You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!
Pro/Anti Iraq War? Maybe some common ground for us...
who wouldn't want this scumbag's head on a platter?
Quote:
Saudi king calls U.S. action in Iraq 'illegitimate'
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — King Abdullah's harsh — and unexpected — attack on the U.S. military presence in Iraq could be a Saudi attempt to signal to Washington its anger over the situation in Iraq and build credibility among fellow Arabs.
The kingdom has taken an aggressive leadership role to quiet Mideast troubles, and wanted to show other Arabs it was willing to put their interests above its close ties to the United States.
The White House, in a rare public retort Thursday, rejected the king's characterization of U.S. troops in Iraq as an "illegitimate foreign occupation," saying the United States was not in Iraq illegally.
"The United States and Saudi Arabia have a close and cooperative relationship on a wide range of issues," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said. "And when it comes to the coalition forces being in Iraq, we are there under the U.N. Security Council resolutions and at the invitation of the Iraqi people."
"We disagree with them," Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns told senators. "We were a little surprised to see those remarks."
The king made his remarks Wednesday at the opening session of the two-day Arab summit his country hosted in Riyadh. It was believed to be the first time the king publicly expressed that opinion.
"In beloved Iraq, blood is flowing between brothers, in the shadow of an illegitimate foreign occupation, and abhorrent sectarianism threatens a civil war," said Abdullah, whose country is a U.S. ally that quietly aided the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
The next day, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani bristled at the comment in his speech to the summit, saying the term occupation has "negative implications" and is "in contradiction" to the vision of "Iraqi patriotic and national forces."
A Saudi official said the king was speaking as the president of the summit and his remarks reflected general frustration with the "patchwork" job the Americans were doing to end violence in Iraq.
The king also wanted to send a message that Iraq is an issue that Arabs cannot turn their back on, the official said. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.
It was not clear what kind of diplomatic fallout could result — but the comments did nothing to help bring Arab nations closer to the government of Iraq's Shiite prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki.
The summit has taken a tough line on Iraq, demanding it change its constitution and military to include more Sunnis and end a program of uprooting former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath party.
The Sunni-led governments of the Arab world have long been suspicious of Iraq's Shiite leadership, blaming it for fueling violence by discriminating against Sunni Arabs and accusing it of helping mainly Shiite Iran extend its influence in the region.
Abdullah's remarks came at a time when the kingdom is taking a more public role in efforts to defuse crises threatening to engulf the Middle East.
Saudi Arabia sponsored a reconciliation accord between Palestinian factions, has engaged Iran about its nuclear program, and has tried to settle simmering tensions in Lebanon. And the kingdom has been talking to various factions in Iraq.
Writers in some Arab media suggested before the summit that Saudi Arabia would seek solutions that would cater to U.S. interests.
"The king's remarks are the biggest proof that those accusations were false," said Dawood al-Shirian, a Saudi analyst. "In the issue of Iraq, Saudi Arabia went far beyond most other Arab countries. It went beyond the details and right to the cause."
Al-Shirian said he expected other Arab countries to take Saudi Arabia's lead in considering the presence of U.S. troops an illegal occupation.
"If Saudi Arabia didn't blame the occupation, the blame would fall on the Iraqis, who are victims. How can you blame the victim?" he asked.
The U.S. called its presence in Iraq an occupation until the June 2004 handover of sovereignty to the Iraqis. U.S. troops remained in Iraq with permission from the Iraqi government and a mandate from the United Nations.
Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal stood by the king's remarks Thursday — and his defense had hints of the Arab nation's attitude that the Shiite-led government doesn't have the legitimacy to approve the U.S. presence.
"If that country had chosen to have those troops, then it's something else. But any military action that is not requested by a specific country — that is the definition of occupation," al-Faisal told reporters.
__________________
History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme - Mark Twain
I often wonder if our foray into Iraq wasn't just a plan to spark off a bigger picture middle east conflict that we simply will have no choice to fight even if a Dem becomes POTUS? Or I could just be giving W way too much credit. I don't think anyone can argue that the conflict wasn't going to come sooner or later and as these hostile nations get closer and closer to having nukes, sooner is obviously the better strategic option.
This could be a reaction to the apparent US departure from Iraq.
Pete (thinks Saudi Arabia might be positioning itself to invade Iraq when we leave a void)
__________________
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." --Thomas Jefferson
This could be a reaction to the apparent US departure from Iraq.
Pete (thinks Saudi Arabia might be positioning itself to invade Iraq when we leave a void)
in a fight between the Saud's and the Iranians, who wins?
now... if we actively support the Saud's (in this possible battle) with technology and weaponry, we can be sure that it will come back to bite us in the azz... what with the Saud's being such trustworthy allies and all...
__________________
History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme - Mark Twain
in a fight between the Saud's and the Iranians, who wins?
now... if we actively support the Saud's (in this possible battle) with technology and weaponry, we can be sure that it will come back to bite us in the azz... what with the Saud's being such trustworthy allies and all...
I'd say the Iranians would win.
And quite right about our technology coming back to bite us in the ***.
in a fight between the Saud's and the Iranians, who wins?
now... if we actively support the Saud's (in this possible battle) with technology and weaponry, we can be sure that it will come back to bite us in the azz... what with the Saud's being such trustworthy allies and all...
In a straight up fight, Iran wins. But you can bet we'd be supporting Saudi Arabia on that one. And most likely Syria and Turkey wouldn't sit it out.
Pete (thinks that if we leave now, eventually the four of them would fight it out, gobble territory up, and eliminate Iraq as a political entity altogether)
__________________
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." --Thomas Jefferson
Saudi Arabia's concern is stability in the region. With the US there, Iran doesn't dare pull anything funny.
If we leave like the dems want us to, Saudi Arabia is afraid it will spark a nuke arms race in the region, and they will act accordingly to prevent such.
__________________
RIP: Lakelandkev 6/17/2007 ... You will be missedmoforeynolds-----I just troll for chicks on the Planned Parenthood forums. Not always the hottest, but you know they put out. Sluts.
This is rediculous, talk about a backstab. Saudi is trying to become a leading the the middle east and is throwing us under the bus to get there. And in the process seems like they are going to blame all the middle east's problems on us during this summit. So basically, this summit is gonan be a backslapping love fest for each other where they will all change thier tampons and blame us, instead of looking at the real cause in all the violence and hate. wastes of life.
But I also chalk this up to more hatred between Shiite and Sunni factions. <waht a waste.
they could just be doing it to make themselves look more.... 'arab'? I dunno how to say it, but put them more inline witht he majority of governments in the region that do not approve.
Saudi Arabia's concern is stability in the region. With the US there, Iran doesn't dare pull anything funny.
If we leave like the dems want us to, Saudi Arabia is afraid it will spark a nuke arms race in the region, and they will act accordingly to prevent such.
Saudi Arabia's concern is whatever benefits the House of Saud... if 'stability' is a means to that end, great. if destruction benefits 'em, great. if throwing us under the bus and blaming us for all of the ME's ills gets it done... good on them.
are you actually DEFENDING these f*cks?
__________________
History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme - Mark Twain
when it's all said and done, the Saudi's are a good ally of the US. I'm not defending them, but obviously the king makes statements to other arab nations to make himself look better. I wouldn't put too much into it.
__________________
RIP: Lakelandkev 6/17/2007 ... You will be missedmoforeynolds-----I just troll for chicks on the Planned Parenthood forums. Not always the hottest, but you know they put out. Sluts.
__________________
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." --Thomas Jefferson
Only middle east countries I trust are the kuwaiti's and the kurds. Both have shown they are both smart and great full.
The saudis are two faced backstabbers. Hell I found passports from saudis in iraq all the time in insurgent houses.
If we went to war with iraq israel would make a preeminent strike on all their nuclear and tactical military instillations.
I still believe israel will be the reason we end up at war with them. They use the military like we should. they don't care about public opinion or calateral damage. They say "hey you want to fu*k with us we will kill you" and guess what people don't mess with them really.
They are surrounded by countries who hate them yet none will be willing to fight them.
Israel has survived with real and present danger for years, and as such cannot afford to be politically correct. Had Israel been controlled by pacifists, they would have long ago been destroyed.
The middle east is a headache, the next world war will come out of the middle east. I'ts only a matter of time before an incident ignites and the first nukes in decades will be detonated
Pro/Anti Iraq War? Maybe some common ground for us...
