BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Mar 06 - 08:22 AM

OK Teribus--

1) You still have not said what you think "victory" will consist of in Iraq this time--I wonder why--since it has perhaps more to do with this topic than Bush's Vietnam history--a question we are not likely to solve any time soon--since you refuse to accept the sources already provided you by others who have answered this question. I did not in fact make up the allegations about the obvious fact that everybody knew from the start Bush would not be fighting in Vietnam-- and that he was teased about this. I don't care whether you believe me or not. You have no credibility--so no sweat off my back.

2) So how many more "Coalition" deaths will you accept to get the result you want in Iraq. "As many as it takes" for what? If you accept even one more, you should be detailed to explain to the families of the dead exactly why they died.

3) Your status of Mr. Pollyanna remains unchallenged.

The Kurds are neither predominantly Sunni nor Shia these days--they are mostly secular and Western-oriented. But they were included in Iraq at the insistence of the imported ruler of Iraq in 1921--since they were far more Sunni --at that point--to balance the Shia majority. They have never identified with Iraq--and will never give up their degree of de facto independence.   Kirkuk oil will make this easier.

As for wanting the Sunnis in the rest of Iraq to be happy with the situation and not support the insurgency--as I said, dream on.   50 Sunnis working for a security agency have just been kidnapped by people they thought were police. Do you think their families are happy? And so it goes.

If the constitution is not amended to more suit the Sunnis, watch out. You haven't even seen the start of the civil war which is likely to result. But US pressure also will not help.

Bush's war is blowing up in his face--but we are all paying the cost.

"Muddling through" Western-style, is not likely. Wake up.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Mar 06 - 02:42 AM

Ron,

I think that there is a rather important facet about the Kurdish nation that you are missing. You are mixing race with religion, from your postings it would appear that you equate Kurds (a race of people who are largely muslin of both Shia and Sunni faiths) with Shia (a muslim religious faith) and Sunni (another muslin religious faith).

Saddam in his oppression of the Kurds (both Shia and Sunni) and the Maadan (predominantly Shia) dispossesed people of their land and property, did his damndest to destroy their culture and their ties to their land. Now all this was done at the expense of the Kurds and the Maadan for the express benefit of the Sunni supporters of Saddam Hussein.

Now Ron, if you are so keen on the Sunni's, who took advantage of that situation and went to Kirkuk to take over Kurdish houses and businesses, retaining those possessions, then lets see how consistant you are with regard to Israeli gains from the six day war. They get to retain those as well according to your view.

Of course in reality neither will turn out to be the case, negotiation will prevail and an accommodation by way of restitution will be reached.

Now getting back to our pilots Ron. When are you actually going to admit that when you came out with your statement denegrating GWB with regard to "most of" his fellow trainee pilots going on to fight in Vietnam, you were talking out of your arse, it was totally incorrect, it was a pure invention, it was a falsehood, it was a lie. You may well feel that - "Bush's Vietnam history comes under the heading of trivia." - I feel that you deliberately fabricating lies about it and posting them is not.

As to the Iraqi Government giving the Sunni Arabs a fair shake, I believe that according to their actions and statements it is well past high time that the the Sunni Arabs of the 'Sunni Triangle' gave the Iraqi Government a fair shake. Mind you I can see why those Sunni Arabs would like to go back to the good old days under Saddam Hussein, primarily because they were only good old days if you happened to be a Sunni Arab, even better still if you came from Tikrit. Not going to happen Ron, and the sooner the Sunni Arabs of Iraq realise that from now on they have to stand in line just like everybody else and that their days of being first class citizens is over the better for everybody, Sunni Arabs included.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 10:38 PM

Teribus--

1) Kurdish situation--as usual you've managed to miss the point. Point is: Kurds want Kirkuk officially part of "Kurdistan". Sunnis and Shias do not. Turkey wants it even less. The Kurds are now pushing for the census and referendum called for in Article 136 of the constitution. In case you're not aware, this is a source of friction in setting up the government.

2) Oil--mirabile dictu, you missed that one too.   Well done, good job.

If new oil deposits are the property of the province where found, that means the Sunnis in the midsection portion of Iraq (also including Baghdad) are out of luck--little oil there. You think that's fine with the Sunnis? What planet are you living on?

3) Fear by the Sunnis of the "police"--As I have tried to explain to you more than once--you must be a bit slow--if the Sunnis don't feel the Iraqi government gives them a fair shake, support of the insurgency goes way up. Also just fine with you? It's not just fine with the Bush and Blair governments, who realize the truth of what I am saying (and said in earlier threads--at least in early December).

4) Bush's Vietnam record vs the current situation in Iraq--gee, I wonder which is more important. It's a real hard choice. At this point Bush's Vietnam history comes under the heading of trivia. Many would say the "Coalition's" plans in Iraq do not.

Since you're willing to take as many dead "Coalition" soldiers "as it takes"--as many as it takes to do what, pray tell? Saddam, you may not have noticed, is no longer in charge in Iraq (as I said before, I'd hand him over to the Kurds). What is your vision of "victory" this time, since for some reason the last "victory" didn't take. Or is it also just fine with you that of the 2400 or so dead "Coalition" troops, about 2000 of them have been killed since the "victory"?

If more "Coalition" soldiers are to die, it would be nice for you to tell us what they are to die for. Your "war on terror" doesn't cut it any more.

We all wish the best for your son. I hope he's not in Iraq. If he is, the best for him would be to come home. This is a criminally stupid, needless war, based on a despicable propaganda campaign by the Bush regime--and soon likely to become a civil war, with no role for "Coalition" forces to play--except as targets.

Awaiting your next calm, well-reasoned posting.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 07:40 PM

Potable water and contaminated water are two different things.

...and yes, I do believe that only one in five Iraqis have decent sewer systems in their homes.

So why do you think people are complaining about a lack of electricity if the present supply exceeds pre-war levels. Maybe it has something to do with the U.S. military and the necessary infrastructure sucking it all up.

If you don't like the statistics I have presented, then come up with another source and I'll consider it. What you believe has absolutely nothing to do with reality.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 11:55 AM

Dianavan,

The population of Iraq, according to the 2005 estimate is reckoned to be 26,074,906.

Now what did your totally objective and completely impartial source - Halliburton watch say with regard to the situation:

"...two of three Iraqis are left with no potable water"

Do you honestly believe that as of 10th March 2006 out of a population of 26 million people, 17.3 million have no water. I do not believe that for 1 minute

"..only one in five has sewerage."

Do 'people' have sewerage? Houses do, buildings do

"4,000 megawatts, nation-wide electrical generating capacity is below pre-war levels and far below the goal of 6,000 MW" Actually 4000 megawatts is around pre-war levels, there is also the myth that pre-war Iraq enjoyed uniterrupted supplies of electricity. The only parts of Iraq that did were designated by the Ba'athist Regime and wherever Saddam happened to be at the time.

One thing the British reported on down in Basra was the massive increase in sales of A/C units, televisions, parabolic dishes and whiteware. The sort of things people do buy when their economies are prospering, they do however require electrical power therefore demand goes up.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 10:34 AM

teribus - I wish you'd answer my question (Mar. 09,11:15PM).

All I could find was this from Halliburton watch:

"...two of three Iraqis are left with no potable water; only one in five has sewerage. Furthermore, recent figures suggest that at 4,000 megawatts, nation-wide electrical generating capacity is below pre-war levels and far below the goal of 6,000 MW. Instead of rebuilding several steam-turbine power stations— as Iraqi engineers and managers recommended—the CPA's crony contractors chose to build new natural gas and diesel-powered combustion-turbine stations, despite the fact that Iraq doesn't have adequate supplies of either. As a result of this arrogance and neglect, billions were wasted while the electricity in Baghdad is on for just a few hours each day."

How is this driven by the prosperity of the people, teribus?

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 06:56 AM

We're killing stinking muslim shit that's what's going on!

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 04:25 AM

So what you are saying Ron is that the more things change the more they remain the same, which, when applied to Iraq seems to imply that you would rather that Saddam was still in power - millions of Iraqi's would disagree with you.

What were the points you raised, implying that they were "caused" by the intervention of the coalition forces:

Ron Davies - 09 Mar 06 - 11:07 PM

1) Kurdish desire for their own country, specifically the item IN THE CONSTITUTION regarding census and referendum in oil-rich Kirkuk

As far as dreaming on goes Ron, the Kurdish population both Shia and Sunni in Turkey, Iraq and in Iran have always desired their own country. So far historically the Kurds, both Shia and Sunni, in Iraq are the only ones who have ever been given any degree of autonomy. Over the past sixteen years they could have broken away from Iraq but they didn't. The current dispute over Kirkuk stems from Saddam Husseins plantation of loyal Sunni Arabs from his own area and the dispossession and displacement of the Kurdish people who lived there. So sorry Ron no new news there.

2) The current arrangement that though income from current oil deposits is to be shared on a per capita basis, new discoveries are to be the property of the province where found.

So much the same as Alberta wants, much the same as Scotland wants. What are your agruements against that situation in either of the countries affected by that? At any rate it would be damn sight better than what was undoubtedly the case under Iraq's previous regime where nothing was "shared" at all. The money went where Saddam Hussein and The Ba'athist regime directed it - mind you rather a lot of it went to the Sunni Arab minority, to the detriment of the majority Shia Arab population - the money went mostly towards ruthlessly suppressing them - but for some reason Mr. Davies seems to have no problem with that, in fact he seems to think that the former state of affairs was more equitable - again millions of Iraqi's would disagree with you.

3) The fear of the Sunnis that the official Iraqi police force is riddled with Shia militias

And the Sunni Arab population have every right to fear an official Iraqi Police Force, or Army, riddled with Shia militias. After all since 1979 the boot was very much on the other foot wasn't it Ron. Iraq is covered with mass graves filled with the bodies of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's, and at least 600 Kuwaiti's, that stand as testiment to the fairmindedness and impartiality of the period where the minority Sunni Arabs held sway in Iraq. The infiltration of the security forces in Iraq by Shia militia groups can be viewed as temporary, a passing phase, which is far different from the organised recruitment of a permanent military force, in fact three of them, with the clearly defined task of suppression of the Iraq people by whatever means necessary. I am talking Ron about Iraq's Republican Guard, the Special Republican Guard and last but not least the Saddam Fedayheen

4) Many other questions--not that I expect you as a stalwart Bush apologist to do anything but stupid slander and classic denial (great job on that with the propaganda thread, by the way) but above all - Again--how many dead "Coalition" soldiers is it worth to you to "stay the course"?--which of course you still have somehow neglected to define. One might think you yourself have no idea what your envisioned "victory" this time --(the second time, since the first one didn't take)--would look like.

Sorry Ron but my track record on answering questions put to me directly is a damn sight better than yours - What was the number of pilots who served in the same OTU with Lt. G.W. Bush learning to fight those F-102A's who then went on to fight in Vietnam? According to Ron it was most of them, asked repeatedly to substantiate his statement, Ron is surprisingly reticent. Still waiting for an answer Ron.

Now then to your question:

"how many dead "Coalition" soldiers is it worth to you to "stay the course"?

The answer to that Ron is as many as it takes, exactly as it was to rid the world of Nazi fascism, the same number as it took to keep the Chinese Communists out of Korea and Malaya, the same number as it took to keep Sukarno out of Sarawak, Brunei, Sabah and Singapore - As many as it takes and I say that as a former member of Britains armed forces with a son currently serving in Britains armed forces.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 11:15 PM

Teribus -

Please explain the statement:

"Today the lack of electrical supplies is driven by the prosperity of the people."

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 11:07 PM

Teribus--


Dream on, Mr. Pollyanna.

You still have no answer for:

1) Kurdish desire for their own country, specifically the item IN THE CONSTITUTION regarding census and referendum in oil-rich Kirkuk

2) The current arrangement that though income from current oil deposits is to be shared on a per capita basis, new discoveries are to be the property of the province where found

3) The fear of the Sunnis that the official Iraqi police force is riddled with Shia militias

4) Many other questions--not that I expect you as a stalwart Bush apologist to do anything but stupid slander and classic denial (great job on that with the propaganda thread, by the way) but above all




Again--how many dead "Coalition" soldiers is it worth to you to "stay the course"?--which of course you still have somehow neglected to define. One might think you yourself have no idea what your envisioned "victory" this time --(the second time, since the first one didn't take)--would look like.



Sorry, your "war on terror" though convenient for people (like yourself?) who have no use for civil liberties--and worsened dramatically by your dear Mr. Bush, will not be accepted in lieu of a foreign policy by thinking beings-- (so sorry that does not seem to include your good self)-- on the long term.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 11:04 PM

Heard on the news today: Dick Cheney said once again that what is going on in Iraq is not a civil war.

An Iraqi citizen asked an American reporter, "If this is not a civil war, tell me, what does a civil war look like?"

I'm not making that up.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 08:22 PM

Hey Ron read back through a few of my posts regarding the aftermath in Iraq. I know that you may have the attention span of an Ant and like the followers of so many 'reality' TV shows you demand an instant result. But yes ould son the US is there for the 'long haul' that takes time and commitment, granted a commitment that you and your kind are not so keen on making, but there again you're not responsible for running your country, or looking out for it's best interests. If you want an example where they actually did have a 'civil war' take a look at Greece after both the First and the Second World Wars. The latter lasted four years and in terms of cost makes what is taking place in Iraq look like a walk in the park.

Oddly enough Ron, although it is not widely reported but in fourteen out of the eighteen provinces that make up the present day Iraq, things are actually going rather well. Simple fact, during Saddam's time, the only part of Iraq that enjoyed uninterrupted electrical supplies was the part of Iraq that Saddam happened to be staying in at the time. Today the lack of electrical supplies is driven by the prosperity of the people.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: GUEST,J C
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 06:59 PM

Hi Wolfgang,
Didn't we meet on another thread?
Have just watched a programme on the three British Asians who were detained in Guantanamo.
The question shouldn't be 'What's going on in Iraq' but what's going on in America?
Some time ago Norman Mailer was asked if there was any danger of the US becoming a fascist state, he replied "Do you mean it hasn't become one already?"
I'll drink to that!

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 06:01 PM

An interview: The Country Has Already Collapsed

One minor point: both Ron and Teribus can find support for their position as to civil war.

A major point: Americans should perhaps not be there, but now that they are there, they cannot just pick up and go.
I remember Peace making this point in don't know which thread.

I have one more link to a in my eyes extremely good article with links to many other articles. It has a disadvantage for it is in German. But all of the many links in that article are to English language articles and are marked in the linked article in English indicating the content. So the germanically challenged can easily scan for the links. The title of the article indicates the content:

Box at the ears by experts for Bush's Iraq politics

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 10:24 PM

"that seems to be a major concession on your part"

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 10:05 PM

Teribus--

So things are not in fact "hunky dory" in Iraq? As I said before--- (before you returned to your job of stocking the lake with red herring--mentioning other conflicts which have no bearing on the topic)-- that seem to be a major concession on your part.

So we should in fact "stay the course" in Iraq? And exactly what would you consider "victory" this time?--since for some reason the first "victory" doesn't seem to have impressed our opposition. How long do you think the "Coalition" will take to achieve this "victory"?   And how many dead "Coalition" soldiers is it worth to you?

As I said before, when (not if but when) there is an official request-- by whatever regime happens to be in power in Iraq-- that the "Coalition" troops leave Iraq, Bush (and I figure Blair, also) will be only too happy to oblige. Bush probably hopes it happens soon--to provide the figleaf for his retreat, which will come anyway--the US public will not accept an indefinite commitment to have our soldiers sitting ducks while Iraq breaks up.

As you should be aware, it was a totally artificial construction from the start--when Churchill put a Hashemite (that is, a total outsider) in charge of the jerry-built structure, in 1921, as I recall.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 01:08 AM

Ron Davies - 01 Mar 06 - 11:09 PM

Still twisting, spinning and putting words in my mouth Ron?

As to whether or not things are "hunky dory" in Iraq Ron, I would tend to think not, but nowhere near as bad as they are being reported.

"How many Iraqis do you think have been killed in sectarian strife in the past week?" I don't have a clue, the official figures given for deaths in the last week at present stand at 1003, although some media sources put them as high as 1300. The percentage of those due to "sectarian strife" has not been stated.

I fail to understand your assumption that I would think that those deaths are "just fine", so why the question.

Now we have a classic Ron-ism:
"...since now you're trying to say the Iraqi situation is no worse than many others in the world."

No Ron, what I said if you go back and read my post is that the "potential for civil war" exists in many other countries around the world other than Iraq. That I think is somewhat different to saying that, "the Iraqi situation is no worse than many others in the world." - TRUE?

Interesting that you describe as a "chosen quibble" a clear example of a responsible news organisation deliberately misrepresenting a situation. It is the WSJ you should be taking to task Ron not me, I was only the messenger, I did not report false news, according to the quote you posted of what they stated on 18th February, they did.

The truth of the matter is that no Iraqi request was made at either National or Provincial Government for British Troops to withdraw from Iraq. And what is more important Ron, is that there was absolutely NO refusal on the part of the British Government to comply with such a request, nor would there have been if such a request HAD BEEN made.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 11:09 PM

Teribus--

Are things hunky dory in Iraq--yes or no? How many Iraqis do you think have been killed in sectarian strife in the past week? And why is that just fine?--since now you're trying to say the Iraqi situation is no worse than many others in the world. Or are they just the eggs that have to be broken to make an omlet?

Interesting that your chosen quibble of the moment is whether it's a provincial or the national government which considers "Coalition" troops to be destabilizing. Don't worry, the day is coming when the US and other "Coalition" forces will be officially asked to leave. Just be patient. Wouldn't want to disappoint you.

The irony, of course, is that if the Coalition forces are seen as destabilizing, it's due largely to a successful disinformation campaign which, among other things, absurdly fingered "intelligence operations of the occupiers and the Zionists" for the Dome bombing. The problem, according to a recent Wall St Journal column by the editor of Middle Eastern Quarterly, is that the only source of news for many Iraqis who cannot afford satellite dishes is Iran's al-Alan TV, which said precisely that.

Another irony is that Bush probably hopes such a declaration (that "Coalition" forces should leave) is issued soon. That would end the US bloodletting in Iraq--and be a handy figleaf for Bush's retreat.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Peace
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 11:17 AM

"Feb 28, 2006 — By Matt Spetalnick

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush, hit by polls showing America's support for the Iraq war at an all-time low, denied on Tuesday Iraq was sliding into civil war, despite the worst sectarian strife since a U.S. invasion."

From a Google of

Bush denies Iraq heading toward civil war

ABC News.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 11:07 AM

'No sectarian war? Then what is this?'

(Washington Post link to Guardian)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 08:40 AM

Today, John Negroponte (a member of the Bush-hating liberl media?) sad that Iraq "is on the brink of civil war".

But don't worry. Rummie has a plan. Send in our very own Death Squads.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 12:58 AM

So Ron shifts ground once again.

"there is still a big potential for civil war in Iraq" somehow has been translated to the criteria defining civil war to being a, "country where at least 400 have been killed in the last week in civil conflict"

The report of there being sixty ongoing civil wars/conflicts was prepared by the Universities of Vancouver and Uppsalla and delivered to the UN.

While you are asking questions Ron, how about answering a few that you seem to have studiously ducked:

1. Instance of when the Iraqi Government requested that British Troops withdraw from Basra on a permanent basis.

2. Instance of when the British Government refused that request.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 11:44 PM

Teribus--

1) As usual, you're being disingenuous. Name one other country where at least 400 have been killed in the last week in civil conflict (probably the ultimate oxymoron)--in fact the Baghdad morgue puts it at about 1300.

2) Iraq is unique in that the impetus to the brewing civil war was Bush's unnecessary invasion, which he was only able to carry out due to a despicable --(and brilliantly successful)-- propaganda campaign to confuse 11 Sept 2001 attacks, al Queda, and Saddam in the minds of the US public. You have provided absolutely no evidence that the propaganda campaign did not take place-- and there is massive evidence to support it.

Bush's stupid conduct of Iraqi relations has created a situation tailor-made for radical Islam--similar to the successful push in the 1980's by Hezbollah in Lebanon--intriguing column in the Wall St Journal 27 Feb 2006 drawing that parallel.

You are one of a dwindling number of Bush apologists (read: patsies) who both defend the illicit Bush invasion of Iraq and also seem to think Iraq's current problems are just a phase along the road to Western democracy.

"Stay the course"--right onto the shoals.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 06 - 01:54 AM

Ron Davies - 26 Feb 06 - 10:19 PM

"Teribus--

As long as you're aware there is still a big potential for civil war in Iraq--that's a sizable concession on your part."

Hey Ron if you want to list the countries on this Earth where there exists, "a big potential for civil war" you would be utterly amazed, and that does not include the sixty countries where the UN is actively engaged in preventing conflict from re-igniting.

It does not however alter the fact that there is no "Civil War" in Iraq at present due to the monumental restraint being exercised by the Shia community.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Feb 06 - 10:19 PM

Teribus--

As long as you're aware there is still a big potential for civil war in Iraq--that's a sizable concession on your part.

Virtually all we've heard from you til now has been sugar-coating a wretched situation---a needless war started by Mr. Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Peace
Date: 26 Feb 06 - 10:12 PM

And the CF in Iraq is exactly what ya get when

1) there is no well-defined objective for the war
2) the objective that becomes defined after the invasion is changed to a nebulous 'we are fighting terrorism' thing
3) the winners don't get the hell out when the so-called objectives have been met

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 26 Feb 06 - 09:45 PM

Go back and read the pre-invasion threads, and you will see that Bobert's predictions are a hell of a lot closer to the truth than George's or Rummie's, or Dicky Boy's or Teribus' or DougR's. Sorry to mention names, but the abuse heaped on Bobert and similar posters at the time earns nobody any slack.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Feb 06 - 05:47 PM

Ron Davies - 25 Feb 06 - 07:05 AM

It's that english comprehension thing again Ron

"Teribus--

Take off your rose-colored glasses for once--they're blinding you. It's not at all clear there will be no civil war in Iraq."

Now here's what I said with regard to Boberts prediction of civil war:

"No sorry Bobert, for there to be a civil war one faction has to have another to fight, and that other faction, or factions have to fight back. Zarqawi, a Jordanian, is trying like hell to foment such a war, and has been for about two years now. In this he has failed."

Now where abouts in that paragraph have I stated that there will be no civil war in Iraq? Don't put words in my mouth.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 26 Feb 06 - 03:00 PM

The 'Stalingrad level' fighting has been predicted but not by Bobert.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 07:05 AM

Teribus--

Take off your rose-colored glasses for once--they're blinding you. It's not at all clear there will be no civil war in Iraq.

As I've explained before (too bad you only read your own absurdly Pollyanna sources), by far the most important factor will be whether many Sunnis feel part of the government which is eventually set up. If they don't, they will very likely strengthen the insurgency, which, contrary to your wishful thinking, is not in fact primarily due to outside agitators.

At this point they have withdrawn from the negotiations to form a unity government. The first step will be entice them back.

Even then, they have a list of amendments to the constitution which will need to be addressed. If these amendments are all rejected, Iraq is very likely back in the soup.

On top of this, the Kurds, to date, are still insisting on the referendum on whether Kirkuk will be part of "Kurdistan". The other factions oppose this.

American presssure--with Bush's signature stupidly clumsy approach-- on behalf of the Sunnis, has so far not helped.

Open your eyes, for once.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Amos
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 09:03 AM

U.S. Envoy in Baghdad Says Iraq Is on Brink of Civil War

Sectarian Fury in Iraq

Attack Destroys Golden Dome

Violence Erupts
(NY Times)


By EDWARD WONG
Published: February 24, 2006
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Feb. 25 - The American ambassador to Iraq said Friday that the country was on the precipice of full-scale civil war, and that Iraqi leaders would have to come together and compromise if they wanted to save their homeland.
The ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, made his remarks as sectarian fury in the streets appeared to ebb after two days of reprisals over the bombing of a major Shiite mosque. The violence prompted the most powerful Sunni Arab political group to suspend talks with Shiite and Kurdish politicians on forming a new government. "What we've seen in the past two days, the attack has had a major impact here, getting everyone's attention that Iraq is in danger," Mr. Khalilzad said in a conference call with reporters.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 01:55 AM

Bobert - 23 Feb 06 - 09:45 PM

Bobert's predictions are a bit off

"if the US attacked Iraq things would boil down to urban warfare..."

Hmmmmmmm? Urban warfare - No sorry Bobert, things are way, way off that. And not at all at the 'Stalingrad' levels you were predicting

"it would bring about a civil war in Iraq..."

Hmmmmmmm? Civil War - No sorry Bobert, for there to be a civil war one faction has to have another to fight, and that other faction, or factions have to fight back. Zarqawi, a Jordanian, is trying like hell to foment such a war, and has been for about two years now. In this he has failed.

By the bye Bobert, what happened to those 'Heads on sticks' that you predicted based on your 'word-on-the-street' - Hmmmmmmm?.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Feb 06 - 09:45 PM

What michaelr said...

Many of us said that if the US attacked Iraq things would boil down to urban warfare...

Hmmmmmmm?

Many of us siad that it would bring about a civil war in Iraq...

Hmmmmmmm?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Alba
Date: 23 Feb 06 - 08:55 PM

Thanks for posting Phot,

I am sure you see what is going on in Iraq quite differently from us here since you are actually there.
Take care of yourself..please
Warmest Wishes
Jude

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: michaelr
Date: 23 Feb 06 - 08:42 PM

What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?

Exactly what any sane person could have predicted before we went in, and many of us did. Check the threads on the lead-up to invasion.

Cheers,
Michael

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Feb 06 - 08:32 PM

Ron,

Just a couple of questions regarding something you seemed to deem important enough to broadcast to this site:

Instance of when the Iraqi Government requested that British Troops withdraw from Basra on a permanent basis.

Instance of when the British Government refused

Never happened Ron

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 10:50 PM

Teribus--

So you think it's hunky dory that local government in Basra no longer wants to co-operate with British forces there? And what's your take, Mr. Pollyanna, on the attack on the Dome?


More AP news--al Sistani "hinted...that religious militias could be given a bigger security role if the government cannot protect holy shrines".

One top Shiite political leader accused the US ambassador-- (through his warnings that the US would not continue to support institutions run by sectarian groups with links to armed militias)-- of sharing blame for the attack on the mosque. "These statements...gave the green light to terrorist groups", said Abdul Aziz al-Hakim.

Everything's just peachy in Iraq, right?

What planet are you living on?

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 04:14 PM

The bombing of the Askari shrine is very serious indeed. I remember back in 2004 when Muktadar Al Sadr and his 'troops' were assembled around the shrine guessing that the allied troops would not dare to violate this place.

The new enemy does not know such inhibitions. If Sarkawi admits to this outrage I guess that he won't survive much longer.

But one man knows already the truth. Ayatollah Chamenei (Iran) has blamed "the secret services of the occupiers and the zionists".

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 11:18 AM

Ah Ron,

First we had:
"From the Wall St Journal 18 Feb 2006--"Iraq demanded British troops depart Basra, calling their presence destabilizing. London refused".

OK Teribus, Doug R, BB et al--let's hear the Pollyanna spin on this one."

THAT HAS NOW BECOME:

"From MSNBC (Reuters) 21 Feb 2006 "Provincial officials in Basra said last week they would continue their suspension of relations with British forces in the region after the video of the beatings" (from a few years ago) "appeared".

Now, are you ready with your Pollyanna slant on this yet?"

So Ron, Iraq did not, nor has not EVER demanded that British Troops depart Basra. The WSJ got it wrong, maybe you should ask them if they appreciate the difference between a statement made by an Iranian Foreign Minister and an Iraqi Foreign Minister in the context of purely Iraqi matters.

Now in the first post you seem eager and full of expectation to hear what "spin" would be put on "this one". At the end of the second post you ask me - "Now, are you ready with your Pollyanna slant on this yet?". Sorry Ron but the "yet" seems to indicate that you believe that the two statements made in your posts are the same. I know, like Arne's, your english comprehension skills are a bit challenged, but I would have thought that even you could differentiate between:

A - A demand at national government level for British troops to be permanently withdrawn from Basra.

and

B - A statement that the local city council has decided to continue it's policy of non-co-operation with British Forces in Basra.

Now what was your point/question again?

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 08:08 AM

AP 22 Feb 2006--Breaking News.

Iraq Rebels Attack Famed Shrine: Golden Dome Toppled

Large protests erupted in Shiite parts of Baghdad and in cities throughout the Shiite heartland to the south.


This sounds very serious.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 07:20 AM

Teribus--

From MSNBC (Reuters) 21 Feb 2006 "Provincial officials in Basra said last week they would continue their suspension of relations with British forces in the region after the video of the beatings" (from a few years ago) "appeared".

Now, are you ready with your Pollyanna slant on this yet?

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 06 - 12:46 AM

Eh Ron?

BBC 17th February -

"IRAN calls for UK IRAQ pull-out

Tony Blair said UK troops were in IRAQ with the IRAQ government's backing.

IRAN's foreign minister has called for the "immediate withdrawal" of UK troops from Basra, in southern IRAQ.
Manouchehr Mottaki claimed the presense of the British was "destabilising" security in the city."

The WSJ Article that you referred to and which I have yet to find according to you states:

Wall St Journal 18 Feb 2006--"IRAQ demanded British troops depart Basra, calling their presence destabilizing. London refused".

Now the statements made do not appear to agree. In one report it is the Iranian Foreign Minister being quoted (BBC) and in the other there is an unnamed member of the Iraqi Government demanding the withdrawal of British Troops from Basra. The Prime Minister is reported by the BBC as stating that - "UK troops were in IRAQ with the IRAQ government's backing."

So exactly where is the BBC article agreeing with what you say was said in the WSJ?

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Feb 06 - 10:18 PM

Pretty feeble, Teribus. How about the BBC--which agreed with the WSJ? You still haven't deigned to provide a source to contradict either of these. I'd say the burden is on you.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Feb 06 - 12:03 PM

Haven't been able to find the article in the WSJ of the 18th February. The BBC article stated that it was the IRANIAN Foreign Minister who was demanding that British Troops leave. Now being the Iranian Foreign Minister means that he has got absolutely no say at all in what happens in any country other than his own - True?

Now I certainly know where Basra is and what country it is in. The more relevant question would be does the Wall Street Journal know?

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Feb 06 - 11:04 AM

Source please, Teribus. Are you saying both the WSJ and BBC have it wrong? Proof needed.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Phot
Date: 20 Feb 06 - 10:03 AM

We were rocketed and mortered, a few days ago, but we're all ok. There's a beautiful sunset tonight, it's been a very pleasant day really, warm sun, a few small clouds, and we've had a few Swallows flying round the camp.

Wassail!! Chris

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Feb 06 - 12:36 AM

No request for the British to leave Basra, or anywhere else, in Iraq has been made from the Government of Iraq. British Forces, all 8,000-odd of them remain deployed in the South of the country under the terms of a UN mandate and at the request of the Iraqi Government.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 12:13 PM

So BBC confirms exactly what I said--still waiting for the Pollyanna spin, Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 11:56 AM

Front page, Teribus. Basra. Are you aware which country Basra is in?

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 11:52 AM

Found nothing in the Wall Street Journal 18th February, but this on BBC 17th February -

"Iran calls for UK Iraq pull-out

Tony Blair said UK troops were in Iraq with the Iraqi government's backing
Iran's foreign minister has called for the "immediate withdrawal" of UK troops from Basra, in southern Iraq.
Manouchehr Mottaki claimed the presense of the British was "destabilising" security in the city."

The Iranian Government in Tehran are worried about growing unrest in their Shia Arab south western province of Khuzestan.