THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

America paid a hideous price for ignoring the collapse of Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal in 1989.

Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq has forcefully denounced the Israeli attacks on Lebanon, marking a sharp break with President George W. Bush's position and highlighting the growing power of a Shiite Muslim identity across the Middle East.

"The Israeli attacks and airstrikes are completely destroying Lebanon's infrastructure," Maliki said at a news conference Wednesday afternoon inside the fortified Green Zone, which houses the U.S. 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."

The U.S. Embassy did not answer a reporter's request for a response.

The comments by Maliki, a Shiite Arab whose party has close ties to Iran, were noticeably stronger than those made by Sunni Arab governments in recent days.

Those governments have refused to take an unequivocal stand on Lebanon, reflecting their concern about the growing influence of Iran, which has a Shiite majority and has been accused by Israel of providing weapons to Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite militant group.

The ambivalence of those governments has angered many Sunni Arabs in those countries, despite the centuries of enmity between the Sunni and Shiite branches of Islam.

Like many other people around the region, Ahmed Mekky, 40, an Egyptian lawyer and a Sunni Arab, said he supported Hezbollah because it was doing what he said the Arab leadership had been frightened to do for too long - standing up to Israel and the United States

The Israeli assault is bringing to the fore one of the unintended consequences of the U.S. war here - the potential for what many analysts call a Shiite crescent stretching from Iran to Iraq to Lebanon.

It is a phenomenon that could rewrite the political map of the Middle East, with Sunni Arab countries drawing together to oppose Shiite dominance. The lukewarm responses from Sunni countries during the Lebanon conflict, in contrast to the statements from Maliki and other Shiite leaders, are the latest manifestation of the divide.

Top Shiite politicians in Iraq have myriad connections to Iran. Many officials in Maliki's political group, the Islamic Dawa Party, fled into exile there to escape persecution by Saddam Hussein.

Maliki also has other ties to pro- Hezbollah leaders in the region.

He spent most of his 23 years in exile in Syria, where he ran the Damascus branch of the Dawa Party. Syria supports Hezbollah and Hamas, the militant group that now leads the Palestinian government.

Xingu, Afghanistan is a direct result of what happens when you entrust the UN and the EU portion of NATO with something.

Xingu, Afghanistan is a direct result of what happens when you entrust the UN and the EU portion of NATO with something.

xingu, that's an interesting post. I read something similar here this morning. Apparently he wrote about Maliki's association with Hizbullah (that name seems to have different spelling) back in 2005 when he got elected and got ragged for it. Now he seems to be doing a little I told you so.

McGentrix wrote:

Xingu, Afghanistan is a direct result of what happens when you entrust the UN and the EU portion of NATO with something.

Anything that happens in Afghanistan is our responsibility as we are the ones who invaded it, promised to rebuild it and cut and ran to Iraq before we took out the Teliban and Osama bin Laden. We still play a very large role in Afghanistan and our troops are still dying there.

You can't blame this on the U.N. or E.U. That's a cheap cop-out from a Bush apologist who can't see or accept the administrations failure and ineptitude in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I blame the Un and NATO because they are in charge in Afghanistan. They have failed to subdue the Taliban forces. Afghanistan has become a failure because they have failed to enforce a strong presence their. Just as the Un has failed in many other parts of the world. They would rather talk then act.

McGentrix, I noticed your sig line. The one that reads...

Liberalism - The haunting fear that someone, somewhere can help themselves.

How about changing it to....

Conservatism - The paralyzing fear that a crippled mother of four might find a food stamp on the way home from her third job.

Quote:

I blame the Un and NATO because they are in charge in Afghanistan. They have failed to subdue the Taliban forces. Afghanistan has become a failure because they have failed to enforce a strong presence their. Just as the Un has failed in many other parts of the world. They would rather talk then act.

Bull crap. We put most of our resources into Iraq, not Afghanistan. We should have had nothing to do with Iraq. Iraq was not a threat. As long as the Teliban and Osama bin Laden were around we should have committed all our available resources to take them out and do what we promised, rebuild the country. We did neither. Now the country is falling apart because we don't have the resources to fight in Iraq and do what needs to be done in Afghanistan. That's why Bush gave the UN a large role in Afghanistan. He cut and ran. He didn't finish the job. He wanted someone else to come in and take over because Iraq was more important than bin Laden or the Teliban.

Yes, we do have a large presence there but not near enough to do what has to be done.

Some people are morons; they refuse to see the obvious.

cicerone imposter wrote:

Some people are morons; they refuse to see the obvious.

I would think you would tire of demonstrating your point day in and day out, but I guess not.