The Happy Arab News Service

Saturday, March 31, 2007

And what do you think about this shit ??

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.

. . .

"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.

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.

. . .

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.

. . .

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.


I would say that our beloved Shia friends should better start massively watching their tails.

Labels: , , ,

Back to HappyArabNews

Proclaimed un monstruooo muy monstruoso at 10:19 PM