According to today's NYT Iraqi prime Minister al-Maliki broke with the Bush White House and sought solidarity with his Shiite buddies, forcefully denouncing the Israeli offensive in Lebanon.
"The Israeli attacks and airstrikes are completely destroying Lebanon's infrastructure," Mr. Maliki was quoted by the Times as saying at an an afternoon news conference inside the fortified Green Zone, which houses the American embassy and the seat of the Iraqi government. "I condemn these aggressions and call on the Arab League foreign ministers' meeting in Cairo to take quick action to stop these aggressions. We call on the world to take quick stands to stop the Israeli aggression."
Whaddya know `bout that! Guess I was mistaken about Mr. Maliki.
Of course Maliki, a Shiite Arab whose party has close ties to Iran was making a lot mor noise about this than most of the by Sunni Arab governments lately. Those governments have pretty much passed on taking a diehard stand on Hezbollah and its owner and trainer, Iran. Appaarently they're more worried about the Shias just now than they are about the Jews!
But not our `friends' in Iraq..as I've chronicled here before, there are simply too many people in the new Iraqi government with close ties to the Mullahs.
I guess that's what we bought for all those lives and all that money. And here we had a chance to put together a strong powerful ally in an independent Kurdistan and dropped the ball.
Pity.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
We call on the world to take quick stands to stop the Israeli aggression."
i wonder where the "world" was when saddam was filling those mass graves. where was the arab league for that matter? now there's an oxy-moron.
i don't know what it is about the kurds, aside from the fact they have been screwed by every nation on earth, but i like'em. imo they have/present the best chance for a true representative democratic state in that region that would rival the state of israel.
all the way back to the treaty of sevres circa 1920 people have been telling them they can have their state, and then someone jerks the rug out. i think the kurds should do what israel did. stroke of a pen stating democratic principles that they live under anyway. i think the reason the turks are of afraid of the kurds is because they would make a true democratic state in the region and take so much away from turkey. i would also support a free kurdistan because it would make iran openly declare war on the US. the kurd region of course would take parts of iraq, iran, & turkey. not three of my favorite peoples/countries at the moment.
i don't think it would be any more difficult defending kurdistan than it would afghanistan, another land locked country.
i agree with nazar's comments relating present day to what the allies did circa 1945. i think bush was/is into that heart/mind thing. as if "they" have either.
more world stuff from a comment i found made by the alleged PM of lebanon.
Saniora was quoted as saying, "The entire world must help us disarm Hizbullah. But first we need to reach a cease-fire."
i'm not going to ask because i know it's just me. this guy actually said "we" are going to disarm hezz AFTER a cease fire.
as ff so often says:
good luck with that.
nazar,
interesting point indeed.
i have always wondered about 'stansville. all of those countries along the under belly of the ussr, or whoever they are this week, are subject to puken's attempt to re-assert his influence, if it ever left. i wonder to whom we pay the jizha(sp) in order to get those flyover rights.
maybe, by the time what surely will happen as you say............our FRIENDS in teheran will have gladly granted us flyover rights.
:)
Hi guys..nice to see you! Grab a cold one out of the cooler.
If I had been `in charge' (LOL) I would have cheerfully allowed Iraq to split in to three parts and thus avoided a lot of the sectarian strife...and I would have seen to it that all of the parts were ruled very carefully by our proxies, instead of the Iranian stoodges that some of them appear to be, thanks to the notion of `Arab democracy'.
As you know from reading the site,the Erdogan govenment in Turkey is more alligned with Iran and more Islamist every day, IMO. We have bases there that we lease for big money,but the Turks have not allowed us touse them as we wished to and its uncertain how long that will continue in any event.
Kurdistan is indeed landlocked,but it abuts Jordan, where we also have bases and a much more stable situation...and Jordan borders our ally Israel.
You won't hear this elsewhere, but the Israelis have been supplying arms and training the Kurdish Pesh Merga army for years..I can vouch for this firsthand. Jordan has pretty much allowed them to pass through.
An independent Kurdistan would be a staunch, loyal well armed
non-Arab US ally with oil wealth and a strategic location. In the areas the Kurds control, there are occasional bombings but none of the active `insurgency' against US forces as there is in the Sunni triangle and the Shia South.
The Kurds could have created a viable strong nation that would have been a bulwark against Islamic fascism in the region.
IMO its a pity we didn't take them up on it.
Hi Nazar..you are totally correct about the Turkmen, Chaldeans, Assyrians, Tikriti, Marsh Arabs, etc...Just as Iran has Arab, Armenian and Azeri minorities. None of them are strong enough to survive on their own.
But the three main groups are the Sunnis, Shia and Kurds and while the populations are mixed to a degree, there are some main areas where one minority or the other prevails.
I'm looking at this from the standpoint of A) what's easier to manage and what will benefit the US most and B) what makes sense in the long run.
I think an independent Kurdistan fits those criteria...certainly the Kurds think so! So I guess we'll hgave to agree to disagree on this one..
As always, thanks for dropping by. Make sure you drop your empties in the recycling bin on the way out!
Post a Comment