Netanyahu turns down invite to meet with US Senate Democrats

[2fishin2]

The US Military does not have a base in Saudi Arabia nor has ever had one to the best of my recollection.

https://militarybases.com/saudi-arabia/

US Military Bases in Saudi Arabia.

Thank you for that terribly incorrect reference to my post.

Of the five so-called bases listed in your link, four of them are Royal Saudi Air Force bases and the fifth one (Eskan Village) is built and owned by the Saudi government and leased to the US government to house the USMTM mission based in Riyadh.

Eskan is really quite nice. Enjoyed a few golf tournament dinners and a couple of July 4th celebrations with my wife and daughter there.

I stand behind what I said earlier

Now permit me to add back in that part which you removed from my quoted post:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

"When called upon, they have utilized either existing Saudi military bases or commercial airports for any actions launched from Saudi.

In 1991 they used a Saudi Navy Air Station and the newly built but unopened Dammam International airport for their land based sorties.

They lease all their facilities to house the few US military personnel assigned there in support of the Saudi military.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edit in to correct Eskan Village history.

Technically I'd call something they use to launch military attacks a "base".

I just wouldn't call it a permanent base, such as the NSA in Bahrain.

But joesanunu is close enough when he says that the Iraqi invasion of '91 triggered calls for US troops to be expelled from the Gulf. But I think those calls came from Saddam first.

Your thinking is incorrect....

Again the US has NO base in Saudi Arabia nor, would the Saudis ever let them have one. The US staged military operations out of Saudi owned and operated bases and airports.

The 1991 conflict was because of Iraq' invasion of the sovereign nation of Kuwait and the near invasion of Saudi Arabia.

Lets get back to the topic at hand and quit putting strawman arguments out there which mean nothing.

[Chicog]

Your thinking is incorrect....

Again the US has NO base in Saudi Arabia nor, would the Saudis ever let them have one. The US staged military operations out of Saudi owned and operated bases and airports.

The 1991 conflict was because of Iraq' invasion of the sovereign nation of Kuwait and the near invasion of Saudi Arabia.

Lets get back to the topic at hand and quit putting strawman arguments out there which mean nothing.

I'm not quite sure why this being debated so much, it's not really that important.

The US put a load of aircraft and personnel in Saudi Arabia and the Saudis let them run it.

That to me is a US base and I'm willing to bet the Saudis called it that too.

But to the rest of the Arab world they either weren't there or they were there to defend Saudi Arabia.

"Look at us, we're just off to defend Saudi Arabia..... in Baghdad".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2984547.stm

[ggold]

Netanyahu is playing the worst kind of politics as are the Republicans. He is not a nice person and he is not a dynamic speaker. He is going to try and tell the US what to do, which is not a good tactic.

The President is the Commander-in-Chief and he's not about to attack Iran, at least not at this time. If anything the visit will be counterproductive. Everyone's eyes are now on the politics and not on Iran's nuclear program.

Instead of unity; there is division. Instead of solutions, there is conflict.

Obama has said he will veto any congressonal bill on Iran. So he really isn't for listening to anyone. Hardly unity or resolution. He wants the conflict.

[2fishin2]

Your thinking is incorrect....

Again the US has NO base in Saudi Arabia nor, would the Saudis ever let them have one. The US staged military operations out of Saudi owned and operated bases and airports.

The 1991 conflict was because of Iraq' invasion of the sovereign nation of Kuwait and the near invasion of Saudi Arabia.

Lets get back to the topic at hand and quit putting strawman arguments out there which mean nothing.

I'm not quite sure why this being debated so much, it's not really that important.

The US put a load of aircraft and personnel in Saudi Arabia and the Saudis let them run it.

That to me is a US base and I'm willing to bet the Saudis called it that too.

But to the rest of the Arab world they either weren't there or they were there to defend Saudi Arabia.

"Look at us, we're just off to defend Saudi Arabia..... in Baghdad".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2984547.stm

You sure do try and twist facts don't ya? I was there and know what happened very well.

But for Iraq's invasion of the sovereign nation of Kuwait, we would not have been there. That's history.

Going into the internet and trying to dig up BS, doesnt work when there is plenty of facts.

[Publicus]

Netanyahu is playing the worst kind of politics as are the Republicans. He is not a nice person and he is not a dynamic speaker. He is going to try and tell the US what to do, which is not a good tactic.

The President is the Commander-in-Chief and he's not about to attack Iran, at least not at this time. If anything the visit will be counterproductive. Everyone's eyes are now on the politics and not on Iran's nuclear program.

Instead of unity; there is division. Instead of solutions, there is conflict.

Obama has said he will veto any congressonal bill on Iran. So he really isn't for listening to anyone. Hardly unity or resolution. He wants the conflict.

The P5+1 negotiators don't want new sanctions at this critical time but Congress does want them. The president said he'd veto new sanctions legislation, which is why it has been paused in the Senate especially by some Democratic party Senators.

The new Republican-Likud Senator from Israel will address the Congress Tuesday and he'll probably restate his determined passion for new and more sanctions.

However, the president is constitutionally in charge of the US negotiators in the P5+1 and he will go forward with the other negotiators from Russia, China, UK, Germany, France to progress into what is shaping up as the final phase of the long and sensitive negotiations over nuclear power and the great concern over weapons.

No one including the new Republican Senator from Israel has presented a peaceful alternative to any possible termination of the P5+1 and Iran negotiations that have been ongoing since 2012 as the P5+1 and Iran.

What is the peaceful alternative to failed or terminated negotiations with Iran? Especially as both sides proceed into the final stage of the negotiations.....

[chuckd]

Not to worry. The White House has already issued their rebuttal to next Tuesday's speech.

Nothing to see here any longer.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

White House Offers Rebuttal Before Netanyahu’s Speech

By DAVID E. SANGER and MICHAEL R. GORDON

FEB. 27, 2015

WASHINGTON — Just four days before Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to a joint meeting of Congress, the Obama administration sought on Friday to refute the Israeli leader’s expected critique, arguing that he has failed to present a feasible alternative to American proposals for constraining Iran’s nuclear program.

In a briefing for reporters, senior administration officials contended that even an imperfect agreement that kept Iran’s nuclear efforts frozen for an extended period was preferable to a breakdown in talks that could allow the leadership in Tehran unfettered ability to produce enriched uranium and plutonium.

“The alternative to not having a deal is losing inspections,” said one senior official, who would not be quoted by name under conditions that the administration set for the briefing, “and an Iran ever closer to having the fissile material to manufacture a weapon.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/28/world/middleeast/white-house-offers-rebuttal-before-netanyahus-speech-on-iran.html?_r=0

[joesanunu]

This is just awesome. Democrats in general are just despicable. No one should give them the time of day.

Nice contribution to the discussion, Hannity.

[chuckd]

This is just awesome. Democrats in general are just despicable. No one should give them the time of day.

Nice contribution to the discussion, Hannity.

I doubt your contribution will be nominated for a Pulitzer.

[Grouse]

This is just awesome. Democrats in general are just despicable. No one should give them the time of day.

Nice contribution to the discussion, Hannity.

I doubt your contribution will be nominated for a Pulitzer.

Nurse! Nurse! They're out of bed again!

[Chicog]

Your thinking is incorrect....

Again the US has NO base in Saudi Arabia nor, would the Saudis ever let them have one. The US staged military operations out of Saudi owned and operated bases and airports.

The 1991 conflict was because of Iraq' invasion of the sovereign nation of Kuwait and the near invasion of Saudi Arabia.

Lets get back to the topic at hand and quit putting strawman arguments out there which mean nothing.

I'm not quite sure why this being debated so much, it's not really that important.

The US put a load of aircraft and personnel in Saudi Arabia and the Saudis let them run it.

That to me is a US base and I'm willing to bet the Saudis called it that too.

But to the rest of the Arab world they either weren't there or they were there to defend Saudi Arabia.

"Look at us, we're just off to defend Saudi Arabia..... in Baghdad".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2984547.stm

You sure do try and twist facts don't ya? I was there and know what happened very well.

But for Iraq's invasion of the sovereign nation of Kuwait, we would not have been there. That's history.

Going into the internet and trying to dig up BS, doesnt work when there is plenty of facts.

You seem to misunderstand. I'm not saying why the bases were there,simply establishing that there were, even if the Saudis denied it.

I was there before GWI, during both Gulf Wars and I'm still there now.

So I don't actually need to go to the Internet to know about US bases in the GCC.

Not everything is on the Internet you know.

[beechguy]

Your thinking is incorrect....

Again the US has NO base in Saudi Arabia nor, would the Saudis ever let them have one. The US staged military operations out of Saudi owned and operated bases and airports.

The 1991 conflict was because of Iraq' invasion of the sovereign nation of Kuwait and the near invasion of Saudi Arabia.

Lets get back to the topic at hand and quit putting strawman arguments out there which mean nothing.

I'm not quite sure why this being debated so much, it's not really that important.

The US put a load of aircraft and personnel in Saudi Arabia and the Saudis let them run it.

That to me is a US base and I'm willing to bet the Saudis called it that too.

But to the rest of the Arab world they either weren't there or they were there to defend Saudi Arabia.

"Look at us, we're just off to defend Saudi Arabia..... in Baghdad".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2984547.stm

You sure do try and twist facts don't ya? I was there and know what happened very well.

But for Iraq's invasion of the sovereign nation of Kuwait, we would not have been there. That's history.

Going into the internet and trying to dig up BS, doesnt work when there is plenty of facts.

You seem to misunderstand. I'm not saying why the bases were there,simply establishing that there were, even if the Saudis denied it.

I was there before GWI, during both Gulf Wars and I'm still there now.

So I don't actually need to go to the Internet to know about US bases in the GCC.

Not everything is on the Internet you know.

So does that mean we need to rename Bahrain International Airport a U.S. Naval Air Station?

[2fishin2]

Your thinking is incorrect....

Again the US has NO base in Saudi Arabia nor, would the Saudis ever let them have one. The US staged military operations out of Saudi owned and operated bases and airports.

The 1991 conflict was because of Iraq' invasion of the sovereign nation of Kuwait and the near invasion of Saudi Arabia.

Lets get back to the topic at hand and quit putting strawman arguments out there which mean nothing.

I'm not quite sure why this being debated so much, it's not really that important.

The US put a load of aircraft and personnel in Saudi Arabia and the Saudis let them run it.

That to me is a US base and I'm willing to bet the Saudis called it that too.

But to the rest of the Arab world they either weren't there or they were there to defend Saudi Arabia.

"Look at us, we're just off to defend Saudi Arabia..... in Baghdad".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2984547.stm

You sure do try and twist facts don't ya? I was there and know what happened very well.

But for Iraq's invasion of the sovereign nation of Kuwait, we would not have been there. That's history.

Going into the internet and trying to dig up BS, doesnt work when there is plenty of facts.

You seem to misunderstand. I'm not saying why the bases were there,simply establishing that there were, even if the Saudis denied it.

I was there before GWI, during both Gulf Wars and I'm still there now.

So I don't actually need to go to the Internet to know about US bases in the GCC.

Not everything is on the Internet you know.

So does that mean we need to rename Bahrain International Airport a U.S. Naval Air Station?

Probably should following the above poster's opinion. For a guy who claims to be in country so long he sure doesnt know much about the country he is talking about. It is true the US and for that matter several other countries do use Saudi bases for training. We also have supplies and equipment forward placed in Saudi bases but, we DO NOT OWN OR MAINTAIN any bases in SA. The Saudis are very anal a out those kind of things.

True story about Saudis and Operation DESERT SHIELD. I deployed with a USAF unit during the first week of Aug 1991 to Oman. Due to maintenance problems, several of our aircraft had to land in SA, the only way they could land is if the acft maintainers there cut off the external fuel tank feed pipes. This was to ensure our US acft had no "offensive" capabilities in Saudi Arabia. During that period the only acft permitted into SA were for defensive capabilities of the country. It took several months of negotiating before they would allow other US acft into their country. In fact, it wasnt until Dec of that year before we were allowed to redeploy from Oman to SA right before the beginning of operation DESERT STORM.

Sorry for the derail but I hate when people use incorrect internet references.

[Daniel Ingalls]

THERE is something wrong with Pelosi, is she under doctor care and taking some form of drugs? As a former speaker of the

house, why does she have a problem speaking logically. It seems while speaking, her mind is on another subject and a cross over is taking place while she speaks. A very hard person to listen to and understand what she is trying to say.....But she's from San Francisco, California maybe that explains a lot about her! But yes she has got to go. An Idiot to say the least!

Smart man. Meeting with Democrats would be useless and nothing but an ear ache. Just looking at Pelosi or Reid makes me wanna throw up.

[Bangkok Herps]

I like the guy he is the only one who is trying to stop Iran from making the Big Bomb the rest of the world is just letting them get Ability to create a atomic bomb

So you don't think that the USA had anything to do with Stutnex?