Bin Abdul Aziz.
The sources say that the deal between Saudi Arabia and the US is the price that Saudi Arabia pays in order to end the crisis that erupted between it and the US, and in return for this Saudi approval to strike Iraq, Washington agrees not to undermine the regime in the Kingdom or its security, with the understanding that Saudi Arabia can hide its position by declaring publicly that it “rejects the military strike against Iraq.”
It is worth noting that Saudi Arabia financed the major part of the US war against Iraq, a matter that dramatically effected the kingdom’s financial condition.
The saudi sneaky regime up there old tricks again say one thing to the public i.e we against attack on iraq and in reality saying to the americans you can do what you like with the iraqis like we care!
This site also says that Iraq has issued a statement that it will strike Saudi Arabia if it were pressed... Would they be in a position to strike Saudi when a superpower is bombing them? I dont think they would have made such an absurd statement, and keep in mind, they are far more evolved than the Taliban...
I have heard of a statement made by an Iraqi government official that had they had the "bomb" during the Iran/Iraq War, they would have used it. I think Tariq Aziz said this, but am not sure.
There is no conspiracy. It is in the interest of the Saudis and most of the middle eastern countries to have Saddam’s regime gone. And I guess it is on the way out.
ASHINGTON, Sept. 15 — The Saudi foreign minister indicated this weekend that his country would let the United States use its military bases in a United Nations-backed attack on Iraq, a sign that Arab nations may be dropping their resistance to an attack on Saddam Hussein.
The Saudi minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, said that if there was a Security Council resolution backing military action, all United Nations members would have to honor it. In a CNN interview from New York, first broadcast late Saturday, the prince was asked if the Saudis would make bases available to the Americans, and answered that if the United Nations warranted action, “everybody is obliged to follow through.”
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by OldLahori: *
There is no conspiracy. It is in the interest of the Saudis and most of the middle eastern countries to have Saddam's regime gone. And I guess it is on the way out.
[/QUOTE]
the intrest of the region is for the americans to stop interfering in the region and stay in there own back yard they cannot even take care of there own citizens yet the think they can tell rest of the world what to do.
also the dictatorships in the region which the saudi are among the worst have limited time span and the people cannot wait for them to perish along with the american military presence in middle east and other countries where they enforce there intrests at expense of rest of the world!
[QUOTE] Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad: *
Today the Saudis say they'll allow use of their bases for an attack on Iraq **only* if such an action is approved by the UN.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE] Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad: *
Today the Saudis say they'll allow use of their bases for an attack on Iraq **only* if such an action is approved by the UN.
[/QUOTE]
Saudis said yes if UN says go wow what amazing news not!
the saudi regime are a bunch of overweight lying scumbags.
they love the west lets face it they tell lies all time oh we with the muslims yeah right we the keepers of the 2 holy places mecca & medina! and what does that mean u sellout at first opportunity
everybody knows they sponsored the first gulf war paying in hard cash something like 70 billion dollars for the american agression and genoicide against my fellow brothers and sisters in iraq!
so for them to be 2 faced in less than a week does'nt surprise me or majority of the muslim ummah because lets face it the house of saud is a house of liars!
[QUOTE] Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad: *
Today the Saudis say they'll allow use of their bases for an attack on Iraq **only* if such an action is approved by the UN.
[/QUOTE]
UN == US... UN does what US tells it to do.. They must be kidding themselves...
They’re not alone. Not including Saudi Arabia, there are seven Arab bases the US can use to attack Iraq (Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and Oman). i had hopes before, but not now; they will all fall in line with the right amount of bribery.
[QUOTE]
they will all fall in line with the right amount of bribery.
[/QUOTE]
That could be re-phrased to indicate they will fall in line to protect the interests of their countries and peoples from a madman who cares nothing about his own people and is hell-bent on causing regional and global instablility.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Saudis didn't bankroll this war as well. Americans aren't dumb, they don't like chucking good money away. The casino-loving royal family of SA on the other hand are great patrons of casinos and top class brothels worldwide.
Have they actually built any infrastructure or industry with the proceeds of the oil revenues they have received over the years? Are you surprised there's no democracy there?
Saudi ** only ** thinks of its own interest in everything, they gathered that they weren’t going to get anything by being on the bad side of the great US of A, so they thought what the heck!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
...a madman who cares nothing about his own people and is hell-bent on causing regional and global instablility.
[/QUOTE]
Please help me to clear up my confusion a bit - are you referring to Saddam Hussein or Ariel Sharon?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
Please help me to clear up my confusion a bit - are you referring to Saddam Hussein or Ariel Sharon?
[/QUOTE]
I think your confusion lies in your inability to see that it is Saddam who is at fault in the demise of the Iraqi people, not the US. But if we are going to play on words, then perhaps I was referring to Yasser Terrorfat.
I think your confusion lies in your inability to see that it is Saddam who is at fault in the demise of the Iraqi people, not the US. But if we are going to play on words, then perhaps I was referring to Yasser Terrorfat.
[/QUOTE]
ROTFL!!! Now that is rich. Lets see who has sanctions that dont allow frigdes into the country? The US. Everybody agrees the US is reponsible for the sanctions. Nobody thinks the US is morally right when it comes to Iraq. Accept it. This is world opinion.
War is going to come, no matter what the Iraqi govt does. It also makes it crucial as Iran goes Nuclear in 2007. A Nuclear Iran is not a good thing according to the US. Plus it gives the US to chance to control another swing producer - Iraq - and have more troops in the region. Only Syria, Lebanon and Iraq dont have US troops. Otherwise every other ME countries has some US troops.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
I think your confusion lies in your inability to see that it is Saddam who is at fault in the demise of the Iraqi people, not the US. But if we are going to play on words, then perhaps I was referring to Yasser Terrorfat.
[/QUOTE]
Somehow i missed this reply. Yes i was playing on words and names, but not via personal insults. i used to be fond of doing that myself, but that somehow demeans our conversation. Seminole, i don't at all deny Hussein is a brutal dictator; with all due respect please can we put this to rest once and for all. My confusion lies not in what is stated above, but in my failure to comprehend why, for the actions of one man, 22 000 000 individual children, women, and men should be made to suffer. If i am not mistaken, one of the last times we collectively punished an entire society was subsequent to WWI with the punitive Versailles Treaty. And the catastrophic consequences of that are by now well-known. Let's not undertake committing that same mistake.
ROTFL!!! Now that is rich. Lets see who has sanctions that dont allow frigdes into the country? The US. Everybody agrees the US is reponsible for the sanctions. Nobody thinks the US is morally right when it comes to Iraq. Accept it. This is world opinion.
[/QUOTE]
i find it amazing how dumb some americans are they actually cannot see through the propoganda of all this war mongering they think they are right and everybody else in the world is wrong not just on iraq, but environment, trade, aids medicine which they deny the third world from producing and helping there sick!
and as for there total support of the cruel barbaric behaviour of zionist israel need i say more!
