I'd be wary on this one U-P: there has been a string of "The Saudis:will they or won't they?" stuff in the US media.
In the first place -who actually decides anything in Saudi -they don't have a government in a Western sense.
Then there is quibbling about when is the US not the US -a UN coalition, for example.
There is no clarity here about what "facilities" are exactly - and certainly there's a cross between a swamp and a minefield in International Law if one's trying to work out what exactly a "war" is or even an "attack".
This is Saudi posturing and I'm guessing they're putting the squeeze on the US (if there's any substance to this story, at all)

Worth much closer attention is what, if any, the effects of yesterday's election in Turkey will be.

Originally posted by Estragon
Worth much closer attention is what, if any, the effects of yesterday's election in Turkey will be.

Yes I know. And it's a good news. Like this, Turkey will NOT able to join the EU !

This country is a troy horse in the EU. We have to much fanatic muslims in the EU, we don't need more !

funny, i thought the EU was set up to promote peace and stability in europe, and here you are pushing away the one ethnic group which needs to be included most at this time. *shakes head*

re: saudi arabia, i agree that this is probably political posturing at best. the saudi's have always pushed for a UN mandate, and they are likely to hold out for that. i'd like to see them actually refuse to allow american troops and planes on saudi soil should the US go in without the UN, but we shall have to wait and see if they stick to their guns.

- qo.

Well, I think the what's said publicly and what is said privately is probably two different things, especially in SA. Publicly they say this as to not offend the mullahs. I think this public stance may also mean the US hasnít given them proper incentive. Granted, a different situation but Pakistan, I believe, said they would only allow their airspace and bases to be used for humanitarian purposes, publicly. Privately, and after some sanctions were removed, it seemed we used Pakistan quite a bit more than for ëhumanitarianí reasons. Just look at the sorts of planes that were crashing in Pakistan. With SA I think perhaps we either need to sweeten the deal or have a UN mandate (and probably both) then the US will be able to use SA.

Yes, this is -I still think- a bit of bazaar/souk haggling.
It's intriguing to reflect that -on balance -there's a very strong Realpolitik case to be made for the US to ally with Iraq and completely occupy Saudi Arabia.

Originally posted by quiet one

funny, i thought the EU was set up to promote peace and stability in europe, and here you are pushing away the one ethnic group which needs to be included most at this time. *shakes head*

" peace & stability ". Greats words, really greats. May be we have a different point of view on these 2 words.

And remember, Turkey is NOT an european nation. It's a middle-east nation ! If the Russians or the ukranians want to join the EU, it's ok. They are europeans nations. But not Turkey. Why not China or Japan ?

Lord knows what the EU was for - it has always seemed to be for subsidising Europe's worst farmers -the French and all points south and making us pay twice as much as we'd pay if we were free to import from the US and the Commonwealth.
One of the s**ttiest things Britain ever did was to turn its back on Australia, New Zealand and Canada: her traditional agricultural trading partners.

On the other hand, the recorded history of the world is largely about one bunch of Europeans trying to beat the life out of another group, so I suppose so many years of peace is something

Estragon, the USA and CommonWealth are subsidising their own farmers. So, the EU can do it to.