In the latest interview to CNN, Saudi Foreign Minister has categorically said that Saudi Arabia will not allow US to use Saudi bases or airspace to attack Iraq.
Does it mean that even if UN sanctions an attack on Iraq, US need to find some other bases and airspace?
I am curious whether Qatar and Kuwait will be able to sustain the whole load of US bases? I believe Turkey has already given a thumbs down as well.
Good job by Saudi Arabia...At least they have the guts to say No !
Turkey has given a thumbs up ! Also, Kuwait and Qatar have allowed USA to use their bases, and thousands of American troops have already moved to a secret base in Qatar, also the American troops have already started moving ammunation and equipment from Saudi Arabia to a secret base in Qatar...:(
They don't need bases or anything. All they need is air space to fly their bombers etc from the sea to the mainland.
Mushi,
I believe Saudis have denied US the use of airspace as well. Plus, war in Afghanistan may have been carried out using air-craft carriers. I don't believe even the most optimist military experts in US believe they can replicate a similar scenario in Iraq. This time around, bases will be required.
Turkey has some unique dynamics working for them. I don't believe they want the regime in Baghdad to fold up, allowing Kurds the necessary jump start to pursue their dreams of independent Kurdistan. That prospect is equally unappealing for the governmenr in Ankara.
Well why would Saudis want their air bases to be used to effectively bomb OPEC to smithereens? Kinda like shooting yourself in the foot isn't it? Question is whether they can do anything about it which they can't. Poetic justice I say, these are the same morons who got fleeced last time round when the US laaunched the last Gulf War. Remember seeing that twerp of a Saudi general on TV pretending that the war was in Saudi interests?
Saudi Arabia sends strong anti-war message to US](Saudi Arabia sends strong anti-war message to US)
November 5 2002 The Sydney Morning Herald
Saudi Arabia has sent yet another strong message to the United States, its main Western ally, that it will not allow the use of its military facilities in threatened US strikes against Iraq.
Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said on Sunday Riyadh would not allow Washington to use its territory or airspace to attack Iraq even if the United Nations were to endorse military action.
“We will cooperate with the (UN) Security Council, but as to entering the conflict or using the facilities as part of the conflict, that’s something else,” Prince Saud told CNN in an interview.
Saudi Arabia played a critical role in providing bases and air support to the US-led coalition during the 1991 Gulf war which liberated Kuwait from Iraqi occupation. ..
(Clarifying the Complex | Homepage | Thomson Reuters)
“U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said that after looking at Prince Saud’s remarks, and subsequent contacts between the United States and the Saudis, Washington did not conclude that Riyadh ruled out the use of Saudi bases.”
Looks like the ‘custodians of Islam’ say one thing to the public and another to their ‘masters’.
Or may be the State Department folks are humming "Dil behlanay ko Ghalib ye khiyal acha hai" after the press conference.
I am sure Saudis know which way there bread is buttered. Supporting US to colonize Iraq is akin to signing the death warrant for their own plush lives and monarchy. The other prospect of status-quo is not so unappealing. Its more or less common sense.
I think a core objection the Saudi's and all the others have to US plans for Iraq, is that the US is setting a precdent for "regime change" around the world, through force. It is not just wanting to militarily punish a regime, but wnating to overthrow it altogether, and in effect as Faisal said colonise the conquered countries. However bad some of these regimes maybe, there are many others who are just as bad if not worse that the US no problems working with. The US is reverting to the 19th century European colonialism that saw governments overthrown, and states colonised to further imperial and economic interests.
In addition, pre-emptive strikes is not something which is acceptable under current international laws. This sounds like a sure recipe for disaster, as its a feast for paranoid leaders.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
In addition, pre-emptive strikes is not something which is acceptable under current international laws. This sounds like a sure recipe for disaster, as its a feast for paranoid leaders.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, it would set a precedent for other countries to carry out unilateral military strikes against its neigbours or foes, using the American analogy.
How quickly they changed?
This is the same Saudi Arabia that wanted U.S.A to enter their homeland and protect it in 90's.
That was Saudi Interest.
Now it is America interest. They go to anti-war stuff.
Saudi want Saddam to go. They are not saying it because of they don't want their people to be angry at them. They are scared of Saddam, they still think he can attack them.
If you disagree then, why there is U.S fleet in Bharin and Qatar? They are building $5bn worth of militry bases there.
All in the house.
The saudis will cave in. If they dont it will be a miracle of biblical proportions. And Zig Zag the oceans are free for all....according to Wilsons 14 principles. There are only 12 to 15 nautical miles which belong to a nation. The rest are free....so the US fleet can be there as long as it wants.
Saudis are resisting this, not because they trust Saddam (they don't) or that they are not afraid of US (they still are). Its just because they can see their own monarchy in severe danger, if they allowed a US-installed "democracy" in the region, with US controlling the oil prices.
How can Saudis shoot themselves in the foot? They are dumb but not that stupid. Rather, from where the House of Saud is sitting, they can see themselves between a rock and a hard place. And their best bet is a palatable Saddam, not a colonialized Iraq.
Bahrain and Qatar are too small, and thus easy for the US to strong-arm them. If their sheikhs had any brains left in their fat bodies, they can see whats gonna happen to them once Saddam is gone, and Iraq is split, and OPEC disbanded or practically 'dead'.
They are still undecided, but not privately.
They have already given US A Green Signal
BOOM! ;)
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by CM: *
And Zig Zag the oceans are free for all....according to Wilsons 14 principles. There are only 12 to 15 nautical miles which belong to a nation. The rest are free....so the US fleet can be there as long as it wants.
[/QUOTE]
Ok then what about the militry bases. Why you think they are there? Why Saudis (only) are going double standards? I mean I don't understand one thing. Some muslims countries support this war some don't.
Muslim countries should draw a line from where they should support U.S and where they shouldn't. Who they should declare a terrorist?
These questions need to be answer and this is the reason why they are not united and can't speak one voice.
Man if the Saudis do say no i will be shocked belive me!
I truly belive the saudi regime are saying one thing to the people and another to there brothers the americans!
They play this game all the time. Watch and see you will see one memeber of saudi regime saying NO to USA air strikes and next week you will get completely different guy saying well we will only allow air base on some island off saudi to be used yeah right :nono: