King of Allies Calls It "Illegal Foreign Occupation"

Parent Cafe
1

<p><a href=“http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070329/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_saudi_2;_ylt=AsXz5Mwi12W6XBHuCoCRNE.MwfIE[/url]”>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070329/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_saudi_2;_ylt=AsXz5Mwi12W6XBHuCoCRNE.MwfIE&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Might as well call aggressive, hostile occupation for what it is, unlike the pansy Democrats. Since the U.S. is a client state of Saudi Arabia, it is just one more step in the planned “cut ‘n’ run”.</p>

2

<p>I wish that I could believe a “cut 'n run” were planned. Unfortunately, I just don’t see it. All signs point to Bush plan to run out the clock with at least 24 more months of continually escalating troop strength in Iraq.</p>

3

<p>The most troubling part of the article is that anyone would give a crap what a King thinks. </p>

<p>There is nothing illegal about what the U.S. has done by entering Iraq. The current ELECTED Iraqi government can ask us to leave at any time. Too bad the Saudi people can’t ask the King to leave and stop his Illegal Royal Occupation.</p>

4

<p>

</p>

<p>Umm, no, they can’t. I don’t know where you got this information from. The elected Iraqi government asked us not to “surge” and we did it anyway.</p>

5

<p>

</p>

<p>I assure you that the Bush royal family cares what the Saudi royal family thinks. They have very close ties. Close enough for Prince Bandahar and the Bush family to arrange for private jets to fly all the Bin Ladens out of the United States when all of our airspace was closed on 9-11 and 9-12.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>That’s a joke, right? The problem in Iraq right now is that there isn’t a government, certainly not one with any legitimacy or authority. Many Iraqi experts argue that the biggest mistake the US made was shoving the elections down the throats of the Iraqi people. The elections only served to institutionalize the underlying sectarian power struggles. The missing ingredient in Iraq is political leadership.</p>

<p>The only factions with a political power base in the country after the invasion were Saddamists, Shiite clerics, and militia thugs like al Sadr. The United States found all of these to be unacceptable and brought in a collection of carpetbagging exiles with no connection whatsoever to the Iraqi street. </p>

<p>According to Time’s Baghdad bureau chief, the only connection these carpetbaggers could make leading up to the elections were “I’m Shi’a, you’re Shi’a, vote for me” and thus the whole process hinged on pure sectarianism.</p>

<p>At this point, it’s a winner take all battle for political power in Iraq. Thus, Iraqis are behaving quite rationally – killing each other to increase the odds of their sectarian group winning the political power.</p>

<p>Malaki has zero support. He’s a puppet of the Shia militias, but only a puppet and everyone knows it. If he set foot out of the green zone, he’d be dead in less than a minute.</p>

<p>Conyat’s right. The Maliki “government” didn’t want the surge. Malaki’s plan was for the US to stay out of Baghdad (and the Shia neighborhoods). He wanted the US to either leave or to focus exclusively on killing Sunnis.</p>

6

<p>

I follow the news and listen to the President rather than sticking my head in the sand. Here is just one article with a few quotes. I can get you more if you want. The bottom line is that if Iraq wants us out, we are out. Fortuntunately, they are smart enough to realize it would be worse if the US pulls out than if the US stays.

<a href=“http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/09/news/assess.php?page=1[/url]”>http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/09/news/assess.php?page=1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

The joke is on you. Iraq has an elected government and like most newly elected governments it takes time establish the necessary power, organization, etc.<br>

So the US is now electing royalty? And all those people voting when the matter had already been decided by birth! Too bad someone didn’t tell them what you know about Bush royalty.</p>

7

<p>Um razorsharp, quoting what some administration officials SAY proves nothing. They also SAID Saddam had ties to Al Queda and 911. Cheney SAID that General Petraeus rides around outside the Green Zone in an unarmored Humvee. SAYING those things didn’t make any of them true.</p>

<p>When someone’s actions belie their words, you have to watch what they DO. And what they DID was to send 20,000 additional troops to Iraq against the wishes of the Iraqi government. There is no way Bush would simply pack up and go home if Iraq asked him to.</p>

<p>And since we’re going by what people SAY, Bush SAID that he would stay in Iraq even if the ONLY people who supported him were Laura and Barney…the wishes of the Iraqi government were nowhere in the picture.</p>

8

<p>

</p>

<p>And where is it forbidden for Saudi Arabia to have a king? </p>

<p>I think you’re getting blinded by the neocon idea of rule of law: anything they want to do is magically made legal in their eyes and anything they don’t want others to do is magically illegal.</p>

9

<p>What will all of you do if and when Iraq becomes a stable, successful democracy?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p><a href=“http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/McCaffrey_Report_032707.pdf[/url]”>http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/McCaffrey_Report_032707.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

10

<p>

</p>

<p><a href=“http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/03/opposing_view_t_1.html[/url]”>http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/03/opposing_view_t_1.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>I’m sure it would really throw a wrench in the Democratic Party’s plans for 2008, but I don’t honestly believe anyone wants the US and Iraq to succumb to terrorists.</p>

11

<p>

</p>

<p>Government power and authority is not an abstract concept. It is a real, living breathing thing. It may result from democratic elections. It may result from charismatic leadership. It may result from tyranny.</p>

<p>The simple fact of the matter is that there is no central government authority in Iraq right now. It is not a legitimate government in any real sense, which is why it is unable to do anything. That is why all the BS we are fed about “benchmarks” is such nonsense. The Iraqi “government” can’t do any of that stuff because the “government” doesn’t have any power or authority.</p>

<p>Seriously…do a little reading on the subject. The only place in Iraq that has a functional government right now is the Kurdish region in the north. There are Shia militia/strongman governing authorities in some of the southern provinces, but those are rather tenuous because there are competing Shia militias.</p>

<p>It’s a very complex and terribly tragic situation.</p>

<p>BTW, remember the crowds toppling Sadaam’s statue when the invasion forces reached Baghdad? NBC’s Richard Engel was in the hotel on that square. You know what those mobs were chanting? “Down with Saddaam, Long Live al Sadr”. Engel said that he knew right then that this thing was going to be very ugly.</p>

12

<p>

Actually, you have not way of knowing that since the government of Iraq has not asked the US to leave and opposes a time frame for leaving.</p>

<p>

But where is it written that Saudi Arabia must have a king? Oh, that’s right a king wrote that. No one seemed to ask the people of the country. The decision was made for them. </p>

<p>Actually, if the applicable law is Islam, Islam arguably prohibits monarchy. So there is your answer.</p>

<p>

That’s pretty funny coming from some one trying to support the legitimacy of a monarchy. I guess if you lived back about two hundred years ago, you would have sided with the Britain against the Americans. Your name is not Arnold, is it?</p>

13

<p>Sjmom, you do realise that in that report you quoted, McCaffery is advising that a political solution, not a military one, is what it’s going to take to stabilize Iraq?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>McCaffrey’s “primary war-winning strategy” is exactly the opposite of what the neocons and the rest of the pro-war crowd want. Which is why they’ll reject it, as they have all his other advice.</p>

14

<p>

Oh, I have. And I have read enough to know that there are weak governments and strong governments. Just because the Iraqi government is weak, does not stop it from being a government. </p>

<p>Statement like this:

are simply silly.</p>

15

<p>sjmom:</p>

<p>A simple question. How many years are you willing to keep the current troop levels in Iraq? Keep in mind that the current troop levels are destroying our military readiness and costing $100+ billion a year. </p>

<p>Five years? Ten years? Is there any point where you would draw the line? Or is Iraq worth any cost to you?</p>

<p>Your boy McCafferty ducked the hell out of that question on an MSNBC appearance yesterday. Chris Matthews asked him point blank how many years it would take. McCafferty said it was a moot question because the the American people won’t allow the troops to remain for more than three more years. [In other words, his answer would have been “more than three more years”]</p>

<p>If the war were free to the US taxpayer and fought with limitless military resources, then we could have a fun discussion about staying the course. But, we are paying an outrageous cost. For what?</p>

16

<p>

</p>

<p>Oooh, a neocon hate smear. How cute. </p>

<p>You don’t have much of a grasp on what the word “legal” means, do you? My saying something is legal doesn’t mean I agree with it. I will be the first to admit that it’s legal for you to call someone a traitor just because they disagree with you, but that hardly means I approve. </p>

<p>But if you can cite a specific statute that makes it illegal for Saudi Arabia to have a King, please do so. Otherwise, I’ll just keep pointing to your last post and chuckling at the delusional neocon.</p>

17

<p>

</p>

<p>Good question, InterestedDad. In the report that Sjmom quoted, General McCaffery makes it clear that the current troop levels are doing exactly what you say they are:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>In addition, he notes that the Democratic opposition to the war in Congress is a positive thing–because it helps the Iraqis understand their diminishing options, putting the pressure on them for the reconciliation that is the “primary winning strategy.”</p>

18

<p>

Since you are so knowlegeable, please tell me what the word “legal” means. Or at least what it means to you?<br>
Are you saying that if one can simply find a statute, then whatever action goes is now justifiable becuase it is legal? I guess all those State statutes (pre civil war) permitting whites to own slaves means it was legal and justifiable in your world.</p>

<p>The problem with your argument is that you presuppose that if there is a statute, then the behavior becomes legal and justified. My point is that just because a statute exists tells us nothing about whether the behavior can be justified. For example, you can have all the statues you want saying it is legal to own slaves or for your kingdome to be ruled by a king, but that does not justify either practice.</p>

19

<p>Conyat:</p>

<p>If you had told Rumsfeld that the troop strength in Iraq in the summer of 2007 would be the same 173,000 as the summer of 2003, he would have said “you’re out of your mind”. He knew that the structure of the US military is not designed to support that kind of massive, long-term occupation.</p>

<p>To me, it’s just a really simple calculation. We do not have the resouces to “get the job done”, whatever that means five or ten years from now. So, once we’ve come to that conclusion, there is little point in pouring more US dollars and lives down a sinkhole, when the end result of leaving now, or in a year, or in two years, or in three years is the same.</p>

<p>I feel horrible for the Iraq people. But, I don’t feel $9 billion a month horrible for them when they are determined to kill each other for the foreseeable future.</p>

20

<p>

</p>

<p>You don’t know the difference between “legal” and “justifiable”? And you expect to be taken seriously in a political discussion?</p>

<p>How incredible. Legal means just that: not prohibited by law. It’s a statement of fact, not an opinion as to whether one finds something just, justifiable, morally right, etc.</p>

<p>Had you said the “unjustifiable” Royal occupation of Saudi Arabia, I would have been the first to agree with you. I very much dislike the close relationship our administration has with a government as repressive as the Saudis.</p>

<p>But instead of stating your opinion, you chose to make up a story and pretend it was a fact: that the monarchy is illegal. And no, I can’t go along with a lie like that, sorry.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The fact that we did indeed legalize the enslavement of human beings is one of the most tragic and unjustifiable things in US history. It’s abominable for you or anyone to try to sanitize our shameful past by glossing over the fact that there were laws on the books permitting this.</p>

<p>And to deal with the factual errors: slavery was also part of the US constitution; it wasn’t just in state statutes, and it wasn’t just whites who could own slaves per those statutes (although of course it was overwhelmingly whites who did so, both in the North and the South).</p>

<p>I dunno, if this ignorance is as real as you pretend it is, maybe turn off Fox and pick up a book every once in awhile?</p>