BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 11:38 AM

Problem is, Teribus, I am not taking either side, no matter how hard you try to make it look like I am. I don't know what would be the best course of action for the US with regard to Iraq, and all of my posts on this thread are from the perspective of looking at both sides of the situation. I don't think immediate withdrawal is necessarily the best course of action because I don't know if allowing Iraq to become Balkanized is a good thing or not. I don't think a long-term US presence in necessarily the best thing either, because US military bases in the Middle East have a tendency to foment greater ill-will toward the US and because it really isn't democratic to have the US government prop up dictatorial regimes in other countries, as it is doing now in several countries, for the benefit of its corporate cronies.

I think there must be a third option that doesn't present the kinds of problems I see being inherent in the only two options currently on the table, but I don't know what it is right now. At any rate, the different factions are duking it out in the court of public opinion, and it looks like the faction that wants to see Iraq (and all of the middle east, plus Turkey and Iran) Balkanized looks like it might be winning.

I have to say though, the fact that you assumed I was attacking the oil interests suggests to me that that is the particular faction you are working for.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 09:25 AM

Another classic example of an anti-war, anti-Bush supporter reading more into a sentence than it actually contains:

Teribus---"If after the Dec.15 elections the government of Iraq insists that all foreign troops leave Iraq, that request will be complied with as rapidly as possible"

Apparently, to Boab, that sentence above automatically encompasses MNF involvement with retraining of the Iraq armed forces (A UN responsibility) of equipping the Iraqi Armed Forces (Responsibility of the Iraqi Government) and personnel selection(Responsibility of the Iraqi Government).

It is nice to see that Boab admits that he has not got a clue as to what a British Government, as yet to be elected, would do. But here's a hint Boab regarding those troop dispositions I gave you. In a situation where things are turning to shit as you seem to contend in Iraq, you do not reduce your armed forces in theatre by 83%. The Iraqi Prime Minister recently voiced his opinion that it is possible that British Troops will be able to hand over to Iraqi troops within the next six to twelve months - I have no reason to doubt that, do you? And if so on what grounds?

Dianavan - "Please list for me the number of companies involved in the transport of Iraqi gas and oil and then tell me it is Iraq controlling the flow."

Try looking here dianavan:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html

Some excerpts:
"Although Iraq's unemployment rate remains high (perhaps 30 percent or more), the overall Iraqi economy appears to be recovering rapidly from its condition just after the war, fueled in large part by U.S. and international reconstruction aid. For 2004, Iraqi real GDP growth was estimated by Global Insight at 54 percent, with 34 percent growth forecast for 2005. This follows a 21.2 percent decline in 2003, on top of more than a decade of economic stagnation and decline. On October 15, 2003, a new Iraqi currency -- the "New Iraqi Dinar" (NID) -- was introduced, replacing the "old dinar" and the "Swiss dinar" used in the north of the country. Since then, the NID has appreciated sharply, from around 1,950 NID per $U.S. in October 2003 to around 1,538 NID per $U.S. by mid-May 2005. In early February 2004, Iraq was granted observer status at the World Trade Organization (WTO). In late September 2004, Iraq sent the WTO a formal request for membership."


"In early May 2005, Ibraihim Bahr al-Uloum was named to replace Ghadban, stating that his main goals were to reduce corruption in the oil sector, to improve fuel availability, to reduce attacks on oil infrastructure (Ghadban had cited 642 such attacks in 2004 at a cost of $10 billion), and to RE-ESTABLISH an IRAQI NATIONAL OIL COMPANY (INOC) by the end of 2005."

The current Operators:

The Northern fields and transportation systems are operated for the Iraqi Oil Ministry by the Northern Oil Company - as was the case under Saddam Hussein. The Southern Fields and transportation systems are operated by the equally aptly named Southern Oil Company.

Pipelines: Sorry dianavan no new pipelines since 2001 and that was a joint Syrian/Iraqi collaboration. But ask Don F, he knows a great deal about pipelines that aren't built.

Now this you should all find interesting:

"Status of Oil Development Deals with Foreign Companies
Prior to the toppling of Iraq's Ba'athist regime, Iraq reportedly had negotiated several multi-billion dollar deals with foreign oil companies mainly from China, France, and Russia. Deutsche Bank estimated that $38 billion worth of contracts were signed on new fields -- "greenfield" development -- with potential production capacity of 4.7 million bbl/d if all the deals came to fruition (which Deutsche Bank believed was highly unlikely)."

What is unclear is whether or not Germany's Deutsche Bank were handling the financial aspects but take a good look at the parties involved - what was their stance on Iraq prior to March 2003? - their motives are now quite plain.

On Oil Contracts:
"As of May 2005, around 30 companies reportedly had signed MOUs (memoranda of understanding) with Iraq. The contracts mainly on EPC (engineering, procurement and construction). They generally cover the training of Iraqi staff (often for free), consulting work, and reservoir studies (also often for free). The MOUs are generally considered to be a way for oil companies to show their interest in future Iraq work, gather technical data, and to demonstrate their capabilities. In addition, the MOUs can help companies establish relationships that could be useful in the future, when Iraq is ready to start awarding major oil and gas development projects."

Companies involved:
Anadarko, Dome, and Vitol - To evaluate the 2-billion-barrel Suba-Luhais in southern Iraq.

In December 2004, Iraq's State Company for Oil Projects (SCOP) awarded a $150 million contract -- the first post-Saddam era upstream deal -- to Turkey's AvrAsya Technology Engineering, for development of the Khurmala dome.

In addtion to Khurmala, in April 2005, SCOP reportedly granted a contract to Canada's OGI Group to help develop the Hamrin field, located southwest of Kirkuk, and with a production potential of 60,000 bbl/d or higher.

In January 2005, a consortium of Shell, BHP Billiton, and Tigris Petroleum signed a deal with Iraq's oil ministry to increase output from the Missan area, which included Halfayah.

Smaller fields with under 2 billion barrels in reserves also had received interest from foreign oil companies. These fields included Nasiriya (Eni, Repsol), Tuba (ONGC, Sonatrach, Pertamina), Ratawi (Shell, Petronas, CanOxy), Gharaf (Mashinoimport, Rosneftegasexport), Amara (PetroVietnam), Noor (Syria), and more.

In May 2003, Thamir Ghadban stated that three exploration agreements for blocks in Iraq's Western Desert were still valid. These included Indonesia's Pertamina on Block 3, Russia's Stroitransgas on Block 4, and Indian's Oil and Natural Gas Corp. for Block 8. In January 2003, Stroitransgas signed a $33.5 million contract for exploration on Block 4, and in July 2003, it indicated its interest in winning post-war business in Iraq. In September 2003, Pertamina announced that it planned to begin oil and gas exploration in Block 3, investing around $24 million over the next three years. The small Irish company, Petrel Resources, also has expressed interest in exploring and developing oil resources in western Iraq.

Oh dear, anti-Bushites - No mention of ANY of the US major Oil Companies, No mention of Halliburton - must be awfully dissappointing for you.

You see Dianavan the way it works is this. Iraq owed certain countries billions for arms bought while Saddam was in power. Now those countries have agreed to waive up to 80% of that debt in return for favourable terms in future oil and gas activities in Iraq. That Dianavan, is why the contracts went the way they did, because you see, counter to what the anti-war, anti-Bushites say, neither the US or the UK armed Saddam, that was done by the French, The Russians and The Chinese - now where did I read those names just recently?? So who is controlling Iraq's oil and gas resources Dianavan? If it is this evil, unscrupulous Kabal, that CarolC and yourself believe exists, it doesn't seem to be doing a very good job of it so far.

But fear not anti-Bushites, Halliburton will pick up fairly large chunks of the work - not because of any internal, secretive, machinations at upper government levels, or by manipulation by CarolC and Dianavan's evil, amoral, unscrupulous gang of "Think-Tankers" - but because when it comes to the oil and gas industry, they (Halliburton) just happen to be one of the biggest and most experienced contracting service companies in the world. What work is won will be won by competitive tender - Halliburton is also very good at winning those, after all in 1998 it won the competitive tender to be nominated as Frame Agreement Contractor to provide services to the US Government - and then subsequently got called out to provide services under the terms of that contract in Kosovo and Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 04:16 AM

Teribus---"If after the Dec.15 elections the government of Iraq insists that all foreign troops leave Iraq, that request will be complied with as rapidly as possible"
Ah, yes--now there is a statement worthy of any devious politician!"---as rapidly as possible"---maybe after a few years,--- a few dozen years? Or as soon as the "right " Iraqis have been supplied and trained in the use of their very own tanks, missiles, etc.? The catastrophic descent into civil strife which is now adding to the bloodshed and misery which has inevitably followed military occupation
makes the presence of such a force essential. Are we to understand that there will indeed be a well equipped, well armed government controlled army? No, Teribus---you know the answer to that as well as any of us. "Coalition" forces may well withdraw---into fortress-like bases within the borders of Iraq.

What relevance the strength of British presence in Northern Ireland and Germany has with regard to anything I have said about Iraq escapes me; and since I cannot claim to have second sight, I suggest that we wait and see what the real Tories will do. If they do manage to out-Tory Tony and oust the back-bench labour/liberal/nationalist strength from the commons benches, I suspect-as I'm sure you do, that policies will change fairly radically.
"---and on the 15th of December the Sunni population will come out and vote, in spite of threats from the terrorists" --and of U.S. assaults on their 'terrorist havens" for a couple of weeks before the elections? Or perhaps that won't happen this next time-----

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 11:38 PM

Well, yeah, Abu, if you consider civil war democracy...

Not too Jeffersonian, IMH...

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: GUEST,Abu
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 10:45 PM

What is going on in Iraq is murder, mayhem and the birth of a Democratic nation, despite the efforts of US anti-war protestors.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 09:40 PM

No anger involved as far as I'm concerned, Kevin. It does indeed allow one to hone one's skills. But one should not get so caught up in the game that one spends all one's efforts and persuasive power on something that probably won't produce much in the way of palpable results in the 3D political arena.

I appreciated Amos's efforts (and those of others who participate) with the "Popular View of the Bush Administration" thread, because it alerts me to articles that I may very well miss otherwise. Lot's of good talking points. But if they are argued endlessly here and nowhere else, it all becomes a bit futile.   

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 08:42 PM

Good point, McG...

I try to keep that in perspective here when I do battle... About the worse thing I have ever actally called any one was a knothead, whci compared to T's callin folks who are against the war "f*cks" is purdy danged mild....

Okay, one night I mighta called someone an a**hole but I might not have... Just figgured that I should cover my bases in case I did thou I don't remember doing it...

A@ctaully, when I post, even when I sound all hot and bothered I'm just being passionate...

Hate is fir others folks... I don't hate nobody...

Hate this war, however...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 08:23 PM

It's not really a question of trying to change the mind of the person you are arguing with. What is really happening in these kind of arguments, and why they can be useful, is we are taking advantage of an opportunities to test out the validity of the our own position, and identifying where this needs modifying, and exploring the arguments which can be brought against it.

That's why it's so pointless getting angry here - whether they like it or not, the people with whom we are arguing are actually assisting us. Why on earth should we be angry with people who are helping us, even whebn that may not be their intention? Do people doing weight training get angry at the weights they exert themselves to lift?

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 06:07 PM

Yeah, Eb, I have mentioned that a couple times... I suspect he is paid by directly from my taxes thru some PR firm or indirectly thru a Bush PAC...

Consider this, T was around in the run-up, sprint-up, mad-dash to the war then after the fireworks, and especially after "Mission Accomplished" he disappeared...

Wasn't until Bush decided to inade the anit-war movement that T-Jerk returned with a right nasty mouth on him...

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 05:50 PM

It occurred to me some time back that Teribus writes as though this is his job, his assignment; that he is paid -by someone - to hang out here. As little joy as he takes in being here is one good clue. imo

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 05:34 PM

Yer right, Don, about T's tactics... In the run up to war he would frequently try to give me long homework assignments... The reason is obvious... I'f6 I was spending my time doing his homework assignments I wouldn't have had any time to do much of anything else...

But, Don, old buddy, alas... We will continue to do battle with the T's of the world because we must... Yeah voices of pro-humanism almost got snuffed out over the last 20 years but, in attending my fist anti=war demonstartion in October before the bush invasion, I discovered that there were a lot of kids in their teens and early 20's in the them demonstartions and if they were willin' to lay it on the line than I'm willing to fight the T's where-ever their ugly heads pop up...

It is or duty... Will we convince them? Porobably not but they will know, first, that they are on the wrong side o9f the pro-human equation and, second, we're in it fir the long haul this time...

America cannot continue on an imperialistic course or it will loose.

The inhabitants of this planet deserve better than a George Bush as the head of the world's super power and America deserves better than a George Bush... Corruption and greed never held an empire together too long...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 04:44 PM

I've wondered for some time now how and why Teribus and a few others seem to have so much time to spend posting long, ultraconservative diatribes and extensive lists of misinformation here in this supposed hotbed of liberals and progressives, not to mention wondering what the incentive might be. A lot of what Teribus posts can be easily refuted or contradicted by spending a lot of time fact-checking him—a lot of time. In the past, Teribus has tried to engage me in bouts of fact-checking. I fell in with this for a while, finding that most of his "facts" turned out to be goat-feathers. Then I noticed that checking his so-called "facts" was turning into a full-time job. It occurred to me that this is time that could be spent more productively working, in whatever capacity, supporting progressive candidates and/or devoting my efforts to explaining my viewpoint to people who were open-minded and receptive.

Remember:   there are mid-term elections coming up next year, and time would be better spent working, in whatever capacity, to offer the voters a genuine alternative by supporting liberal and progressive candidates running for Congress. This is an opportunity to change the balance of power in Washington, D. C. for the better.

Don't waste your time on people likeTeribus, Old Guy, and rarelamb—or beardedbruce. You are never going to change their minds on anything, so why bother? Looking at the amount of time and effort Teribus puts in on this, I wonder if he does it because it's his job. Spread Bush League propaganda and keep liberals and progressives busy arguing with him rather than actually doing something productive, such as attempting to persuade the persuadable and campaigning for the opposition.

Another aspect of the Right Wing's diversionary tactics.

Rather than wasting time arguing with these folks, it would be more productive to attempt to persuade people who are not totally closed-minded.   

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 04:28 PM

it just shows that the other scenario is at least as probable as the one mentioned above.

Not really - it shows that it is possible to put together a alternative explanation, rather in the same way that it is possible to put together alternative explanations for atrocities apparently carried out by insurgents (the reason I use that word rather than "terrorists" is that anyone who carries out atrocities is by definition engaged in "terrorism", whichever side they are on).

In both cases, deciding that the alternative explanation is "at least as probable", would be going a couple of steps further than is justified. "Cannot be dismissed out of hand" is a more appropriate way to categorise them.

Death squads involving members of the armed forces are a very common phenomenon in many places where there is some kind of civil or paramilitary conflict going on. While it has often been claimed that these have been being some dirty-tricks operation by the other side,    when the facts come out such claims have generally been shown not to h"old water.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: dianavan
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 02:29 PM

Teribus - do you really think the insurgents would be blowing up the pipelines if they were owned by Iraqis? Not so. Iraqi oil production was meant to finance this war but alas production is down. Untapped reserves are being protected by the U.S. for export to Israel.

Before the war, it was France providing the construction of a pipeline that was meant to feed Europe. Now, nobody is benefitting because it is control of the pipelines and the infrastructure that are at stake. It doesn't matter how much oil is owned by Iraq if the distribution of that oil is controlled by others.

Thats why the insurgents are concentrating on distrupting the flow:

http://www.iags.org/iraqpipelinewatch.htm

...or how about this little tidbit:

http://www.gasandoil.com/ogel/samples/freearticles/roundup_02.htm

Finally, it seems that political considerations dominated the decision to open the northern oil fields of Kuwait to the international oil companies. Given the relative small size of this investment and the type of contracts between Kuwait and the oil companies, the impact of this investment on Kuwait and the world oil market is minimal. Kuwait would have developed those fields anyway even without the foreign investment as long as the world oil market warrants such development.

The success of the IOCs investment in the Kuwaiti northern fields requires a stable political environment, which necessitates an agreement with Iraq. Since it is difficult to foresee a credible agreement between the Kuwaiti government and the current Iraqi government, removal of Saddam Hussein may prove useful for the IOCs. Recent reports indicate that Kuwait may sign its first contracts with the IOCs early next year; I believe this will not happen if Saddam Hussein stays in power. Such contracts will be signed after the removal of Saddam Hussein, on the promise that a border agreement with the new Iraqi government could be reached soon after that. But the question remains, will Kuwait offer the northern fields to the IOCs once Iraq is no longer a threat?

No, teribus, this is not a comic strip.

Please list for me the number of companies involved in the transport of Iraqi gas and oil and then tell me it is Iraq controlling the flow.

Belittling me is not going to change the facts. It only makes you look very desperate to convince others that you are some kind of authority. This information is available to anyone who wants to know. You are not the ultimate source. In fact, most of your posts are intended to mislead the reader. If you don't work for the U.S. govt. you must work for the IOC's. Why else would you work so hard to deceive?

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: David C. Carter
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 11:36 AM

If Bush should ever decide to pull out US troops(the ones still standing,that is)now that this war has turned into the Mother of all boo hooers,what kind of welcome home will they get? Will it be the same as that given to those Viet vets,where everyone pretended nothing had happened.......

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 09:23 AM

Well, Wolfgang, yeah, I do know who to blame!!!

It ain't rocket surgery...

Like you have Cheney runnin 'round the country saying stuff like "The CIA should be able to torture folks" while Bush runs 'round the country saying "The US does not engage in torture."

Then we have a couple privates or corporals hung up fir gettin' caught torturing???

Hey, don't take a weatherman to tell whuich way the wind blows here...

And this is just one example...

Does anyone deny that the US is torturing folks??? Is anyone nieve enuff to think that it's just a couple loose screws at the bottom of the organizational chart???

Now, does this mean I condone folks gettin' in cars packed with bombs and blowing folks up? Heck no, it doesn't...

Wrong is wrong but I only have some control, but very little, over what my country does... And that's why I spend time here keeping these things that our side does which are wrong in the thoughts of folks who come here as well. That's why I attend anti-war demonstartions. That's why I write my representatives. That'as why I talk with people in my comunity... These are the things that responsible citizens do...

And folks like Dick Cheney would have one think that folks like me are siding with the "enemy"... Right now, the only enemy I have any level of control of is the Bush War Machine... I pay taxes into it... And I vote against it... And I testify against it... That is my Jeffersonian responsibility!!!

Peace

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 05:03 AM

JINSA — Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs is another powerful ultra right-wing "think tank" which publicly declares that "there is no Israeli occupation". It has succeeded in its campaign to make Israeli "security" a central feature of US foreign policy.

PNAC — Project for a New American Century is a leading neo-conservative think-tank advocated "regime change" in Iraq long before Bush came to office. Its white paper Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for the New Century was published in September 2000. It is almost identical to government policy — even the language used.

These are the 'people' that CarolC refer to, the constituent members of two "think-tanks". Now the above was taken from The Guardian earlier this year (25th June, I think).

A couple of points spring to mind immediately:

Point 1 - JINSA
"It has succeeded in its campaign to make Israeli "security" a central feature of US foreign policy."

Well I have a bit of news for The Guardian, the security of the State of Israel has been the declared cornerstone of US Middle-East Foreign Policy since the inception of the State of Israel in 1948 and it's recognition by the United Nations. JINSA had SFA to do with it.

Point 2 - PNAC
"...a leading neo-conservative think-tank advocated "regime change" in Iraq long before Bush came to office."

Again I have news for the Guardian, PNAC weren't the only ones who could be accused of the above. But it was not PNAC influence that made "Regime Change in Iraq" official US State Department Foreign Policy it was US President Bill Clinton on 31st October 1998.

With the amount of work CarolC attributes to these two "think-tanks" the two dozen people involved must be very busy little bees.

On the oil thing Carol, how are they going to do it, how do they "control" another nations oil?

dianavan - 26 Nov 05 - 12:35 AM

I hate to have to tell you this dianavan, but regarding the infrastructure and pipelines of which you speak - they are already there, they exist, they are owned by the Iraqi Government. The posts on this subject written by yourself and CarolC read like very poor comic strip plots.

GUEST,Boab - 26 Nov 05 - 01:11 AM
If, after the December 15th elections, the Government of Iraq insists that all foreign troops leave Iraq, that request will be complied with as rapidly as possible.

On British troop deployments, here are some figures, Inside Iraq 7,500 (That is the decrease since height of operations in 2003 when 45,000 British Troops participated), inside Germany 22,000, inside Northern Ireland 11,000. Now can you tell us exactly why under a Tory Government the number of troops deployed in Iraq would increase, sorry that should be INCREASE.

Another point Boab, the violence and murder that is going on and on, is being perpetrated on the civilian population of Iraq and elsewhere by the insurgents and "foreign fighters", Over the past couple of weeks they have scored some remarkable 'own goals' that have registered throughout the Arab world.

Vocal opposition against them is increasing, their influence amongst the Sunni population is diminishing, I believe that on the 15th December the Sunni population will come out and vote, irrespective of the threats of the terrorists

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 01:41 AM

Little Hitler Dickhead Johnny has just announced that Australia is to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 01:11 AM

I would be amazed if the U.S. military EVER left Iraq voluntarily. There will be permanent bases in that country for just as long as there is something there that the U.S. wants, and the British too will be there for just as long as Tony holds office--and if he loses that to the Tories [ the real honest-to-goodness tories, I mean--], there will more than likely be an INCREASED British presence there. And so the violence and murder will go on, and on--

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: dianavan
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 12:35 AM

"This group of people (not the same ones who are working to get the whole region Balkanized) don't care whether or not that oil comes to the US. They just want to make sure they are the ones who get to make a profit from it in whatever way they can (especially before oil becomes obsolete as a source of energy)"

You're right about that Carol. They are not in Iraq ,as many Americans hope, to secure oil for American consumption. They are there to provide the infrastructure, especially pipelines and the logistics of moving that oil from point A to point B. They don't care where point B might be. They're business is pipelines.

On a global scale, their business is energy. Not necessarily the commodity itself, but the transport of that energy. To control the delivery is as good or better than owning the resource. If you control the energy supply, you control the world.

These men have no national loyalty and George Bush is just their pawn. It is Cheney who pulls the strings in the white house and Cheney is ruthless in his pursuit of power and wealth.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Nov 05 - 02:30 PM

I thought your post of, 23 Nov 05 - 02:17 PM, was absolutely hilarious. Now that my sides have stopped aching can I ask you a few questions regarding the rather bizarre content.

No brain no pain, Teribus. I reckon if I had your lack of reasoning skills, I'd be laughing, too. From my perspective, none of it is funny. It's just all too damn tragic.

"Some of the people who wanted the US and other Western countries to invade Iraq (and destroy Saddam's government) want Iraq to dissolve into smaller units (like in the Balkans)."

Now who would those people be Carol?

The PNAC and JINSA people. Several of the policy makers in the Bush administration are/were co-authors of the papers created by these two think tanks. Their stuff is readily available for anyone who wants to read it.

The biggest threat to the stability of the region if that were to happen would be posed by the Kurds. An independent embryo Kurdistan in Iraq would attract cessationist elements in Iran and in Turkey, so those two countries can be ruled out of those wishing to see Iraq fragment.

I have read that there are military advisors from at least one country with the hegemonic agenda spelled out in the PNAC and JINSA papers who are working with the Kurds as we speak, for the purpose of helping them fight for an independent state.

Let's have another look at Iran, while it is an Islamic Republic, it is not an Arab state. Recently it's main centre of Arab origin has been a bit restive, Tehran is sensitive to this because this region contains most of Iran's oil. The Arabs of this part of Iran are Shia. Iran should really worry about this province moving more towards an independent Shia State in southern Iraq with Basra as it's capital. No Iran does not want Iraq to fragment, as with their Kurdish population and their Arab minority stirred up, the Azeri population of Iran might just get it into their heads that they would be better off as part of already independent Azerbijan. I don't think that The Twelve Old Gits would welcome the prospect at all.

The PNAC and JINSA people are working to get Iran Balkanized as well. You can see the precursors of this effort in the US news media just about every day.

CarolC continues..."There are other people who want the US to maintain a continual, long term presence in Iraq, in the form of a puppet government and permanent military bases, for the purpose of controling Iraq's oil resources. I think these people are the ones who are saying we should stay the course and finish the job."

Why would they want to do that Carol? How would they 'control Iraq's oil resources'? With Chavez, that darling of the left, giving his oil away to the United States of America, why the hell would the US go to all that expense and bother in Iraq, they never supplied the US before so why would it be so essential now.

Because they see all of the world's oil resources as unharvested money. This group of people (not the same ones who are working to get the whole region Balkanized) don't care whether or not that oil comes to the US. They just want to make sure they are the ones who get to make a profit from it in whatever way they can (especially before oil becomes obsolete as a source of energy). These people are more concerned with money than they are with geopolitics. Geopolitics are just a means to an end for them, the end being harvesting/capturing as much of the wealth from the earth's resources as they can possibly get. And also all of the wealth from military expenditures and building and rebuilding contracts as they can get for themselves and their companies. There's lots of ways they can control Iraq's oil resources.

This second group doesn't appear to want the coutries in the region broken up into warring ethnic states. They want stable states with puppet regimes who will be loyal to them, even if that means the governments of those countries are totalitarian. That's why those poeple were so friendly with Saddam for so long, and why they are such good friends with the Saudis and other ruling elites like that.

The reason these things aren't readily apparent to you is because you think small.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 25 Nov 05 - 06:53 AM

"Why would they want to do that Carol? How would they 'control Iraq's oil resources'? With Chavez, that darling of the left, giving his oil away to the United States of America, why the hell would the US go to all that expense and bother in Iraq, they never supplied the US before so why would it be so essential now."

What with world peak oil flow due to hit between 5 and 30 years from now, and with the anticipated rise of China wanting to use more oil than the world can produce, it's nice to get your grubby little mitts on as much of teh resource as possible.

The next (nuclear) war between the uSA and China will be safely (for the USA and China, that is!) fought on the territory of that annoying little island that is a would be breakaway part of China off the coast of China...

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 09:56 PM

What would you expect to result when a maladministration has a hiring practise of rehiring crooks and thugs (felony a pre-requisite for high level positions) who have cut their teeth in the Reagan maladministration? You don't remember the names Reich and Negroponte? Then you weren't paying attention....

Here's one take on the retread recruits to 'Merkun diplomacy, and what it means over in Iraq....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 01:19 PM

CarolC,

I thought your post of, 23 Nov 05 - 02:17 PM, was absolutely hilarious. Now that my sides have stopped aching can I ask you a few questions regarding the rather bizarre content.

"Some of the people who wanted the US and other Western countries to invade Iraq (and destroy Saddam's government) want Iraq to dissolve into smaller units (like in the Balkans)."

Now who would those people be Carol? The biggest threat to the stability of the region if that were to happen would be posed by the Kurds. An independent embryo Kurdistan in Iraq would attract cessationist elements in Iran and in Turkey, so those two countries can be ruled out of those wishing to see Iraq fragment.

Let's have another look at Iran, while it is an Islamic Republic, it is not an Arab state. Recently it's main centre of Arab origin has been a bit restive, Tehran is sensitive to this because this region contains most of Iran's oil. The Arabs of this part of Iran are Shia. Iran should really worry about this province moving more towards an independent Shia State in southern Iraq with Basra as it's capital. No Iran does not want Iraq to fragment, as with their Kurdish population and their Arab minority stirred up, the Azeri population of Iran might just get it into their heads that they would be better off as part of already independent Azerbijan. I don't think that The Twelve Old Gits would welcome the prospect at all.

CarolC continues..."Those people want the various religious and ethnic groups in Iraq to be fighting each other. So my guess is that at least some of the kind of stuff you have reported here in this thread is an effort by these people to create the conditions that will have that result (of splitting Iraq up). And I also think that they are probably some of the people who are agitating for the US to withdraw from Iraq now."

Oh you mean the 'foreign fighters', or the Sunni insurgents, or the Ba'athist Saddam supporting Rump who want to provoke the country into a civil war that will fragment the country, because they don't want to be part of a country in which they may be marginalised - Hey I don't think they could get any more marginalised than they would be if Iraq fragmented - they could of course become part of Syria or Jordan, but I don't think a bunch of disaffected Saddam loyalists armed to the teeth would be too welcome, plus the fact they would be bringing any oil to the party.

CarolC continues..."There are other people who want the US to maintain a continual, long term presence in Iraq, in the form of a puppet government and permanent military bases, for the purpose of controling Iraq's oil resources. I think these people are the ones who are saying we should stay the course and finish the job."

Why would they want to do that Carol? How would they 'control Iraq's oil resources'? With Chavez, that darling of the left, giving his oil away to the United States of America, why the hell would the US go to all that expense and bother in Iraq, they never supplied the US before so why would it be so essential now.

Wolfgang - 24 Nov 05 - 07:35 AM - Excellent post.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 12:42 PM

Wolfgang, I appreciated your post until that last paragraph. Your certainty is just as sweeping a statement as any of us make.

As for me, I am very far from certain.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 07:35 AM

In Germany too, it is easy to buy or borrow army uniforms good enough to impress at least civilians. The best we can do is to disregard the original question with which this thread was started and discuss the incident.

The story of the Iarqi army is that insurgents (Sunnis) dressed up like Iraqi army folks to kill other Sunnis????

Hmmmmmm????

I don't get the logic... (Bobert)

Well, I'll try, though your last sentence doesn't give much hope.

(1) It is well known that the insurgents at times have already used army uniforms or police uniforms to approach tagets that otherwise would be more difficult or dangerous to come close too.
(2) The insurgents have already shown that they kill Sunni they consider collaborators.
(3) Recently there have benn several reports about a split in the insurgent movement, in particular a split between Iraqi insurgents and foreign terrorists. I have linked to a long GUARDIAN article in one of the other threads.
(4) There have been death threats from the terrorists to all Iraqi who support the more peaceful way of getting rid of the occupation.
(5) The people killed have actively supported the idea that the Sunni should participate in elections.
(6) The Iraqi security forces would have no difficulties to send murder squads without uniforms.
(7) The "kill two birds with one stone" argumentation rings true to me.
(8) The timing is perfect for it coincides with the conference about Iraq in Cairo (?) of several opposition and insurgent groups. The conference has condoned explicitely attacks upon occupation forces but condemned (though in mild words) indiscriminate bombings hitting the Iraqi civilian population. The murder of these influential people sends a bloody message to everybody who seems even remotely inclined to compromise: we'll get you.
(9) The old question cui bono has a clear response: the most radical part of the insurgency, the terrorists of the Al Qaeda type.

This is surely no proof, it just shows that the other scenario is at least as probable as the one mentioned above. No rocket suregery involved here... Just a little common sense...

What puzzles me each time anew is how the partisans discussing here go to extreme lengths of twisted argementation and thinking to blame the respective other side for each possible atrocity in this war. As if it was a completely new idea that in most wars both sides commit atrocities. The Bs and Ts of these discussions here are soul mates in this respect. They know who is to blame without any sign of doubt.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Amos
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 11:00 PM

The Nation has concluded that they can't break the hypnogogic spell of the Bushwah-ers without a dictionary. Here are some excerpts from their compilation:

abstinence-only sex education n. Ignorance-only sex education [Wayne Martorelli, Lawrenceville, NJ].

alternative energy sources n. New locations to drill for gas and oil [Peter Scholz, Fort Collins, Colo.].

bankruptcy n. A punishable crime when committed by poor people but not corporations [Beth Thielen, Studio City, Calif.].



"burning bush" n. A biblical allusion to the response of the President of the United States when asked a question by a journalist who has not been paid to inquire [Bill Moyers, New York, NY].

Cheney, Dick n. The greater of two evils [Jacob McCullar, Austin, Tex.].

China n. See Wal-Mart [Rebecca Solnit, San Francisco, Calif.].

class warfare n. Any attempt to raise the minimum wage [Don Zweir, Grayslake, Ill.].

climate change n. The blessed day when the blue states are swallowed by the oceans [Ann Klopp, Princeton, NJ].

compassionate conservatism n. Poignant concern for the very wealthy [Lawrence Sandek, Twin Peaks, Calif.].

creationism n. Pseudoscience that claims George W. Bush's resemblance to a chimpanzee is totally coincidental [Brian Sweeney, Providence, RI].

DeLay, Tom n. 1. Past tense of De Lie [Rick Rodstrom, Los Angeles, Calif.]. 2. Patronage saint [Andrew Magni, Nonatum, Mass.].

democracy n. A product so extensively exported that the domestic supply is depleted [Michael Schwartz, unknown].

dittohead n. An Oxy(contin)moron [Zydeco Boudreaux, Gretna, La.].

energy independence n. The caribou witness relocation program [Justin Rezzonico, Keene, Ohio].

extraordinary rendition n. Outsourcing torture [Milton Feldon, Laguna Woods, Calif.].

faith n. The stubborn belief that God approves of Republican moral values despite the preponderance of textual evidence to the contrary [Matthew Polly, Topeka, Kans.].

Fox News fict. Faux news [Justin Rezzonico, Keene, Ohio].

free markets n. Halliburton no-bid contracts at taxpayer expense [Sean O'Brian, Chicago, Ill.].

girly men n. Males who do not grope women inappropriately [Nick Gill, Newton, Mass.].

God n. Senior presidential adviser [Martin Richard, Belgrade, Mont.].

growth n. 1. The justification for tax cuts for the rich. 2. What happens to the national debt when Republicans cut taxes on the rich [Matthew Polly, Topeka, Kans.].

habeas corpus n. Archaic. (Lat.) Legal term no longer in use (See Patriot Act) [Josh Wanstreet, Nutter Fort, WV].

healthy forest n. No tree left behind [Dan McWilliams, Santa Barbara, Calif.].

homelandism n. A neologism for love of the Homeland Security State, as in "My Homeland, 'tis of thee, sweet security state of liberty..." [Tom Engelhardt, New York, NY].

honesty n. Lies told in simple declarative sentences--e.g., "Freedom is on the march" [Katrina vanden Heuvel, New York, NY].

House of Representatives n. Exclusive club; entry fee $1 million to $5 million (See Senate) [Adam Hochschild, San Francisco, Calif.].

laziness n. When the poor are not working [Justin Rezzonico, Keene, Ohio].

leisure time n. When the wealthy are not working [Justin Rezzonico, Keene, Ohio].

liberal(s) n. Followers of the Antichrist [Ann Wegher, Montello, Wisc.].

Miller, Zell n. The man who shot and killed Alexander Hamilton after a particularly tough interview on Hardball [Drew Dillion, Arlington, Va.].

neoconservatives n. Nerds with Napoleonic complexes [Matthew Polly, Topeka, Kans.].

9/11 n. Tragedy used to justify any administrative policy, especially if unrelated (See Deficit, Iraq War) [Dan Mason, Durham, NH].

No Child Left Behind riff. 1. v. There are always jobs in the military [Ann Klopp, Princeton, NJ]. 2. n. The rapture [Samantha Hess, Cottonwood, Ariz.].

ownership society n. A civilization where 1 percent of the population controls 90 percent of the wealth [Michael Albert, Piscataway, NJ].

Patriot Act n. 1. The pre-emptive strike on American freedoms to prevent the terrorists from destroying them first. 2. The elimination of one of the reasons why they hate us [Michael Thomas, Socorro, NM].

pro-life adj. Valuing human life up until birth [Kevin Weaver, San Francisco, Calif.].

Senate n. Exclusive club; entry fee $10 million to $30 million [Adam Hochschild, San Francisco, Calif.].

simplify v. To cut the taxes of Republican donors [Katrina vanden Heuvel, New York, NY].

staying the course interj. Slang. Saying and doing the same stupid thing over and over, regardless of the result [Suzanne Smith, Ann Arbor, Mich.].

stuff happens interj. Slang. Donald Rumsfeld as master historian [Sheila and Chalmers Johnson, San Diego, Calif.].

voter fraud n. A significant minority turnout [Sue Bazy, Philadelphia, Pa.].

Wal-Mart n. The nation-state, future tense [Rebecca Solnit, San Francisco, Calif.].

water n. Arsenic storage device [Joy Losee, Gainesville, Ga.].

woman n. 1. Person who can be trusted to bear a child but can't be trusted to decide whether or not she wishes to have thechild. 2. Person who must have all decisions regarding herreproductive functions made by men with whom she wouldn't want to have sex in the first place [Denise Clay, Philadelphia, Pa.].

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 10:56 PM

Well, first of all it' gonna take 'bout 53% of the vote to beat any Repub... Not that I care much fir Dems... But they have the elections so rigged up with paper-trailess election and have redristricted beyond the Dems wildest dreams that the country is stuck with Repubs fir our life time...

But, hey, if the Dems get some back=bone and actually decide to offer the American people some alternmatives to being screwed by the sorporations, they just might get them 52-53% percent it will take to over-ride the corrupt Repub election schemes...

What I find amusing is that Bush pumps out his chest when taqlkin'aout the prospects of democracy (which ain't gonna happen) in Iraq and couldn't care less about it here in the good old US of A???

Like what's that about???

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 10:38 PM

Speaking of people badmouthing Bush, I was surprised winter before last when I was traveling around the USA by train that every single person that I talked to about our government was anti-Bush. And not one time was I the one who started the subject.

Problem is that their opinions were not reflected at the polls. I guess- how does anyone know?

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 08:28 PM

Well, well, well...

It's "Lie Time" again... The story of the Iarqi army is that insurgents (Sunnis) dressed up like Iraqi army folks to kill other Sunnis????

Hmmmmmm????

I don't get the logic...

What is happening, Eb, you know all too well... There is a civil war going on in Iraq, which of us predicted during the run-up to war and US is caught in the middle of it, which many of us predicted in the run-up to war... No rocket suregery involved here... Just a little common sense...

BTW, even the ol' farmers here in Page county, who voted fir Bush 8 to 2, are grumblin' 'bout Bush... Everywhere I go I hear danged farmers bad-mounthin' Bush...

Tell ya what. When farmers have figured out they been had, 99% of everyone else has allready...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: dianavan
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 08:17 PM

I'm not worried about the uniforms lying around the streets but you have to wonder where these so-called imposters got the armoured vehicles and the automatic weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Amos
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 08:12 PM

Rarelamb:

That is a real howler!! LOL!!!

A

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: katlaughing
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 07:56 PM

What about the Army-Navy stores, here, Ebbie? Military uniforms are easily bought in the US, as are *fake* cop outfits for Halloween parties, if nothing else. Not that it dimishes what is happening in Iraq, but it seems it wouldn't be so difficult to impersonate soldiers, etc.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 07:50 PM

We have our own idiosyncrasies, Wolfgang. We understand the concept.

Even if - as seems likely- that a colloquialism was incorrectly literally translated, it still implies that Iraqi army uniforms are plentiful and easily acquired. Why should that be? If they are on the black market it indicates they are marketable- are people not in the military parading around wearing army uniforms>

Chilling thought- wearing an Army uniform might make it easier to infiltrate the ranks of Iraqi Army or to gain access to Coalition forces...

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 04:44 PM

In German, we can say, if something is easily available and abundant "the streets are paved with it".

I grin while I picture Mudcatters discussing seriously what that means for the state of the German nation.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 04:40 PM

As for the military uniform, they can be bought from many shops in Baghdad (see katlaughing's post)

"Litter the streets" looks to me like a quick and much too verbatim translation of a colourful expression in a foreign language. There is no reason to take that expression serious as a description of a reality.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: GUEST,rarelamb
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 03:20 PM

I just about busted a rib seeing that the first time!

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: GUEST,Just Curious
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 03:18 PM

So that's where you get your news, eh, rarelamb? Well, that certainly explains a lot.

Curiosity satisfied, at least for now.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 03:05 PM

Correction: I said police uniforms when I should have said army uniforms.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 03:00 PM

Ebbie, while my post doesn't directly answer your question, I think it does address the kinds of underlying agendas that are contributing to phenomena like police uniforms lying around in the streets. I think we need to look at and try to understand the big picture as a whole if we want to make any kind of sense out of the smaller elements within that picture.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: GUEST,rarelamb
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 03:00 PM

"My question is: What kind of political situation is it that makes for Iraqi Army uniforms to be discarded alongside streets?"

This may begin to answer your question...

http://www.perspectives.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=68119&forum_id=71

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: katlaughing
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 02:52 PM

There's more about it in this article part of which says (my emphasis):         


Gunmen kill Iraqi tribal chief

Relatives mourn Khadim Sarhid Hemaiyim

Dozens have gone to Khadim Hemaiyim's home to mourn
Gunmen have shot dead a prominent Sunni Arab tribal chief, his three sons and a son-in-law as they slept in their home in Baghdad, police say.

Khadim Sarhid al-Hemaiyim was the leader of the al-Batta tribe, a branch of the al-Dulaym tribe, one of the largest Sunni tribes in Iraq.

Officials said gunmen dressed in Iraqi army uniforms broke into his house and opened fire with automatic weapons.

The killings are the latest in a series of attacks on Sunni Arab leaders.

The gunmen arrived at the house in Baghdad's south-eastern al-Hurriya district at 0400 (0100 GMT) in 10 armoured cars similar to those used by Iraqi security services.

"I saw it with my own eyes. They were soldiers," Mr Hemaiyim's son, Thair Khadim Sarhid, told Reuters.

Mr Sarhid said that he and two of his dead brothers were policemen.

"I am going to get rid of my police badge. From now on I will be a terrorist," he said.

Army denials

Sunni leaders have frequently accused Shia militias within the Iraqi security apparatus of operating death squads with a sectarian agenda.

A spokesman for the Iraqi military said that its forces were not involved in the killing and that it was likely to have been militants in disguise.

"Surely, they are outlaw insurgents. As for the military uniform, they can be bought from many shops in Baghdad," Maj Falah al-Mohammedawi said.

He also had another son murdered just one month ago.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 02:52 PM

Carol, that's not my question. My question is: What kind of political situation is it that makes for Iraqi Army uniforms to be discarded alongside streets?

Are these uniforms that were issued to the 'new' army? Are these discarded by defecting men? Are these so disrespected by the people and the new army themselves that they are thrown away? Are they discarded because of the fear of reprisals?

On the other hand, if the Defense Minister is being dishonest in saying that, does it mean that it was, in fact, the Iraqi army, rather than insurgents who picked up the discarded uniforms, that slaughtered the Sunni family in their beds?

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Sorcha
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 02:39 PM

Well, my brother says it's raining......no more 'sand'....just MUD everywhere.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 02:17 PM

Some of the people who wanted the US and other Western countries to invade Iraq (and destroy Saddam's government) want Iraq to dissolve into smaller units (like in the Balkans). Those people want the various religious and ethnic groups in Iraq to be fighting each other. So my guess is that at least some of the kind of stuff you have reported here in this thread is an effort by these people to create the conditions that will have that result (of splitting Iraq up). And I also think that they are probably some of the people who are agitating for the US to withdraw from Iraq now.

There are other people who want the US to maintain a continual, long term presence in Iraq, in the form of a puppet government and permanent military bases, for the purpose of controling Iraq's oil resources. I think these people are the ones who are saying we should stay the course and finish the job.

Subject: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 01:02 PM

We have the Bushies telling us "anti-Bush Haters (kind of a double negative, innit) that progress is being made in Iraq. 'Stay the course', they say. 'Honor the sacrifice made by our fallen', they say. 'Trust our president and believe in his administration', they say.

Then, once in awhile something really telling, like this, comes along:

"Gunmen in Iraqi army uniforms shot dead a 70-year-old Sunni Arab tribal leader and three of his sons as they slept in their home, relatives said on Wednesday.

"A Defense Ministry official denied Iraqi troops were involved in the slayings in the Hurriya district of Baghdad overnight and said the killers must have been terrorists in disguise. <"Iraqi army uniforms litter the streets and any terrorist can kill and tarnish our image, killing two birds with one stone," he said.

QUESTION: Why are Iraqi army uniforms "littering our streets"? What does tht tell us about the situation there?


Just Wonderin'