Wwell he would say that wouldn't he....

[solotk]

Iraqi Foreign Offfice must be having Kittens.....

http://www.msnbc.com/news/788858.asp?0si=-

Saddam says attack to end in failure

SPEAKING ON the anniversary of the end of the Iraq-Iran war of 1980-88, Saddam made no direct mention of the United States or its close ally Britain, but referred to them as the “forces of evil” — a phrase the Baghdad government frequently uses after U.S. and British airstrikes in the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq.

“The forces of evil will carry their coffins on their backs to die in disgraceful failure,” he said in the televised speech.

The United States has warned Iraq of unspecified consequences if it does not allow U.N. inspections to resume, and Iraqi diplomats have held three meetings with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan this year to discuss the issue and related topics.

Saddam said the Security Council “should reply to the questions raised by Iraq and should honor its obligations under its own resolutions.”

He was referring to 19 questions given to Annan at a meeting in March, and to the council resolutions which say that
Picture taken off Iraqi TV shows Iraqi President Saddam Hussein addressing the nation on Thursday.

U.N. sanctions on Iraq can be lifted once it has eliminated its weapons of mass destruction and fulfilled other requirements.
Iraq has long said it has fulfilled these conditions and that the sanctions imposed since its 1990 invasion of Kuwait should be lifted.

Annan circulated the 19 questions, which deal with various Iraqi complaints, to the Security Council members, who have not replied.

Saddam spoke dressed in a dark gray suit in front of a white curtain and with a spread of white lilies on his desk.

Recent reports from Washington say the U.S. government is gearing for an attack on Iraq to topple Saddam. U.S. officials have not ruled out such a strike, but insist no decision has yet been made.

NEWSPAPER REPORT
In a related development, the Los Angeles Times reported Thursday that Saddam plans to avoid open desert fighting and mass his forces in major cities in case of a U.S. invasion.
The strategy was outlined in general terms to Iraqi regional officials, unnamed current and former U.S. intelligence officials told the newspaper. The statements were relayed from Iraq to U.S. intelligence operatives through Iraqi defectors and opposition groups.
“Hussein’s comments on a defensive strategy represent the first indication of how he intends to respond to any U.S. attack. A former U.S. intelligence official said he was told of Hussein’s comments during recent meetings with Iraqi dissidents and opposition groups in London. A U.S. defense intelligence official said American intelligence has collected similar information and considers it reliable,” the Times reported.
Saddam’s strategy appears to center on drawing U.S. forces into Baghdad and other cities, where his equipment and troops would be surrounded by civilians and less exposed to United States warplanes, which played a major part in the Gulf War.

And this from our Brave Saudi Allies. You remember them, 10 of their citizens drove aeroplanes into the WTC on 9/11. Funny, can't remember an Iraqi among that lot... :mad: :mad: :mad:


SAUDI SENTIMENT
On Wednesday, Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister said in public what the kingdom’s government has been telling U.S. officials for some time in private: that the United States will not be permitted to launch an attack on Iraq from Saudi soil.

Foreign Minister Prince Saud said in an interview with The Associated Press: “We have told them we don’t [want] them to use Saudi grounds.”

“We are against any attack on Iraq because we believe it is not needed, especially now that Iraq is moving to implement United Nations resolutions,” Saud said.

“For the government of Iraq, the leadership of Iraq, any change that happens here has to come from the Iraqi people. This is our attitude.”

Nice to know what side they're on - T*ssers.



:mad:

[lxav8or]

Strange how things change. A few years ago the Saudis were a strong US ally, now it seems people are not so sure.

[BEagle]

1. Don't be so disparaging about the Saudis. What they say is totally correct, in my view.

2. Notice how Saddam wasn't wearing military uniform, neither were there any overtly militaristic symbols present during his speech.

3. The simple Texan comes across as some dim-witted cowboy barely able to string 2 words together coherently thanks to recent sound bites and pieces to camera obtained by Spamedia Inc. Whereas Saddam was portrayed (cleverly) as the reasonable leader of his country. His spin machine must be even more impressive than Bliar's!

4. Not that I like the bloke, but if Saddam has made a gesture towards talks of any kind then it would be b£oody stupid to reject them out of hand.

5. Fulminate as they may, but if the hawks can't produce any concrete evidence then they must get back in their boxes.

6. In 1982 we went to the Falklands to throw out a foreign invader, in 1990 we went to the Gulf to throw out a foreign invader....... In 2002/3, please offer some suggestions......except, of course, the playground politics as represented by "Ah jus' wanna' finish wha' my pappy don' bin startin', y'all. Yee-hah, les' all go kick us some Eye-raqi butt"

[ORAC]

So you tell one person not to be disparaging about the Saudis. Then go on to be totally disparaging about the leader of the USA........

The attitude in the US administration towards the Saudis is starting to swing against them. The following is a Washington Post article from Tuesday. Now that it has been leaked, the spin merchants are playing it down as just the opinion of one man. Maybe so, but he was chosen to brief a top Pentagon advisory commitee.

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47913-2002Aug5.html)

Briefing Depicted Saudis as Enemies
Ultimatum Urged To Pentagon Board

By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 6, 2002;

A briefing given last month to a top Pentagon advisory board described Saudi Arabia as an enemy of the United States, and recommended that U.S. officials give it an ultimatum to stop backing terrorism or face seizure of its oil fields and its financial assets invested in the United States.

"The Saudis are active at every level of the terror chain, from planners to financiers, from cadre to foot-soldier, from ideologist to cheerleader," stated the explosive briefing. It was presented on July 10 to the Defense Policy Board, a group of prominent intellectuals and former senior officials that advises the Pentagon on defense policy.

"Saudi Arabia supports our enemies and attacks our allies," said the briefing prepared by Laurent Murawiec, a Rand Corp. analyst. A talking point attached to the last of 24 briefing slides went even further, describing Saudi Arabia as "the kernel of evil, the prime mover, the most dangerous opponent" in the Middle East.

The briefing did not represent the views of the board or official government policy, and in fact runs counter to the present stance of the U.S. government that Saudi Arabia is a major ally in the region. Yet it also represents a point of view that has growing currency within the Bush administration -- especially on the staff of Vice President Cheney and in the Pentagon's civilian leadership -- and among neoconservative writers and thinkers closely allied with administration policymakers.

One administration official said opinion about Saudi Arabia is changing rapidly within the U.S. government. "People used to rationalize Saudi behavior," he said. "You don't hear that anymore. There's no doubt that people are recognizing reality and recognizing that Saudi Arabia is a problem."

The decision to bring the anti-Saudi analysis before the Defense Policy Board also appears tied to the growing debate over whether to launch a U.S. military attack to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. The chairman of the board is former Pentagon official Richard N. Perle, one of the most prominent advocates in Washington of just such an invasion. The briefing argued that removing Hussein would spur change in Saudi Arabia -- which, it maintained, is the larger problem because of its role in financing and supporting radical Islamic movements...........

[Smoketoomuch]

Indeed Orac. The Saudi - West relationship has always been the ultimate marriage of convenience. When King Saud pops his clogs in his Swiss clinic then the entire Kingdom is up for grabs. The House of Saud has foolishly sought to buy off the extremists with inaction and vast sums of money, but has merely enboldened them. As any ex-pats know, the current climate in Saudi is more tense than anyone can remember, which explains why the US are furiously building facilities elsewhere in the region.
Interesting satellite photos showing their work - much to US annoyance if reports are true.
Many here in Europe underestimate the strength of feeling in the US wrt Sept 11. The hawks are running the show and the US public are 100% behind them. They now even talk openly of using nukes. One thing for sure, Al-Quada [sp?] aint finished and there are many in the M.E. that would love to see the West attacked again. I have little doubt Saddam would enjoy it too.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/al-udeid-imagery2.htm

Love those aircraft shelters, v sexy. If only they'd hidden the taxyways a bit better :rolleyes:

[difar69]

I don't think anybody can deny that Saddam is a particularly unstable, underhand character who would probably consider any scheme if it enabled him to maintain his power base within Iraq. He has been involved with numerous terrorist plots during his tenure in power and I have no doubt that the prospect of him suddenly going legit is pure fantasy.
However the Allied coalition had the chance to remove him from power at he end of the Gulf war, but rightly or wrongly, chose not to. At that time I believe there was far more of a moral argument for removing him from power than there is at present. Tenous and quite frankly suspicious "evidence" linking him to Sept 11 and Al Quaeda is not enough. The opposition in Iraq is also quite rightly suspicious of the Wests motives and commitment. Bush Senior left a lot of people in the South and North of Iraq to die in 1991, after calling for an uprising and then conveniently forgetting the Kurds and Shias when it got too complicated.
I have no answer but I know that steaming in guns blazing at the moment isn't the right plan.

[BlueEagle]

Have said this before, but, as one who was living in Bahrain 1989/1992 I had good reason to make myself aware of what was happening.

Sadam Hussein wanted nothing more than to be able to wipe out Tel Aviv, this would have made him the uncrowned king of the Middle East and highly popular with most of the surrounding countries, many of whom were then allies of the West. The rest of the Middle East, Western allies included, would almost immediately have forgiven Sadam Hussein for invading Kuwait and left the Western coalition high and dry. His Scud missiles let him down, not to mention a concerted effort by Special Forces.

If Hussein is able to develop long range missiles of mass destruction he is mad enough to target Tel Aviv again and hope to secure his place as a Middle East leader, if not The leader.
The choice the West have is to either stop him before he starts or let him slaughter hundreds of thousands of people whilst placing would-be local allies of the West in extreme fear of him. Those (now) former allies would be unlikely to want to take any action he may disapprove of for fear of similar treatment to Israel. That would make the West's task very much harder and, since he will now have the weapons, much more dangerous with heavy casualties highly likely.

Although not, perhaps, the popular option I believe the West should act before Sadam Hussein fires his first weapon of mass destruction and not leave it until after.

The reasons given for not continuing to Bagdhad and finishing him off the last time were that it would create a political vacuum and leave Iraq no better off than either the Lebanon or Yugoslavia at their worst.

[LunchMonitor]

Also at http://www.globalsecurity.org there is the Iraq Countdown timer which is counting down to 19:01:01 5 Nov 2002. Is this a good guess or just a gimmick?
It does give us the basis for a sweepstake though......

[ORAC]

First day of Ramadan.
Start 5th November - end 4th December.
Moonrise (start) estimated 1848(ish) based on Baghdad airport, position and elevation dependent. Central mosque is probably slightly different.

[LunchMonitor]

and I thought it was for a fireworks party!!!!

[ORAC]

What better time to attack?

[Nil nos tremefacit]

Israel has indicated that it will respond appropriately to any attack from Baghdad. The US has asked the Israelis to give a 'cosmetic' response if there are no casualties or real damage. Israel is known to have weapons of mass destruction and is not concerned with collateral damage or world opinion.

Discuss.:(

[BlueEagle]

Well, if that were to happen everyone is off the hook except Israel and Iraq.

[A Civilian]

It hasn't been reported in the British press but in Saudia Arbia there been an abnormal number of deaths in the ruling families recently. One had a heart attack, another's car crashed whilist going to the funeral of the first. And another went for a stroll in the desert without telling anyone were he was going and without taking any water with him :cool:

A prince can afford Cindy Crawford to lap dance for him every night but it comes at a price.

[ORAC]

The Sunday Times - August 11, 2002:

American Account: Irwin Stelzer: Time to end our reliance on Saudi oil

A NOT-SO-FUNNY thing happened on the way to Baghdad to get rid of Saddam Hussein. Americans came to realise they might have to take a detour through Riyadh. The famed Rand consultancy has advised the Pentagon that Saudi Arabia is the “kernel of evil”, and that serious thought should be given to taking control of the 25% of the world’s known oil reserves on which the kingdom happens to sit.

Colin Powell, secretary of state, rushed to reassure the Saudi regime that Rand does not make American policy. But sources close to the Pentagon tell me that the some members of the Saudi royal family “are sufficiently apprehensive” about their country’s increasing unpopularity in America to fear that the days of business as usual are over.

The Rand report is the culmination of a learning process that has been under way since September 11. First, Americans discovered that the Saudi Arabian regime consists of a bunch of not-very-nice royals. Second, Americans discovered that the House of Saud is the principal financier of the terrorists against whom President George Bush has declared war. Third, Americans are beginning to realise that they have to do something about their dependency on Saudi Arabian oil.................

All of which is why there is mounting talk around Washington of a possible American takeover of the Saudi oil fields. Should Osama Bin Laden’s associates topple the existing regime, or even seem to be about to do so, or should the Saudis shut down their wells, “the affected world community may feel compelled to ‘liberate’ the wells of Arabia and restore production”, writes S Fred Singer of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. After all, that is what America did in Kuwait. But, adds Singer, this time we “might not return the wells to the original owners, who by then will have departed to hotels on the Riviera or to the Dorchester”.

Does this sound far-fetched? Just watch the intensity of the services commemorating the anniversary of September 11 if you doubt that Americans aim to do whatever is necessary to win their war on terror.

[DC Meatloaf]

Also at http://www.globalsecurity.org there is the Iraq Countdown timer which is counting down to 19:01:01 5 Nov 2002. Is this a good guess or just a gimmick?
It does give us the basis for a sweepstake though......
November 5th is also the day of the mid-term Congressional elections here in the US.