Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Saudi exasperation spills over as chief-of-staff cancels US visit
AFP ^ | September 10, 2001

Posted on 09/10/2001 6:17:58 PM PDT by witnesstothefall

RIYADH, Sept 10 (AFP) - Gulf heavyweight Saudi Arabia's exasperation with its close ally the United States over Israeli policy has erupted with a decision to cancel a trip to Washington by the army chief of staff.

King Fahd on Monday called on the international community, led by the United States, to play a role in ending Israel's violence against the Palestinians, which he said were "unprecedented in history."

"The international community must assume its responsibilities in putting an end to Israeli extremism," the Saudi monarch told his weekly cabinet meeting.

Saudi Arabia, Washington's major ally in the crucial Gulf region, has become increasingly critical of US policy in the Middle East.

Last week Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal called for the United States to shoulder its responsibilities to curb Israeli "aggression" against the Palestinians.

Then on Sunday a Western diplomat here said General Salah al-Muhaya had called off a planned visit to protest "US policy on the continuing Israeli aggression against the Palestinian people."

Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdulaziz, Saudi Arabia's de facto ruler, had in May turned down an invitation to the White House, also in protest against Washington's "pro-Israel" policy.

The state-guided Saudi press Monday slammed the administration of President George W. Bush for failing to take action to stop Israeli attacks against the Palestinians.

"Washington does not appear to be sufficiently concerned by the deteriorating situation, which suggests that it is blessing Israel's increasingly aggressive behavior," Al-Jazeera said in an editorial.

The paper said Washington's silence was no longer acceptable, "unless (the approves of the collective killings of the Palestinians."

Al-Riyadh warned the United States and the West in general of the consequences of their support of the "Zionists."

"America and the West provide material, political and military support to the Zionists, because (they believe) there is no threat to their interests in the Arab world," it said in a front-page editorial.

Al-Riyadh, which like other Saudi papers reflects the official view, implicitly called on Arab countries to take retaliatory measures against the United States, which has huge interests in the region, especially in the Gulf states.

"Latent Arab forces that are observing the situation" might react in an unpredictable way if Arab inaction persists at the official level, the daily warned, alluding to Islamist groups.

Saudi officials said that chief-of-staff Muhaya had already boycotted a Saudi-US military cooperation commission meeting which had been due to convene in the US capital two weeks ago.

The Saudi-owned pan-Arab newspaper Asharq al-Awsat Monday quoted officials saying Muhaya stayed away from the meeting even though he had been vacationing in Washington with his family a few days before it was due to be held.

Saudi officials cited Muhaya's busy schedule when the United States tried to set a new date for the meeting, saying his engagements prevented him from going to Washington, the London-based paper said.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Portents
1 posted on 09/10/2001 6:17:58 PM PDT by witnesstothefall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: witnesstothefall
When will they drop the other shoe. I notice oil prices went up 10 cents a gallon since Labor day. 15 cents where Mobil isn't competing.
2 posted on 09/10/2001 6:22:23 PM PDT by A+Bert (Outta here)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: witnesstothefall, A+Bert
King Fahd on Monday called on the international community, led by the United States, to play a role in ending Israel's violence against the Palestinians, which he said were "unprecedented in history."

Oh yes. Far worse than the 6 million who died in Germany. What drama queens, what anti-Semites they are. Big whiners.

3 posted on 09/10/2001 6:25:05 PM PDT by veronica
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: witnesstothefall
We've got to go after their oil. Without oil they are nothing. Of course they will blast the Israelis from protecting themselves from those typical Islamic extremists. Where is the outcry when they are sending in terrorists to kill people at random. What a sick sense of right and wrong they've got.
4 posted on 09/10/2001 6:25:50 PM PDT by bushfamfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: veronica
Nasty hypocrites, too.Who has guaranteed THEIR security for years? And where do they get their armaments, their air force? The season is shutting down on the Riviera and now these feckless wonders have to get back to work.Pretty big talk for a bunch that catch cold everytime Sadamm sneezes from Bagdad.
5 posted on 09/10/2001 6:31:59 PM PDT by habs4ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: witnesstothefall
1) I fart in Saud's general direction.

2) The goat-humping camel jockeys will do NOTHING.

They are in debt up to their nads and own more stocks than all Freepers combined by at least 3 full orders of magnitude.

They are the last people in the world in whose interest it would be to trash the global economy by jacking oil prices.

They are posturing for their own domestic yahoos.

6 posted on 09/10/2001 6:39:08 PM PDT by NativeNewYorker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: witnesstothefall
So, Saudis are no longer in the back ground. They are ready to do what they do best, squeezing Western "wallets" by shutting down oil supply along with other Gulf countries. Their weapon can be deadly now because U.S. economy is going down. However, this Saudi move could be just a face-saving gesture to avoid more drastic action. Time will tell if this is one-time PR or prelude to serious action.
7 posted on 09/10/2001 6:40:32 PM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: witnesstothefall
Perhaps the Saudi impotentates can explain why they allow no Christians and Jews to worship freely in their country.
8 posted on 09/10/2001 6:50:40 PM PDT by sheik yerbouty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: habs4ever
 

 

According to Michael O'Hanlon, a military analyst at the Brookings Institution, the total cost of maintaining the United States force in the gulf is at least $50 billion per year.

 

 


http://www.brook.edu/Views/Op-ed/Korb/19960918.HTM

Holding The Bag In the Gulf

The New York Times, September 18, 1996

By Lawrence J. Korb, Director, Center for Public Policy Education, and Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies

After the gulf war, the Navy created the Fifth Fleet, stationed permanently in the gulf. It consists of 21 ships manned by 15,000 sailors and marines, along with 12 more ships with equipment for ground forces and about 250 planes to protect the fleet and enforce the no-flight zones over Iraq. In addition, there are 10,000 people on the ground in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, along with enough equipment for another Army brigade.

On various occasions since the gulf war, including this month, the United States has augmented this standing force by sending a second aircraft carrier, a squadron of stealth fighters and additional air defense groups and bombers.

According to Michael O'Hanlon, a military analyst at the Brookings Institution, the total cost of maintaining the United States force in the gulf is at least $50 billion per year.

The purpose of spending all this money is to insure that neither Iran nor Iraq threatens the oil fields of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. But the United States currently imports only about 10 percent of it's oil from the Persian Gulf — some $10 billion to $15 billion worth, depending upon world prices.

MORE>>
http://www.brook.edu/Views/Op-ed/Korb/19960918.HTM

 


9 posted on 09/10/2001 6:59:02 PM PDT by dennisw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NativeNewYorker
They are posturing for their own domestic yahoos.

Exactly. The House of Saud is not the keystone of stability often thought. Their own people are becoming increasingly radicalized politically and religiously. Many of the most deadly terrorist attacks on US personnel over the past few years have been by radical Saudis.

The sands are shifting all over the Middle East. The royal family has to walk an increasingly thin line and may be forced to 'punish' us further (OPEC has been jacking us for 2 or 3 years now, haven't you noticed).

Between a neoMarxist (to call a spade a spade) Venezuela and a Middle East sliding into war, our SUV's are going to get parked before too long.

Oh, and there's the outside chance a real war could break out, and then see if OPEC will do nothing.The Saudi's can bomb Baghdad to smithereens and more with their other numerous 'friends' of oil if push came to shove. And besides, the U.S. would never allow Saddam to march into the Peninsula, whether the Saudis were friends or not.

10 posted on 09/10/2001 7:08:26 PM PDT by witnesstothefall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: witnesstothefall
Do you think if war broke out that fires won't flare up in those oil fields. The smoke from those fields will create enough smog to make even you anti environmentalist go batty. NY City straphangars don't understand how important the auto is to many of us.
11 posted on 09/10/2001 7:15:06 PM PDT by A+Bert (Outta here)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: witnesstothefall
straphangars=straphangers
12 posted on 09/10/2001 7:16:19 PM PDT by A+Bert (Outta here)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: A+Bert
Hey, you're virtually a legend, or is that a virtual legend. Didn't you die or weren't you banned for fifty years or something? Why are people here so obsessed with such a soft touch?
13 posted on 09/10/2001 7:20:02 PM PDT by witnesstothefall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Comment #14 Removed by Moderator

To: A+Bert
Bump. Rereading this late Monday thread is a little creepy. 'Portents' indeed. And see #10.

The Saudi newspaper editors either knew something or are slapping themselves on the back for their timely insights.

15 posted on 09/15/2001 2:30:43 PM PDT by witnesstothefall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: witnesstothefall
Last week Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal called for the United States to shoulder its responsibilities to curb Israeli "aggression" against the Palestinians.

And, suddenly, the events on Tuesday made all of this posturing absolutely irrelevant.

And the Palestinian position has been made even worse. Yassir Arafat was one of the big losers on Tuesday...

16 posted on 09/15/2001 3:08:15 PM PDT by okie01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
50 billion includes the cost of running the ships, (which will run anyway no matter where they are),

and salaries to the sailors ( who get paid no matter where they are).

This isn't any additional expense and in fact they would be in the general region anyway, keeping the oil lanes open.

Perhaps after Afghanistan, Saudi would be a great place to park our troops and establish a democracy.

17 posted on 09/15/2001 3:16:02 PM PDT by DainBramage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: witnesstothefall
Truly, a portent. Let the Saudis try that, and we might start seeing some real American rage.

Perhaps they would be doing us a favor.

18 posted on 09/15/2001 3:19:53 PM PDT by neutrino (neutrino)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson