BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 06 May 07 - 04:31 AM

So what is your opinion of the new friendship between the U.S. and Syria?

I wouldn't trust Syria for one minute. They continue to provide assistance, money and training to Hamas, Hizbullah, and other terrorist groups. They are also increasing their weapons supply and building their military along the Israeli border. In fact, its the biggest build-up since 1973.

Politics makes strange bedfellows and oil provides the lubrication.

I can only hope that Israel sounds the alarm and people (regardless of religion) stand together to oppose American interference in the politics of the Middle East. I have a feeling that the U.S. is once again using the divide and conquer strategy. Wouldn't it be great if the Semitic people stood together and told the U.S. to go home and mind their own business?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 06 May 07 - 10:08 AM

Dianavan: Were you criticizing the administration for not talking to Syria?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 06 May 07 - 02:31 PM

No, but I am skeptical about the integrity of Syria. I think Bush is stupid enough to fall into a very big trap.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 07 May 07 - 12:56 AM

I thought you said he was so stupid he already fell into a trap.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 07 May 07 - 03:18 AM

He has.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 07 May 07 - 10:26 PM

Iraq: US, Iran may Talk Soon

TEHRAN (Fars News Agency)- Iraq's foreign minister said Sunday that he expects to soon see "substantive discussions" among US, Iranian and Iraqi diplomats on improving security and stability in his country. But it was unclear if the United States and Iran had agreed to a meeting.

"...Iran is close to the Shiite and Kurdish parties that dominate the US-backed Iraqi government. But tensions have been rising between Iran and the United States, which accuses Tehran of backing violence and secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons. Iran denies both allegations vehemently, stressing that this is the United States' Iraq policy which has stirred violence and fomented unrests in the war-torn country..

Zebari said Iraq took the initiative last year to act as the "interlocutor" between Tehran and Washington because "we have excellent relations with the Americans and with Iranians also."

In the last three or four years, he said, Iraq and its neighbors have held about 10 meetings.

"We don't want our country to be a battleground," Zebari said, so "we wanted to bring together" all the major international players who could make a difference.

The Iranians were initially reluctant to attend Friday's ministerial, but Zebari said when he went to Tehran and met President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other senior Iranian officials he told them, "this is a win-win conference for everybody" and it was in their interest to attend.

"I win, you win, the United States wins, nobody is going to lose anything - not face, not position, whatever," he said.

Zebari said he also told Ahmadinejad that "ironically your position with the United States is very similar on Iraq - support for the government, the legitimacy, majority rule, this is common."

As for the US decision to meet the Iranians, Zebari said, "it was a major decision by the US government, and it was very courageous, and I believe wise ... because whether we want it or not the United States is a key player, the Iraqi government is a player - it's our country, Iran is a player. So we must be realistic."..."

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8602130141

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 07 May 07 - 10:42 PM

Were we not promised that all diplomatic efforts would be exhausted BEFORE any invasion of Iraq?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 08 May 07 - 12:13 AM

At Sharm el-Sheikh, US focused on improving situation in Iraq
Tehran, May 6, IRNA

Head of Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Commission Alaeddin Boroujerdi said on Sunday that during the international conference on Iraq, the US had focused on drawing support from the Europeans to help improve situation in Iraq.

He told reporters that support for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maleki's government, giving momentum to the international campaign against terrorism were the achievements of the conference in Egypt on May 3-4.

He said that the conference threw weight behind those responsible for Iraqi security and strengthening Iraqi police and security forces.

Boroujerdi said that the final statement of the conference and the stance declared in it are in line with Iran's policies.

Concerning the statement of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice both before and after the conference, he said that President George W.

Bush's Administration has decided to resume relations with Iran.

"The US is expected to present a formal request for resumption of relations. However, there was no opportunity for such talks in Sharm el-Sheikh."
He said that Iran seeks reduction of security shortfalls and preventing bloodbath in Iraq with great importance.

He recalled recent visit to Baghdad of Secretary of Iranian Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) Ali Larijani and said that besides discussing political and security issues with Iraqi officials, Larijani prepared the ground for the families of the Iranian diplomats detained in Iraq to meet them.

http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-234/0705060546164937.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 May 07 - 11:04 PM

So Bourojerdi says the Bush administration has decided to resume relations with Iran.

That's nice.

Now what exactly does that mean?

And what exactly does the Bush administration say about this? Funny there's been no official declaration by said administration stating this--this would be huge news. And why do you suppose the Bush regime is flying under the radar on this?

I wonder if that statement is just diplomatic verbiage--neither full of sound and fury, nor signifying too awful much.

But that can't be. Dickey posted it, so it must be significant.   Because everything he notes is dripping with importance--otherwise he wouldn't post it. How could anybody doubt it?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 10 May 07 - 10:22 AM

Iraq Sunni VP "comforted" by recent govt talks

"BAGHDAD, May 10 (Reuters) - Iraq's Sunni vice president is "comforted" by recent meetings with political leaders aimed at advancing national reconciliation and addressing minority Sunni Arab concerns, his office said on Thursday.

Tareq al-Hashemi and other senior figures from Iraq's largest Sunni Arab bloc in parliament had warned they might quit the government of Shi'ite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki if their grievances were ignored.

Such a move would be disastrous for the Shi'ite-led government, both for defusing the Sunni Arab insurgency but also in trying to represent Iraq's main sects and ethnic groups.

But a surprise visit by U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney to Iraq appears to have helped soften the Sunni Arab stance.

On Wednesday, Cheney held roundtable talks with Hashemi, Maliki and President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd.

"Vice-President Tareq al-Hashemi was comforted by the results of recent meetings with political officials that witnessed intense political movement," a statement from his office said without elaborating on what that movement was.

"(Hashemi) described it as a step in the right direction, even though there is still a long way to go to resolve all the diffences.""

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/KHA034309.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 May 07 - 06:45 PM

Congratulations, Dickey you've finally figured out what a reliable source is--Reuters definitely fits. Now if you can restrict yourself to Reuters, UPI, AP--sorry--your favorite right-wing blogs don't fit. And I'm afraid I can't trust you to cite the Wall St Journal--you'd have to know the difference between editorials and reporting--something which seems to be beyond the ken of Bushites.

Of course the article you cite--another of your patented Pollyanna reports--sounds just wonderful.

Except that it's a long road to stability in Iraq--and for every one of your pieces of happy happy news, I could cite a pile of articles on the other side.

And patience, including on the part of Republican senators and Congressmen, is running out.

It must make you happy to see your own postings--since I'm afraid your contributions do nothing else. You convince nobody.


To return to Iraq--particularly of interest, as I've said before, will be whether "Kurdistan" is willing to share its oil income with the rest of "Iraq". And if not, what will stop the Shiites from pushing for a similar arrangement in the south of "Iraq"?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 11 May 07 - 11:24 PM

Talabani: Iraq still needs coalition forces

US and British troops need to stay in Iraq for another one to two years, the Iraqi president, Jalal Talabani, said today.

The statement came as the Bush administration faced increasing pressure to withdraw its presence in the country.

"I think in one or two years we will be able to recruit our own army forces and say goodbye to our friends," Mr Talabani told students during a visit to Cambridge University.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2077474,00.html

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 12 May 07 - 12:32 AM

Two years pooshmeers.

we were told 6 days, six weeks i dont think six months
then we were told out by july
then we were told no time tables
then we hear that people are talking in secret about minimum 15 years
if you believe this bullshit, i am sorry for you

wanna buy some land?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 May 07 - 06:20 AM

WSJ 11 May 2007: "In Baghdad, a majority of lawmakers backed a proposal by Shiite militia chieftain Sadr's bloc calling for freezing the US troop buildup and a timetable for withdrawal."


Dickey----This is very likely far more significant than all your rosy scenario contributions put together.

If the majority of the Iraqi legislature want a freeze on US forces--and a timetable on withdrawal, what, pray tell, will Bush do about that?

Sounds like it's not the US Congress which is being "defeatist".

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 13 May 07 - 12:44 PM

Iraq MPs gather votes to force U.S. withdrawal
Tehran Times May 13, 2007

BAGHDAD (AFP) -- Iraqi MPs are gathering votes to force their government to set a deadline for U.S. forces to withdraw from the country and think they have a majority, a leading Shiite politician said on Friday.

Baha al-Aaraji, a supporter of radical anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, told AFP that 144 members of the 275-seat national assembly had signed a draft law that would set a departure timetable for U.S. troops.

However, other legislators said the bill would probably be watered down before becoming a non-binding petition, and that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki would martial enough support to renew the U.S. mandate next month.

"The signatures have been submitted to the speaker of parliament and, after that, a committee chaired by me was formed," Aaraji said.

Aaraji's committee has asked Iraq's defense, interior and national security ministries to suggest a date by which their forces will be ready to take charge of security operations currently overseen by U.S. forces.

"We've received two answers and now the committee is holding a series of meetings. We could finish within the next few days, and then the law will be discussed and voted on," Aaraji said.

"Many people support it. I signed it myself," said Kurdish MP Mahmud Othman, while insisting that most members regard the vote as a non-binding petition rather than a law that would require a withdrawal.

Othman said Sadr's supporters were focusing too hard on the withdrawal side of the bill while others, despite supporting the draft, mainly sought a role for the Baghdad parliament in making the eventual decision.

"They want to build Iraqi forces to take over when the Americans withdraw while they are withdrawing American forces. The two processes go hand in hand," he said, while confirming his support for a timetable.

"A majority of parliamentarians want this objective timetable agreed upon between Iraqis and Americans," he said.

The moves in Iraq's parliament mirror those in Washington, where a Democrat-controlled Congress has attempted to force President George W. Bush to set a date to begin bringing home the 142,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

But so far both Bush and Maliki have argued that withdrawal must depend on the security conditions, and that setting an arbitrary deadline would be dangerous.

Bush has already vetoed one U.S. bill tying military funding to a timetable and Maliki could refuse to endorse any law passed by his parliament.

Opinion polls show that a majority of both American and Iraqi voters favor a U.S. troop pull-out, although there must be some caution over the accuracy of surveys conducted amid the chaos in Iraq.

The U.S. commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, has promised to report back to Washington in September on whether his strategy of flooding an extra 28,000 troops into the Baghdad region is quelling the violence.

http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=5/13/2007&Cat=4&Num=003

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 13 May 07 - 12:47 PM

Please don't go, Haditha mayor tells U.S. Marines

Tony Perry Los Angeles Times May 13, 2007

HADITHA, Iraq -- The weather was desert hot. But the Pepsi was nicely cold. After acting the role of the gracious host, the mayor here made his point.

"The people of Germany and Japan would not have made progress without the Americans," Mayor Abdul Hakim M. Rasheed told the U.S. Marine officers who recently came to his heavily guarded home. "The people of Iraq deserve the same."

The Marines, including three generals, assured Rasheed that they had no plans to abandon him and his city. Don't be distracted by the political debate in Washington, they urged Rasheed, who listened and nodded.

Since 2004, Iraq's western al-Anbar province -- the center of the Sunni-led insurgency -- has been the most dangerous part of the country for U.S. forces. But Marines here have been experiencing a respite in recent weeks. Attacks against Marines and soldiers are at their lowest point in four years...."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003705064_haditha13.html

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 15 May 07 - 10:04 AM

Japan extends support for U.S. in Iraq war
15 May 2007 Reuters

TOKYO, May 15 (Reuters) - Japan's parliament on Tuesday passed a bill extending air force support for the U.S.-led war in Iraq for another two years, despite opposition calls for the troops to be brought home...."

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/T284214.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 May 07 - 11:23 PM

Dickey--

So Japan is keeping its troops in Iraq. And how many troops are we talking about? Pardon me for not jumping up and down in delight--even though you evidently feel this is news of burning importance.

Gee, I wonder why we get the feeling that you are desperately grasping at straws in a pathetic attempt to convince yourself that the Iraq war is going just fine. I'm sure there must be another reason for your behavior--though it's unclear what it might be.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 15 May 07 - 11:35 PM

It tells you right in that article Ron.

Here is another one you can whine about:

Brown rejects immediate pullout from Iraq

LONDON: Britain's leader-in-waiting Gordon Brown rejected an immediate pullout of the country's troops from Iraq on Sunday as he defended himself against two left-wingers who want to challenge him for the leadership.

Brown clashed on foreign and domestic policy with left-wing lawmakers Michael Meacher and John McDonnell during a lively 80-minute debate before an audience in London. Meacher, 67, and McDonnell, 55, the only other politicians so far to put their names forward, will decide on Monday which has the best chance of winning the support of 45 lawmakers required to get on the ballot. The other will drop out.

Brown, 56, stuck closely to the reformist "New Labour" policies that brought Blair three election victories, portraying his rivals as seeking to return to old Labour tax-and-spend policies that proved its downfall in the 1980s.

British media has been buzzing with talk that Brown may speed up withdrawal of British troops from Iraq, the conflict that many Britons regard as the biggest stain on Blair's legacy.

But Brown defended the presence of British troops in Iraq and ruled out any immediate withdrawal. British troop numbers in Iraq had fallen substantially but Britain had obligations to the Iraqi people, he said.

"Whatever the divisions have been it would be the wrong time now to just say: 'Send troops home now'," he said. "We're moving to a new stage in Iraq," he said, because Iraq had taken over security in three of the four provinces that Britain took charge of after the 2003 US-led invasion.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C05%5C15%5Cstory_15-5-2007_pg4_7

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 15 May 07 - 11:44 PM

Surging Ahead in Iraq
By MAX BOOT WSJ May 15, 2007

"...The reality is that Iraq has been experiencing a fairly low-grade civil war until now -- one that has been contained by the presence of U.S. troops. While the troop surge in Baghdad hasn't yet decreased the overall level of violence -- suicide bombings, which are notoriously difficult to stop, remain undiminished -- the presence of more Iraqi and American troops on the streets has managed to reduce sectarian murders by two-thirds since January. Sunni fanatics are still able to set off their car bombs, but Shiite fanatics are not able to respond in kind by torturing to death 100 Sunnis a night. In other words, the surge is containing the results of the suicide bombings, slowing the cycle of violence that last year was leading Iraq to the brink of the abyss.

If U.S. troops were to pull out anytime in the foreseeable future, the probable result would not be (as so many advocates of withdrawal claim) that Iraqis would "get their act together" and take care of their problems themselves. The far more likely consequence would be an all-out civil war. Not only would this be a humanitarian tragedy for which the U.S. would bear indirect responsibility, but it would also be a catastrophe for American interests in the region. If we are seen as the losers in Iraq, al Qaeda would be seen as the winner. The perception of American weakness fed by a pullout would lead to increased terrorism against the U.S. and our allies, just as occurred following our withdrawal from Somalia in 1993 and from Beirut in 1983...."

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 May 07 - 11:52 PM

Dickey--


I read the Max Boot column--and before you, I suspect--since I read the WSJ every day but Sunday. Sorry, a Max Boot column in the WSJ is not what is called a reliable source--at least not in circles of thinking individuals--though perhaps in yours.

And we'll see what Mr. Brown actually does when he takes over. Perhaps it has escaped your eagle eye that he is not yet PM.

Your thrashing around is fitfully amusing--but I'm afraid, not very convincing--except if your goal is convince us that my analysis of your behavior is accurate.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 May 07 - 11:53 PM

"your goal is to convince us"

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 16 May 07 - 09:17 AM

I am glad Ron is so easily amused.

Something else for him to lamely try to discredit and spin his way:

Outside View: Iraqi Compromise Plan
By Marianna Belenkaya May 16, 2007

"...Indicative in this respect is an article by Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari published by The Washington Post on May 4. The title of the article addressed to the world community, above all the Americans and the Brits, speaks for itself: "Don't Abandon Us." The gist of the article is that despite the difficult situation, life in Iraq is turning back to normal in all spheres -- from security to the economy.

The minister admits that "small but significant snippets of normality are overshadowed by acts of gross violence, which fuel the opinion of some that Iraq is in downward spiral" and that some claim that the war "is all but lost." But he goes on to say that the situation is improving, albeit slowly, and appeals to the world to remain engaged in Iraq so as to help it preserve its achievements.

By asking the world not to "abandon" Iraq, Zebari primarily objects to a multinational troop withdrawal, although he also seeks economic and political support for Iraq by the West and neighboring countries.

It is difficult to say whether Zebari has painted a true picture of Iraqi achievements. Only the Iraqis themselves can judge it. Their testimonies in the world media do not sound so optimistic. But the foreign minister is right -- Iraq needs international support. A foreign troop withdrawal should match the interests of the Iraqi people and enhance world security. It should not be tailored to suit British or American voters or promote political ambitions.

There is no doubt that Iraqis themselves have different views on the foreign military presence in their country. The world community understands that the mandate of the multinational force in Iraq cannot be extended forever. But how to prevent a pullout from turning into flight, which would unleash terror in Iraq?..."

http://www.postchronicle.com/news/security/article_21281015.shtml

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 16 May 07 - 06:54 PM

"There is no doubt that Iraqis themselves have different views on the foreign military presence in their country. The world community understands that the mandate of the multinational force in Iraq cannot be extended forever. But how to prevent a pullout from turning into flight, which would unleash terror in Iraq?..."

For one thing, the U.S. could start by allowing diplomatic relations between Iran and Iraq to proceed without interference.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 May 07 - 09:50 PM

Yes, Dickey, your arguments are amusingly weak. But don't put too high a number on your entertainment value. Remember, I said "fitfully amusing". Perhaps you need to make another trip to the dictionary.

But I do look for humor anywhere I can find it. It's a good approach to life--you might want to try it.



Perhaps you can take some time off from your busy schedule-- of flooding Mudcat with meaningless articles-- to actually find some evidence of follow-through by Maliki on the issues of purging the police of militias and assuring that the Sunnis get more oil income than will accrue to just the "Sunni parts" of Iraq.

If these issues seem familiar, perhaps it's because I've been hammering away at them for over a year--yet somehow you, Teribus, and the other giant intellects who comprise the Bushite cheering section of Mudcat still don't seem to understand that these issues are the crux of any Iraq settlement. No spin involved--so sorry if you don't like it. Facts can be unpleasant things to those who subscribe, as Bush supporters do, to "ignorance is bliss".

And don't bother with your pious pronouncements about how these issues are being discussed. Talk is cheap. It would be nice to see some action.

Your every posting makes it clearer that my analysis of 15 May 2007 11:23 PM is accurate.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 16 May 07 - 11:20 PM

Ron:

If they are so weak and meaningless, why do you feel compelled to disprove them? Why would a superior person like you waste your time?

Anybody with ultimate intelligence like your self must have many meaningful things to do besides trying to dispell things that you consider totally worthless.

Could it be that you are the type of person that must reign supreme?

You must have everyone agree with you or you barrage them with personal insults as some sort of punishment? I heard that that is symptom of insecurity.

Sorry about your delicate bruised ego but:

Iraq a terrorist Disneyland if US goes
Reuters | Wednesday, 15 May 2007

LONDON: A US troop pullout from Iraq would leave the country as a potent launch pad for international terrorism and Washington would be forced to go back in within a couple of years, a leading al Qaeda expert said.

Rohan Gunaratna told a security conference at Lloyd's of London insurance market that Iraq, like Afghanistan in the 1990s, would become a "terrorist Disneyland" where al Qaeda could build up its strength unchallenged.

If US, British and other coalition troops withdrew from Iraq in the next year, he said, "certainly the scale of attacks that would be mounted inside Iraq, and using Iraq as a launching pad to strike other Western countries – countries in Europe, North America – would become such that after two or three years, the US forces will have to go back to Iraq"...

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL1560349920070515

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 17 May 07 - 01:34 AM

"certainly the scale of attacks that would be mounted inside Iraq, and using Iraq as a launching pad to strike other Western countries –countries in Europe, North America ..."

Who do you think created this nightmare, Dickie?

I'll give you a hint, it wasn't Saddam.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 17 May 07 - 08:41 AM

It could be al Qaeda or Hezbollah. Maybe both.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 17 May 07 - 11:57 PM

"a war between the terrorists and the U.S."

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. So all of the reports about the Sunnis and Shia attacking each other are wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 May 07 - 11:22 AM

Dickey--

Still having problems sticking to the topic?--a common Bushite failing. You were going to tell us about concrete steps--not just talk--the Maliki government has taken to reassure Sunnis on the issues of trusting the police and oil revenue distribution.

If you don't think these are crucial, you need to do more reading--unsurprisingly.

Still waiting patiently.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 May 07 - 11:23 AM

But don't worry, Dickey. You're still sporadically (look it up) amusing.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 20 May 07 - 11:37 AM

"You were going to tell us about concrete steps"

This is your false assertion (look it up)that you amuse yourself with.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 May 07 - 11:42 AM

Dickey--


"Assertion?" Is that a big word for you?

Exactly why are the issues I have raised not crucial in determining Iraq's future? And what concrete steps--not just talk-- has Maliki taken to solve them?


Fair warning: I will not let you go until you answer directly.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 21 May 07 - 11:20 AM

Dear Ron:

I have not asserted that Mr Maliki has done anything to solve any issues. Nor have I asserted that the issues you have raised are not crucial.

I don't think Maliki had done a particularly good job but he was elected to the job.

I agree with you in most respects but I can't get anybody to predict with any detail of what will happen afer the US pulls out of Iraq.

I heard that they "will sort it out" but that does not provide much information. If you throw two pit bulls into a pit, they will sort it out too.

Personally I am looking forward to the day that the US can leave. The sooner the better. I can hardly wait. I would even welcome having the Iraqis tell the US to leave. I am definately not in favor of staying there forever.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 May 07 - 09:01 PM

One irony of the situation is that Maliki didn't really want the job--he had to be persuaded to take it. I bet he curses that day.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 21 May 07 - 10:14 PM

"I agree with you in most respects but I can't get anybody to predict with any detail of what will happen afer the US pulls out of Iraq."

Bullshit.

I gave you a one word answer - chaos.

You bitched so I gave you a nice long one.

Go google it up and re-read.

And I'll never do it again, because all you ever give is simple (simplistic) answers, and then claim they are complete. "A stable government". Sheesh.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 22 May 07 - 02:26 AM

I'll tell you Ron, I don't know why in the hell anybody takes that type of job. Nobody can make them all happy.

But when the troops first rolled in, the Iraqis greeted them asked "you are not going to leave us are you?" and the answer was no.

The ideal thing would be to whack it up into three states but the Sunnis would not agree to that because they would be getting the shit end of the stick.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 22 May 07 - 02:50 PM

Tia:

Is this what you are refering to Tia?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA - PM
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 11:07 AM

I had already posted the link when you told me it was a non-existent site.

First on 1/25/07 at 11:45 not as clicky, then again at 1/25/07 11:46 as clicky.

It has been there all along my good fella.

---

I read through 7 pages and I didn't see anything about waht happens if the US pulls out now. It was a wild goose chase.

Please cut and paste it or put it in your own words (as opposed to word).

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 22 May 07 - 03:55 PM

More important things to do than duplicate for you...

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 23 May 07 - 11:35 AM

If you are so busy, why do you take the time to tell me you are too busy. Why do you take any time at all to post here?

You gave no explanation of what would happen if the US pulls out of Iraq other than "chaos"

Your description of what was at the link did not say anything about the aftermath:

January GQ has a fascinating look at what was going on inside the US Government in the run-up to the Iraq invasion… from a Republican (Chuck Hagel) who voted for the war-authorizing resolution, and supported the invasion until recently.

Note in particular his comments on:

the wording of the resolution as it was sent to Congress by the Bush Administration- asking for authorization to go to war *anywhere in the Middle East*!!!!! (hmmmm Iran, Syria??)

the honesty of Bush's pre-war WMD claims

(both are on page 3)."

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 23 May 07 - 03:00 PM

A) I don't know what the hell you are talking about.
B) Takes far less time to blow you off than do your homework.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 23 May 07 - 04:24 PM

You seem to think that chaos would occur if the U.S. pulled out. What do you think is occurring presently? What difference does it make if its chaos caused by the U.S. invasion or chaos created by Muslims? You see, Dickie, either way, there will be chaos.

On the other hand, the chaos that might occur after the U.S. leaves will probably be of a much shorter duration.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 23 May 07 - 10:14 PM

Thank you dianavan. That was my point months ago (the point that Dickey claims He never heard...and in fairness, he probably didn't). You just said it far more clearly in far fewer words. It still won't sink into those who need it (and say they wanted it). But kudos and thanks anyhow.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 24 May 07 - 09:55 AM

"You seem to think that chaos would occur if the U.S. pulled out."

Someone else claimed that. I gave a more detailed description of what I "think" would happen but others will not say what they think other than one word answers.

"We predicted this shit the Friday before the game" Go ahead and cut loose with some more predictions.

Tia:

You have expended a lot of much time trying to say I did not do my home work when in fact you did not do what you said you did.

If you are so busy, why not take a short cut and cut and past what you claim you gave a link to rather than spend all this time saying it is my fault?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 24 May 07 - 10:17 AM

So sorry. gotta run. Teaching a pig to sing.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 24 May 07 - 03:58 PM

So Dickey - You seem to think that if the U.S. pulls out, it will be an all out war between Sunni and Shia or that Iraq will become a launch pad for al Qaeda. Which is it?

Has it ever ocurred to you that Iraq may be able to sustain the democratically elected majority Shiite government with the help of Iran?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 24 May 07 - 11:57 PM

"Has it ever ocurred to you that Iraq may be able to sustain the democratically elected majority Shiite government with the help of Iran?"

Not with al-Qaeda in the picture.

Does Lebanon sustain a democratically elected majority government with the help of the Hezbollah proxy of Iran?

Where are your predictions? I gave mine. TIA has ducked hers.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 25 May 07 - 02:12 AM

Dickey - Al qaeda would have no interest in Iraq if the U.S. would leave. Iraq is being used as a battleground for a conflict between the U.S. and al Qaeda. There would be no reason for al Qaeda to overthrow the Iraqi government. The U.S. is just making matters worse.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 25 May 07 - 09:13 AM

What interest did al-Qaeda have in Afghanistan? The US left out of there after they helped them drive out the Russians.

al-Qaeda trying to establish a base elsewhere.

al-Qaeda is in Lebanon stirring up shit there. Is that because the US military is there?

Who should pull out of Lebanon so al-Qeada would loose interest and go home? Where would al-Qaeda go home to?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 25 May 07 - 09:26 AM

Why is al-Qaeda in Somalia? Morroco? Algeria? Indonesia? Phillipines? India?