posted on September 13, 2002 07:47:02 PM new
syl36, nobody wants to die. Noone wants to kill families, children, women or men. But Saddam should have thought about that before he consistently puts his people in danger. We have to protect our county and once again, it seems we have to be the first ones to take a stand. Look how long we tried to hold out in past wars and how much reconstruction we did.
I am not a republican and normally don't stick up for some of their views on war but this has to be settled NOW! Not after we loose another 3000+ Americans because we were reactive and not proactive.
posted on September 16, 2002 11:05:53 AM new
Sept. 16, 2002, 6:17AM
Saudi official says U.S. can use bases
Bush gains support in dealing with Iraq
By MICHAEL HEDGES
Copyright 2002 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON -- Saudi Arabia could become a staging area for U.S.-led attacks on Iraq, a key Saudi official said Sunday.
The new stance is welcome news for the Bush administration, which is campaigning internationally to nail down support for dealing
aggressively with Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.
Saudi foreign minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said if President Bush asked to use bases in the kingdom to attack Iraq under United Nations
authority, his country would be "obliged to follow through."
He made the statement during an interview with CNN, marking a major change in the Saudi position. Ranking members of the Saudi
royal family had ruled out the use of Saudi territory for assaults on Iraq in recent weeks.
As a result, the United States had sought alternatives such as the gulf state of Qatar, where the U.S. military's Central Command said last
week it would move part of its headquarters.
In a speech Thursday, President Bush urged the United Nations to force Iraq to comply with a list of 16 Security Council resolutions
passed at the end of the Gulf War, including opening up to thorough, unimpeded searches for weapons of mass destruction by U.N.
inspectors.
Top Bush foreign policy officials made the rounds of Sunday news talk shows saying that in the wake of the Bush address, international
support for the administration's position is growing.
"I think in that speech the president changed the entire environment," said Secretary of State Colin Powell during an appearance on NBC
television's Meet the Press.
Asked how long the United Nations had to enforce standing resolutions on arms inspections before the United States acted alone against
Iraq, he said, "It is a matter of weeks, not months."
After that, Saddam should be given a brief time to comply with the resolutions, or face a military onslaught aimed at toppling his regime,
Powell said.
Powell said early responses to his efforts to line up support for the Bush call for tough U.N. action had been positive.
"I got good responses from all the people I talked to," Powell said Sunday. "We had a very good dialogue, and I'm pleased with the initial
reactions from friends and colleagues in Europe and elsewhere in the world."
Both Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said in interviews Sunday that the resolution put to Iraq should be in the
form of an ultimatum. They ruled out negotiation.
But neither would commit to any language that should be in that resolution.
The Bush administration has been pushing for the Senate to approve a resolution backing action against Iraq before Congress adjourns
for elections in October.
But some key Senate Democrats said Sunday that the administration had not outlined clearly the details of its Iraq position.
"We don't know what this administration wants to do," Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle said during an interview with ABC's This
Week. Asked if he would push for a resolution on Iraq before November elections, Daschle said that was "possible" but did not say he
supported the idea.
Some senators, including Arizona's Republican Sen. John McCain, have called for a resolution to be voted upon before the election.
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., mentioned as a probable presidential contender in 2004, said during an interview on CBS that he would back
a resolution that "says to the United Nations, look, we are really serious about this and we're all behind the effort to try to seek a
consensus on dealing with Saddam Hussein."
Kerry said a resolution worded that way could pass by a 100-0 margin. But he said support for a resolution specifically calling for
military action against Iraq was much less certain.
In a series of interviews Sunday, Rice dismissed concerns that the United States was making a mistake focusing on Iraq before inflicting
further damage to the al-Qaida network of Osama bin Laden, dislodged from Afghanistan but still a threat.
"We fully believe that the United States is capable of conducting the war on terrorism and dealing with other threats," Rice said on ABC.
"We don't believe there are limits on what we can do in the war on terrorism and dealing with a major threat of weapons of mass
destruction."
While indicating Saudi Arabia would go along with a U.N. initiative against Iraq, Saud repeated earlier statements that his country was
cool to the idea of a war to remove Saddam from power.
If Saudi Arabia has decided to allow use of its bases in a U.N.-sanctioned war on Iraq, that would greatly reduce the logistical difficulties
of such a campaign.
During Desert Storm, hundreds of thousands of U.S. and coalition troops attacked Iraq from Saudi Arabia, and hundreds of aircraft flew
from Saudi bases to launch airstrikes on Baghdad and Iraqi military targets.
There still are about 5,000 U.S. troops stationed in Saudi Arabia.
In a separate interview with a London-based Arabic-language newspaper published Sunday, Saud urged Saddam to allow U.N. inspectors
into Iraq before the Security Council took action.
"Timing is important, and allowing inspectors back before a Security Council resolution to that effect would be in Iraq's favor," he told
the newspaper Al-Hayat.
posted on September 16, 2002 12:52:25 PM new
The bottom line to the story you posted is that they will fall in line and ride with the herd IF the UN supports an attack. They will NOT support the US only in an attack.
The Saudis are NOT our friends!
They were instrumental in creating the Bin-Laden situation, and their lack of support recently is not winning them any new friends over here.
posted on September 16, 2002 01:36:35 PM new
I used to live in Saudi.
Here we are bombing Afghanistan, and yet it's a pack of ex-pat saudi's running around doing this.
We all know sadam is a crust. But the only reason we are going after him now is to assist Israel. Nice.
Iraq has the triumvirate that the US needs to reshape it's map of the Middle east: water, oil, and a middle class.
Israel is a terrorist nation, systematically practicing terrible acts.
Now 4 palestinians are killed for every one Israelite. Yet they are using US guns and bulldozers to terrorize these un-Armied people.
Don't kid yourself. This has nothing to do with Sadam and finishing Dubya I's agenda.
I am not anti jewish state, I think peace should be the top priority, but blaming it all on Arafat is ridiculous. Israel has an agenda, and sharing the territory is not it.
BTW I am descended from german jews, so don't even go there.
Japerton
To be honest, the whole time I lived over there, I never understood why the Arab Nations didn't just kick Israel out. But it's pretty obvious. We are their big bro, and we buy oil.
Be the change you seek in the world
- Gandhi
...Be a real patriot...Use less oil!
Park that SUV, I mean do ya really need to go to the grocery store in the Excursion?
LOL
posted on September 16, 2002 01:59:08 PM new
Just remember that the only reason you can voice your anti-American views here is because you were not in the twin towers on 9/11.
posted on September 16, 2002 02:06:48 PM new
Saddam has positioned his troops within the cites to use women and children as shields and we are going to have to send troops in to root them out, which will cost many American lives and of course bad press. Now what ticks me off is the American Soldier dies, his family gets his GI Insurance (big whoopee ) and benefits commissary( Cheaper at Costco and Walmart ), medical (if you can get in and live close enough after being kick off post housing ), and some education benefits and burial.I know when they signed up for the Armed Forces they knew that there was a risk of death, war, and re enlistment, but when organizations pay for full college education and throw Millions at the families of the Twin towers it is a slap in the face to the Solider or to the American who was waiting at home for him or her
Ret 1st Sgt
U.S. Army
PS Some lower enlisted ranks have to live off post in slum type housing and be on food stamps
posted on September 17, 2002 03:17:17 PM new
When American enlisted personel have to rely on food stamps & welfare, they aren't paid enough. Yes a wife & children are not military issue but they are the primary supporters of our military people.
Military service is a dangerious occupation even in peace time.
Just how much danger is involved is detailed in a Department of Defense report series entitled "Worldwide U.S. Active Duty Military
Personnel Casualties." According to the latest report 18,370 American servicemen and women died from accidental causes during the last 18 ½ years.
When desert storm went into action, the American press forcasted the THOUSANDS of Americans would die.
Yet nearly 470,000 active duty U.S. troops served in Operation Desert Storm, along with nearly 217,000 reserve component forces called to active duty. Nearly 300 Americans died in service, 148 of them in combat. Another 470 were wounded in action.
Yesterday all the new was abuz with the news that SAADAM had agreed to unconditional inspection by UN inspectors. What wasn't reported is the this unconditional access was to MILITARY INSTALLATIONS ONLY, (where nothing would be found) as reported in the 09/17/02 issue of The London Times
