King Abdullah; American OCCUPATION of Iraq illegal

[vortexring 0]

TRIYADH, Saudi Arabia, March 28 — King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia told Arab leaders on Wednesday that the American occupation of Iraq was illegal and warned that unless Arab governments settled their differences, foreign powers like the United States would continue to dictate the region’s politics.

The king’s speech, at the opening of the Arab League meeting here, underscored growing differences between Saudi Arabia and the Bush administration as the Saudis take on a greater leadership role in the Middle East, partly at American urging.

The Saudis seem to be emphasizing that they will not be beholden to the policies of their longtime ally.

They brokered a deal between the two main Palestinian factions last month, but one that Israel and the United States found deeply problematic because it added to the power of the radical group Hamas rather than the more moderate Fatah. On Wednesday King Abdullah called for an end to the international boycott of the new Palestinian government. The United States and Israel want the boycott continued.

In addition, Abdullah invited President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran to Riyadh earlier this month, while the Americans want him shunned. And in trying to settle the tensions in Lebanon, the Saudis have been willing to negotiate with Iran and Hezbollah.

Last week the Saudi king canceled his appearance next month at a White House dinner in his honor, The Washington Post reported Wednesday. The official reason given was a scheduling conflict, the paper said.

Mustapha Hamarneh, director of the Center for Strategic Studies at the University of Jordan, said the Saudis were sending Washington a message. “They are telling the U.S. they need to listen to their allies rather than imposing decisions on them and always taking Israel’s side,” Mr. Hamarneh said.

In his speech, the king said, “In the beloved Iraq, the bloodshed is continuing under an illegal foreign occupation and detestable sectarianism.”

He added: “The blame should fall on us, the leaders of the Arab nation, with our ongoing differences, our refusal to walk the path of unity. All that has made the nation lose its confidence in us.”

King Abdullah has not publicly spoken so harshly about the American-led military intervention in Iraq before, and his remarks suggest that his alliance with Washington may be less harmonious than administration officials have been hoping.

Since last summer the administration has asserted that a realignment is occurring in the Middle East, one that groups Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon along with Israel against Iran, Syria and the militant groups that they back: Hezbollah and Hamas.

Washington has urged Saudi Arabia to take a leading role in such a realignment but is finding itself disappointed by the results.

Some here said the king’s speech was a response to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s call on Monday for Arab governments to “begin reaching out to Israel.”

Many read Ms. Rice’s comments as suggesting that Washington was backing away from its support for an Arab initiative aimed at solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israel wants the Arabs to make changes in the terms, most notably the call for a right of return for Palestinian refugees to what is today Israel. The Arab League is endorsing the initiative, first introduced by Saudi Arabia in 2002, without changes.

The plan calls on Israel to withdraw from all land it won in the 1967 war in exchange for full diplomatic relations with the Arab world. It also calls for a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital.

Regarding the Palestinians, the king said Wednesday, “It has become necessary to end the unjust blockade imposed on the Palestinian people as soon as possible so that the peace process can move in an atmosphere far from oppression and force.”

With regard to Iraq, the Saudis seem to be paying some attention to internal American politics. The Senate on Tuesday signaled support for legislation calling for a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq in exchange for further funding for the war.

Last November, officials here realized that a Democratic upset could spell major changes for the Middle East: a possible pullout from Iraq, fueling further instability and, more important, allowing Iran to extend its influence in the region.

“I don’t think that the Saudi government has decided to distance itself from Bush just yet,” said Adel alToraifi, a columnist here with close ties to the Saudi government. “But I also think that the Saudis have seen that the ball is moving into the court of the Democrats, and they want to extend their hand to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.”

Turki al-Rasheed, who runs an organization promoting democracy in Saudi Arabia, said the king was “saying we may be moving on the same track, but our ends are different.”

“Bush wants to make it look like he is solving the problem,” Mr. Rasheed said. “The king wants to actually solve the problems.”

King Abdullah said the loss of confidence in Arab leaders had allowed American and other forces to hold significant sway in the region. “If confidence is restored it will be accompanied by credibility,” he said, “and if credibility is restored then the winds of hope will blow, and then we will never allow outside forces to define our future nor allow banners to be raised in Arab lands other than those of Arabism, brothers.”

The Saudis sought to enforce discipline on the two-day meeting, reminding Arab leaders and dignitaries to stay on message and leave here with some solution in hand.

“The weight of the Saudis has ensured that this will be a problem-free summit,” said Ayman Safadi, editor in chief of the Jordanian daily Al Ghad. “Nobody is going to veer from the message and go against the Saudis. But that doesn’t mean the problems themselves will be solved.”

Secretary General Ban Ki-moon of the United Nations gave a stark assessment in an address to the meeting, saying the region was “more complex, more fragile and more dangerous than it has been for a very long time.”

There is a shocking daily loss of life in Iraq, he said, and Somalia is in the grip of “banditry, violence and clan rivalries.”

Iran, which on Saturday had new sanctions imposed against it by the Security Council, is “forging ahead with its nuclear program heedless of regional and international concerns,” Mr. Ban added.

Having spent Monday and Tuesday in Jerusalem and the West Bank, Mr. Ban urged the new Palestinian government to demonstrate a “true commitment to peace.”

In return, he said, Israel must cease its settlement activity and stop building a separation barrier.

He concluded, “Instability in the Arab League states is of profound significance to international peace and security.”

Nada Bakri contributed reporting from Beirut, Rasheed Abou-Alsamh from Jidda and Warren Hoge from Riyadh.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[vortexring 0]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States on Thursday rejected Saudi Arabia's charge that Iraq is under an ''illegitimate foreign occupation'' and said U.S. troops are there at Iraq's invitation, under a U.N. mandate.

``It is not accurate to say that the United States is occupying Iraq,'' said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino.

The cross-fire reflecting growing differences between the two long-time allies at a time when the Saudis are taking on a greater leadership role in the Middle East.

Saudi King Abdullah surprised Washington on Wednesday by telling an Arab summit that, ``In beloved Iraq, blood flows between brothers in the shadow of illegitimate foreign occupation and hateful sectarianism, threatening a civil war.''

Perino said the United States and Saudi Arabia have a close and cooperative relationship but made clear the Bush administration did not agree with the king's statement.

``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,'' she said.

Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, acknowledged the administration was ``a little surprised to see those remarks'' and would seek clarification from the Saudis.

He said it was possible the king's comments might have been misinterpreted as a result of translation problems or could have been misreported by the media but expressed confidence the episode would not disrupt cooperation between Washington and Riyadh.

Asked whether the United States was worried by Abdullah's statement, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Washington was operating well within the boundaries of international law and under U.N. Security Council resolutions in Iraq.

``We want to understand what the thinking is behind it,'' said McCormack of the king's statement.

He said the United States had encouraged Saudi Arabia to increase its involvement in Iraq.

Iraq's government was also concerned.

``We differ with his majesty on this ... This presence is sanctioned by the international community and Security Council resolutions and with consent and support of Iraqi people and Iraqi government,'' Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari told Reuters in Riyadh.

``Nobody will gain anything by Iraq's failure. This attitude of simply being a spectator is not helpful,'' Zebari said.

The king's speech was only the latest sign of a split between Washington and its key oil supplier and traditional Middle East ally.

Last month, Saudi Arabia played host in Mecca to talks that led to an agreement between the Islamist group Hamas and the Fatah group of U.S.-backed Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to form a unity government to end Palestinian infighting.

The agreement caused problems for Washington because it enhanced the status of Hamas, which the Bush administration sees as a terrorist organization.<

What caused all this change of face from Saudi Arabia then??????

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[narcimund 0]

Are you intentionally not explaining where you get these quotes? You keep doing it even though people are complaining.

If you don't include a reference to the source, people just plain won't take anything you quote seriously. Sorry, but anonymous journalism is totally useless!

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[vortexring 0]

FFS - these are from the New York Times - happy?

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[downwardspiral 0]

No source. No read. FFS can't you include the link so we can read from the source rather than a possibly edited copy and paste? Your resistance to include a link to the source is becoming quite suspicious.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[vortexring 0]

Fucking hell!

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/world/middleeast/29saudi.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/washington/politics-saudi-usa.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Now piss off. Why the fuck would I paste an article I've edited and changed for myself????

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[billvon 3,132]

> No source. No read.

Little trick for you. Take any sentence from the story, say:

"The Saudis seem to be emphasizing that they will not be beholden to the policies of their longtime ally."

Google it. There's the story! I prefer doing it that way anyway; you get to see who's carrying the story, whereas if you just click the link you see only the one source.

[vortexring 0]

Cheers for the info. Bill.

VORTEXRING - DORKZONE

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[downwardspiral 0]

[sarcasm]Wow....why didn't i think of that?[/sarcasm]

That's great that you prefer to do it that way. Good on you.


Vortex - I don't know why you'd paste something you edited. In the same respect I don't know why you wouldn't provide a link seeing as it takes all of two seconds. Is it so difficult that you actually get upset when people request that you do so? And you are calling me the dork? May I recommend trying some yoga? I hear its a hell of a stress reliever.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[vortexring 0]

If my integrity is questioned I find a polite and diplomatic 'piss off' to be a better stress reliever than yoga. But thanks for the advice.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[juanesky 0]

My stress reliever is better is I just say fuck the British slutty queen.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[downwardspiral 0]

lol

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[Beerlight 0]

Quote

What caused all this change of face from Saudi Arabia then??????

Forgetfullness? They forget who saved their asses back in 90/91'. And they are possibly afraid of the terrorist living within their own borders.

[virgin-burner 1]

being european, it might be too easy for me to say this, but this war/occupation is not right.. its been done for false reasons, people in charge lying about the whole thing and stuff.. lets just be honest, this is a war on oil, and has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism.. its a shame so many people have been killed, so far, more people have died by american/resistance hands than saddam did in the decades when he ruled..

ok, i said it, now you can bash me..

“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.”
-Hunter S. Thompson
"No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."
-Yoda

[Beerlight 0]

nah, no bashing required. Yep, the whole situation sucks, whether your European, American, or whatever....

I'm not sure of the total number of people that died during Hussein's rule, but you said it. Their ruler Saddam, killed them. What freakin country does that to their own people??? Should no one step in and stop it?

Should we stand aside now? What happens then? And like you, I care not if someone "flames" me.....

[Gravitymaster 0]

Ah..The Freshmen Class.


.

[Beerlight 0]

whatever

[mpohl 1]

I can honestly sympathize: my country (and continent) was also occupied by the US, and the US troops overstayed their welcome by about 50 yrs.

With love, from Germany (and Europe).

Quote

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States on Thursday rejected Saudi Arabia's charge that Iraq is under an ''illegitimate foreign occupation''

[Beerlight 0]

Quote

I can honestly sympathize: my country (and continent) was also occupied by the US, and the US troops overstayed their welcome by about 50 yrs.

With love, from Germany (and Europe).

Quote

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States on Thursday rejected Saudi Arabia's charge that Iraq is under an ''illegitimate foreign occupation''

Same deal, millions killed in your country, by your countries leadership, and it was a given to be occupied by somebody. Not being mean about it, just stating the facts.

[mpohl 1]

No disagreement here.

However, historically (incl. my country, Iraq), ppl always preferred being tortured/mutilated/killed by one of their own vs from members of an outside force.

So, what's the "added value" of the USeless Army?

Quote

Quote

I can honestly sympathize: my country (and continent) was also occupied by the US, and the US troops overstayed their welcome by about 50 yrs.

With love, from Germany (and Europe).

Quote

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States on Thursday rejected Saudi Arabia's charge that Iraq is under an ''illegitimate foreign occupation''

Same deal, millions killed in your country, by your countries leadership, and it was a given to be occupied by somebody. Not being mean about it, just stating the facts.

[diverborg 0]

Quote

However, historically (incl. my country, Iraq), ppl always preferred being tortured/mutilated/killed by one of their own vs from members of an outside force.

I'd prefer neither I think. If I had to choose though, I suppose whoever had the least brutal reputation would do.

BTW, thats a very interesting argument towards this whole situation that I can honestly say I've never heard before.

If GWB started testing his chemical weapons on the state of Nebraska, even if all the other 49 states didn't see a problem with it, I sure hope another country would be ever so kind to step in for me.
I also think its very sad that you believe that its our goal to torture/mutilate/kill the Iraqi people. We eliminated the dictator that did these things to his own people. Some Iraqi's were happy, but the loyalists were not. We either pull out and let the civil war be fought and let the tyrrany continue, or we try to continue to stabilize the region and keep the reputation that we are there to kill/torture/mutilate the Iraqi people. I will never understand what's going on over there now, and its just plain sad. Yup, we screwed up, but I don't think we intended to turn the country into what it has become.

[mpohl 1]

I enjoy this remarkably intelligent, and inquisitive reponse for Speaker's Corner nevertheless:

ad (i): "ppl always preferred being tortured/mutilated/killed by one of their own vs from members of an outside force".

You can go back thru history to the present day and will find support of that statement.

For example, Iraq was a perfectly contained (but violent) society until somebody from the outside decided to take the lid of the kettle. Everybody was accepting of being tortured and killed by their own countrymen. I don't believe that you can honestly argue that intervention from the outside has ameliorated the situation.

As far as GWB chemically nuking Nebraska goes: I believe, you'll be accepting as long as the Canucks don't try to intervene. At that very moment, your anger will turn towards them.

Quote

Quote

However, historically (incl. my country, Iraq), ppl always preferred being tortured/mutilated/killed by one of their own vs from members of an outside force.

I'd prefer neither I think. If I had to choose though, I suppose whoever had the least brutal reputation would do.

BTW, thats a very interesting argument towards this whole situation that I can honestly say I've never heard before.

If GWB started testing his chemical weapons on the state of Nebraska, even if all the other 49 states didn't see a problem with it, I sure hope another country would be ever so kind to step in for me.
I also think its very sad that you believe that its our goal to torture/mutilate/kill the Iraqi people. We eliminated the dictator that did these things to his own people. Some Iraqi's were happy, but the loyalists were not. We either pull out and let the civil war be fought and let the tyrrany continue, or we try to continue to stabilize the region and keep the reputation that we are there to kill/torture/mutilate the Iraqi people. I will never understand what's going on over there now, and its just plain sad. Yup, we screwed up, but I don't think we intended to turn the country into what it has become.

[diverborg 0]

Quote

ad (i): "ppl always preferred being tortured/mutilated/killed by one of their own vs from members of an outside force".

You can go back thru history to the present day and will find support of that statement.

For example, Iraq was a perfectly contained (but violent) society until somebody from the outside decided to take the lid of the kettle. Everybody was accepting of being tortured and killed by their own countrymen. I don't believe that you can honestly argue that intervention from the outside has ameliorated the situation.

I guess if I look at the situations regardless to how I feel about it, there does seem to be some truth to that.

[Beerlight 0]

Quote

ad (i): "ppl always preferred being tortured/mutilated/killed by one of their own vs from members of an outside force".reply]

So, let me get this straight. Most people that cannot fend for themselves....would rather be killed by one of "their own" as you state?

I have to say that if the U.S. would stay out of other countries business, then it would make me the happiest American on the planet. That's if some other countries didn't do stupid shit like kill their own people....

• Quote

[tbrown 26]

If it's not an occupation, then I don't know what is.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !