BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?

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

OK Teribus--

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

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

3) Your status of Mr. Pollyanna remains unchallenged.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ron,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Teribus--

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Awaiting your next calm, well-reasoned posting.

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

Potable water and contaminated water are two different things.

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

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

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

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

Dianavan,

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

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

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

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

"..only one in five has sewerage."

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

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

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

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

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

All I could find was this from Halliburton watch:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ron Davies - 09 Mar 06 - 11:07 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now then to your question:

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

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

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

Teribus -

Please explain the statement:

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

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

Teribus--


Dream on, Mr. Pollyanna.

You still have no answer for:

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

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

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

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




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



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

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

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

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

I'm not making that up.

Don Firth

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

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

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

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

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

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

An interview: The Country Has Already Collapsed

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

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

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

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

Wolfgang

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

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

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

Teribus--

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

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

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

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

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

Ron Davies - 01 Mar 06 - 11:09 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Teribus--

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

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

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

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

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

"Feb 28, 2006 — By Matt Spetalnick

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

From a Google of

Bush denies Iraq heading toward civil war

ABC News.

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

'No sectarian war? Then what is this?'

(Washington Post link to Guardian)

Wolfgang

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

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

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

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

So Ron shifts ground once again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Teribus--

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ron Davies - 26 Feb 06 - 10:19 PM

"Teribus--

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

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

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

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

Teribus--

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

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

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

And the CF in Iraq is exactly what ya get when

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

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

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

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

Ron Davies - 25 Feb 06 - 07:05 AM

It's that english comprehension thing again Ron

"Teribus--

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wolfgang

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

Teribus--

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

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

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

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

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

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

Open your eyes, for once.

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

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

Sectarian Fury in Iraq

Attack Destroys Golden Dome

Violence Erupts
(NY Times)


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

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

Bobert - 23 Feb 06 - 09:45 PM

Bobert's predictions are a bit off

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

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

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

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

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

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

What michaelr said...

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

Hmmmmmmm?

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

Hmmmmmmm?

Bobert

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

Thanks for posting Phot,

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

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

What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?

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

Cheers,
Michael

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

Ron,

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

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

Instance of when the British Government refused

Never happened Ron

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

Teribus--

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


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

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

Everything's just peachy in Iraq, right?

What planet are you living on?

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

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

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

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

Wolfgang

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

Ah Ron,

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

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

THAT HAS NOW BECOME:

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

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

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

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

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

and

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

Now what was your point/question again?

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

AP 22 Feb 2006--Breaking News.

Iraq Rebels Attack Famed Shrine: Golden Dome Toppled

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


This sounds very serious.

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

Teribus--

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

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

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

Eh Ron?

BBC 17th February -

"IRAN calls for UK IRAQ pull-out

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wassail!! Chris

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Iran calls for UK Iraq pull-out

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

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

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 10:42 AM

By the way, where in Iran are British troops now?--just guarding the embassy in Tehran, I would think.

But I'm still waiting for the Bush apologist spin on my news about British troops in Basra.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 10:38 AM

Check my post of 18 Feb 2006 8:54 AM--I told you directly. I do read the Wall St Journal--and carefully.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 02:49 AM

Sorry Ron, I thought that it was Iran, not Iraq, that was demanding British Troops to withdraw. Please verify source - honestly

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 08:57 AM

Honestly.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 08:56 AM

Also, I certainly hope Chris is in no danger in Basra now.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 08:54 AM

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

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

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Feb 06 - 04:14 AM

At thed moment a bloody great dust storm in Basrah

Wassali!! Chris

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Feb 06 - 04:38 AM

Do you mean everything and everywhere? or just the things that YOU dont like.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Feb 06 - 09:08 PM

"...change the trading of oil into another currency?"

Thats exactly what Saddam was threatening to do and you know what happened to him.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 01 Feb 06 - 03:40 PM

heres another way of looking at the war on iraq,

In 1971 when Nixon dismantled the Bretton Woods system of backing the US dollar with gold - it was essentially a tax on passed on to the rest of the world since the US dollar became devalued.

In 1972 the US agreed to support the House of Saud in return for making the US $ the currency of the oil trade.

(note that in 2000 Saddam Hussein wanted to sell oil for Euro's)

a tax on the rest of the world

again in 2004, facing the deepest deficit of any nation in history the US govt devalued the US dollar (now 50% of what it was when Bush was appointed) again this was an indirect tax on the rest of the world

another reason to change the trading of oil into another currency.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Jan 06 - 09:43 PM

The cost of this war cannot be measured in dollars unless you are Halliburton/KBR. The dollars are not going to equip the troops or re-build the infrastructure. The dollars are being lost by white collar criminals who see this as an opportunity to de-fraud the American public.

What a joke. They squander your tax dollars and spy on you at the same time.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 30 Jan 06 - 04:18 PM

since were talking about money..
initially Wolfowitz predicted this war would pay for itself from the rich Iraqi oil revenues.. of course he was totally 'offbase' (to use his own term) in his prediction..

here is what Joseph Stiglitz (the former Chief Economist of the World Bank) has to say about the cost (in a downloadable pdf) click on economic costs of Iraq war

taking into account the macroeconomic costs the conservative estimate ranges from 1 trillion to a moderate estimate of 2.23 trillion..

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Jan 06 - 02:38 PM

I gotta ask if anyone even read my link. It starts out by saying:

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates - Iraqi money gambled away in the Philippines. Thousands spent on a swimming pool that was never used. An elevator repaired so poorly that it crashed, killing people.

"A U.S. government audit found American-led occupation authorities squandered tens of millions of dollars that were supposed to be used to rebuild    Iraq through undocumented spending and outright fraud.

"In some cases, auditors recommend criminal charges be filed against the perpetrators. In others, it asks the U.S. ambassador to Iraq to recoup the money.

"Dryly written audit reports describe the Coalition Provisional Authority's offices in the south-central city of Hillah being awash in bricks of $100 bills taken from a central vault without documentation.

It describes one agent who kept almost $700,000 in cash in an unlocked footlocker and mentions a U.S. soldier who gambled away as much as $60,000 in reconstruction funds in the Philippines."

And much more. There appears to be no accountability.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Jan 06 - 02:28 PM

and more -

http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/hearings/hearing27/may.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Jan 06 - 02:23 PM

Straight from the horse's mouth"

http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/hearings/hearing27/carter.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jan 06 - 12:00 PM

Link to above Sun Times article.


A

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jan 06 - 11:38 PM

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jan 06 - 04:38 PM

This is what is really going on in Iraq. It has nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with political corruption and corporate profit.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/iraq/cst-nws-hall29.html

The only people I know that support what is really going on in Iraq, are those who stand to make a profit and people who fear that, because of their governments aggression, might fear terrorists.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jan 06 - 04:23 PM

"Those deficiencies were so significant that we were precluded from accomplishing our stated objectives," the auditors said of U.S. officials in Hillah being unable to account for $97 million of the $120 million in Iraqi oil revenues earmarked for rebuilding
projects." - from the article posted above.

The worst I have heard is that Halliburton is serving contaminated water.

So much for re-building. Most of the money went to security.

For this the Iraqis are supposed to be grateful.

So what if they have no water or electricity. They have U.S. style democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Jan 06 - 03:21 PM

I'm downright ashamed of us.

Ha! Don't Make Me Laugh.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Jan 06 - 10:23 PM

3 Dec 2005 12:21 PM--- I said:    "Especially significant will be how content the Sunnis are after the election--particularly if--as is likely--they propose amendments to the constitution which are all defeated..."

12 Jan 2006 (today)--Wall St Journal- front page----"An Iraqi Shiite leader vows his ruling bloc won't permit any substantive changes to the constitution. Promise of such amendments enticed Sunnis into political participation."

If this is not just political jockeying prior to forming a government, it does not sound good.

We'll see.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Stephen L. Rich
Date: 11 Jan 06 - 08:53 PM

What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
Nothing. Why? Don't you believe our leaders?

Stephen Lee

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: TIA
Date: 11 Jan 06 - 10:42 AM

On December 3, 2005, Ron Davies said

..."the real question will be what happens after the December election."

Yes, and we had all hoped it would not be this .

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Jan 06 - 07:23 AM

Oh c'mon LH, let him use it. You'll take all the fun out it--then we'll all have to go back to reading, helping out around the house, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jan 06 - 01:14 AM

Wolfgang -

You'll have to be a little more specific.

Your use of sarcasm is baffling.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jan 06 - 12:41 AM

"forfend", Teribus?

That's a word that is used strictly to patronize people, heap derision on their heads, and put them down, isn't it? A word that implies that they are useless gits with nothing of value to say about anything...a word that is spoken with a contemptuous curl of the mustachio'd lip.

When I hear it used, it seems to summon up the vision of a hand (the hand of your erstwhile opponent, of course) daintily holding a teacup, with his little finger sticking out.

"Oh, heaven forfend that blah, blah, blah...."

If you say it again, we shall have to get someone to slap your face, my lad, for showing such thoughtless cheek to your peers.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: number 6
Date: 11 Jan 06 - 12:01 AM

The war (sacrifices) in Iraq is all about bringing democracy and freedom to that nation ... and last week Microsoft concedes to the Chinese government in blocking out any websites (using their product Netscape in China)that questions the totalitarian regime of that country. ...HuH ?!?!?

Americans are very contradicting and very confusing.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Jan 06 - 11:20 PM

Gee, Teribus, so sorry not to respond to you earlier. And I can't tell you how it hurts me that you don't like my criticism of Bushites for citing editorials and columns as authorities.

Maybe you can find someone to explain to you the difference, in reputable media at least, between editorials and actual reporting.   Of course if your main sources are such stalwarts as Fox News, the Washington Times and the like, you wouldn't have much contact with reputable media. So it's understandable that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between editorials and reporting.

I assure you the Wall St Journal is a good-- or even better-- newspaper. Therefore there is a clear distinction between the editorials and the reporting. Pardon me for preferring the reporting as a reliable source.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 10 Jan 06 - 06:13 AM

I wonder if some people who have contributed fanciful interpretations of the attack on the Sunni leaders have questioned their judgement retrospectively when seeing or hearing yesterday's news:

Two suicide terrorists wearing security uniforms and showing security identification have killed 29 people, most of them police, and al Qaeda, signed Zarqawi, has boasted to be responsible for that attack.

Is someone willing to amuse me by arguing that this attack too has been done by police or army claiming to be insurgents and wearing official uniforms just to fool the world into thinking they must be insurgents...?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Dec 05 - 09:18 AM

Ron Davies - 03 Dec 05 - 11:26 AM

Perhaps Ron could supply us all with a list of approved reading sources. Then, heaven forfend, should we disagree with anything stated in those sources so close to Ron's heart, he can ask us to back up or arguements with the relevant sources, and because they are not on his list he can dismiss them.

That works well up to a point, it completely falls down when you refer to the text Ron's approved reading sources were reporting on. It is the media that puts on the spin, it does that to sell, Ron hasn't cottoned onto that yet, hopefully he will.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: dianavan
Date: 04 Dec 05 - 12:38 AM

Iraqi troops have cleared one third of Baghdad and the terrorist-controlled cities of Fallujah, Mosul and Tal Afar?

One-third means two thirds to go.

That the U.S. cleared the cities is not in doubt. I think it was criminal. Whether it did any good, remains to be seen.

Its 'the remains to be seen bit', that worries me.

Was Lieberman trying to make a joke?

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Dec 05 - 12:10 AM

Yes, I said those things. But what I am talking about is the agendas people have now, and that they want to implement in the future. What you put in the post to which I referred, happened in the past. Learn the difference between those two things, and you'll understand my last post. Time will tell whether or not I am right.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 10:53 PM

CarolC - 03 Dec 05 - 08:04 AM

Teribus, unless you are trolling (and I tend to think you are), I really can't see any reason why you would include my name in your 03 Dec 05 - 07:32 AM post.

Hey CarolC - I wasn't the one that came out with the following bullshit as the second post in the thread!!

CarolC - 23 Nov 05 - 02:17 PM

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

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

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 12:21 PM

As I've said elsewhere, the real question will be what happens after the December election.

Will Iraqis, having participated in the election, expect magical improvement in all aspects of their lives--and therefore be bitterly disappointed when it doesn't happen? (24-hour electricity, for instance).

Especially significant will be how content the Sunnis are after the election--particularly if--as is likely-- they propose amendments to the constitution which are all defeated. ( And amendments are a certainty--since the constitution itself only postponed many crucial questions of governing.)

If the Sunnis then increase support of the insurgents, all this supposed progress could be easily undone.

Everybody wants the US troops home--but they may have to come home leaving behind chaos in Iraq, despite what Bush now says.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 11:45 AM

From Mr. Lieberman's speech: "The Sixth Infantry Division of the Iraqi Security Forces now controls and polices more than one-third of Baghdad on its own. Coalition and Iraqi forces have together cleared the previously terrorist-controlled cities of Fallujah, Mosul and Tal Afar, and most of the border with Syria. Those areas are now being "held" secure by the Iraqi military themselves. Iraqi and coalition forces are jointly carrying out a mission to clear Ramadi, now the most dangerous city in Al-Anbar province at the west end of the Sunni Triangle."

Let's hope he is correct. However, recent developments in Fallujah, Mosul and Tal Afar don't bode well.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 11:26 AM

Doug R, Teribus et al.--

Wall St Journal editorials and columns frequently do nothing but parrot the Bushite line (or accuse him of not being conservative enough.)

Citing a Journal column as supporting Bush therefore proves nothing.

Try branching out for once and reading the actual Journal reporting--which very often directly contradicts the editorial line.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 08:04 AM

Teribus, unless you are trolling (and I tend to think you are), I really can't see any reason why you would include my name in your 03 Dec 05 - 07:32 AM post.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 07:32 AM

Dianavan & CarolC,

For your information. You know those evil PSA's that Dianavan mentioned whereby all those big bad Western Oil Companies are forcing the Iraqi Government to sign, in order to "steal" Iraq's natural resources.

Well research, indicates that only three have ever been signed with regard to Iraq oil fields:
- Lukoil (Russian) when Saddam Hussein was in power
- Total (French) when Saddam Hussein was in power
- DNO (Norwegian) see below

OSLO (AFX) - The Norwegian oil company DNO ASA said it has begun oil prospecting in Iraqi Kurdistan, in what Norway's media said was the first drilling by a foreign group since the 2003 fall of Saddam Hussein's regime.

DNO said drilling in the Tawke 1 well is expected to take 60 days to reach a depth of 3,000 metres in a zone that is believed to contain three separate oil reserves.

The company, which is the operator of the block and has a 40 pct stake, said this was the first oil exploration undertaken following a production sharing agreement signed with the Kurdish authorities in June 2004.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 06:50 AM

Ebbie - 29 Nov 05 - 05:42 PM

Lieberman Article WSJ

"Our Troops Must Stay"
America can't abandon 27 million Iraqis to 10,000 terrorists.

BY JOE LIEBERMAN
Tuesday, November 29, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST

I have just returned from my fourth trip to Iraq in the past 17 months and can report real progress there. More work needs to be done, of course, but the Iraqi people are in reach of a watershed transformation from the primitive, killing tyranny of Saddam to modern, self-governing, self-securing nationhood--unless the great American military that has given them and us this unexpected opportunity is prematurely withdrawn.

Progress is visible and practical. In the Kurdish North, there is continuing security and growing prosperity. The primarily Shiite South remains largely free of terrorism, receives much more electric power and other public services than it did under Saddam, and is experiencing greater economic activity. The Sunni triangle, geographically defined by Baghdad to the east, Tikrit to the north and Ramadi to the west, is where most of the terrorist enemy attacks occur. And yet here, too, there is progress.

There are many more cars on the streets, satellite television dishes on the roofs, and literally millions more cell phones in Iraqi hands than before. All of that says the Iraqi economy is growing. And Sunni candidates are actively campaigning for seats in the National Assembly. People are working their way toward a functioning society and economy in the midst of a very brutal, inhumane, sustained terrorist war against the civilian population and the Iraqi and American military there to protect it.

It is a war between 27 million and 10,000; 27 million Iraqis who want to live lives of freedom, opportunity and prosperity and roughly 10,000 terrorists who are either Saddam revanchists, Iraqi Islamic extremists or al Qaeda foreign fighters who know their wretched causes will be set back if Iraq becomes free and modern. The terrorists are intent on stopping this by instigating a civil war to produce the chaos that will allow Iraq to replace Afghanistan as the base for their fanatical war-making. We are fighting on the side of the 27 million because the outcome of this war is critically important to the security and freedom of America. If the terrorists win, they will be emboldened to strike us directly again and to further undermine the growing stability and progress in the Middle East, which has long been a major American national and economic security priority.

Before going to Iraq last week, I visited Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Israel has been the only genuine democracy in the region, but it is now getting some welcome company from the Iraqis and Palestinians who are in the midst of robust national legislative election campaigns, the Lebanese who have risen up in proud self-determination after the Hariri assassination to eject their Syrian occupiers (the Syrian- and Iranian-backed Hezbollah militias should be next), and the Kuwaitis, Egyptians and Saudis who have taken steps to open up their governments more broadly to their people. In my meeting with the thoughtful prime minister of Iraq, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, he declared with justifiable pride that his country now has the most open, democratic political system in the Arab world. He is right.

In the face of terrorist threats and escalating violence, eight million Iraqis voted for their interim national government in January, almost 10 million participated in the referendum on their new constitution in October, and even more than that are expected to vote in the elections for a full-term government on Dec. 15. Every time the 27 million Iraqis have been given the chance since Saddam was overthrown, they have voted for self-government and hope over the violence and hatred the 10,000 terrorists offer them. Most encouraging has been the behavior of the Sunni community, which, when disappointed by the proposed constitution, registered to vote and went to the polls instead of taking up arms and going to the streets. Last week, I was thrilled to see a vigorous political campaign, and a large number of independent television stations and newspapers covering it.

None of these remarkable changes would have happened without the coalition forces led by the U.S. And, I am convinced, almost all of the progress in Iraq and throughout the Middle East will be lost if those forces are withdrawn faster than the Iraqi military is capable of securing the country.

The leaders of Iraq's duly elected government understand this, and they asked me for reassurance about America's commitment. The question is whether the American people and enough of their representatives in Congress from both parties understand this. I am disappointed by Democrats who are more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq almost three years ago, and by Republicans who are more worried about whether the war will bring them down in next November's elections, than they are concerned about how we continue the progress in Iraq in the months and years ahead.

Here is an ironic finding I brought back from Iraq. While U.S. public opinion polls show serious declines in support for the war and increasing pessimism about how it will end, polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism. Two-thirds say they are better off than they were under Saddam, and a resounding 82% are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today. What a colossal mistake it would be for America's bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory.

The leaders of America's military and diplomatic forces in Iraq, Gen. George Casey and Ambassador Zal Khalilzad, have a clear and compelling vision of our mission there. It is to create the environment in which Iraqi democracy, security and prosperity can take hold and the Iraqis themselves can defend their political progress against those 10,000 terrorists who would take it from them.

Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes we do. And it is important to make it clear to the American people that the plan has not remained stubbornly still but has changed over the years. Mistakes, some of them big, were made after Saddam was removed, and no one who supports the war should hesitate to admit that; but we have learned from those mistakes and, in characteristic American fashion, from what has worked and not worked on the ground. The administration's recent use of the banner "clear, hold and build" accurately describes the strategy as I saw it being implemented last week.

We are now embedding a core of coalition forces in every Iraqi fighting unit, which makes each unit more effective and acts as a multiplier of our forces. Progress in "clearing" and "holding" is being made. The Sixth Infantry Division of the Iraqi Security Forces now controls and polices more than one-third of Baghdad on its own. Coalition and Iraqi forces have together cleared the previously terrorist-controlled cities of Fallujah, Mosul and Tal Afar, and most of the border with Syria. Those areas are now being "held" secure by the Iraqi military themselves. Iraqi and coalition forces are jointly carrying out a mission to clear Ramadi, now the most dangerous city in Al-Anbar province at the west end of the Sunni Triangle.

Nationwide, American military leaders estimate that about one-third of the approximately 100,000 members of the Iraqi military are able to "lead the fight" themselves with logistical support from the U.S., and that that number should double by next year. If that happens, American military forces could begin a drawdown in numbers proportional to the increasing self-sufficiency of the Iraqi forces in 2006. If all goes well, I believe we can have a much smaller American military presence there by the end of 2006 or in 2007, but it is also likely that our presence will need to be significant in Iraq or nearby for years to come.

The economic reconstruction of Iraq has gone slower than it should have, and too much money has been wasted or stolen. Ambassador Khalilzad is now implementing reform that has worked in Afghanistan--Provincial Reconstruction Teams, composed of American economic and political experts, working in partnership in each of Iraq's 18 provinces with its elected leadership, civil service and the private sector. That is the "build" part of the "clear, hold and build" strategy, and so is the work American and international teams are doing to professionalize national and provincial governmental agencies in Iraq.

These are new ideas that are working and changing the reality on the ground, which is undoubtedly why the Iraqi people are optimistic about their future--and why the American people should be, too.

I cannot say enough about the U.S. Army and Marines who are carrying most of the fight for us in Iraq. They are courageous, smart, effective, innovative, very honorable and very proud. After a Thanksgiving meal with a great group of Marines at Camp Fallujah in western Iraq, I asked their commander whether the morale of his troops had been hurt by the growing public dissent in America over the war in Iraq. His answer was insightful, instructive and inspirational: "I would guess that if the opposition and division at home go on a lot longer and get a lot deeper it might have some effect, but, Senator, my Marines are motivated by their devotion to each other and the cause, not by political debates."

Thank you, General. That is a powerful, needed message for the rest of America and its political leadership at this critical moment in our nation's history. Semper Fi.

Mr. Lieberman is a Democratic senator from Connecticut.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: dianavan
Date: 02 Dec 05 - 10:46 PM

What's really going on?

In case you missed this link from a guest on another thread:

http://www.rainews24.rai.it/ran24/inchiesta/video/fallujah_ING.wmv

You'll need a strong stomach but anyone who thinks that what the U.S. and its allies in Iraq have done and continue to do to the civilians, must know what happened in Fallujah.

Doesn't anyone ever wonder why no film or documentation or news ever came out about Fallujah? It was an atrocity committed by the U.S. It is ironic that we deposed Saddam because of false imprisonment, torture and chemical weapons but guess what? George Bush is doing the same thing.

Iraq is not a better place, its just as bad or worse.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Dec 05 - 04:05 AM

So will I find it on FOX, Doug? Or in the Washington Times? Or in Bill's Fear Factor?

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: DougR
Date: 01 Dec 05 - 11:04 PM

I'm not surprised that you could not find the Wallstreet Op-Ed piece written by Senator Lieberman by googling it, Ebbie. The mainstream press has largely ignored his report on conditions in Iraq because they have no interest in reporting positive things that are going on there.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 01 Dec 05 - 07:11 AM

Perhaps this is what is really going on in Iraq?:
U.S. Occupation Is Worse Than Hussein

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 01 Dec 05 - 06:41 AM

This place is a Discussion Forum

Forum and Aginem...

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: TIA
Date: 30 Nov 05 - 06:02 PM

Fir is clearly the opposite of agin

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Nov 05 - 05:10 PM

"Fir" is simply fir as in what "fir" ya ask???

Yeah, you can tell that some folks is gettin' wored down arguin' fir why we is in Iraq-mire and now they gonna start pickin' on spellin' an' such...

Geeesh!!!

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: GUEST,David
Date: 30 Nov 05 - 09:01 AM

Wot is "fir?"

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Nov 05 - 09:00 AM

What is fir

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Nov 05 - 08:23 AM

Dianavan makes a very interesting point in pointing out that Mr Chalibi has somehow positioned himself to be making decisions about the future of Iraq'a oil reserves... Hmmmmmmmmm

Given the fact that it was Mr Chalibi who was a source of so much of the bogus so called "intellegence" that got the US into Iraq-mire, and given the bogus governemnt that the US/Uk have put in power, and given the fact that Mr. Chalibi hadn't evn lived in Iraq-mire in two decades, isn't it now concieveable that...

... the US is in Iraq-mire fir Mr. Chalabi???

Heck, all the other excuses have turned out to be LIES...

Hey, I could live with that... Well, no I couldn't but I'd much rather Bush just get on the TV and say, "Ahhhh, I've lied about why we are in Iraq. We're there for oil and we got our boy Chalabi right where we need him..."

Yeah, at least that would be leveling with the American people fir a change!!!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 30 Nov 05 - 08:10 AM

Susanne Osthoff and the Christian peacemaker teams have both been mentioned in an article posted by robomatic (thanks for that). It won't help her if she is in the hands of the wrong group, but Ms. Osthoff is Muslim since long.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 10:20 PM

That's OK.

The old saying goes..

When you ASSUME, you make an ASS out of U and ME...

A fair bit of that goes on in the political threads here... :-)


Hahaha! my spell checker thought I meant 'polemical' for my mistype of 'political'... near enough!

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 10:11 PM

Thanks, Robin.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 10:04 PM

CarolC

My apologies.

That was a quote from 'The Bard', and in common everyday usage, has nothing to do with referring to ladies. In fact I was actually inspired by Mr T.

Robin

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 09:36 PM

( ...so what else is new?)

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 09:35 PM

Clearly you have not been reading my posts, robomatic.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: robomatic
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 09:10 PM

CArolC:

I don't know if Foulestroupe was aiming that comment at you, but I think it was well taken as such. You post 'to win' and 'to have the last word' but you don't always seek to explain and enlighten. More than once in this thread you have insinuated with no facts. (And of course you are not unique in that respect).

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: dianavan
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 09:08 PM

teribus says - "Dianavan then picks up on an article about PSA's hinting that all those wicked UK and US Oil Companies are going to rush in and force Iraq to sign away their oil in 30 year deals."

He's referring to the Nov. 27th article in the Guardian which states, "In Iraq, an American-inspired deal to hand over development of oil reserves, the third largest in the world, to US and British companies is being rushed through by the oil minister and Deputy Prime Minister Ahmed Chalabi before next month's election."

Nobody is forcing Iraq to sign away development of their oil reserves. Chalabi is giving it away. Nobody is hinting about it either. Thats what is happening.

If you connect the dots, teribus, you will see that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with freedom or democracy. It had all to do with greed.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 08:59 PM

I'm going to answer my own question. This statement looks like it is aimed at me (since I'm the only "lady" who has posted a lot of information in this thread)...

I'm just a little nobody with no assets or influence, so when I express a personal opinion based on a wide ranging reading of many sources (apparently not all 'approved'), then I am told I am wrong, and heaps pf alleged facts that I have little means of following up are bombarded at me.

What makes you think anything I have posted in this thread has anything whatever to do with you? Methinks the (gentle?)man doth protest too much.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 08:35 PM

Foolestroup, whom are you addressing in your 29 Nov 05 - 08:01 PM post?

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 08:19 PM

T-

Yeah, we had partners, or better put, contacts, in Kuwait... There were no formal partrnerships... The entire tregion is corrupt by American standards and good lieing is considered to be an "honorable trait"... Doesn't matter too much which Middle East county... Them folks all danged good liars... Yeah, the Kuwaiti's are prolly the best but the Saudi's ain't half bad either...

But as fir the 51%??? That is entirely false... All they wanted was their kickbacks... They didn't want to get entangled with leagl partnerships... Cramped their styles...

Plus, takes a lotta grease, kinda like Halliburton does with the US governemnt, to get the contracts... Lotta grease... We paid, oh God, over $100,000 to one family in Kuwait and they said, thanks, we got more from _________!!!

(Ahhhhh, can we have our 100 grand back???)

This was money up front to buy a deal and, ahhhh, I don't trust Kuwaitis no more...

Crooks. just like Halliburton..

BTW, T, ahh did you review the list of stuff the Halliburton is no-bid contratced to do fir us in Iraq that you think no-one else can do???

All looks like purdy easy stuff to me... No rocket surgery in there...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 08:01 PM

"When the facts aren't in your favour, confuse 'em with bullshit - the more the better." - the high school debating team - I was leader of one such team...

There is one absolute master (at least lots of people here have said that) of the technique of throwing heaps of text into a thread - and it is not Mr T.


'Methinks the Lady doth protest too much'

I'm just a little nobody with no assets or influence, so when I express a personal opinion based on a wide ranging reading of many sources (apparently not all 'approved'), then I am told I am wrong, and heaps pf alleged facts that I have little means of following up are bombarded at me.


And I shouldn't get suspicious?

:-)

I was leafing thru a Practical Mechanics the other day from about 2002 which showed satellite (hacked no doubt!!!) pictures of an oil pipeline being extended from Kuwait towards the border with Iraq.

Excuse me, I just have to blink...

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 06:30 PM

Teribus, you are entirely missing the point of my posts in this thread, and you are trying to lead me down blind alleys that have nothing whatever to do with anything I am saying about what's going on in Iraq.

I'm saying that there are competing interests, even among the people who supported the war in Iraq in the first place... some of them want us to stay (the oil interests, in particular), and some of them want us out, the sooner the better (the people who want the region Balkanized for reasons related to balance of power equations). These various people are working very hard to influence the US public to either support keeping US forces in Iraq, or to put pressure on the Bush administration to get US forces out of Iraq.

My reason for discussing this situation here in the Mudcat is that I don't think any of us (any of us who live, vote, and pay taxes here in the US) should necessarily take anyone's word at face value, even if they seem to be agreeing with whatever stance we took originally on the war. We ought to be looking behind their words and finding out what their real agenda is, and then we should find whatever solutions we can to best help the Iraqi people rather than allow ourselves to be used by people with hidden agendas.

The way to do this is not to throw around a bunch of fabricated "facts", but to look at who benefits the most from whatever decisions are made in Iraq and in the Middle East generally (and in the world generally). If hegemonic interests are the ones who benefit the most, it stands to reason that the ordinary citizens will be the ones who suffer the most, and benefit the least. I am against allowing that to happen for ethical and moral reasons, and for reasons of enlightened self-interest.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 06:11 PM

CarolC - 29 Nov 05 - 03:56 PM

Noted that in renouncing my identification of the Dome in question you pass on answering my question about how or why a small Canadian Company taken over by Amoco Canada in 1988, which in turn is taken over by BP in 1998, a take-over in which Amoco loses it's name but a Company they took over 10 years before doesn't?

Dome International on their web page actually announce that they have the work in Iraq. Now maybe just for once Bobert can help out here.

Now let's see Anadarko, Dome, and Vitol, a consortium of three small, independent, companies are awarded a contract to evaluate the 2-billion-barrel Suba-Luhais in southern Iraq.

This consortium consists of:
- Andarko who specialise in fractured reservoirs and enhanced oil recovery. Souther fields are in poor shape remember.
- Vitol SA Inc who are oil traders
- Dome Petroleum Services/Dome International ??????

Now let's ask Bobert whether or not he and his brother needed to have an Arab partner when he and his brother attempted their little business venture over in that part of the world a few years ago? Now from what I know about setting up shop in the Arabian Gulf area the answer is yes, you do have to have an Arab partner and that partner must hold 51% of the shares. Hence the essential presence of Dome International, or more importantly Dome Petroleum Services who are registered in Iraq.

Halliburton??? if you want to fill space referring to them fill your boots. To date the Iraqi's have not included them in contract awards or on tender lists. I did state my belief that who ever does get awarded those jobs quite large chunks will ultimately go to Halliburton or one of its subsidiary companies purely because that is the business that they are in. Particularly if drilling is involved - Halliburton owns Hughes and Baker Oil Tools - basically you can't drill without them - then there's the mud pumps compressors, all that sort of stuff. They do make a good living out of it, and counter to what Bobert claims they are rather good at it right across the board.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 05:42 PM

Doug, even if you don't provide a clicky there's nothing stopping you from 'copying and pasting' the page address of where you read something. It would make it much easir to find something. I googled for it but didn't find it.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 04:47 PM

Ummmm, it would seem that Joe Lieberman has been one of the loudest hawks in the Senate, Dougie...

Of course he's gonna see everything all hunky doorey...

Heckm if Joe Lieberman had it his way he'd more than likely have Bush invade Syria and Iran as well...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: robomatic
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 04:32 PM

From New York Times Online 29 November 2005:

Militants in Iraq Threaten to Kill German Archaeologist
By KIRK SEMPLE
and RICHARD BERNSTEIN

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Nov. 29 - A prominent German archaeologist and aid worker who had lived and worked in Iraq for years has been kidnapped, the German government confirmed today as images of her surrounded by masked, armed men were broadcast on international television.

The kidnappers threatened to kill the archaeologist, Susanne Osthoff, unless Berlin stopped cooperating with the Iraqi government, according to a videotape delivered to the German state broadcaster ARD. A still image from the tape showed two blindfolded people flanked by three men, their faces concealed by kaffiyehs. One of the men held a rocket-propelled grenade launcher. Ms. Osthoff was kidnapped with her driver, whose name was not released. She is the first German national to be kidnapped in Iraq.

News of Ms. Osthoff's abduction came as the aid group Christian Peacemaker Teams confirmed that four Westerners taken hostage on Saturday in a neighborhood in western Baghdad were workers for the organization. The group said that Norman Kember, a 74-year-old Briton, was among the missing workers, who also included an American and two Canadians. An official from the American Embassy in Baghdad declined today to name the kidnapped American or even to confirm the affiliation of that American, saying, "We're engaged with the family on all these issues."

The Arabic language television station Al Jazeera broadcast a videotape today purportedly showing the four Westerners, including Mr. Kember. On the tape, the kidnappers, who said they were from a previously unknown group called Swords of Truth, accused their captives of being "spies of the occupying forces."

The wave of abductions suggested that after a yearlong lull in kidnappings, the tactic might be regaining currency as a preferred tool of intimidation by the insurgency, which is seeking to topple the American-backed government and drive foreign troops and business interests out of the country. More than 200 foreigners have been abducted since the American invasion 31 months ago. Dozens of the captives have been killed in captivity and about 20 remain missing.

Kidnappings - and their ghoulish corollary, videotaped beheadings - reached a peak in the fall of 2004 and paralyzed the foreign community of government officials, executives, aid workers and journalists, who severely restricted their movements and beefed up security measures.

During the American military siege on the insurgent stronghold of Falluja last November, troops discovered a number of bunkers where captives had apparently been held and tortured. Following the Falluja offensive, kidnappings of foreigners fell off dramatically and car bombs became the foreign community's greatest threat.

Militant Shiite opponents of the American-led international presence in Iraq are believed to have committed two of the most recent high-profile kidnappings and murders of foreigners, both journalists. Rory Carroll, a reporter for The Guardian, was abducted in October in a predominantly Shiite neighborhood of Baghdad but released unharmed after a day in captivity. In August, Steven Vincent, an American freelance journalist researching a book in Basra, was also abducted and killed.

Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, facing her first crisis since taking office last week, called on Ms. Osthoff's kidnappers today to release the archaeologist. "We condemn this act in the harshest possible terms," Mrs. Merkel said in a brief statement to the press. "We urgently appeal to the perpetrators to hand both of them over into safe custody."

Mrs. Merkel said that the government had set up a crisis committee to deal with the kidnapping, and she told Ms. Osthoff's family in Germany that everything would be done to secure her release.

"They can rest assured," Mrs. Merkel said of the family, "that the government will do everything in its power to bring both the kidnapped to safety and to secure their lives."

Ms. Osthoff's kidnapping was already riveting a German public that has long been among Europe's most skeptical in its attitude toward the Iraq war, which Germany has opposed from the beginning. Germany has consistently refused to send troops to Iraq, and Mrs. Merkel has vowed not to change that policy. But she has also said she would continue Germany's ongoing training of Iraqi police in the United Arab Emirates, an activity that the kidnappers apparently were referring to in their demand that Germany stop cooperating with the Iraqi government.

In a broadcasting decision reminiscent of the response in France to the kidnapping of Florence Aubenas, a French journalist, and her driver earlier this year, German television focused all day on Ms. Osthoff and her activities in Iraq, which combined efforts to preserve the country's archaeological treasures and to provide it with medical aid.

"She has been bringing medicine and medical equipment to Iraq for years," Ms. Osthoff's mother, who has been identified in the German press only as Ingrid H., said on German television. "We are always alarmed when something happens there."

Ms. Osthoff, the German press reported, has lived in Iraq for many years and is fluent in Arabic. She was married to an Iraqi man but the couple divorced some years ago. Ms. Osthoff has a 10-year-old daughter who lives in a boarding school in southern Germany.

After news of Ms. Osthoff's kidnapping became known here, a German newspaper, the Neue Osnabrücker Zeiting, reported that Ms. Osthoff had been targeted by extremist groups close to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi during the summer, when she was living in Mosul in northern Iraq. At the time, the newspaper said, Ms. Osthoff was escorted by American soldiers to Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone. Since then, Ms. Osthoff has been negotiating both with the German Embassy in Baghdad and the local Kurdish-dominated government in the northern town of Arbil to build a German cultural center there, the newspaper said.

It was unclear whether she was accompanied by security guards, a basic precaution taken by most Westerners traveling and working in Iraq.

The four aid workers who went missing over the weekend were apparently not traveling in the company of security guards.

A human rights advocate in Baghdad, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the Christian Peacemaker Teams have acted with reckless disregard for their own safety by moving unprotected through communities generally hostile to the foreign presence. The rights advocate said the group's representatives were entering mosques in predominantly Sunni neighborhoods to offer their services in helping find missing family members, were accompanying families fleeing to the border, and were trying to organize prison visits for relatives of inmates.

The organization has declared its opposition to the American invasion and occupation of Iraq. But even so, many of the groups that have claimed responsibility for recent kidnappings have also claimed links to Mr. Zarqawi, whose animosity toward Christians and Jews is redolent in nearly all his pronouncements.

Like the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross, most major international aid and reconstruction organizations have pulled most of their foreign staff from Iraq. Some of the smaller organizations that have remained have demonstrated a cavalier attitude toward personal safety, traveling without bodyguards and entering neighborhoods and regions considered generally hostile toward the American-led foreign presence.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: DougR
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 04:20 PM

Perhaps, Ebbie, you should read the op-ed piece authored by Democrat Senator and former candidate for Vice President of the United States Joseph Lieberman wrote for the New York Times. It's probably on the Times Web page today. If not, perhaps some kindly Mudcat Blue Clicky artist will provide a link. According to him, all is not gloom and doom in Iraq as the adminstration's detractors would have us believe.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 04:08 PM

Oh, but Carol, Halliburton is the only company in the world that can build stuff or repair stuff...

Jus ask T-Burton...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 03:56 PM

Dome Petroleum referred to in my post is part of Dome International based in Dubai, which I suppose makes it a company registered in the UAE, not Iraq as I first thought.

This is pretty pathetic, Teribus, considering the fact that nowhere in the page to which you linked is there any mention of which "Dome" they are referring to. As usual, you're just making up your "facts" as you go along.

........

On the subject of war profiteers like Halliburton (and its various subsidiaries) and corruption...


http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=15

Halliburton

"The biggest windfall in the invasion of Iraq has most certainly gone to the oil services and logistics company Halliburton. The company, which was formerly run by Vice President Dick Cheney, had revenue of over $8 billion in contracts in Iraq in 2003 alone. And while Halliburton's dealings in Iraq have been dogged everywhere by scandal - including now a criminal investigation into overcharging by Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root for gas shipped into Iraq - Vice President Cheney manages to be doing quite well from the deal. He owns $433,000 unexercised Halliburton stock options worth more than $10 million dollars.

But Halliburton's history of benefiting from government largesse goes back a ways. From 1962 to 1972 the Pentagon paid the company tens of millions of dollars to work in South Vietnam, where they built roads, landing strips, harbors, and military bases from the demilitarized zone to the Mekong Delta. The company was one of the main contractors hired to construct the Diego Garcia air base in the Indian Ocean, according to Pentagon military histories.

In the early 1990s the company was awarded the job to study and then implement the privatization of routine army functions under then-secretary of defense Dick Cheney. When Cheney quit his Pentagon job, he landed the job of Halliburton's CEO, bringing with him his trusted deputy David Gribbin. The two substantially increased Halliburton's government business until they quit in 2000, once Cheney was elected vice president. This included a $2.2 billion bill for a Brown and Root contract to support US soldiers in Operation Just Endeavor in the Balkans.

After Cheney and Gribbin departed, another confidante of Cheney, Admiral Joe Lopez, former commander in chief for U.S. forces in southern Europe, took over Gribbin's old job of go-between for the government and the company, according to Brown and Root's own press releases.

In 2001 the company took in $13 billion in revenues, according to its latest annual report. Currently, Brown and Root estimates it has $740 million in existing U.S. government contracts (approximately 37 percent of its global business).

For example, in mid November 2001, Brown and Root was paid $2 million to reinforce the U.S. embassy in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, under contract with the State Department, according to the New York Times. More recently Brown and Root was paid $16 million by the federal government to go to Guantnamo Bay, Cuba, to build a 408-person prison for captured Taliban fighters, according to Pentagon press releases.

That's by no means all: Brown and Root employees can be found back home running support operations from Fort Knox, Kentucky, to a naval base in El Centro, California, according to company press releases. In December 2001, Brown and Root secured a 10-year deal named the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP), from the Pentagon, which has already been estimated at $830 million.

Meanwhile independent agencies are still skeptical about claimed financial savings from contracting out military support operations. According to the Government Accounting Office (GAO), a February 1997 study showed that a Brown and Root operation in Bosnia estimated at $191.6 million when presented to Congress in 1996 had ballooned to $461.5 million a year later.

All told this former Yugoslavia contract has now cost the taxpayer $2.2 billion over the last several years. Examples of overspending by contractors include flying plywood from the United States to the Balkans at $85.98 a sheet and billing the army to pay its employees' income taxes in Hungary.

A subsequent GAO report, issued September 2000, showed that Brown and Root was still taking advantage of the contract in the Balkans. Army commanders were unable to keep track of the contract because they were typically rotated out of camps after a six-month duration, erasing institutional memory, according to the report. The GAO painted a picture of Brown and Root contract employees sitting idly most of the time. The report also noted that a lot of staff time was spent doing unnecessary tasks, such as cleaning offices four times a day. Pentagon officials were able to identify $72 million in cost savings on the Brown and Root contract simply by eliminating excess power generation equipment that the company had purchased for the operation.

Brown and Root has been also been investigated for over billing the government in its domestic operations. In February 2002, Brown and Root paid out $2 million to settle a suit with the Justice Department that alleged the company defrauded the government during the mid-1990s closure of Fort Ord in Monterey, California.

The allegations in the case surfaced several years ago when Dammen Gant Campbell, a former contracts manager for Brown and Root turned whistle-blower, charged that between 1994 and 1998 the company fraudulently inflated project costs by misrepresenting the quantities, quality, and types of materials required for 224 projects. Campbell said the company submitted a detailed "contractors pricing proposal" from an army manual containing fixed prices for some 30,000 line items.

Once the proposal was approved, the company submitted a more general "statement of work," which did not contain a breakdown of items to be purchased. Campbell maintained the company intentionally did not deliver many items listed in the original proposal. The company defended this practice by claiming the statement of work was the legally binding document, not the original contractors pricing proposal.

"Whether you characterize it as fraud or sharp business practices, the bottom line is the same: the government was not getting what it paid for," says Michael Hirst, of the United States Attorney's Office in Sacramento, who litigated the suit on behalf of the government. "We alleged that they exploited the contracting process and increased their profits at the governments expense.""

........

Halliburton has been fleecing everyone on the cost of importing fuel from Kuwait and other locations...


http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/after/2003/1210fuel.htm

"The United States government is paying the Halliburton Company an average of $2.64 a gallon to import gasoline and other fuel to Iraq from Kuwait, more than twice what others are paying to truck in Kuwaiti fuel, government documents show. Halliburton, which has the exclusive United States contract to import fuel into Iraq, subcontracts the work to a Kuwaiti firm, government officials said. But Halliburton gets 26 cents a gallon for its overhead and fee, according to documents from the Army Corps of Engineers.

The cost of the imported fuel first came to public attention in October when two senior Democrats in Congress criticized Halliburton, the huge Houston-based oil-field services company, for "inflating gasoline prices at a great cost to American taxpayers." At the time, it was estimated that Halliburton was charging the United States government and Iraq's oil-for-food program an average of about $1.60 a gallon for fuel available for 71 cents wholesale. But a breakdown of fuel costs, contained in Army Corps documents recently provided to Democratic Congressional investigators and shared with The New York Times, shows that Halliburton is charging $2.64 for a gallon of fuel it imports from Kuwait and $1.24 per gallon for fuel from Turkey....

... Iraqi's state oil company, SOMO, pays 96 cents a gallon to bring in gas, which includes the cost of gasoline and transportation costs, the aides to Mr. Waxman said. The gasoline transported by SOMO - and by Halliburton's subcontractor - are delivered to the same depots in Iraq and often use the same military escorts. The Pentagon's Defense Energy Support Center pays $1.08 to $1.19 per gallon for the gas it imports from Kuwait, Congressional aides said. That includes the price of the gas and its transportation costs.

The money for Halliburton's gas contract has come principally from the United Nations oil-for-food program, though some of the costs have been borne by American taxpayers. In the appropriations bill signed by Mr. Bush last month, taxpayers will subsidize all gas importation costs beginning early next year. In an interview on Tuesday, Mr. Waxman responded to the latest information on to costs of the Halliburton contract. "It's inexcusable that Americans are being charged absurdly high prices to buy gasoline for Iraqis and outrageous that the White House is letting it happen," he said. "

........

And we can see that the Coalition Provisional Authority (appointed by the occupying countries) missed no opportunities to create a lack of transparency in their accounting practices, which has made it so much easier for US companies and other foreign companies to make a buck at the expense of the Iraqi people and US taxpayers...


http://www.soros.org/initiatives/cep/articles_publications/publications/irw_brief_20040624

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53164-2004Jul15.html

........

And just in case anyone is still wondering about what the oil industry's agenda is in Iraq, here are some excerpts from the page I linked to earlier...


"WASHINGTON, Nov 23 (IPS) - Oil exploration deals currently being negotiated between the Washington-backed Iraqi government and multinational oil companies could cost Iraqis up to 194 billion dollars in lost revenues and transfer more than two-thirds of the country's oil reserves to the control of foreign firms, a new report warns.

"In short, the winners for control of Iraq's oil are the U.S., the UK, and their oil companies," said Steve Kretzmann of Oil Change International and co-publisher of the report, "Crude Designs: The Rip-Off of Iraq's Oil Wealth".

"The losers are the Iraqi people," he added.

The report says that by binding the interim Iraqi government to a type of contract that gives the upper hand to their executives, multinational oil companies will guarantee themselves fat profit margins of 42 to 162 percent, far more the usual industry target of around 12 percent.

U.S. and British oil companies have been pressing for high returns on investments in Iraq, citing the country's volatile security and political situation.

"The form of contracts being promoted is the most expensive and undemocratic option available," said Greg Muttitt of PLATFORM, a London-based oil industry watchdog group. "Iraq's oil should be for the benefit of the Iraqi people, not foreign oil companies."

The contracts are called "production sharing agreements" (PSAs), which typically run between 25 and 40 years and are off-limits to public scrutiny...

...critics note that the terms of such contracts, now keenly promoted by the U.S. and Britain, bar local authorities from amending them in the future and are subject to confidentiality provisions.

Developed in the 1960s, the contracts keep legal ownership of oil reserves in state hands, thus avoiding allegations that national wealth has been transferred to foreign hands. But in practice, they give oil companies the same results as the concession agreements they replaced. PSAs guarantee investors stable taxes for the life of the project.

Iraqis will not be able to contest the contracts in their own courts, because they require that all disputes be heard by international investment tribunals. Such tribunals have traditionally ruled based on commercial interests rather than on national interests, international law or human rights...

...The study points a finger at a group of powerful Iraqi politicians and technocrats who are pushing for this system of long-term contracts with foreign oil companies. This, the report finds, "will be beyond the reach of Iraqi courts, public scrutiny or democratic control".

Authors of the report say their findings confirm, as many Iraqis have long believed, that one of the reasons for the U.S-led invasion of Iraq was to share the spoils of war with oil companies in Iraq, a country that has the world's third largest oil reserves.

"Many Iraqis believe that the war was waged for oil and Iraqi public opinion is overwhelmingly against the U.S.-led occupation, so entering into secret arrangements with foreign oil companies will only increase the chances of political instability," said Erik Leaver, a research at the Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies, also a co-author of the report.

PSAs are not the only option available, says the report, quoting International Atomic Energy Agency figures that show that this type of contract is only used for about 12 percent of the world's oil reserves, mostly in countries with high production costs and uncertain exploration results.

The report suggests that as an alternative to the PSAs, Iraq can finance its oil production by getting international oil companies to sign shorter-term and less restrictive contracts. They can also fund exploration with their own money, or even use future oil flows as collateral to borrow funds, regionally or internationally.

If the Arab country, whose occupiers say they are there to promote freedom and democracy, follows along with the proposed PSAs, the report cautions, "Iraq could be surrendering its democracy as soon as it achieves it.""

........

On the other hand, I think it is worth pointing out that the only thing that has changed in the last year or so as compared to how things were being done before, is the media coverage of these kinds of things. These things didn't just suddenly start happening all of a sudden during the last year or two, and yet the mainstream media in the US either completely ignored them, or they actively supressed any reportage of them until fairly recently. Why would they ignore it before, and only start to address it recently? I think it's because the mainstream media in the US is heavily influenced by the people who want Iraq to become balkanized, and those people know that if the US removes its troops now, Iraq will split apart into warring ethnic states.

I don't know what the answers are, but I'd like to see some transparency in the way the US does business, especially with regard to what is being done in Iraq, and I think that the first question that should be asked (and answered) when any kinds of decisions are being made about Iraq is "will the results of this decision benefit the Iraqi people first and foremost". Anything else is conflict of interest, and calls into question the motives of the governments of the "coalition" countries for their involvement in the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 03:38 PM

Lexdexia, prolly, W-gang 'er just plain too much to drink, er both...

No, no...

Bill Clinton made me do it!!!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 03:08 PM

Bobert,

in which way your 26 Nov 05 - 09:23 AM post was meant as a response to my scenario escapes me.

While it has often been claimed that these have been being some dirty-tricks operation by the other side,    when the facts come out such claims have generally been shown not to h"old water. (McGrath)

I'm curious, McGrath, what is the basis for your use of the word "generally"? Personal subjective evaluation (like my use of the term 'at least as probable') or do you have access to data?

BTW, your definition of 'terrorism' (' anyone who carries out atrocities') is (deliberately?) so broad that it is senseless. Most definitions at least also take the aim of the terror into account. With your definition a brutal rape is terrorism, or a local 'war' between drug dealers.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 02:35 PM

Sorry, Eb, but folks like T-PeaUnnerTheShell loves to use slight of hand to get folks foused on the stuff that really, in the big scheme of things, don't matter too much at all... By doing that he is trying to distract folks attention away from the obvious to the obscure...

If this is some high school debatin' team then he is the master (Yeah, anyone wnats to mess with that, feel free...) but debatin' ain't gonna get the US extrictaed from the Chinese handcuffs the Bush just had to try out... There ain't no hunt left in the "stay-the-course" dog... He all hunted out...

Now we hear Bush sayin' stuff like "Yeah, we can have a discussion" but he don't want no discussion... NMight of fact, I personally don't feel this man is capable of a discussion... That's why he surrounded himself with the small little circle of folks who also don't want to have any discussions... Bush is the most myway-or-the-highway president has ever had...

And like Doctor Phil askes, "Hey, is it working for you?"...

Well, I know hpw Bush would answer this question but a growing majority of people in the country don't see things the way that Bush sees them... That is the "arrogance" that so many porgressives, and now even moderates, are talking about when it comes to the guy...

And now back to Iraq where a yet-to-be-elected constitutional government continues to try to convict Saddam Hussien so they can string him up... Hey, is this even legal??? Seriously...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 12:54 PM

You're making WAY too much sense, Bobert.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 12:13 PM

Well, well, well...

Lets review once again why we supposedly invaded Iraq:

1. Iraq was trying to make nuclear weapons to attack the US.... Yes, even though by the time that Bush pulled the trigger the Niger story had been debunked, the aluminum tubes story had been debunked and the UN inspectors had found nuthun' those 16 words were the crux of the big scare campaigne to sell the war...

    1.a ) This supposed reason turned out to be FALSE...

2. Iraq was making biological weapons to attack the US...

    2.a) This supposed reason also has turned out to bne FALSE...

3. Iraq had stocpiles of chemical weapons ready to be unleashed upon the US...

    3.a) The supposed reason also FALSE...

4. Saddam had ties to Al Quida...

    4.a) FALSE, again...

So if the the initial reason fro going to war no longer exist, why aren't we talking more seriously about getting the heck outta of Iraq???

Well, well, well, let's do a little review of the "New & Improved" reasons for why we are still at war:

5. Saddam was a bad man and he killed his own people...

   5.a) Well, yes, his was a bad man and he did kill some of his own people... Hmmmmm, can anyone think of any other dictators that the US is buddied who are bad men and have killed their owm people??? Why haven't we declared war on them???

6. Iraq needs to have a democratic governemnt...

   6.a) So does the US but we haven't declared war on ourselves...

7. We can't just "cut and run"....

   7.a) Would someone like to tell the peanut gallery how many men died in Vietnam after Nixon started his "We can't just cut and run" PR campaign... Try 20,000 more men in body bags, folks...

8. Well, civil war will break out...

   8.a) Too late, it's all going strong...

So my question... Seeing as there there really isn't a decent excuse fir continuing this war and occupation why are we seriously talking about an exit plan? Sure somw will say that we are fighting terrorism in Iraq but the number of foriegner being killed in the insurgent movement is like negligaible compared to Iraqis... Not to fear, what few terrorists that might be in Iraq won't need to stay there after we are gone...

But this brings us to the point that others have made and ties into my about question...

If there's no apparent good reason for being there, it is not unreasonable to look at Iraq's oil as the motivating factor fir the contunued occupation???

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: robomatic
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 11:47 AM

I've noted in this thread some attempts at logic, then a veer into a guilt-by-mysterious reference on the part of CarolC. When challenged by Teribus, CarolC without connecting the dots cited some mysterious initials which Teribus filled in. Aha, we see the true connections. Dianavan supplemented the argument by claiming Israel as a beneficiary, again without connecting the dots. Then the usual gang piled on to Teribus' motives, associations, character and justified not challenging the words or concepts by labeling it 'fact-checking' when in fact they had provided more accusations then facts to begin with!

So, what's REALLY going on in Iraq?

I get to talk to some of the soldiers coming back. I believe them because most of the time THEY don't claim to know - and they've been there, which is more than you lot.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 11:23 AM

Ivan's little sister: Ivana, the Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 11:17 AM

No Foolestroupe,

It has a lot to do with knocking idiotic myths, half truths and unsubstantiated garbage on the head.

In your post of 25 Nov 05 - 06:53 AM you attempt to explain on behalf of Carol why the US wants to control Iraq's oil, evading completely the question asked which was how they were going to do that.

Then we got CarolC's group of evil, mastermind, think-tankers, who were hell bent on cornering the worlds oil reserves all in the cause of their own lust for power.

You've got Boab at one minute stating categorically that a Tory Government will definately increase UK troop levels in Iraq when in actual fact their numbers are reducing and have been so since cessation of hostilities. When asked to provide reasons for this, give the man his due, he does admit that he has no idea.

Dianavan insisting that because oil infrastructure is targeted by the insurgents it must belong to the someone other than the Iraqi's - Hey Dianavan most insurgent attacks are against Iraqi civilians, so why should they treat lumps of steel and concrete any different.

Now when it is pointed out to her that Iraqi Oil belongs to Iraq, as does the infrasructure, we get CarolC incorrectly identifying companies that in the scheme of things under which the oil and gas industry operates world wide they could only at most have a licence to Operate those facilities on behalf of the government.

Dianavan then picks up on an article about PSA's hinting that all those wicked UK and US Oil Companies are going to rush in and force Iraq to sign away their oil in 30 year deals. Incorrect Dianavan that is an option and not something that is new, the term is 23 years, the winner of the PSA gets to keep 75% of the revenue, and the only ones to have ever been signed in Iraq were signed during Saddam Hussein's reign of Terror and the lucky winners were - Guess who - French and Russian Companies.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 06:07 AM

It doesn't really matter WHO owns the goddamn Oil Companies, it is their ACTIONS that some people are unhappy with.

Being obsessed with the alleged owner ship is just another red herring.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 02:32 AM

Some more info for you CarolC as to who is doing what currently in Iraq:

Oil Exploration and Development Contracts with the former Iraqi Regime and Foreign Companies (source: World Markets Research Centre):
West Qurna Phase 2 (Lukoil - Russian);
Majnoon (Total - French);
Bin Umar (Zarubezhneft - Russian);
Nasiriya (Eni - Italian, Repsol - Spanish);
Halfaya (BHP - Australian, South Korean consortium, CNPC - Chinese, Agip - Italian);
Ratawi (Shell - Netherlands);
Tuba (ONGC - Indian, Sonatrach - BVI);
Suba-Luhais (Slavneft - Russian);
Gharaf (TPAO - Turkey, Japex - Japan);
Al-Ahdab (CNPC - Chinese);
Amara (PetroVietnam);
Western Desert (ONGC - Indian, Pertamina - Indonesia, Stroitransgaz - Russian, Tatneft - Russian)

No US majors there CarolC, lots of Russians though, who were owed billions for weapons purchased by the Iraqi Government of Saddam Hussein. All you've got to do is just join up the dots. The anti-war, anti-Bush crowd seem to be awfully keen at doing that in other areas.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 02:22 AM

CarolC - 28 Nov 05 - 10:16 PM

Nice try CarolC but you are wrong again.

Dome Petroleum referred to in my post is part of Dome International based in Dubai, which I suppose makes it a company registered in the UAE, not Iraq as I first thought.

So Shell is American is it CarolC? Just the same way that ENI was??

Or is just "Shell" an American Company? what about Royal Dutch Shell - is that American? - or what about Anglo-Dutch Shell - American too? - or what about Shell Transport?

From Shell Groups web site:
"July 20th marked the formal unification of Royal Dutch and Shell Transport under a single new parent company, Royal Dutch Shell plc."

Do you know what the term "parent company" means CarolC, if you still believe that Shell is an American Company you could write to the CEO Jeroen van der Veer, he lives in the Netherlands CarolC, don't know his home address but I dare say you could contact him at Shell Corporate Headquarters in Den Hague. From Wikipedia on Royal Dutch Shell plc:

"Its corporate headquarters are in The Hague and it is tax resident in the Netherlands"

I do not give a damn about how many branches Shell has, by law they normally have to be registered in the country in which they operate, but that does not detract in any way shape or form from the fact that Shell is Dutch. It is a major - fourth largest corporation in the world.

Give you a tip CarolC take a look into a fairly slim book entitled "The Seven Sisters", details how the seven major oil companies in the world came into being, where they originated, why they developed the way that they did and operate they way that they do. One thing that you will find out in that book is that Shell is NOT a major American oil Company.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 10:29 PM

Oh no!!!

Can the "proven liar" certificcate be far behind???

Havin' any fun, T??? Din't think so but, hey, when you have had enuff of defending the Bush/Blair bozos we'd welcome you to our side... Think you'll like the workin' conditions which are less stressfull... Okay, the pay is lousy but, hey, no liein'... And no blood on yer hands at the end of the day...

Peace

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 10:16 PM

The Dome Petroleum company listed in your link, Teribus, cannot possibly be the one in Iraq. It is listed under the heading, "Status of Oil Development Deals with Foreign Companies". Not Iraqi companies. So the Dome mentioned in your link must be the one owned by BP Amoco. BP stands for British Petroleum. Amoco stands for American Oil Company. So that's a major British and US oil company.

If you had clicked on the link I provided for Shell, you would have seen that Shell describes itself as a major US oil company.

You said there were no major US oil companies listed in your linked page.

Based on your ridiculous claim about Dome, and your ignorance of Shell as a major US oil company, I think we can dismiss the whole rest of your post with the contempt it so richly deserves.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 10:08 PM

LOL, Eb....

...'cept I think you are right.... He does seem terribly bored by it all...

Hardly any spark of life in his posts anymore...

But hey, it's a pay check...

Prolly a flamin' liberal who just got stuck in a bad job...

Glad it ain't me...

Poor T...

Sniff...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 09:52 PM

Nah. I don't think he does, Bobert. I think he leaves it on his desk when he goes home. Hey. A job is a job.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 09:24 PM

The nice thing about being pathological is that T always believes himself, d, 'er any wingnut in support of the invasion of Iraq...

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: dianavan
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 08:57 PM

Yesterday's guardian tells us,

"In Iraq, an American-inspired deal to hand over development of oil reserves, the third largest in the world, to US and British companies is being rushed through by the oil minister and Deputy Prime Minister Ahmed Chalabi before next month's election."

...and these are thirty year contracts.

Do you still think the invasion of Iraq isn't about control of energy resources?

Teribus - Who are you trying to convince, anyway? Yourself?

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 07:26 PM

CarolC - 27 Nov 05 - 05:48 PM

On the subject of who owns what, here are some of the companies listed in your link, Teribus...

Andarko Petroleum
Small Independent Operator - Incorporated with head office in Texas, this excerpt from their Home Page:

"What We Do
Oil and gas exploration and production is our business - our only business. We're focused on the games we can win. And we're committed to exploration and building upon our proven track record in unconventional resources where we have a global competitive advantage (tight gas, fractured reservoirs, coalbed natural gas and enhanced oil recovery)."   

Now taking into account what was stated regarding possible condition of the Iraqi fields I can easily see why a company that specialises in enhanced oil recovery would be of interest to the Iraqi Oil Ministry.

Dome Petroleum was taken over by Amoco Canada in 1988. BP and Amoco merged in 1998, but in truth it was a BP take-over, the name BP-Amoco didn't last too long and for a number of years now it has just been BP, so I wondered why BP would drop the well known name Amoco yet keep the independent name of a small Canadian company. Of course they didn't - CarolC in her rush to print picked the wrong Dome Petroleum - try this one Carol

Dome Petroleum Services Co.
Al Wehda Quarter
District 904, Street 36, House 5
They also have registered offices in Basra and Kirkuk.

Vitol SA Inc
CarolC informs us with the obligatory link that "The president and Chief Executive Officer of Vitol is http://www.gts.gov.sg/speaker.htm#sp10Ian Taylor (British, lives in London)"

Well Carol C, to quote the Duke of Wellington, " Just because a man is born in a stable it does not make him a horse"

Vitol is a Group of affiliated international oil and gas trading companies incorporated in the Netherlands, in Rotterdam to be exact. So not British, sorry about that.

Tigris Petroleum is actually Australian - founded in 2000 by Norman Davidson Kelly, Alan M. Taylor, both ex-BHP executives specialising in the middle-east, along with Alain Lechevalier (ex-Total where he was Vice-President of Middle-East Exploration) and finally Gonzagues Defforges also ex-Total.

BHP Billiton is a joint venture based in Australia (Another member of the "coalition") and the UK.

ENI is actually THE major Italian Oil Company with its head office in Milan (Googling away CarolC did you only just manage to find an address in Texas (US) for ENI the largest Company in Italy?). I didn't have to look these guys up I have worked for them in the past and am currently working with them in a JV. (Italian so a coalition partner)

Repsol is THE Spanish National Oil Company. (Spain was another member of the coalition at the beginning.)

Sonatrach's Registered Office is located in The British Virgin Islands.

And of course, we all know about Shell Oil. What do you know about Shell Oil Carol? If it is as much as you knew about ENI then you really should go back to your sources, What Shell has been awarded the contract? There are quite a number of them.

So CarolC I make that:

- 1 small independent American oil company as opposed to the four (including 1 major) that you incorrectly turned up.

- No UK based Companies, as opposed to the five that you incorrectly turned up.

- 1 Turkish Company

- 1 Italian Company

- 2 Australian Companies

- 2 Dutch Companies

- 1 Spanish Company

- 1 Company registered in the British Virgin Islands

- 1 Malaysian Company

- 1 Indonesian

- 2 Russian Companies

- 1 Chinese Oil Company

- 1 Canadian Company

- 1 Indian Oil Company

- 1 Iraqi Company

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 08:17 AM

Mr President, why are we going to war in Iraq?

Bush is handed a card which reads '710'...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"The only alarming part of this scenario is that someone out there is being encouraged to think of the Mudcat as being a hotbed of disloyal agitators."

Them goddam trouble makin' Folkies have always been a potential source of polical unrest and other Commie inspired trouble!

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: dianavan
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 12:13 AM

That says it all, Carol.

Everybody should read that link.

Especially those who think that the invasion of Iraq was about democracy, freedom from oppression or protection from terrorists.

Iraq was invaded because of the oil.

and guess what?

Azerbaijan's next.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1652164,00.html

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 11:25 PM

The countries that are waiving the largest percentages of Iraq's debts are not necessarily going to get the biggest slice of the oil pie from that country. Debt forgiveness and oil contracts in Iraq are not really connected to each other.

Here's how the oil companies want things to play out...

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=31153

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 09:10 PM

No, we didn't go to war because Chalabi lied to us. We went to war because it suited us to believe his lies.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 09:03 PM

Yeah, they sho nuff do, d... A lot of blood... But don't matter much to them since they couldn't care less... They are Faithless and so they figgure their won't be no final accountin'...

Always a final accountin'....

No hidin' from it...

They gonna pay...

And, BTW, what really makes me angry is just how hard I work every year to pay my taxes and, believe me, most years it ahs been a major sacrifice, but I do it...

And to have Bush pay Chalibi $450,000 a month for many, many months for Chalibi to lie to him (and this paid from my taxes) really makes me very mad!!! Very mad... Drunk frat boy don't know what it's liie to drive 15 year old cars so there will be money to pay taxes that go a crook/liar!!!!

No, drunk frat boy ain't gottta a clue!!!

Make me mad, mad, mad!!!!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: dianavan
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 08:54 PM

Whats really going on in Iraq?

We invaded because Mr. Chalabi lied to our administration.

Our administration invaded Iraq and made sure Mr. Chalabi gained power.

Mr. Chalabi then signs 30 year contracts with Britain and the U.S. for oil development.

Pretty straight forward if you ask me.

Yesterday's guardian tells us, "In Iraq, an American-inspired deal to hand over development of oil reserves, the third largest in the world, to US and British companies is being rushed through by the oil minister and Deputy Prime Minister Ahmed Chalabi before next month's election."

I hope the people who voted for Bush realize that they have alot of blood on their hands.

If there is a God, he will send you all to hell.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 07:57 PM

Ebbie, Orwell mostly said it all in '1984'. He even anticipated the behaviour, including the legislation, observation of citizens, the DoubleSpleak, the official 'apologists', the endless war against a vague, unknown opponent after a fashion...

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: dianavan
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 07:49 PM

Teribus also says, "You see Dianavan the way it works is this. Iraq owed certain countries billions for arms bought while Saddam was in power. Now those countries have agreed to waive up to 80% of that debt in return for favourable terms in future oil and gas activities in Iraq."

Perhaps you would like to provide a list of the countries who have "agreed to waive up to 80% of that debt in return for favourable terms in future oil and gas activities in Iraq." Please include, not only the debt, but proof that it was for arms sales.

You just aren't very convincing.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 07:46 PM

I suspect, Foolestroupe, that others are instructed to bring him their discovered tidbits - probably by email so he doesn't have to type - so he can obey his own instructions. His own part is not that difficult, especially when he doesn't check his sources.

The only alarming part of this scenario is that someone out there is being encouraged to think of the Mudcat as being a hotbed of disloyal agitators. (Who, me?)

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 07:21 PM

Mr T is really good at giving information that on analysis allows his opponents to strengthen their case. That only convinces me even more than anything else that he is a Public Servant - they are often good at shooting themselves in the foot.

But perhaps I misunderstand his motives; perhaps he is really TRYING to undermine the case of the people he is working for (apparently the oil barons), and we should be grateful for such a wonderful undercover spy!


Of course, having outed him, he will now disappear, and be immediately replaced by another faceless clone, and we will not be able to tell the difference...

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 05:48 PM

On the subject of who owns what, here are some of the companies listed in your link, Teribus...


1.1. The Corporation shall maintain a registered office in Delaware. (From the by-laws of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation)

Dome Petroleum is owned by Amoco(http://www.geohelp.net/history.html), which is now called BP Amoco (oops! There's at least part of the British raison de guerre with regard to Iraq).

The president and Chief Executive Officer of Vitol is http://www.gts.gov.sg/speaker.htm#sp10Ian Taylor (British, lives in London)

Tigris was founded by Norman Davidson Kelly (Scottish) and its offices are located at 73 Portsmouth Road, Liphook, Hampshire, GU30 7EE according to the UK Patent Office.

BHP Billiton is a joint venture based in Australia (Another member of the "coalition") and the UK.

ENI is located in Texas (US).

Repsol is a Spanish owned company. (Spain was another member of the coalition at the beginning.)

Sonatrach's Registered Office is located in The British Virgin Islands.

And of course, we all know about Shell Oil.

Your link cites AvrAsya Technology Engineering as being Turkish. (Another member of the coalition.)

Your link mentions one company from Malaysia, one company from Indonesia, two companies from Russia, one from India, and one from Canada.

So that's at least four US (one of them a major oil company), and five UK based companies of the ones listed in your link, plus the Turkish and Australian based companies... 11 coalition owned companies that we know of. I don't know whether or not Malaysia, India, or Indonesia were a part of the coalition. Canada was not officially, but it has been providing non-combat support.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 05:28 PM

Driving trucks

Building schools

Pipe fitting

Heating and Air Conditioning

Repairing eguipemnt

Warehousing

Pouring concrete

Filing papers

Equiping kitchens

Wiring Buildings

Oh yes, T-Thief, I'm beginning to see just how specialized Halliburton is!!!!

Not!!! You knothead.... You ain't gonna try to get that useless hound dog to hunt again, are ya, T???

Yeah, maybe you'd like to tell the penut gallery exactly what it is that Halliburton can do that no one else can do???

Please be specfic and then ol' Bobert will Google up you other folks who can do any of these, well, other than pay Dick Cheney for no bid contracts... THAT, my friend, is about the end of Halliburton's list...

But, as per usaul, ol' Bobert will be waitin' fir yer list of things that no one else can do...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: dianavan
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 02:37 PM

teribus - Interesting and informative link.

"Oil Exploration and Development Contracts with the former Iraqi Regime and Foreign Companies (source: World Markets Research Centre): West Qurna Phase 2 (Lukoil); Majnoon (Total); Bin Umar (Zarubezhneft); Nasiriya (Eni, Repsol); Halfaya (BHP, South Korean consortium, CNPC, Agip); Ratawi (Shell); Tuba (ONGC, Sonatrach); Suba-Luhais (Slavneft); Gharaf (TPAO, Japex); Al-Ahdab (CNPC); Amara (PetroVietnam); Western Desert (ONGC, Pertamina, Stroitransgaz, Tatneft)"

These contracts, of course, were signed while Saddam was in power. I wonder if they are still valid?

It will be interesting to see who will be given the contracts for the vast, untapped oil reserves under the new regime.

It will also be interesting to see how long it will take to repair the damage done to the existing refineries and pipelines.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Try looking here dianavan:

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

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


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

The current Operators:

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

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

Now this you should all find interesting:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not too Jeffersonian, IMH...

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

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

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

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

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

Don Firth

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

Good point, McG...

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

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

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

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

Hate this war, however...

Bobert

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bobert

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

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

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

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

Another aspect of the Right Wing's diversionary tactics.

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

Don Firth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thats why the insurgents are concentrating on distrupting the flow:

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

...or how about this little tidbit:

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

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

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

No, teribus, this is not a comic strip.

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

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

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

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

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

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

It ain't rocket surgery...

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

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

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

And this is just one example...

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

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

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

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

Peace

Bobert

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

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

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

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

A couple of points spring to mind immediately:

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

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

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

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

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

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

dianavan - 26 Nov 05 - 12:35 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now who would those people be Carol?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers,

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

CarolC,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As for me, I am very far from certain.

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

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

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

Hmmmmmm????

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

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

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

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

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

Wolfgang

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Like what's that about???

Bobert

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

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

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

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

Well, well, well...

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

Hmmmmmm????

I don't get the logic...

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

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

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

Bobert

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

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

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

Rarelamb:

That is a real howler!! LOL!!!

A

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

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

kat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wolfgang

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

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

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

Wolfgang

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

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

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

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

Curiosity satisfied, at least for now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This may begin to answer your question...

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

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

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


Gunmen kill Iraqi tribal chief

Relatives mourn Khadim Sarhid Hemaiyim

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Army denials

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

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

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

He also had another son murdered just one month ago.

kat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Just Wonderin'