Rice Asks Neighbors to Offer Iraq Debt Relief, Ties

[cal04]

Source: Reuters

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called on Arab nations on Sunday to offer diplomatic ties and debt relief to Iraq's government to reward its efforts on improving security and political reconciliation.

Rice said she hoped a conference of Iraq's neighbors on Tuesday in Kuwait would lead to progress on debt relief by Arab nations, and that states such as Saudi Arabia and Bahrain would meet their promises to open embassies in Baghdad.

Since the first two neighbors' meetings in Istanbul and Egypt last year, Rice said Iraq had passed some important laws and Iraq's army had tried to curb the militias.

(snip)
"I think it is fair to say that the neighbors could do more to live up to their obligations because I do believe the Iraqis are beginning to live up to theirs."



Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/washington/politics-iraq-rice-neighbours.html

[Olney Blue]

1. I'm sure they will get right on her suggestions. She's always right, after all.

[bush_equals_mladic]

9. Always right, you said?

Except the WMD lies, I suppose? Or more?

[Olney Blue]

14. Welcome to DU!

Over time you will see that I meant my comments about Rice with the utmost sarcasm. :hi:

[maddezmom]

2. Rice urges Iraq's Arab neighbors to seize moment in Iraq

Source: AFP

SHANNON, Ireland (AFP) - US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice flew Sunday to the Gulf urging Arabs to seize what she sees as an opening for them to grab a stake in neighboring Iraq and blunt Iran's influence there.

Claiming improved security in Iraq and a determined bid by its Shiite Arab leadership to defend national rather than sectarian interests, Rice urged Sunni Arab leaders to send their diplomats back to Baghdad and ease Iraq's debt load.

~snip~

"The neighbors could do more to live up to their obligations because I do believe the Iraqis are beginning to live up to theirs," Rice told reporters en route to face-to-face talks with top Arab diplomats in Bahrain and Kuwait.

Since the 2003 US-led invasion that toppled Iraq's Sunni leader Saddam Hussein, its Arab neighbors have worried not only about violence there but also about backing a government tilted toward non-Arab Shiite Iran.

~snip~

She urged the Arabs to take special encouragement from Maliki's decision to crack down last month on Iranian-backed Shiite militias, even though it has produced a spike in violence.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080420/pl_afp/usiraqdiplomacyunaid_080420013044

[Wizard777]

3. Why? Iraq's coffers are overflowing. They are far from poor.

[elleng]

4. This should have been about much more

than debt relief.

"The United States is today engaged in a four-fold struggle in the Middle East, and each of the struggles is interconnected with the others. At the most benign level, the US is in hot competition economically, to capture its share of oil exports and earnings, and to sell its share of goods and services. Our long term dependability has been a winning factor in building enduring US influence and commercial penetration in the region. Second, the US works to assure to security and safety of the state of Israel, within the broader interest of seeking to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and helping Israel assure its long term survival and success within the region. Third, the United States is engaged in a three-decades long struggle against Iranian extremism, which has manifested itself through terror bombing against US forces, harassment of oil shipping lanes, the pursuit of a long range, nuclear strike capability, Iranian interference in Lebanon, and, of course, assisted by our topping of Saddam Hussein, within Iraq itself. Finally, the US is caught up in the almost ten-year-old struggle against Al Qaeda.

These struggles help frame the ongoing conflict in Iraq, circumscribing the options and weighting the alternatives. The US will not and cannot abandon the region, nor our friends and interests there. The analogy with the US withdrawal from South Vietnam ought therefore to be unthinkable. US interests require continuing engagement in this region. But neither can the US make mincemeat of the fragile and artificially created states in the region, nor the governments that rule them, however much we should disagree with their policies and principles, for any of these existing governments is, if not a bulwark against a stronger Al Qaeda presence, then at least a regional actor which may be held accountable in some sense. We don't need any more failed states in the region, whether in Gaza or in Iran. Yet over the next twelve-to-eighteen months the Iranian nuclear effort is likely to culminate in the credible capability of significant uranium enrichment, and, absent a real diplomatic initiative from the Bush Administration, either this Administration or the next will be forced to acquiesce in an Iranian nuclear capability - with all the risk that entails - or execute a series of air and naval strikes to delay or destroy that capability - with the risks of further aggravating tensions and terrorist activities as well as disrupting global markets and flows.

So, the issue isn't troop strength in Iraq, but rather US national strategy in the region. As of now, it is not too late for that strategy to be significantly altered. The US would have to renounce its aims and efforts of regime changes, pull back such forceful advocacy of democratization, engage in sustained diplomatic dialogue with governments in the region, including Syria and Iran, heed the advice of regional friends and allies like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the Emirates and Qatar, and work not to isolate Hamas but to reshape it. This new strategic approach to the region must be linked to a deeper, more effective political effort within Iraq to align interests and structures, in order to produce the kinds of compromises necessary to end the civil war there. The tactics, principles and techniques of such a shift in strategy are no mystery. I and many others have for years called for such changes. But it seems all too clear that the leaders in the White House today have not, thus far, even seriously considered such change. They persist in seeking a largely military solution, focusing on troop strength and tactics, and have had the temerity to label a 20% increase in US troops as a "new strategy," when all along it has been obvious that we have needed perhaps three times the on-the-ground troop presence they directed." >>>


July 12, 2007, General Clark testified before the House Armed Services' Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.

http://securingamerica.com/node/2552

[SunDrop23]

5. Of course they'll want to unass the mess we made in Iraq! Spot on Condi! (n/t)

[Arctic Dave]

6. What she is really saying is. Please give this invasion

and occupation some legitimacy please, I don't want to go to the Hague for war crimes.:cry:

[bush_equals_mladic]

10. War crimes?

She cannot be dragged to The Hague for war crimes committed by her boss? The boss, the liar, the most wicked, the great satan, must be taken there.

[Diclotican]

11. bush_equals_mladic

bush_equals_mladic

Ms Rice can indeed be dragged to The Haag for war crimes.. Even that GWB was in charge (or more to the point VP Cheney) In Nuremberg that standard for that type of crimes was set. And even if you are not at the top of a regime, You are still responsible for what YOU do in a government... You can not hide behind "I was just following my orders" anymore. 12 well educated, and good men was hang for their crimes in Nurnberg.... But what they have been doing when their was in their prime was criminal. And therefore their was hanged.. Thankfully in Europe we don't hang people anymore, and that is something Ms Rice and the leadership in the current Administration should be dam glad about... They deserve to be hanged..By their sorry neck.. But we rather send them to prison, for the rest of their life

I believe ms Rice and a lot of others know that. They have read their Nuremberg Law and are really afraid of what can happened, and this is just one of the things they trying,to get legitimacy for their enduring occupying of Iraq... Debt Relief?.. Or is it that USA should use the money, who was given iraq as "debt relief" to further get a hold in Iraq?... They must be really evil, if they want to use the Iraqi money press, to get a tighter grip..

And I fear in the end it could end in a scenario like in Vietnam, were american soldiers have to flee from the roof of their ambassady...Not today maybe, but what come tomorrow we never know.. Because the fact is, that Iraqi would _Not_ have the american presidency in Iraq for many year to come.. Whatever you are been told... The Iraqi people Will have _their country back_ As the common american would have, if your country was occupied by foreign hand.. And have controlled you for 5-10 year...

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language

[Arctic Dave]

13. Co-conspirator after the fact.

[BobTheSubgenius]

7. Yeah, it's ALL about those shiftless Arabs.

Not living up to their obligations. So says Dr. Rice. After playing her part in breaking Iraq into pieces, she's saying it's clearly up to the rest of the Middle East to help cobble it back together.

[Diclotican]

12. BobTheSubgenius

BobTheSubgenius

But to do that, the US presence in iraq have to be much lower. Or out of the country all together.. One of the reason all this attacks are on, is because of the american military presence in Iraq... If they have not have the common enemy, US military. Then it might have been possible for Iraqi, and their nabour to stand down. Think little and work tighter to try to build something that are common for all iraqi. This regime US have put in charge in Iraq are accepted by the forst of the iraqi public. Even if they have "some legitimacy" because they was "wot-et" over.. But if Iraq had voted for some else that this weak little man Mallakai, then I guess the whole experiment had been pros ponded to further notice..:sarcasm:

And US have not just asked the Nabour of Iraq to clean up this charade.. But even European nations. Specially the country US have treated with rather bad attitude because they was not willing to following US into this horrible war of choice. And now are pressuring, and even try to treated many country's whit "If you don't follow us into war, it could be the end of our friendship, or at least it would damage our friendship" As the US Ambassador to Norway was saying before the war. He was given a official note from our foreign office two days after with a clear message.. You was little out of your bonds there... Don't let that happened again!.

US have to "fix" Iraq someway or another.. They have broke it, They own it and they HAVE to fix it, somehow...

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language

[bush_equals_mladic]

8. Her Master's Voice (HMV)

This woman is a personal assistant of Bush. She talks the same crap as her boss. Did they care to talk to Arabs when her boss went to Iraq with his lies. Now they want help from Arabs? Unfortunately Arabs are far too tolerant of Bush and his stupid 'international community'. They deserve unparliamentary treatment. I wonder if Arabs will ever take that course.