No U.S. territorial ambitions in Iraq

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia, April 2 (UPI) -- U.S. Ambassador in Saudi Arabia Robert Jordan affirmed that his country has no territorial ambitions in Iraq but will stay there as long as its presence is needed.

Jordan said, in comments published Wednesday, that the United States was also "working hard to avoid casualties among civilians."

Jordan who made the comments Tuesday in front of the Saudi Shura (consultative) Council said the U.S. forces "will remain in Iraq as long as it is necessary to consolidate security and stability and the Iraqis have to decide which government they want."

He said the United States was acting "in the interest of its own national security" especially after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington.

"We are convinced that deterrence will not work with (Iraqi President) Saddam Hussein who possessed weapons of mass destruction and was ready to use them," Jordan said.

He said the United States expects the road map for peace in the Middle East between Israel and the Palestinians would be launched in the coming few days.

He was referring to statements by President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell in which they stressed that the plan for creating a Palestinian state by the end of 2005 was not "negotiable" and that Israel has commitments to meet.

1 posted on 04/02/2003 8:11:36 AM PST by JohnHuang2

I think we should revise our policy slightly. While the U.S. does not have any territorial interests in the assualt on Iraq, I would stick around long enough, and throw our weight around far enough to make sure that the French are totally frozen out of having ANY SAY!

2 posted on 04/02/2003 8:16:39 AM PST by the_Watchman

Why should the tax payer be stuck for all the damage due to 09-11 if Saddam were one if not the prime player..
They owe us ..the families..the country...
They are certainly wealthy enough to pay damages..we need to collect the debt these bass terds owe us imo....

3 posted on 04/02/2003 8:38:17 AM PST by joesnuffy (Moderate Islam Is For Dilettantes)

....I would stick around long enough, and throw our weight around far enough to make sure that the French are totally frozen out of having ANY SAY!

I would too, but I am afraid it is going to be Turn the Other Cheek time.

4 posted on 04/02/2003 9:57:44 AM PST by Mind-numbed Robot

I have never supported a Palistinian state, but now that we can put it in Iraq, I might agree with the proposition.

5 posted on 04/02/2003 10:00:51 AM PST by antidisestablishment (What the hell, it's only 80% of our mortgages, right?)

What??Sorry folks. We will have permanate bases in Iraq just like in Germany and Japan. We will maintain those base's to put pressure on the syrians iranians and pali's. We ain't moving.

6 posted on 04/02/2003 10:23:44 AM PST by Walkingfeather

Re: No U.S. territorial ambitions in Iraq

I disagree. We should make it a state called Far East California and move Hollywood there.

7 posted on 04/02/2003 10:33:49 AM PST by sonofatpatcher2 (Love & a .45-- What more could you want, campers? };^)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.