Saudi warplanes moved closer to Israel

[Herschel]

In a move seen as a potential threat to Israel, Saudi Arabia has transferred much of its F-15 warplane fleet to a Northern base at Tabuk.

Israeli defense sources told Middle East Newsline the F-15s were transferred on the eve of the U.S.-led war in Iraq in March to protect them against Iraqi air or missile attack. But since then the kingdom has refused to return the F-15s to their original bases in central and eastern Saudi Arabia despite the fall of the regime of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in April.

The United States had asked the Saudi kingdom to return the F-15s to their bases, the report said. The U.S. request reportedly was prompted by Israeli concern the F-15s present a military threat to the Jewish state.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20030903-052054-3924r.htm

If the Saudis provoke little Israel, I'm sure some will wail when she strikes.

[xray s]

1. Ahem..I wonder...

...who sold the Saudi's F-15s?
:think:

[DuctapeFatwa]

2. LOL the Saudi "princes" are Israel collaborators from way back

That is one of the many reasons they are so universally despised.

The House of Saud are dollahos who will do whatever they are paid to do by the US and its bloated guard dog.

[Darranar]

5. Like Hamas?

That's silly.

[DuctapeFatwa]

6. Like some "embeds" in Hamas, sure

Many countries engage in covert operations that involve infiltrating various groups.

Israel is no exception, and it does indeed have a long history of covert actions involving Hamas, as well as many other groups.

[Turbulence]

20. i have wondered lately

if yassin's call for pakistan not to recognize israel was actually misinformation sent along the wire. I am not saying it is, but as provocation goes that call could have a domino effect that could serve to stir the pot in terms of bolstering israeli claims concerning perhaps both iran and syria. it was alleged there was mucho nuke type proliferation via pakistan by way of N. Korea.

Alittle misinformation sent to pakistan could create quite an aggitation regarding the business interests and on the up and up parle with the US that musharref juggles amidst the angst of his populace. It was just a thought that popped into my mind. If pakistan takes the call seriously it would make winds shift. with all the mystery regarding covert puppetry...who knows.

[StandWatie]

11. oh, no..

The House of Saud really are collaborators, that's observable.

Their fake show of any sort of beligerence toward Israel is about as real as the Shah's was when he was alive.

They don't give a damn about Israel or anything else but holding on to their little fiefdom (if they think they are about to fall would be the only way I could see them attacking Israel).

[DuctapeFatwa]

13. no, they don't "care" about it, they do as they are told

and paid to do. That's what a dollaho does. If they did not collaborate with Israel, don't you think there would be more Saudis plucking off sharon regime gunmen on their way in to liberate Jerusalem?

[StandWatie]

14. that actually is wierd..

you have Saudi's fighting in Afghanistan, Chechnya, Iraq, no one in Lebanon or the West Bank or Gaza.

I don't think it's because the House of Saud tells everyone in the country what to do but I can't think of a reason right off the top of my head why that doesn't happen.

[DuctapeFatwa]

17. The US prefers its puppet regimes to do exactly that

The last thing the US wants is any democracy accidentally springing up anywhere in the region. A government chosen by the people of Arabia, Iraq, Bahrain or any other oil country could not be counted on to put the interests of US corporations above the well-being of its citizens.

Dollahos, on the other hand, as long as they are paid well and on time, (and America makes sure they are) will obligingly keep the people barefooted, illiterate and on short rations.

The House of Saud is unique in that it is hated by people from all sides.

The Crusaders (including their European immigrant stooges in 'Israel') hate them because they are Muslims.

Muslim fundamentalists hate them because they talk about piety while living decadent lifestyles, and because they are dollahos who collaborate with Israel.

Regular people hate them because they are dollahos who collaborate with Israel.

[Equinox]

22. Excellent post, DuctapeFatwa,

It makes sense to me.

[Turbulence]

18. my god the criss cross is fascinating though isn't it?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. And the fundementalists will yell

Here comes the Rapture!

Sigh. They don't know what they are asking for.

[Maple]

4. I doubt

the Saudis would go after Israel, or Israel after the Saudis, although in today's world anything's possible...but if something like that DID happen....the US would be between the biggest rock and the most enormous hard place you ever did see.

[Herschel]

7. Perhaps not so difficult

Israel with or without American support would surely defeat and incapacitate the Saudis. Their links to terror would justify an overthrow of the government and an occupation, not unlike Iraq. America would be in a fine position to distribute oil as it sees fit.

[DuctapeFatwa]

8. Well, now that is a possibility...

The oilngun cartel have had their eyes on the Saudi oil for quite some time, and the main question has been what to do with the Princes, which will be "severanced" off to their little (possibly to be enlarged) chunk of Switzerland, and which ones will have tragic accidents, as Saudi princes are not unwont to do, now and again.

King Fahd is moribund, he may be on life support, nobody is sure, and the Princes spend more and more time bickering over who's to get which Alp etc., and sending the pit bull in to bomb the Arabian Holy Sites would give the instability in the region the boost the cartel wants.

Of course, whatever the effect of all this might be on regular old folks living in what the US calls "Israel" is every bit as high on the agenda as its effect on the regular old folks living in what the US calls "Iraq."

[dfong63]

10. then israel doesn't need further american subsidies

Israel with or without American support would surely defeat and incapacitate the Saudis.

if Israel is militarily strong enough to defeat the Saudis without American help, then clearly Israel does not need further American aid. they're strong enough already, even too strong from a standpoint of ensuring regional stability. it's good that they are finally strong enough to stand on their own feet. i guess we can save that several billion dollars a year we've been sending them for 50 years. God knows we can use those dollars here at home!

[Fight_n_back]

31. You think that because

you have no idea why the aid exists.

Prior to US aid Israel was a lone wolf with its own foreign policy and this bugged Nixon. The aid is designed to reign Israel in. With no US aid there is no need for Israel to remain passive against Syria and Iran. It is the same reason Egypt and Jordan get US aid, in exchange for peace.

What you need to do is latch on to the proper hyperbolic rhetoric.

A) Israel is a colonial puppet of the US

B) The US is held hostage by the hypnotic power of Jews and does Israels bidding

You can't have it both ways. Pick one and your simplistic views will be more consistent.

If you think the Zionists are an imperial force barely held back by the collective will of the US and EU then the end to US aid is the last thing you want.

[ozymandius]

12. Not quite.

Saudi Arabia and Russia have just signed an accord for oil exportation and pricing. Besides, there are two freshly emptied military bases that could be staffed with Russian troops before too long.

[StandWatie]

15. it will be Pakistani..

[Turbulence]

19. and the plot thickens

http://www.freeman.org/m_online/jul98/bodansky.htm

[Maple]

16. Would you support

the Jewish vote in America, or the people that hold the oil?

And the Israelis couldn't defeat the Saudis even with US help...look at Iraq alone.

Israel and/or the US marching on Mecca??

Muslims would be there from Indonesia and Pakistan and......

[chapter32]

24. A deplorable statement:

“America would be in a fine position to distribute oil as it sees fit”

Stealing THEIR oil? Isn’t it called stealing someone else’s property? Isn’t it illegal?

Stealing THEIR oil so we get to split the profits so we can spend on more guns, SUV's, and cool T-Shirts?

[Aidoneus]

25. deplorable, yes,

but such frankness in expressing such deplorables is a nice treat, however. Stripped of all of the euphamisms the planners of these adventures tack onto the presentation to get acceptance, such deplorable goals lie at the heart of it anyway.. frank expression of these things is a service (as I've come to appreciate since having this outlook of it pointed out once in response to people like Friedman), however nauseating it may seem.

[chapter32]

26. How True It Is:

"Stripped of all of the euphamisms the planners of these adventures tack onto the presentation to get acceptance..."

[StandWatie]

28. not quite stripped..

Kristol and the like have said in the past that "Saudi oil could be used to benefit all mankind instead of a few sheiks" which actually has a ring of truth to it, but until you want American industry harnessed to benefit all mankind instead of corrupt corporations it still rings pretty hollow.

[Herschel]

32. There was no talk of stealing oil

America distributing oil as they see fit would not necessarily equate to stealing the oil. Compensation could be made to the Saudi people and toward costs of operations. Allies could be aided. Not unlike Iraq.

[chapter32]

33. The more you try, the more bizarre it gets,

1) America distributing oil as they see fit would not necessarily equate to stealing the oil? What does it equate to? So you get to split the profits and can spend on more guns, SUV's, and cool T-Shirts?

2) Whose oil is it anyway? Not yours for sure.

3) Compensation could be made to the Saudi people and toward costs of operations? What operation?

4) Allies could be aided? Not unlike Iraq? What are you talking about?

[Herschel]

34. As said

America distributing oil could include aid to Saudis. Costs of any military operation or occupation must be satisfied. Allies, such as Israel, could benefit from the oil source, as may be in Iraq.

[Darranar]

35. So you'd steal a nation's oil...

and then sell it to pay for the stealing?

[Herschel]

36. As with Iraq

Such an opertion is worth considering if the nation is ruled by tyrants endangering other nations. I do not advocate this for nations not posing danger. For Iraq, the population will benefit in the long term. Again, oil revenues may help compensate operational costs, or aid the population.

[Darranar]

37. "The population will benefit in the long term?"

Tell that to the 10,000 dead Iraqis, massacred by the US invasion. Tell that to all those innocent Iraqi parents who lost their sons, to those wives who lost their husbands, those husbands who lost their wives, those children who lost their parents.

Tell that to those starving masses who can't get access to food due to the US occuppation. Tell that to their starving children, more of which are dying every day.

Tell that to those Iraqis who have no access to clean water. Tell that to those Iraqis who because of that lack of access are sick and dying. Tell that to the parents who must watch their children wither away due to diseases originating from dirty water.

Tell that to those Iraqis without access to electric power. Tell that to the Iraqis whose homes were looted in the aftermath of the US invasion. Tell that to the millions of Iraqis suffering due to this atrocity, this war crime.

Tell that to the thousands of US troops shattered psychologically due to what they were forced to do during the invasion. Tell that to the children and spouses they can no longer communicate with. Tell that to the parents who heard the sad news that their son was dead due to this foul atrocity.

We have unleashed modern warfare on these thousands of innocent people for the benefit of corporate interests. We have used massive bombing raids on major popualtion centers for the benefit of corporate interests. We have sent hundreds of thousands of American troops overseas for the benefit of corporate interests. We have created a terrorist haven for the benefit of corporate interests. Don't tell me that the popualtion will benefit. Until we reject corporate interests, no population anywhere will benefit in the long run due to our actions.

This situation isn't going to get better anytime soon. It will get progressively worse if Bush is reelected, but even a Democratic President who isn't a DINO fool like Lieberman won't be able to solve this problem effectively.

[Herschel]

38. Joe Lieberman would be a fine president

Surely you knew the state of Iraqis under the previous regime. Will it be better in time? I think you know the amswer.

[Darranar]

39. I did...

and I do. THEY AREN"T BETTER OFF. They are far worse off, and I don't see any progress being made to make them better off.

[Herschel]

40. We will disagree

The Iraqi people's plight will be aided.

[DuctapeFatwa]

49. So when does Israel plan to send settlers to Iraq?

Isn't it slated along with some other countries in the region as part of Greater Israel? There's just so much room available in Palestine, even if Likud is successful in eliminating the Palestinians (and around 20% of Israelis, according to the latest study on hunger there)

[Herschel]

51. There are no setllers in Iraq

If there are then complain. It seems you want to complain on things made up. Oh, my.

[TheYellowDog]

52. Darranar doesn't know anything about politics.

So I don't take his Lieberman DINO comment seriously at all. He actually believes Kucinich has a chance of winning.

[Darranar]

54. I do?

I support the candidate who corresponds to my views closest. I think that if he gets nominated he can win, so why not vote for him and support him?

I don't think Kucinich has much of a chance of nomination. I think we'll get Dean, who won't end the horrendous sanctions on Cuba.

Oh, personal attacks aren't allowed by this website. I don't know if "darranar doesn't know anything about politics" counts, so i won't alert your post, but I'm warning you.

[dfong63]

9. let's see if we got this right...

If the Saudis provoke little Israel, I'm sure some will wail when she strikes.

according to Herschel, when Israel invades the airspace of its neighbors and bombs them (Iraq, Lebanon) it's "self-defense", but when other countries transfer their warplanes within their own borders, it's a "provocation".

little Israel, you say? you mean little nuclear-armed, militarily-dominant bully Israel.

[Gimel]

23. diplomacy

like human relations, international military and diplomatic relations are complicated. No simple answer to equate all apparently similar actions. However, I don't think anyone ever called the strike of the Iraqi nuclear facilities a simple act of self-defense, similar to the the response to across-boarder shellings that Israel constantly receives from Lebanon. So much so that it's taken for granted and even considered "normal" by pro-Arabists. Like it dosen't occur. Therefore any overflights of Laebanon are seen as provocative.

The Kennedy administration was redy to go to war over Russian missiles in Cuba, you may recall. The level of threat and the intent of the party threatening makes the difference.

[tinnypriv]

21. Funnily enough, the US sells to the Saudis more than Israel!

Last I checked, the Saudis were some $billions ahead when it came to military sales.

I suspect Israels are of a higher technological quality however (i.e. I'm pretty sure the Saudis don't get Blackhawks).

As for the main topic:

whatever.

[Jackie97]

27. Not that I want Israel and Saudi Arabia to fight....

But to have to concentrate on something other than trying to force all the Palestinians out might benefit the Palestinians.

[DuctapeFatwa]

29. Maybe Israel can fly a few warplanes over Mecca

I think the Saudis have some anti-aircraft guns.

Maybe they will be terrorists enough to fire them, and then Israel can go occupy Arabia.

They seem to be contemplating an invasion of Lebanon.

The US has said it needs some help in seizing the region...

[Gimel]

30. That would never do

Those Saudi princes own too much of New York.

[DuctapeFatwa]

42. No problem, just occupy New York first

If you're running short of troops, just tell all those settlers from Brooklyn that the High Court just awarded them the Right of Return.

[Gimel]

43. Another

of your far-fetched transfer solutions.

[Forkboy]

41. Does Israel see everything as a provocation

I think you know the answer.Oh my!

[Gimel]

44. No, just

all provocations and threats to security. Yes, you know it.

[Forkboy]

45. riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

I see so much clearer now :eyes:

Does Iran have the right to defend itself?

[The Magistrate]

46. Of Course It Does, My Friend

All nations and peoples do. It is, however, the business of strategists and tacticians on the other side to contrive circumstances and act in ways that make the effective exercise of that right as near to impossible as can be managed.

[Forkboy]

47. Well

If I was Iran and there were news reports of a possible strike against me on a regular basis I'd be damn sure to beef up my defenses.That in turn is taken to be a potentially hostile action by those who are doing the threatening in the first place.Seems all rather contrived is right.

on edit-my apologies if I sound snippy,my freind.No sleep last night :)

[The Magistrate]

48. Not At All, Sir

Your point is sound: each feels some threat from the other, and rather like the Hatfields and McCoys, who can recall by now who first made a threat, and what would it matter if anyone did, since they have long been mutual? My own view is that possession of such weaponry might well sober the Iranian government up a bit, and that it has many reasons to desire possession of such weaponry without the slightest refernce to Israel. If the difference in U.S. action toward Iraq and North Korea demonstrates anything, it is that likely possession of such weapons functions as a real insurance against invasion by the U.S., and there is also a long tradition of Russian incursion into Persia no Iranian will forget, as well as a long-term threat from Pakistan, where hostility to Shia Islam is a major political force, and ordinary concerns of national prestige.

[Nottingham]

50. Lets kick this up cause its Scary for Saudis to have F15's

and they are buddies with Pakistanis

I see such deceptions here! :bounce:

[TheYellowDog]

53. Israel should strike, definitely.

I am sick of the Saudis and their stuff. Israel should hit them hard, imo. It is time to show the Saudis that Israel means business, and when it asks something, it should be done.

[Darranar]

55. No, it shouldn't...

Islam's two holiest cities, Mecca and Medina, are in Saudi Arabia. Attacking Saudi Arabia would rightfully enrage the Muslim world.

[TheYellowDog]

56. Saudi Arabia harbors terrorists

and have been funding them for decades. It's time for Israel to do something about it. Same with Syria. Bashar Assad is not a peaceful man and Israel should hold him accountable for his country's funding of suicide bombers.

[Darranar]

57. I suppose...

you haven't heard much about the Afghan war? The Taliban harbored terrorists, too - now the place is in complete chaos.

[TheYellowDog]

58. Yeah

But at least we took the Taliban out.

[Darranar]

59. The point is...

that aside from fostering great hate directed towards Israel and, by extension, the US, an attack on Saudi Arabia woud fail to accomplish much and pretty much make things worse.

[rini]

60. Much as I dream

of the Saudis eating their oil, your right. I can think of nothing worse for the US or Israel then to attack Mecca or anywhere in Saudi. The best thing is to invest in alternative energy sources.

[Darranar]

61. I HATE the elite Saudis of the ruling class...

they're just like what would happen if the corporations took complete control of our government. they need to be removed, though peaceful means can do it.

[sushi]

62. Have just read this post

Are you looking forward to a Christians and Jews against Muslims world war? There is enough suffering already. We don't need more.

The other posts here are also aggressive, except for a few. Why do men like war so much? The are making life hell for half of the population (us females) of this planet.

I would like all threatening people in power, those who are on the warpath, people who are thinking up these scenarios for war, people who are encouraging war, hawks, bullies, and any other threatening leader or body to be locked up, or at least counseled, including Sharon, Arafat, Bush, Blair, Musharraf, Mugabe, etc.

[Darranar]

63. I am a man...

and I am no hawk. Please don't overgeneralize. (Ann Coulter, after all, is a woman.)