BS: Sunni-Arab-U.S. coalition forming

Subject: RE: BS: Sunni-Arab-U.S. coalition forming
From: dianavan
Date: 08 May 07 - 12:38 PM

Dickey - I am saying that we keep hearing this over and over. If this was the outcome of the meeting at Sharm El Sheikh, I'd say we haven't made much progress. In other words, we know what has to be done but HOW is it going to be accomplished?

Seems to me the U.S. is just treading water. Its time for them to step back and let the Iraqi govt. sort it out with their neighbors.

Subject: RE: BS: Sunni-Arab-U.S. coalition forming
From: Dickey
Date: 08 May 07 - 10:26 AM

Are you saying it can't accomplished? Are you saying it is impossible? Are you another naysayer?

Subject: RE: BS: Sunni-Arab-U.S. coalition forming
From: dianavan
Date: 08 May 07 - 02:42 AM

I think TIA was referring to this:

"Al-Maliki's government would have to make genuine efforts to reach a political deal that reconciles Iraq's Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, while curbing sectarian militias.

And the Iraqi parliament would have to pass long-delayed legislation to divide Iraq's oil revenues equitably."

Yes, thats the goal. We have known this for a very long time. Just how is Iraq supposed to accomplish this?

Subject: RE: BS: Sunni-Arab-U.S. coalition forming
From: Dickey
Date: 07 May 07 - 11:54 PM

Yeah, we have all known about that recent meeting at Sharm El Sheikh for several years now. I just thought I would repeat it in case you forgot.

Subject: RE: BS: Sunni-Arab-U.S. coalition forming
From: GUEST,tia
Date: 07 May 07 - 10:40 PM

Didja read and understand all that Dickey? 'Cause if this is a revelation to you, some of us have been wasting our breath (I mean fingers) for several years now.

Subject: RE: BS: Sunni-Arab-U.S. coalition forming
From: Dickey
Date: 07 May 07 - 10:34 PM

Bush's Iraq Policy Confronted by Big Questions, Little Time

"...A great deal was at stake in the talks in the Egyptian Red Sea resort.

Rice took a small step forward, opening lines of communication with Syria and Iran. The Bush administration has hopelessly tried for years to isolate those two countries.

She met with her Syrian counterpart, Walid Moallem, to discuss Iraq, the first high-level US-Syrian encounter in more than two years. The new US ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, and Rice aide David Satterfield had a brief, three-minute hallway encounter with a top Iranian diplomat on Friday. The United States and Iran haven't had diplomatic relations since 1979.

But the outreach appeared tentative, and it came nearly five months after the bipartisan Iraq Study Group urged Bush to use diplomacy with Iran and Syria to help stabilize Iraq.

Rice's decision to proceed with the two meetings came after heavy lobbying by the Iraqis, who say they're weary of having their country serve as a battleground for outsiders, American and Iranian.

US officials said the two days of meetings went a long way toward easing suspicions among Iraq's neighbors.

The highlight was the launching of an International Compact for Iraq, a five-year plan to step up foreign assistance in return for economic changes and serious attempts at political reconciliation by al-Maliki's government.

But at this late stage, for real progress to be made, almost everything would have to go right in Iraq.

Al-Maliki's government would have to make genuine efforts to reach a political deal that reconciles Iraq's Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, while curbing sectarian militias.

And the Iraqi parliament would have to pass long-delayed legislation to divide Iraq's oil revenues equitably.

"We have reached a critical juncture," Barham Salih, the Iraqi deputy prime minister, said in a brief interview. "We cannot afford to lose. And we cannot afford to give people false expectations."

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8602170321

Subject: RE: BS: Sunni-Arab-U.S. coalition forming
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 04:39 PM

Actually, a recent scorecard on who is fighting whom appears in my April 14 post of 4:07... And this is straight from yesterday's "Washington Post"... Purdy scarey...

A brief look at it the scorecard is about all anyone needs to see to see that the "Surge" is just a bad joke being played on our troops, the Iraqis and the world in general...

This war was never winable...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Sunni-Arab-U.S. coalition forming
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 04:31 PM

Dianavan--

US forces continue to target Shiite militia. That's only part of the story. They are also targeting Sunni insurgents and al-Qaeda--which, as you have noted, is basically Sunni.

But as I've noted before, Petraeus is aware that the Sunnis have to be convinced their interests are being considered. Which means, among other things, that the Shiite militias in the police have to be purged--and the other Shiite militias brought under control, which may be temporary anyway, since they may well just blend back into a grateful population til the US forces leave.

Subject: RE: BS: Sunni-Arab-U.S. coalition forming
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 04:12 PM

There goes Teribus with his "chain of command" obsession--still trying desperately to squeeze Iraq into his comfortable Royal Navy mindset.

Once more, as I've said earlier, al Qaeda--which only means "The Base"--is far more McDonalds than IBM. It's franchises--and in some instances even less than that--a philosophical agreement--not "chain of command".

Subject: RE: BS: Sunni-Arab-U.S. coalition forming
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 03:59 PM

Obviously neither Iraq nor "Kurdistan" are members of NATO. Point is, just being a member of NATO--as Turkey is-- does not make a peace-loving state. And the nebulous hope of someday becoming a member of the EEC--since it doesn't look likely soon--will not quench the desire to respond militarily to what Turkey sees as provocations. Main question on this issue is whether Kurdish leaders have now or will get control over the groups making raids into Turkey.

Subject: RE: BS: Sunni-Arab-U.S. coalition forming
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 03:29 PM

Teribus--

"Turkey won't attack the Kurdish region of Iraq". Depends on the provocation--and what Turkey thinks its chances of joining the EEC are. Many Turks are already convinced members of the EEC are blackballing them--and not happy about it.

Also depends on your definition of "attack" is. If an "attack" can be a raid on a suspected PKK nest in "Kurdistan", you may well be incorrect.

As you may be aware, not all members of NATO get along with each other all the time. Isn't Iceland a member of NATO?

Subject: RE: BS: Sunni-Arab-U.S. coalition forming
From: dianavan
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 02:01 PM

I don't think the media really has their heads around this conflict in the Middle East. Maybe they can't. Maybe they are being blocked. It seems that they are mighty confused. They try to put unrelated facts together to make a story.

Recently I read about the bombing in the Iraqi legislature, the dozens of Shia deaths by a bomb in a Shia dominated town, Sunnis fighting Sunnis and Sunnis fighting al Qaeda. The article then sums it up by saying U.S. forces continue to target Shiite militia. What???

Why target Shiite militia when it is Sunni insurgents and al Qaeda who are doing all the bombing?

Why does Bush want to form a Sunni-Arab-U.S. coalition when it seems that's where most of the opposition to the Iraqi government is coming from?

Subject: RE: BS: Sunni-Arab-U.S. coalition forming
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 10:25 AM

"Al-Qeada in Iraq is the United Sayes most formidable enemy in that country. But unlike Osama bin Laden's Al-Quead organization in Pakistan, U.S. intellegence officials and outside experts believe the Iraqi branch poses little danger to the security of the U.S. Homeland."

"Attacking the United Sates clearly remains on bin Laden's agnda. But the likelihood that sich an attack would be launched from Iraq, many experts contend, has sharply diminished over the past year as al-Qeada in Iraq (AQI) has undergone dranatic changes. Once believed to included thousands of 'foriegn fighters', it is now an overwhelmingly Iraqi organization whose aims are likely to remain focused on the struggle against the Shiite majority in Iraq..."

"Zarqawi adopted the al-Qeada name for his terrorist organization in 2004. But under his leadership was frequently estranged from al-Qeada and its seperation has increased since his death last year"

These are excerpts from a "Washington Post" article from March 8th entitled "Al-Qeada in Iraq May Not Be Threat Here" by Karen DeYoung and Walter Pincus... The named sources are "terrorist consultant" Evann F. Kohlmann, "terrorism expert and Georgetwon University professor" Bruce Hoffman and Director of National Intellegence Mike McConnell...

There is more in this article which suggest very strongly that AQI is operating autonomously from bin Laden's al-Qeada Pakistan group...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Sunni-Arab-U.S. coalition forming
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 09:24 AM

Well, T, according to two recent "Washington Post" articles this is purdy much what is being reported... One article, which I have stashed away but will come across is about a US intellegence report which counters the "If we don't fight them there then we'll have to fioght them here" in which named US intellegence people say that the Iraqi Al-Qaeda is a patchwork of mostly Iraqi nationalist with "few" foriegn fighters who have come together to fight the occupiers...

I'll find it and post it later...

I will, however, conceed that Iraqi Al-eada ***claims*** to have ties to bin Laden but, and like I've said "I will find the article" but these claims are more philosphical than actual, as in getting direction or material support rather than just having this more generalized jahadist motivation...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Sunni-Arab-U.S. coalition forming
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 08:05 AM

"The US is fighting Iraqi Al-Qaeda (which has nuthin in common with the bin-Laden group)" - Bobert

Well, not according to the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq's erstwhile leader, who took an oath of allegiance to Bin Laden in October 2004. News of this was posted in a message on an Islamic Web site posted in the name of the spokesman of Zarqawi's group announced that Zarqawi had sworn his network's allegiance to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. The message stated that:

" Numerous messages were passed between 'Abu Musab' (God protect him) and the al-Qaeda brotherhood over the past eight months, establishing a dialogue between them. No sooner had the calls been cut off than God chose to restore them, and our most generous brothers in al-Qaeda came to understand the strategy of the Tawhid wal-Jihad organization in Iraq, the land of the two rivers and of the Caliphs, and their hearts warmed to its methods and overall mission. Let it be known that al-Tawhid wal-Jihad pledges both its leaders and its soldiers to the mujahid commander, Sheikh 'Osama bin Laden' (in word and in deed) and to jihad for the sake of God until there is no more discord [among the ranks of Islam] and all of the religion turns toward God...By God, O sheikh of the mujahideen, if you bid us plunge into the ocean, we would follow you. If you ordered it so, we would obey. If you forbade us something, we would abide by your wishes. For what a fine commander you are to the armies of Islam, against the inveterate infidels and apostates!"

No doubt Bobert will still maintain that Al-Qaeda in Iraq has nothing whatsoever to do with OBL - He would be wrong, as he is about most things.

Subject: RE: BS: Sunni-Arab-U.S. coalition forming
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 04:07 PM

Let's face it, the Sunnis need the US military to protect them not only from the Shittes but increasingly from Iraqi Al-Qaeda as withy the continues disintergration of Iraq as a nation into a downward spiriling civil war... I don't even have to again remind the Bushites here that many of us saw this coming even brfore the '03 invasion...

So here's the recent scorecard:

*The US is fighting Iraqi Al-Qaeda (which has nuthin in common with the bin-Laden group)

*The US is fighting some Sunni groups

*The US is fighting Shiite militia groups

*Shiite militias are fighting Sunni insurgents

*Shiite militias are fighting Iraqi Al-Qaeda

*In the south the Shiite militias are fi8ghting each other

*In the west Sunni tribal leaders are very suspicious of the Sunnis in the *so-called* governemnt and...

*In the north "tensions are rising between the Kurds and neighboring Turkey" (1)

Did I leave anyone out???

Looks very much like a crazy civil war with a "dizzying mosaic of battle lines" (ibid)

Hmmmmmm?

Like I said, there is no victory to be had here for the Bush administartion... This thing is out of control... The heavily secured "Green Zone" is no longer safe... This is a failed policy for Bush and it's just a matter of time before the US will have to accept that it was not winable in the first place...

Bobert

(1) Washington Post, April 14, 2007

Subject: RE: BS: Sunni-Arab-U.S. coalition forming
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 03:22 PM

Actually, teribus, due to Saddam's Arabization of Kirkuk, the Arabs are being relocated as we speak. Perhaps this will make room for the right of return for Kurds.

I don't think anyone should be forced from their homes.

Subject: RE: BS: Sunni-Arab-U.S. coalition forming
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 05:39 AM

Turkey wants to be a member of the EU, Turkey is a member of NATO, Turkey will not attack the Kurdish region of Iraq.

In the Kurds, Saddam Hussein had the perfect opportunity to completely defeat the Iranians during the Iran/Iraq War (1980-1988), all he had to do was let it be known that implicite in any peace treaty he would unite the Kurds of Iraq with the Kurds of Iran in an autonomous region of the newly enlarged Iraq. Within days Iraqi forces would have been at the outskirts of Tehran. He was however too paranoid to take that step.

Interested to hear dianavan's take on "right of return" for the Kurds forced to leave Kirkuk by Saddam because of his Arabisation of the city and its surrounding areas. But there again I believe that as far as dianavan goes such rights are very selectively supported, i.e. the Jewish Israeli's have no right of return to the territories over-run by the Egyptians, Jordanians and Syrians in 1948, while the Palestinians do such rights. Have you ever wondered why in the bargaining and points for negotiation in the Middle-East that the Arabs demand return to the 1967 pre-six-day war boundaries - It is primarily in order that they then get to keep the land they took by force of arms in 1948.

US foreign policy in the middle-east is similar to British foreign policy towards Europe during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. They do not want any single nation to exercise hegemony over the area as a whole.

Subject: RE: BS: Sunni-Arab-U.S. coalition forming
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 03:37 AM

The Kurds may be U.S. allies but it is the PKK that Turkey is after. Do you really think the U.S. will back the Kurdish PKK? They are considered terrorists and are usually backed by Syria. This puts the Kurds between a rock and a hard place. Seems to me that their best bet is to form an alliance with Iraq and Iran.

In any event, it doesn't look good for the U.S. They might as well pack it up.

Subject: RE: BS: Sunni-Arab-U.S. coalition forming
From: Ron Davies
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 12:50 AM

Yup, now Bush gets to try to keep 2 allies (Turkey and the Kurds) from attacking each other. I would think, however, that it would make the Kurds less likely to want to see the US leave.

Subject: RE: BS: Sunni-Arab-U.S. coalition forming
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 07:43 AM

Well, Dianavan, you may be right about the danger of Turkey invading "Kurdistan"--despite the fact that the independence is de facto, not de jure.

Today's WSJ----the Turkish military has asked its government for permission for raids into northern Iraq since, it says, the US is not preventing raids by Kurdish rebels into Turkey.

Raids, of course, are not a full-fledged invasion---but we'll see what happens now.

And, at any rate, it's another headache for Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Sunni-Arab-U.S. coalition forming
From: dianavan
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 06:22 PM

You may be right, Peace.

The war will continue as long as the U.S. opposes an Iraqi/Iranian coalition. Some think that I support Iran but I see it as the only way to peace in the region (and its not because I love the Mullahs). As long as the U.S. interferes in what is a logical, cultural/geographical connection, the longer there will be war.

There is no balance of power in the Middle East. Thats just the problem. An Iraqi/Iranian/Kurdish coalition would balance the power. It shouldn't be up to an outside force to determine the power structure, anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Sunni-Arab-U.S. coalition forming
From: Peace
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 04:11 PM

Problem is that the US will not allow the balance of power in that region to shift all that much. Either Iran OR Iraq will have to play ball with the US or the war will continue. It ain't likely that Iran ever will, so it'll have to be Iraq. No way the US will allow Iran to control things. So this war will keep on keeping on.

Subject: RE: BS: Sunni-Arab-U.S. coalition forming
From: dianavan
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 03:10 PM

Whats wrong with the idea of Iran supporting Iraq and de-facto Kurdistan. Thats what I'm suggesting when I say that a Kurdistan/Iraq/Iran may be forming.

At this point (as evidenced by the abduction of the five Iranians) Bush does have more power than the Iraqi govt. and he would rather support an Arab Sunni/U.S. coalition. Unfortunately, al Quaeda has recruited extensively from the Sunni insurgency which means that is exactly who Bush is supporting.

Thats what I mean when I say Bush has no pride. I don't think he gives a rats ass about his image or what history will say about him. He's in it for the money. He has a history of doing business with the Arabs and there is no love lost between the Persians and the Arabs.

The U.S./Sunni Arab coalition will do whatever it takes to prevent Iranian support to a Shiite/Kurdish/Iraqi government.

Subject: RE: BS: Sunni-Arab-U.S. coalition forming
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 08:20 AM

And I have said many times that "Kurdistan" will not declare independence for the very reason that the Kurds don't want to give Turkey an excuse to invade. They are smart enough to be satisfied with de facto independence--de jure can wait for the forseeable future.

And Bush does not in fact have "all the power". He has remarkably little in determining internal Iraqi politics.   What he hopes is that al-Qaeda will continue to kill both Shiites and Sunnis indiscriminately--as they are doing in Anbar----that's the only thing that will make a US presence desirable.

Also, you have no basis for your assertion that a Sunni secular state would be easier to do business with than a religious Shiite state. Both would be willing to do oil business--oil is obviously the main source of income for Iraq. And dreaming about a Sunni-run Iraq is just that--huge numbers of middle-class Sunnis have fled Iraq--and the (Shiite) majority will rule--regardless of what Bush might want. And in fact he doesn't care--all he wants is a fig-leaf--some feeble excuse to declare victory and leave.

As I've said before, all he wants to do now is find some way to avoid admitting his Iraq venture was a stupid tragic mistake. This is logical--and obvious..

Any other speculation is just an absurd conspiracy theory---unless somebody can come up with some evidence to support it. Thus far there has been none.

Subject: RE: BS: Sunni-Arab-U.S. coalition forming
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 08:04 AM

I'm sorry, Dianavan. If you'd like, I can offer all sorts of evidence that Iran is not in favor of any Kurdistan at all--much less a combination with Iran. Reason--Iran has its own Kurds--and, like Turkey, does not want to encourage Kurdish nationalism.

Why does this not make sense to you?

And any Iraqi state is going to have its own foreign policy. Anybody who thinks a Shiite-governed Iraq would be Iran's puppet needs to come up with some evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Sunni-Arab-U.S. coalition forming
From: dianavan
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 01:08 AM

Ron - I have no evidence that Bush does not want a Shiite government in Iraq but based on events so far, I do not think he wants to see an Iraqi Shiite/Iranian coalition. Lets face it, if he wants the oil, it will be easier to do business with secular Sunnis than theocratic Shiites. If Bush had any respect for the Iraqis, he would let them govern themselves and I have seen no evidence of this. He still has all of the power.

Regarding the Kurds. Yes, the U.S. would like access to Kurdish oil but it is doubtful if the Kurds can actually pull away from Iraq without an intervention by Turkey. It seems quite likely (based on the past) that Iran will back the Kurds. In fact, Iran would like to see a united Kurdistan/Iraq/Iran. That would leave the U.S. out in the cold.

Of course I have no proof but neither do you. Its all maybe, what if and possibly at this point.

Subject: RE: BS: Sunni-Arab-U.S. coalition forming
From: Dickey
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 11:37 PM

TOKYO, April 10--Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said Tuesday his government is working to improve security to make it possible for US and other occupation troops to leave Iraq.

On a four-day trip to Japan, al-Maliki told reporters that "to demand the departure of the troops is a democratic right and a right we respect".

The Iraqi premier said there is no need for a withdrawal timetable, adding "what governs the departure at the end of the day is how confident we are in the handover process''.

Maliki stated that "we are working as fast as we can" to pave the way for the withdrawal of occupation troops from Iraq.

The US Democratic Party has pushed for a withdrawal date since seizing control of Congress from Bush's Republicans on the back of voter anger over the Iraq war.

The House of Representatives and Senate have passed bills with different pullout deadlines -- August 31, 2008 and March 31, 2008, respectively -- but Bush has vowed to veto any date.

Maliki insisted the troops would leave eventually.

"The departure of the multinational forces is definite. There are no arguments on this issue," Maliki said.

"The international resolution authorized the Iraqi government to ask for the departure of the multinational forces when it feels that it can provide enough security for the country."

Al-Maliki said Iraq is "progressing on the security issue continuously".

He was referring to UN Security Council Resolution 1723, which was passed in November.

Maliki also blamed the media for only focusing on the daily violence in Iraq.

"Maybe it is natural that the ugliness of blood will overshadow the elements of progress. But I can give you many examples of progress," Maliki said.

"We have a permanent constitution after living for decades with temporary constitutions and the entire country being subjected to the whims of a ruler.

"On the economic side, the monthly income of the average Iraqi has risen from two dollars to $200 per month", he said.

Maliki is wrapping up his first visit to Japan Thursday with further assurances of Tokyo's support for Iraqi reconstruction.

During the visit, Japan pledged to extend 102.8 billion yen ($862 million) in low-interest loans for construction projects, including a new oil export facility.

http://www.alalam.ir/English/en-newspage.asp?newsid=018030120070410170857

Subject: RE: BS: Sunni-Arab-U.S. coalition forming
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 11:07 PM

And that's why some Sunnis in Anbar are now allying with the US--as I said. But it's only a marriage of convenience. And nobody should take it for more than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Sunni-Arab-U.S. coalition forming
From: robomatic
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 10:43 PM

I think the Al Qaeda and some of their fellow travellers are so hip deep in gore they are rationalizing their acts quite simply: "Even if we kill our own people, we are demonstrating opposition to the occupation". It is very close to being a justification of terrorism for its own sake. It exemplifies the sick and twisted nature of the opposition, and frankly it makes Bush look better by comparison than he otherwise could. Every time some market is bombed it reminds us of what happened in Spain, in England, and what almost happened in England again.

More recently we saw Shiite on Shiite terrorism as a terrorist turf war erupted.

We need a Muslim enlightenment ASAP.

Subject: RE: BS: Sunni-Arab-U.S. coalition forming
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 10:07 PM

Dianavan--

Just because the Bushites don't bother to think before they speak doesn't mean we should emulate them in this. To have any credibility, we must cite facts and use logic. After all, it's a great contrast to Bush supporters' approach.

With that in mind, a few questions:

1) Again, what is your evidence that Bush does not want a Shiite government in Iraq? At this point he'll take anything he can get--as long as he can claim the government is stable--and not Baathist.

2) The Shiites don't have to trust Bush. Nobody in Iraq wants the US to stay indefinitely. Nor does the US want to do it. But Bush is bound and determined to declare victory again--and of course the US would like access to Iraqi oil. Why does this not make sense to you?

But if the Shia don't want the US, Bush will opt for the agreed-upon fallback position I discussed on Mudcat months ago--"Kurdistan" oil. And "Kurdistan"--including Kirkuk-- is as good as gone from Iraq. Kirkuk will soon, in a referendum, declare itself to be part of "Kurdistan"--the "Arabs" settled there by Saddam are being offered money and other incentives--to go back to their place of origin elsewhere in Iraq.

The Turks don't like the idea--but a Turkish invasion of "Kurdistan" is not in the cards. The Kurds, however, will have to be careful how they treat the Turkomen in Kirkuk.

3) What evidence do you have of any kind of Kurdish/Iranian/ Iraqi Shiite coalition to oust the US? For one thing, the Kurds will not be part of any such coalition--why would they want to rock the boat?--the boat is headed in the right direction from their perspective.

4) As I pointed out, the Sunni/US "coalition" in Anbar is extremely temporary--and can't be seen as a model--much as the US would like it to be.   Why do you think it will last?



Also, the Iraqi "government spokesmen" have a problem---Sadr and his people are breaking off from them--and it's unclear if they are willing to make the concessions necessary to attract Sunni support instead of Sadr's group. Supposedly Maliki will now let Saddam-era military --read Sunnis--get pensions. Whether Shiite religious leaders--and other Shiites--will accept this is unclear.

Subject: RE: BS: Sunni-Arab-U.S. coalition forming
From: Peace
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 06:10 PM

"I have always thought that the Iraqis surprised Bush by electing a Shiite majority."

I may have surprised Bush (I expect even the sunrise does that), but with a Shi'a majority in the population of 60-65%, it would be kinda hard NOT to elect a Shi'a majority.

Subject: RE: BS: Sunni-Arab-U.S. coalition forming
From: dianavan
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 05:23 PM

I just read Bobert's post and didn't interpret it at all the way you have, Wolfgang. If Bobert said something otherwise on another post it has nothing to do with my position. I have always thought that the Iraqis surprised Bush by electing a Shiite majority. In fact, his man Chalabi failed to win a seat and was not even awarded a post. The Iraqis despise him and now he's in big trouble.

btw - This isn't a party and many of us are able to disagree without aligning ourselves with one camp or another. Instead of attempting an analysis of our loyalty to a certain party line, why don't you try stating your position, if you have one. If you have trouble with Bobert's position, take it up with him.

You think like a gang member. Is Bush your bully boy?

Subject: RE: BS: Sunni-Arab-U.S. coalition forming
From: Wolfgang
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 03:31 PM

When I saw Bobert's post I thought he would immediately scrap the democratically elected Shiite majority government statement in the opening post. If I recall correctly, some weeks ago, in another thread about Iraq and Bush's stupidity, a minority poster here argued that the US Army was in Iraq at the request of a democratically elected government and that therefore the USA were not occupiers and those fighting against them were terrorists and not defenders against an occupation.

Bobert quickly pointed out that there was no demoratically elected government as large parts of the population had boykotted the election and, in addition to that, an election under US army supervision was not really a democratic election. OK, that was then. Now the new direction is that we have a democratically elected majority and the USA should not do something that undermines the power of this government?

Excuse me if I cannot switch so quickly to the new party line. If I try to understand the whole picture, we had no really free elections in Iraq then and therefore the wishes of the government that the US army may stay a bit longer play no role and the insurgents are freedom fighters, but we nevertheless now have a democratically elected Shiite majority that may not be undermined by US support to Sunni.

Have I got it correctly now, or is the real reason that some of you change their argument each time so that it fits best the newest critique of US politics?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Sunni-Arab-U.S. coalition forming
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 12:36 PM

Remember Hanlon's Razor:
"It is error to provide any alternate explanation when simple stupidity will suffice."

Subject: RE: BS: Sunni-Arab-U.S. coalition forming
From: dianavan
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 12:15 PM

If the the attempt by Bush to put together am Arab/Sunni coalition is doomed to failure, where does that leave Bush?

Sunnis in Anbar are willing to make common cause with the U.S. military.   it seems that in Iraq, at least, a U.S./Sunni coalition is happening. As a force against al Qaeda thats good but what if it becomes a force against the majority, Shiite government? Seems to me that is more likely since Bush does not want a Shiite government in Iraq.

You may be right, the Shiites will have to include Sunnis in the formation of a new Iraq. If it happens, Bush will be left out in the cold. I hope it happens but I do think its doubtful. The Shiites are not about to trust Bush or the Sunnis, especially if the Sunnis are baathists.   

Its quite possible that a Kurdish/Iranian/Iraqi Shiite coalition is forming to oust the U.S.

Subject: RE: BS: Sunni-Arab-U.S. coalition forming
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 06:39 AM

One more thing. There's also no question that Bush's pathetic attempt to put together a Sunni coalition against Iran is doomed to failure--since the Sunnis are insisting in a change in Bush's stance toward Israel--read--more pressure on Israel to solve the Palestinian problem--as a condition for joining such a coalition. Even if the Saudi rulers were willing themselves to join Bush's anti-Iran coalition, the Saudi population itself will insist on the above condition--which Bush will refuse.

Subject: RE: BS: Sunni-Arab-U.S. coalition forming
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 06:29 AM

"then Saddam. Added..."

Subject: RE: BS: Sunni-Arab-U.S. coalition forming
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 06:27 AM

There's no question that Bush is trying to put together a Sunni coalition against Iran. Or that so far, Bush has been Iran's best friend--as noted, I believe, by the Economist recently--in quick succession, he removed Iran's strongest regional opponents--first the Taliban and then Saddam Added to that, the radicals in Iran have been strengthened by the anti-Western sentiment engendered by Bush's Iraq invasion-- (though admittedly al-Qaeda has probably been the #1 beneficiary of Bush's stupid Iraq venture--Osama couldn't have hoped for a better recruiting agent than Bush--as I told Bush on the White House call-in line just before the Iraq war.)

But any logical person has to see that the majority in Iraq has to rule. Even if he wanted to, Bush could not install a Sunni puppet. The point is that the minority's rights have to be protected--from self-interest of the majority Shiites if nothing else. As I said earlier, Al-Qaeda is nominally Sunni. To ignore Sunni concerns will do nothing but drive ordinary Sunnis into the al-Qaeda camp--not only incredibly stupid, but ironic--since as things now stand, ordinary Sunnis, in places like Anbar, are turning against al-Qaeda's indiscriminate slaughter--including their fellow Sunnis. So in Anbar they are willing to make common cause with the Americans. This does not mean they welcome US forces in Iraq---this is completely a temporary marriage of convenience.

If anybody has any facts--as distinguished from amorphous conspiracy theories animated by hate of Bush--to counter my reading of the situation, I'd be glad to hear them.

Subject: RE: BS: Sunni-Arab-U.S. coalition forming
From: dianavan
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 12:25 AM

At this point, I do disagree with you. I don't think Bush has any intention of leaving Iraq. He will involve Iran and Syria and possibly Saudi Arabia.

He doesn't care about winning or losing. He only cares about profit and he and his pals have made plenty of moola from this war. Why not keep it happening? There's all kinds of money to made from the arms trade, reconstruction and the black market. He has nothing to lose. Its all being financed by the U.S. treasury anyway. Its not as if its his own money he's gambling.

Unless he can declare a victory and secure the energy resources of Iraq for U.S. interests, he has absolutely no reason to leave. He made a big investment in U.S. lives and taxes and regardless of whether he's president, that investment will continue to pay dividends in terms of the economy. After all, war is very, very profitable. The democrats will be blamed for a bloody mess in the Middle East and a ruined economy but do you really think Bush will suffer?

You think Bush has a big ego.

I think he has absolutely no pride at all.

...but, Ron, thanks for making me think!

Subject: RE: BS: Sunni-Arab-U.S. coalition forming
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 11:57 PM

Dianavan--

You know I agree with you often, and I think you usually defend your positions well.

But I have to part company with you on this one.

If you think Bush would benefit from chaos in Iraq, please tell us exactly how.

And if you think he wants a Sunni-led government please tell us exactly why.

I think it's clear all he wants to do is declare victory (again). Chaos in Iraq will not help him do that.

He's desperate to avoid admitting his Iraqi venture was a stupid tragic mistake.

Leaving behind chaos in Iraq will only confirm that it was.

Subject: RE: BS: Sunni-Arab-U.S. coalition forming
From: Dickey
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 10:07 PM


Iraqi women burnt alive

Iraq as a nation might have won its freedom three years ago but the plight of women has not changed with the changing times.

Due to the powerful political intervention of its neighboring country Iran, Iraq has not progressed much in the gender segregation issue. The situation is worse in Iran where women are considered as second-class citizens.

Iraqi society have since the last three years done quite a lot to protect women's right, however, due to the frequent attacks by the Shia and Sunni militias, women is no longer safe in Iraq.

All the courageous women who have come forward to fight for their fellow sisters are either sexually abused or killed by the militants. Currently, large number of women starting from Mosul to Basra is defying the religious norms of wearing the veil and this has instigated the militants of both the Sunni and Shia groups.

Unfortunately, due to the rigid Islamic law, Iraqi women today has to follow a strict dress code and anyone found guilty of violating the law is publicly humiliated, and sometimes the radical Shia leaders even goes to the extent of cutting off the offenders hair.

In most of the cities in Iraq, Shia and Sunni militias are stoning many women to death because they applied make-ups: many are brutally murdered for taking up jobs and even fatwa's are ordered to ban the Iraqi women from driving cars and walk in the streets without any male companion.

The only way to stop the escalating violence on the women is by getting help from the international community and powerful human right groups.

http://www.themuslimwoman.org/page/8/

Subject: RE: BS: Sunni-Arab-U.S. coalition forming
From: dianavan
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 04:19 PM

Actually, Dickey, its Bush that wants to join hands with the Sunnis. Read the first post.

Subject: RE: BS: Sunni-Arab-U.S. coalition forming
From: Dickey
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 04:03 PM

Top Lebanese Sunni Cleric Fathi Yakan: Bin Laden a Man After My Own Heart; I Am Not Sad Because of 9/11 and I Have Never Condemned this Attack.

http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=1408

Subject: RE: BS: Sunni-Arab-U.S. coalition forming
From: dianavan
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 11:30 PM

Hey Ron, its not my map, its from the bbc.

The insurgency was mainly post-Saddam, radical Sunni Arabs. Who do you think is bombing the Shia? Why do you think it was Al Qaeda and not radical Sunnis? If it was al Qaeda, don't you think the bombing would be more evenly distributed among regions? Why would al Qaeda bomb Shiites more often than Sunnis?

I also think your wrong about Bush. He might possibly benefit from a Sunni govt. but never a Shiite government. Thats why he is trying to form a Sunni-Arab-U.S. coalition. I don't think he gives a crap about victory in the traditional sense. That would mean an end to war. He is far more interested in the profits of war.

Seems to me that Bush and al Qaeda have similar goals in Iraq and they have nothing to do with a stable Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Sunni-Arab-U.S. coalition forming
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 10:25 PM

Dianavan--


"Bombs in the Shia regions far outweigh" the bombs in the Sunni regions. But we all know why. Al-Qaeda is at least nominally Sunni. So any bombing by al-Qaeda will likely be in a Shiite area--and be counted as a Sunni attack.

But that does not mean that al-Qaeda bombings are endorsed by most Sunnis--any more than they endorsed Saddam's atrocities.

So your map is basically meaningless.

The fact remains that it's virtually always minority rights that need attention--the majority can and will look after its own interests--unless you have a dictator of the minority party---which you no longer have in Iraq.

And, as I've mentioned before, I'm not exactly Mr. Bush's top fan--but he neither wants a Sunni state nor a Shiite state in Iraq. All he wants at this point is a functioning state---so he can declare victory again, this time more believably--and his Iraq adventure won't be so obviously the total disaster that it is.

As I've said before, he's drowning in the river of denial.

Subject: RE: BS: Sunni-Arab-U.S. coalition forming
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 08:45 PM

There is pretty clear evidence that there is very little liking for Al Qaeda among any variety of Iraqis.

The unpopularity of Al Qaeda is largely based on the evidence that their activities have very little to do with trying to get rid of the occupiers - in fact their intentions seems to be much more geared to suckimg them and keeping them in Iraq, as a way of causinmg maximum damage to them in a wider war. For Al Qaeda, Iraq is expendable, in the same way as Afghanistan has been.

But there are no grounds for the idea that just because people dislike Al Qaeda they are likely feel anything other than hatred towards the occupying armies.

Subject: RE: BS: Sunni-Arab-U.S. coalition forming
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 08:27 PM

Well, Bush is hopelessly screwed...

He was too stupid to allow himself the hear second and third opinions in his mad-dash-to-Iraqmire and now he's under pressure to figure a way out of Iraqmire and save face, too...

Unfortunately for him, Iraq and the region, there is no "vitory" to be had...

As mnay of us originally predicted before the mad-dash, Itaq has fallen into "civil war"... Can I get a big "duhhhhh" here???

And what Bush can's fathom is that when the US leaves, the Iraqis ***will*** sort this out and it won't be pretty... The Sunnies are toast...

But what is the alternative??? Stay in Iraq for the next 100 years??? Turn Iraq in to the 51st state??? Get the heck out and nuke the entitre region???

I mean, let get real here for a second...

There is no "victory" to be had... This was the worst foriegn policy decision in American history, with the lone exception of Lincoln allowing the Civil War (which it wasn't)...

There isn't going to be a good ending to this screw up...

I reckon that about all the US can do is start airlifting the entire Sunni population outta Iraq to the US and any country who will take 'um and let the Shiites ahve Iraq... I am serious!!!

There is no "victory" to be had here, folks...

This war has been lost for a long time now, going even before the actual invasion...

It was stupid then and it it is infinately stupider now...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Sunni-Arab-U.S. coalition forming
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 06:54 PM

Since the Shiites are in the majority, it would make sense for Bush to back the minority Sunni in this civil war.
It will simply last longer and cause more chaos death and destruction. Besides the Bush family friends and co investors: the bin Laden family, the royal family of Saudi Arabia and the emir of UAE(who he sold our ports to) are Sunnis.

Subject: RE: BS: Sunni-Arab-U.S. coalition forming
From: dianavan
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 05:52 PM

This is an interesting map. It shows Iraq by ethnic regions and the number of reported bombings. As you can see, the number of bombs in the Shia regions far out weigh the bombings in Sunni areas.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/in_depth/baghdad_navigator/