Saudis won't let U.S. use country for Iraq attack(SAUDI BARF ALERT)

Houston Chronicle ^ | 8/7/2002

[WilliamWallace1999]

JIDDAH, Saudi Arabia -- Saudi Arabia has made clear to Washington -- publicly and privately -- that the U.S. military will not be allowed to use the kingdom's soil in any way for an attack on Iraq, Foreign Minister Prince Saud said today.

Saud said in an interview with The Associated Press that his country opposes any U.S. operation against Iraq "because we believe it is not needed, especially now that Iraq is moving to implement United Nations resolutions."

"We have told them we don't (want) them to use Saudi grounds" for any attack on Iraq, he said.

With speculation building about possible U.S. military action. Iraq last week invited U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix to Baghdad for talks that could lead to a resumption of the inspections after more than 3 1/2 years.

President Bush has said he is committed to a regime change in Iraq, and Washington has dismissed the Blix invitation as a ploy.

In a letter replying to the Iraqi offer, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan told Baghdad it must accept the Security Council's terms for the return of weapons inspectors.

Under U.N. Security Council resolutions, sanctions imposed after Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait cannot be lifted until U.N. inspectors certify that Iraq's biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons have been destroyed along with the long-range missiles to deliver them.

The United States reportedly has quietly moved munitions, equipment and communications gear to the al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar from Saudi Arabia in recent months, concerned the kingdom would not lend its full support to military action.

Arab nations uniformly have come out against a U.S. military campaign to oust Saddam Hussein, even though there is little love regionally for the Iraqi leader. Most Arab nations joined the U.S.-led Gulf War coalition that liberated Kuwait in 1991, with Saudi Arabia inviting U.S. troops to the oil-rich kingdom to help defend it against Saddam's forces.

Today, Saud denied any speculation that Saudi Arabia might privately support action to remove Saddam despite its public opposition.

He said the private line to Washington was no different from the public remarks:

"We couldn't have made our position more clear, our leaders have said this and everybody responsible in the kingdom has said this."

"For the government of Iraq, the leadership of Iraq, any change that happens there has to come from the Iraqi people. This is our attitude," Saud said.

Opposition to U.S. action against Iraq has also been growing more vocal in Europe.

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder this week came out against an attack. In an interview published Wednesday, he said military action would wreck the international coalition, throw the Mideast into turmoil and hurt the economy.

A government minister in Britain, a country seen as Bush's strongest supporter against Iraq, suggested Baghdad's gesture to readmit inspectors could make military action unnecessary.

While getting rid of Saddam is desired, "what is important is that we focus on getting the inspectors in and we make sure that the threat of weapons of mass destruction is dealt with," Foreign Office Minister Mike O'Brien said.

Meanwhile, the prince dismissed a flap over a briefing at the Pentagon at which an analyst accused Saudi Arabia of supporting terrorism and recommended to a policy group that Washington hand the kingdom an ultimatum.

U.S. officials have since distanced themselves from the comments by the analyst from the Rand think tank -- but it revived sharp criticism of Saudi Arabia, which some U.S. officials say has not done enough against terrorism.

Asked about the criticism, Saud said there were "individuals who have their opinions about Saudi Arabia. We think they are based on false assumptions and on untruths in most instances."

He said his country's 70-year-old relations with Washington remain solid. "From our part and from the talks that we have had in the administration ... we have seen no change in attitude toward Saudi Arabia," the prince said.

[WilliamWallace1999]

Turn the desert to glass. It makes a more stable platform for drilling rigs anyway. Target the big meteor they worship and get this over with.

[SunStar]

BREAKING: U.S. TELLS SAUDIS 'YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN'

(I wish...)

[Redcloak]

Don't forget: They're our allies. Just ignore that Rand study thingee.

[jws3sticks]

The rag heads will have to make their own snow for practicing.

No loss here.

[RoughDobermann]

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder this week came out against an attack. In an interview published Wednesday, he said military action would wreck the international coalition, throw the Mideast into turmoil and hurt the economy.

So would a nuclear detonation, buddy. Of course, it wouldn't be in Germany so that's okay, right? Jeez, almost makes me long for the old-fashioned Germans. Almost.

[Ancesthntr]

Does anyone think that we can get the Iraqis to provide bases for attacking the Saudis?

[joesnuffy]

LOL was thinking along those lines as well....pull out all our troops and equipment asap
Maybe the Israelis would like some land "with" oil?......

[LurkedLongEnough]

What does their flag say:

[flamefront]

FTI - Nyquist mentions what Bodansky has stated:

Bodanksy tells us that more than three years ago Saddam Hussein became involved in organizing a spectacular terror offensive against the United States in concert with al Qaeda. Bodansky explained that, "In the wake of the relationship established between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein … [the terrorists] began to pay closer attention to the situation in Baghdad, in particular the continued face-off between Saddam and the United States-United Nations." According to Bodansky, the fact that "the United States would not let Saddam go free’" presented the Islamists with "the inevitable confrontation" and "an opportune catalyst for the escalation of the Islamist Jihad." Readers should make special note of what Bodansky wrote on page 343 of his book: "Operational preparations for the next wave of Islamist spectacular terrorism to be launched in conjunction with a U.S.-Iraqi crisis began in early October [1998]."

The words "launched in conjunction with a U.S.-Iraqi crisis" should carry special weight at this time. Today we are at the outset of this anticipated crisis. Taking Bodanksy’s statement into account, it seems the Islamists want the United States to hit Iraq in order to justify some kind of counterstrike. In politics one must acknowledge the importance of superficial appearances. For much of the Arab world a U.S. attack against Iraq would appear as an act of aggression. Why is President Bush willing to risk America’s Middle East position in order to destroy the Iraqi dictator?

Perhaps there is more to this than meets the eye. What if President Bush knows that Saddam Hussein has a plan that will trigger certain disaster? In order to forestall this plan, the U.S. must logically invade Iraq. This would explain the uncharacteristic urgency of the administration on the Iraq issue. We do not see a similar urgency with regard to the Korean conflict or the Taiwan crisis. There must be something the government knows about Iraq, or thinks it knows -- something terrifying indeed.