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

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 25 May 07 - 01:25 PM

You answered your own question, Dickey. The U.S. cannot invade countries just because of an al Qaeda presence. The U.S. should not subject the Iraqi people to their war on terrorism. If they want to fight terrorism, they will have to destroy the training camps. Why isn't the U.S. concentrating their effort on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan?

Oh, I get it. There is no war on terrorism. Its just an excuse to create a new world order.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 25 May 07 - 02:58 PM

Dickey - I can't be bullied, and even if I could, and wasted time arguing around in circles with you, you would still be proven wrong by history. So why should anyone listen to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 26 May 07 - 12:08 AM

Dianavan:

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?

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

You have answered nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 26 May 07 - 12:18 AM

Why was Al Qaeda originally formed? There is one specific, self-professed reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 27 May 07 - 03:40 PM

Al-Qaeda's was formed to eliminate foreign influence in Muslim countries, eradication "infidels" (that includes you), elimination of Israel, and the creation of a new Islamic caliphate, Islamic government representing the political unity and leadership of the Muslim world.

World domination of Muslim fundamentalisim.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 27 May 07 - 03:43 PM

Songs for pigs:

Who's afraid of the big bad wolf
Big bad wolf, big bad wolf?
Who's afraid of the big bad wolf?
Tra la la la la

Long ago there were three pigs
Little handsome piggy-wigs
For the big, bad very big very bad wolf
They didn't give three figs

Number one was very gay
And he built his house of hay
With a hey hey toot
He blew on his flute
And he played around all day

Number two was fond of jigs
And so he built his house with twigs
Heigh diddle-diddle
He played on his fiddle
And danced with lady pigs

Number three said "Nix on tricks
I will built my house with bricks"
He had no chance
To sing and dance
'Cause work and play don't mix

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: TIA
Date: 29 May 07 - 11:58 AM

Sorry, you have expanded beyond their original self-professed origins to include the propaganda you so eagerly devour.

Al-Quaeda was formed to protect muslim countries from "outside invaders". There were some members who also thought that Al-Quaeda should try to overthrow non-islamist governments in muslim countries. There was no original intent to attack the US or the west in the US or the west.

The US only became a target when thousands of US service people were stationed, during Desert Storm, at an airbase that Bin Laden thought was too close to Mecca. At the time, Bin Laden wanted to use Al-Quaeda as the base (literal tranlsation BTW) of an all-muslim force to drive Hussein from Kuwait.

So, the history of Al-Quaeda does not support your propaganda version. They were enemies of Hussein. They were not enemies of the US until we stationed infidel soldiers too close to their holiest site. The soldiers are now gone. That base is now closed. We got rid of Hussein for them. We conveniently ship infidels to Iraq for Al-Quaeda live-target training. They have been given everything they want.

Shall we "Stay The Course"?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 30 May 07 - 01:14 AM

Here it is from the al-qaeda training manual:

In the name of Allah, the merciful and compassionate To those champions who avowed the truth day and night And wrote with their blood and sufferings these phrases.

The confrontation that we are calling for with the apostate regimes does not know Socratic debates Platonic ideals, nor Aristotelian diplomacy. But it knows the dialogue of bullets, the ideals of assassination, bombing, and destruction, and the diplomacy of the cannon and machine-gun.

Islamic governments have never and will never be established through peaceful solutions and cooperative councils. They are established as they [always] have been by pen and gun by word and bullet by tongue and teeth..."

After the fall of our orthodox caliphates on March 3, 1924 and after expelling the colonialists, our Islamic nation was afflicted with apostate rulers who took over in the Moslem nation. These .rulers turned out to be more infidel and criminal than the colonialists themselves. Moslems have endured all kinds of harm, oppression, and torture at their hands.

Those apostate rulers threw thousands of the Haraka Al-Islamyia (IslamicMovement) youth in gloomy jails and detention centers that were equipped with the most modern torture devices and [manned with] experts in oppression and torture. Those youth had refused to move in the rulers' orbit, obscure matters to the youth, and oppose the idea of rebelling against the rulers. But they [the rulers] did not stop there; they started to fragment the essence of the Islamic nation by trying to eradicate its Moslem identity. Thus, they started spreading godless and atheistic views among the youth. We found some that claimed that socialism was from Islam, democracy was the [religious] council, and the prophet-God bless and keep him-propagandized.

Colonialism and its followers, the apostate rulers, then started to openly erect crusader centers, societies, and organizations like Masonic Lodges, Lions and Rotary clubs, and foreign schools. They aimed at producing a wasted generation that pursued everything that is western and produced rulers, ministers, leaders, physicians, engineers, businessmen, politicians, journalists, and information specialists....."

Unbelief is still the same. It pushed Abou Jahl- may Allah curse him-and Kureish's valiant infidels to battle the prophet God bless and keep him and to torture his companions may Allah's grace be on them.
It is the same unbelief that drove Sadat, Hosni Mubarak, Gadhafi, Hafez Assad, Saleh, Fahed -Allah's curse be upon the non-believing leaders and all the apostate Arab rulers to torture, kill, imprison, and torment Moslems. These young men realized that an Islamic government would never be established except by the bomb and rifle. Islam does not coincide or make a truce with unbelief, but rather confronts it.
The confrontation that Islam calls for with these godless and apostate regimes, does not know Socratic debates, Platonic ideals nor Aristotelian diplomacy. But it knows the dialogue of bullets, the ideals of assassination, bombing, and destruction, and the diplomacy of the cannon and machine-gun. ..."

http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/manualpart1_1.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 30 May 07 - 02:37 AM

Dickey - READ CAREFULLY

"After the fall of our orthodox caliphates on March 3, 1924 and after expelling the colonialists, our Islamic nation was afflicted with apostate rulers who took over in the Moslem nation. These .rulers turned out to be more infidel and criminal than the colonialists themselves. Moslems have endured all kinds of harm, oppression, and torture at their hands."

Your quote confirms what TIA said, al Qaeda "was formed to protect muslim countries from "outside invaders". There were some members who also thought that Al-Quaeda should try to overthrow non-islamist governments in muslim countries. There was no original intent to attack the US or the west in the US or the west."

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 31 May 07 - 11:40 PM

Sunnis revolt against al-Qaida in Iraq
By STEVEN R. HURST Associated Press Writers Thu, May. 31, 2007

BAGHDAD --
U.S. troops battled al-Qaida in west Baghdad on Thursday after Sunni Arab residents challenged the militants and called for American help to end furious gunfire that kept students from final exams and forced people in the neighborhood to huddle indoors.

Backed by helicopter gunships, U.S. troops joined the two-day battle in the Amariyah district, according to a councilman and other residents of the Sunni district.

The fight reflects a trend that U.S. and Iraqi officials have been trumpeting recently to the west in Anbar province, once considered the heartland of the Sunni insurgency. Many Sunni tribes in the province have banded together to fight al-Qaida, claiming the terrorist group is more dangerous than American forces.

Three more U.S. soldiers were reported killed in combat, raising the number of American deaths to at least 122 for May, making it the third deadliest month for Americans in the conflict. The military said two soldiers died Wednesday from a roadside bomb in Baghdad and one died of wounds inflicted by a bomb attack northwest of the capital Tuesday.

Lt. Col. Dale C. Kuehl, commander of 1st Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment, who is responsible for the Amariyah area of the capital, confirmed the U.S. military's role in the fighting in the Sunni district. He said the battles raged Wednesday and Thursday but died off at night.

Although al-Qaida is a Sunni organization opposed to the Shiite Muslim-dominated government, its ruthlessness and reliance on foreign fighters have alienated many Sunnis in Iraq.

The U.S. military congratulated Amariyah residents for standing up to al-Qaida.

"The events of the past two days are promising developments. Sunni citizens of Amariyah that have been previously terrorized by al-Qaida are now resisting and want them gone. They're tired of the intimidation that included the murder of women," Kuehl said.

A U.S. military officer, who agreed to discuss the fight only if not quoted by name because the information was not for release, said the Army was checking reports of a big al-Qaida enclave in Amariyah housing foreign fighters, including Afghans, doing temporary duty in Iraq.

U.S.-funded Alhurra television reported that non-Iraqi Arabs and Afghans were among the fighters over the past two days. Kuehl said he could not confirm those reports.

The heaviest fighting came at 11 a.m. when gunmen - identified by residents as al-Qaida fighters - began shooting randomly into the air, forcing people to flee into their homes and students from classrooms.

http://www.sunherald.com/311/story/66573.html

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 31 May 07 - 11:46 PM

That's still not *here* is it?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 31 May 07 - 11:51 PM

Dianavan:

"after expelling the colonialists, our Islamic nation was afflicted with apostate rulers who took over in the Moslem nation."

It says apostate rulers who took over, not outsiders.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 31 May 07 - 11:53 PM

Al-Qaeda's objectives: eliminate foreign influence in Muslim countries, destroy infidels, and create a new Islamic state.

http://134.210.115.43/manila/gems/crossfs/CNNpresentsIntheFootstepsofb.doc

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 01 Jun 07 - 01:43 AM

In this context, apostate rulers mean those that have given up the Muslim faith. It means exactly the same thing as, "There were some members who also thought that Al-Quaeda should try to overthrow non-islamist governments in muslim countries."

Are you really that stupid or are you just trying to drive people crazy by acting stupid?

I'm giving up on you, Dickey. Its like talking to a wall.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 01 Jun 07 - 09:02 AM

Worse!

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 01 Jun 07 - 11:42 AM

Personal attacks in lieu of facts will prove your point everytime but you left out the Tra la la la la part.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 01 Jun 07 - 02:23 PM

And you supplied it for us :)

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 01 Jun 07 - 03:24 PM

Your quote confirms what TIA said, al Qaeda "was formed to protect muslim countries from "outside invaders".

It says nothing about outside invaders.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 01 Jun 07 - 04:41 PM

No, that specific sentence may not, but if you read on just a tiny bit in your own cut-n-paste it does...

"Colonialism and its followers, the apostate rulers, then started to openly erect crusader centers, societies, and organizations like Masonic Lodges, Lions and Rotary clubs, and foreign schools."

No matter how you try to parse it, your posting thoroughly agrees with mine. Ouch.

Just a reminder, "colonialism" is pretty much synonymous with "outside invaders" - in this context and most others that I can think of.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 02 Jun 07 - 01:38 AM

Do you always get so adversarial when someone disagrees with you and asks question of you?

I was asked something and I gave an answer. I have asked what will happen if the US pulls out of Iraq and I get one word answers and a wild goose chase. Now in retaliaton I get an argument about something else.

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

From: Dickey - PM
Date: 26 May 07 - 12:08 AM

Dianavan:

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

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?

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

You have answered nothing.


Tell me which part of this is not true:

Al-Qaeda's was formed to eliminate foreign influence in Muslim countries, eradication "infidels" (that includes you), elimination of Israel, and the creation of a new Islamic caliphate, Islamic government representing the political unity and leadership of the Muslim world.

According to this CNN special, UBL got pissed at the US because SA asked the US for help and turned him down:

CNN presents In the Footsteps of bin Laden, with Christiane Amanpour.

IV.        Birth of al Qaeda—1988-1990

He helped achieve victory over the Soviets. He was a hero in Afghanistan. Now what?

Became allied with Ayman al-Zawahiri, an Eygptian radical who had been imprisoned by inciting violence in Egypt. Al-Zawahiri was critical secular govenments in the Middle East and wanted to overthrow govts to create more fundamental Islamic states.

Bin Laden's former mentor, Abdullah Azzan, was against this thinking as it put Muslim against Muslim.

Al Qaeda, meaning "The Base" is formed. Osama bin-Laden handles al-Qaeda's finances and al-Zawahiri handles strategic operations. Al-Qaeda's objectives: eliminate foreign influence in Muslim countries, destroy infidels, and create a new Islamic state.

V.        Iraq Invates Kuwait—1990

August 1990: Iraq, with Saddam Hussain at the helm, invades neighboring country of Kuwait. Saudi Arabia, also feeling threatened, asks the US for help.

Bin Laden volunteers his "army," but is reflused. Instead US troops land on Saudi soil.

Bin Laden goes nuts. The infidel is in the Holy land. He criticizes the royal family and loses favor with the govt there.

VI.        On the Brink 1991 – 1996

In Sudan. In the early 1990s, a radical govt opened its doors to extremists. Bin Laden attracted to Sudan as he is looking for an Islamic utopia. Working as a businessman. Sees himself as a holy man. He had been forced to flee SA for speaking out against the govt.

February 23, 1993, the WTC was attacked by a bomb in a truck in an underground parking garage. Arrests of men with links to bin Laden. Bin Laden denies responsibility, but his influences are indisputable.

Blind Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman had close ties to Ayman al-Zawahiri, a fellow Egyptian.

In 1994, Saudi Arabia froze his assets and his family publicly disowned him. In 1975, in an open letter to King Fahd, he denounced the royal family and their ties to the US. Shortly after, there was a bombing at Khobar Towers, an apartment complex in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, that housed many foreign military personnel, including Americans. Bomb killed 19 American servicemen and injured hundreds of all nationalities.

Bin Laden makes video applauding the action.

Pressure is put on the Sudanese govt to expel bin Laden. Bin Laden flees to Afghanistan.

VII.        The First Warning—1996 – 1998

Back to Afghanistan, where bin Laden feels comfortable, stripped of his Saudi citizenship, he mounts his war against the US.

Bin Laden had a media advisor. 1997, He gave CNN a TV interview. High security. Message is that the next war was against the US because the US policies are unjust. US civilians are not targets, but we cannot guarantee their safety.

May 1998 ABC interviews bin Laden. Bin Laden was using the media to get across his message. Ayman al-Zawahiri was also there. Show that al Qaeda is global. Message is that America is the biggest terrorist. He was foreshadowing the plan for 9/11. He was doing advanced publicity for 9/11. Predicting a black day for the US, after which the US will never be the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 02 Jun 07 - 11:46 AM

So why hasn't the U.S. been able to capture bin Laden.

Too many troops in Iraq?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 02 Jun 07 - 12:09 PM

Because he is hard to catch.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Jun 07 - 11:04 PM

"Do you always get so adversarial when someone disagrees with you and asks question of you?"

Nope.

Only when people seem to be intentionally obtuse, selectively quote, or use weasely wording.

If you are not consciously doing any of this, I apologize, and will no longer debate you.

Sincerely, not sarcastically.

Honest.

TIA

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 03 Jun 07 - 12:58 AM

Not to be obtuse, selective quoting or Weasely, I would like to know what would happen in Uraq if the US were to pull out.

I don't consider "chaos", a link to a site that does not answer the question or "they will sort it out" as a sufficient answer.

People here claim to have accurately predicted events in Iraq so they should be quite capable of making this prediction.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 03 Jun 07 - 03:28 AM

The Iraqis wanted Saddam out but they do not want U.S. occupation. They want to solve their own problems.

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

In that case dianavan why has the Government of Iraq requested the continued presence of the MNF on Iraq soil?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Jun 07 - 10:13 AM

Okay, no more make nice.

This is the stuff that makes people "adversarial"...

"The defeatiists here will go to their graves thinking surrender was the right thing to do."

And you can blather on all you want about wanting new predictions. Fact is, many here did predict exactly what is now happening in Iraq. They were entirely correct. You can whine for a new test all you want. They were correct.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 03 Jun 07 - 10:56 AM

I don't expect a prediction, just whining because a prediction was requested. Nobody advocating a withdrawal wants to say what the results might be.

Kurdish Demonstrators Back War Against Hussein but Want Gas Masks
The New York Times By C. J. CHIVERS January 29, 2003

SULAIMANIYA, Iraq, Jan. 28 — A small group of Kurds gathered outside a United Nations compound here today, voicing support for a war to remove President Saddam Hussein from power but demanding international help to protect Kurdish civilians from chemical or biological attacks.
    The demonstration, which included several survivors of previous chemical attacks by the Iraqi military, was modest in size and subdued in tone.
    The protesters simply stood quietly outside the compound, in a cold rain, holding photographs of their injured and their dead. But the undercurrent of support for war stood in relief to larger and more strident demonstrations occurring in nations around the world.
    "We want to change the Iraqi regime," said Dr. Fayaq Muhammad Golpi, a surgeon and head of the Anti-Chemical Weapons Society of Kurdistan, the nonprofit group that organized the event. "If this change is peaceful, it would be better than if there was war. But the change is necessary, even if this means fighting."
    The demonstration also brought to the surface the persistent public worry here about the Kurds' vulnerability to a chemical or biological strike by Mr. Hussein.
    Sulaimaniya, like the large Kurdish cities of Erbil and Dohuk, is a short drive from Iraqi Army positions. As Kurds count down the days to a war they expect to start soon, they know that this is a land virtually without chemical protective gear, where medical supplies are limited and specialized drugs to combat chemical injury are all but nonexistent.
    For example, there are nearly four million people in the region of northern Iraq that is beyond the control of Mr. Hussein's government. Recent tours of markets here found only about two dozen aging gas masks for sale in Erbil, many with cracked eyepieces and almost all with expired filters. In Sulaimaniya, merchants say a stock of about 200 masks sold out long ago.
    It comes as little surprise, then, that Kurds express deep misgivings about their fate at the hands of a desperate or vengeful President Hussein if the United States attacks Iraq.
    "We are afraid," said Muhammad Amin Abdullah, standing in a line of people holding photographs of Kurds killed in a chemical attack by Iraq on the town of Halabja in 1988.
    An estimated 5,000 Kurdish civilians died in that attack. In dozens of interviews in the last two months with Kurdish doctors and officials, all have said that Kurds are not much better protected today than they were then, and that to improve preparations they need outside help.
    To that end, demonstrators today delivered a letter to the United Nations asking for shipments of chemical protective equipment. Dr. Golpi, who treated victims of chemical attacks when he was with Kurdish guerrillas in the mountains in the 1980's, said the United Nations must also provide antibiotics, eyedrops, ointments and bandages.
    The supplies would be necessary, he said, if a significant number of people were injured by nerve or mustard gas, which Iraq used on Kurds in the 1980's, or biological agents, which Kurds believe that Iraq now possesses.
    United Nations officials here declined to comment on the request, citing a policy under which its employees are generally forbidden to speak with foreign journalists in northern Iraq.
    In Washington, an American official said the Bush administration was reviewing options to provide that kind of assistance. "We're looking at it very seriously," he said.
    The official said there were several possible obstacles, including restrictions in United Nations resolutions and American trade law on importing materials into Iraq, as well as concerns that some chemical defense gear could fall into the hands of Iraqi agents. But he added, "We're looking at it with an intent to be helpful."
    In recent weeks, people opposed to renewed military action in Iraq have demonstrated in scores of cities, including Montreal, London, Berlin, Frankfurt, Brussels, Sydney and Istanbul.
    Some demonstrators have used gimmicks, including 30 people who removed their clothes and lay down in a street in Britain, aligning their naked bodies to form the word peace.
    Kurds resorted to no such tricks. Unlike the demonstrators elsewhere, these Kurds expressed a sentiment that is common here. They said they lived close enough to Mr. Hussein to know his government and to fear it.
    They said they were willing to risk war to have him removed.
    Later in the day, flashes of Kurdish optimism returned. Abdul-Razzaq Mirza, the minister of relations and cooperation for the eastern Kurdish zone, said he was confident that even if no one else offered assistance to defend against chemical or biological attacks, the United States would do so before long.
    "They have not given it to us yet," he said. "But I am sure they are going to help us. They are not going to leave us to genocide again."

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Jun 07 - 12:18 PM

Thanks so much for yet another meaningless article, Dickey. So the Kurds were happy to see the invasion of Iraq. This is a revelation? I like apple pie. I expect you do too. Am I right--or are you a subversive defeatist who doesn't like it?

And as I've said before, "Kurdistan"--with Kirkuk and its oil-- which they will probably have by the end of this year---- is likely to be the fall-back position for the US. It's turning more and more Western-oriented--and secular--though Teribus chooses not to see this.

But that is no solution for Iraq--in fact may be a serious danger. If the Kurds in "Kurdistan" insist on continuing to make separate oil deals without regard to the Baghdad government--which they are now doing--and especially if they start withholding oil revenue from the central government, what is to stop the Shiites in the south from pushing for a similar arrangement?

If that happens, so much for any chance for Iraq as a unified state.

And the US has precious little influence to prevent any of this.

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

You are welcome, Master.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Jun 07 - 12:15 AM

"If the Kurds in "Kurdistan" insist on continuing to make separate oil deals without regard to the Baghdad government--which they are now doing--and especially if they start withholding oil revenue from the central government, what is to stop the Shiites in the south from pushing for a similar arrangement?

If that happens, so much for any chance for Iraq as a unified state.

And the US has precious little influence to prevent any of this." - From the "pen" of Ron (Look-It-Up) Davies.

Wait a minute Ron, I thought that the likes of yourself, dianavan, Foolestroupe, Akenaton, Stringsinger, et al (the anti-war, anti-Bush, trendy-left mob) were firmly of the opinion and belief that the US had stolen "Iraq's Oil". Now just because it suits your arguement, or some spurious and ill founded point you are trying to make, you say that - "the US has precious little influence to prevent any of this" when it comes to matters relating to Iraqi oil? Chose one horse or the other sunshine you can't ride both in this race.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 05 Jun 07 - 12:41 AM

If the U.S. is powerless to stop the division of Iraq, they will make sure they have access to the oil in Kurdistan.

Does that answer your question, teribus?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 05 Jun 07 - 11:58 AM

Since you have practically begged for it, and it seems sooooo important to you, here is my official prediction for what would happen if the US brings its troops home from Iraq.

There will be sectarian and ethnic violence of excatly the type we are seeing right now, but worse. Some Sunni and/or arab groups will be secratly backed by the Saudis. Some Shia groups will be secretly - or perhaps openly - backed by Iran.

This violence has been trying to happen for a thousand years or more, and has been forestalled by colonial powers, and then by Saddam. We are trying to prevent it, but do not have the cruel immorality to stop it the way Saddam did - by making everyone fear him more that "the others" they want to kill. We cannot stop it while we are there unless we become like Saddam.

If we leave, there will be a more open and bloody civil war than the one going on already (but there will be no US troops to target). Eventually it will stop, but the suffering will be huge. Look no further than Yugoslavia for the best recent analog.

There. Happy?

And, just remember, whether this particular prediction comes to pass or not, does not make you any less wrong about Iraq.

Bobert was right.

You were wrong.

We will see whether I am right or wrong.

Goodbye.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 05 Jun 07 - 10:47 PM

"...Responding to a request by the Iraqi Prime Minister [Maliki], the Security Council today extended the mandate of the multinational force in Iraq until the end of next year, deciding that it should be reviewed at the request of that country's Government or no later than 15 June 2007. The Council also declared that it would terminate the mandate earlier if requested by the Government of Iraq..."


http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8879.doc.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Jun 07 - 09:56 AM

Teribus--

So sorry I haven't had a chance to get to this recently.

You really need a course in reading, in the worst way. Oh, sorry--you already read in the worst way.

Please be so good as to cite one quote--or even an implication-- by me that "the US has stolen Iraq's oil" or plans to do so. Good luck. My observation-- that Sunnis in the Iraq parliament feel the proposed hydrocarbon law gives too much to international oil companies--was taken directly from the Wall St Journal. I don't make up events I report--perhaps you do?

I have consistently held to the proposition that it is essential that the Maliki government take Sunni concerns into consideration, and pointed out the vast difference between "Kurdistan"--which, as much as you refuse to admit it, is becoming more Western oriented--and secular-----and the rest of "Iraq". ("Kurdistan" is even making a pitch for foreigners--including Westerners-to come live in luxury gated communities it is building). General attitudes and oil arrangements between "Kurdistan" and the rest of "Iraq" differ drastically.

And, by the way, you continue your virtually perfect record of error with your assurance that Turkey would not attack "Kurdistan". As I pointed out, Turkey cannot forever let the PKK rebels operate with impunity. And, for obvious reasons, "Kurdistan" will not rein them in. The Turkish raids appear to be increasing in size. We can only hope that they will decrease when the internal Turkish political situation stabilizes. But it's fairly obvious that Turkey will not get EU membership anytime soon--so hope of that will be no brake.

I'm so sorry that you evidently feel left out that I don't tell you to look up words, as I tell Dickey. And here I thought you were an educated--if ego-chained-- person--and didn't such instruction. Guess I was wrong about the "educated" part.

And I hope you get more sleep--had to answer at 5:15 AM your time? Pobrecito.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Jun 07 - 09:57 AM

"didn't need such instruction."

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Jun 07 - 04:09 AM

"..they (the US) will make sure they have access to the oil in Kurdistan." - Dianavan

Care to let us in on how exactly?

Or do you mean that, if required, the US will buy oil from the Kurdish region of Iraq in exactly the same manner as anyone else paying market price for it?

The US certainly do not own it (Kurdish Oil), nor can they ever own the natural resources of any other sovereign state. Holding a licence to extract and operate an oilfield means exactly that, ownership of the resource remains national. The licence can be revoked at any time.

No US company holds any licence to extract oil from any oilfield in the Kurdish area of Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jun 07 - 04:26 AM

"Depending on how Iraq's petroleum law shakes out, the country's enormous reserves could break the back of OPEC, a wet dream in Western capitals for three decades. James Paul predicted that "even before Iraq had reached its full production potential of 8 million barrels or more per day, the companies would gain huge leverage over the international oil system. OPEC would be weakened by the withdrawal of one of its key producers from the OPEC quota system." Depending on how things shape up in the next few months, Western oil companies could end up controlling the country's output levels, or the government, heavily influenced by the United States, could even pull out of the cartel entirely."

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=97835&messages=637&page=1&desc=yes#2068792

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 10 Jun 07 - 04:26 AM

oops, that was me.

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

"The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is a permanent, intergovernmental Organization, created at the Baghdad Conference on September 10–14, 1960, by Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. The five Founding Members were later joined by nine other Members: Qatar (1961); Indonesia (1962); Socialist Peoples Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (1962); United Arab Emirates (1967); Algeria (1969); Nigeria (1971); Ecuador (1973–1992); Gabon (1975–1994) and Angola (2007). OPEC had its headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, in the first five years of its existence. This was moved to Vienna, Austria, on September 1, 1965.


OPEC's objective is to co-ordinate and unify petroleum policies among Member Countries, in order to secure fair and stable prices for petroleum producers; an efficient, economic and regular supply of petroleum to consuming nations; and a fair return on capital to those investing in the industry."

The above is quoted from OPEC' own website, so I assume that they know what they are talking about.

Now let's have a look at some of James Paul's predictions:

1) "OPEC would be weakened by the withdrawal of one of its key producers from the OPEC quota system."

OPEC is an "intergovernmental Organization" - It has got nothing to do with individual Oil Companies. Exactly when and where has Iraq (a founder member) intimated that it was going to leave OPEC, or even vaguely considered making such a move?

2) "Depending on how things shape up in the next few months, Western oil companies could end up controlling the country's output levels, or the government, heavily influenced by the United States, could even pull out of the cartel entirely."

Eh? No, that is not the way things work. OPEC Members, Government Ministers, agree production quotas. The Energy Ministries in the individual countries then tell those holding licences to produce what the production rates are to be. The individual oil companies cannot circumvent this in any OPEC country as to do so would be to run the risk of losing their licences.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 10 Jun 07 - 01:03 PM

What would happen if Iraq did leave OPEC?

Seems to me that although OPEC might not be weakened, the U.S. oil barons would benefit by not being restricted by OPEC regulations. Can you offer your ideas on the possibility?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Jun 07 - 01:23 PM

Exactly who are these "U.S. oil barons" who would benefit dianavan?

At present there are NO American oil companies present in Iraq.

I am at least encouraged that we have established the fact that the Government of Iraq has not mentioned any intention of pulling out of OPEC. The US has got no influence whatsoever on whether Iraq is a member of OPEC or not, so the "what if" conjecture is a pointless exercise.

But to return to one point of conjecture in your post relating to the U.S. oil barons:

"..the U.S. oil barons would benefit by not being restricted by OPEC regulations."

Now how do they benefit? By increasing production (if they could) and lowering the price per barrel? Hardly in their interests I would say.

In Iraq ALL pipeline transportation systems are OWNED by the State run Oil Company. Not one drop of Iraqi oil can go anywhere without their approval, they control the flow, not "the U.S. oil barons" (even if they were present in Iraq, which they are not), or the executives of the French, Russian and Chinese oil companies who are operating in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Jun 07 - 09:44 PM

So, Teribus, I note that you have come up with precisely no evidence that I said the US had stolen or would steal Iraq's oil. Nor have you found any information to contradict any of what I said in my last posting.

I certainly recognize that that doesn't stop you, as a Bushite in good standing, from making wild accusations. So now the question becomes--are both thinking and reading carefully against your religion? Since avoiding both seems to be your credo.

Certainly is good we know you're not a Western military fossil hopelessly out of his depth outside Europe. Otherwise, an uncharitable reader might suspect that.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 11 Jun 07 - 12:07 AM

In plain language - The U.S. wants Iraqi oil privatized.

"If the Iraqi Parliament refuses to pass the privatization legislation, Congress will withhold U.S. reconstruction funds that were promised to the Iraqis to rebuild what the United States has destroyed there."

I'm not going to bother to provide a source. I did that a few days ago. I guess you must have a problem with your visual memory.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Jun 07 - 12:43 AM

"If the Iraqi Parliament refuses to pass the privatization legislation, Congress will withhold U.S. reconstruction funds that were promised to the Iraqis to rebuild what the United States has destroyed there."

So dianavan it is the US House of Representatives and the US Senate that want Iraqi oil privatised. Nothing to do with GWB then as both houses are Democrat controlled.

One thing is for certain the "big bad western oil companies" are dead set against privatisation. Check out what Philip Carroll's views on the subject were and still are. He was the former CEO of Shell Oil USA who took control of Iraq's oil production for the US Government a month after the invasion.

Current US Government thinking, or at least that dating back to 2004, are revealed in documents obtained from the State Department by Newsnight and Harper's Magazine under the US Freedom of Information Act. They called for creation of a state-owned oil company favoured by the US oil industry. It was completed in January 2004 under the guidance of Amy Jaffe of the James Baker Institute in Texas.

"Questioned by BBC Newsnight, Ms Jaffe said the oil industry prefers state control of Iraq's oil over a sell-off because it fears a repeat of Russia's energy privatisation. In the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, US oil companies were barred from bidding for the reserves.

Ms Jaffe says US oil companies are not warm to any plan that would undermine Opec and the current high oil price: "I'm not sure that if I'm the chair of an American company, and you put me on a lie detector test, I would say high oil prices are bad for me or my company."

The former Shell oil boss agrees. In Houston, he told Newsnight: "Many neo conservatives are people who have certain ideological beliefs about markets, about democracy, about this, that and the other. International oil companies, without exception, are very pragmatic commercial organizations. They don't have a theology."

So the final upshot would appear to be that International Oil Companies do not, nor ever have, favoured privatisation, the administration of GWB does not favour privatisation and in fact is pushing for Iraq's oil industry to be run on a nationalised basis and it is only the Democrat controlled US Congress that is pushing for privatisation - (Don't think so, I believe dianavan has, as she has done in the past, dug up some ancient article and resurrected it.)

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 11 Jun 07 - 01:08 PM

"The law before the Iraq Parliament contains 3 vague lines about revenue sharing and 33 solid pages of a complex legal restructuring, facilitating the privatization of Iraq's oil resources. The sharing will not be 1/3 of 100%. The sharing is more likely to be 1/3 of 20% at most, after private oil interests take their cut. The stage is being set for theft on a historic scale."

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/22362

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Jun 07 - 07:38 PM

Ha ha ha ha ha. Read the whole article you link referred to plus the messages at the end.

Dianavan neither yourself or Congressman Dennis Kucinich has actually been able to tell any of us here on this Forum exactly how the "big bad, evil" USA is going to steal Iraq's oil. I am waiting for you, or him to do so. Must be awfuly difficult with no major US oil company present in Iraq and no US oil company with so much as a licence to operate a single oilfield or expolation concession in Iraq.

If you, or anybody else would like me to take your whole link article by article and rip it to shit, I will willingly do so - it is entirely laughable. You haven't the foggiest clue about what you are talking about.

As for Congressman Dennis Kucinich, he is in the process of getting himself elected, or at least on some sort of ticket to get himself elected. He is on some sort of populist trip to aid that process and there are enough gullible PRATS (like yourself) out there that will fall for this sort of shit because:

1) You would dearly love to believe it

2) He spouts it because he (Congressman Dennis Kucinich) knows that you bear this totally irrational hatred for the current President.

Unfortunately, the desire to believe that it is true does not actually make it true in any way shape or form. Fact still remains the US takes slightly less than 500,000 barrels of oil from Iraq each day, which amounts to about 25% of their production and 2.5% of the oil needs of the US per day.

Piece of advice dianavan if you are going to argue base that arguement on fact - not supposition - not opinion

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Jun 07 - 08:52 PM

Teribus--

It's just too easy to destroy your arguments--hardly worth the effort. All I have to do is quote your own words back to you.

I'm so sorry you evidently did not understand what I told you earlier.

You were telling us, with your happy drivel, that it took 15 years for Bosnia to sort out its problems. This is supposed to convince us that therefore in about 15 years or so, Iraq's problems will be sorted out--so we should stay there.

It's so good of you to recognize reality for once--that it was not Bosnia but Yugoslovia which broke up. It's too bad that recognizing reality seems to be so hard for you--but, trust me, in the long run you'll feel better for it.

However, since it's not Bosnia but Yugoslavia which broke up, your model is not exactly helpful to your argument. Following the model you have so helpfully provided, in 15 years, not Iraq, but just a part of the wrecked state formerly called Iraq, will have sorted out its problems. Yet this is not what Mr. Bush is telling us. He is saying that Iraq will remain a unified state. Not according to your model, it won't.

Now, why would that be, o brilliant analyst?

But let me compliment you on your insight: I think you are absolutely correct--the perfect model for Iraq is Yugoslavia. Like Yugoslavia, Iraq will be shattered, and will remain a shattered state.

No matter what we do.

So you have destroyed your own argument for staying in Iraq.

Well done. Good job.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 12 Jun 07 - 02:46 AM

teribus - You are so very English! I actually had to look up the word, PRAT. I guess if you can call me a PRAT, I can ask why it is that you English gentlemen enjoy kissing American butt?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 12 Jun 07 - 10:27 PM

BAGHDAD: A majority in Parliament voted Monday in favor of a resolution to remove their speaker, Mahmoud Mashadani, in the coming days, underscoring widespread discontent with a Sunni Arab politician who has done little to build consensus among Iraq's political blocs.

Of the 168 Parliament members present at the session, 113 voted in favor of the resolution, which accepted a pledge from the Sunni Arab coalition that had backed Mashadani that he would submit his resignation when a replacement was found. In the meantime, Mashadani, who is known for his violent outbursts, will be on leave.

Among those who voted to remove the speaker were Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.

"What happened today made obvious the dynamic of democracy in Iraq," said Hassan Sinead, a member of Parliament from the Shiite Dawa party. "The Parliament today had a peaceful, impartial, a democratic operation" to remove the speaker.

"The view of all the blocs in the Parliament was that Mashadani made the process complicated and decreased the harmony," he added...."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/11/africa/iraq.php