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

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 23 Jun 07 - 02:10 AM

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

You also said, "...International Oil Companies do not, nor ever have, favoured privatisation, the administration of GWB does not favour privatisation and in fact is pushing for Iraq's oil industry to be run on a nationalised basis."

Apparently you will have to convince the people of Iraq that the oil bill, which is being pushed by the U.S., is not an attempt at privatization. Luckily, I think you have very little influence in Iraq.

"While pressure on the Baghdad government mounted, Iraqi oil unions staged protests in early June. Many Iraqis believe the measure would drive the oil industry toward privatization and unfairly benefit outside oil companies.

"We think the proposed oil law doesn't serve the interests of the Iraqi people at all," said Faleh Abood Umara, general secretary of the Southern Oil Company Union and the Iraqi Federation of Oil Workers' Unions, at a news conference in New York on June 18. "It emphasizes or confirms American hegemony over Iraqi oil fields."

The unions have said they worry negotiations could result in a law that would give foreign companies too much influence. But details of how foreign investors would be involved are still being nailed down, said David Pumphrey, deputy director of the energy program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/middle_east/jan-june07/iraqoil_06-22.html

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Jun 07 - 02:36 AM

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

Dianavan, please point to anything stated above that is inaccurate. By the bye Dianavan, you still haven't identified the "U.S. oil barons" who you keep telling us are stealing Iraq's oil.

2) "Apparently you will have to convince the people of Iraq that the oil bill, which is being pushed by the U.S., is not an attempt at privatization."

No dianavan, oddly enough I do not have to convince the people of anywhere of anything. With regard to the international oil industry dianavan you appear to not have the foggiest clue on the subject and also appear to be prepared to believe absolutely anything about it provided it reflects badly on the U.S. A few examples of "privatized" oil industries, Norway, UK, Netherlands, Denmark, Mauritania,Ivory Coast, Nigeria, Angola, etc, etc. In all those countries private enterprise has been used to discover, extract and produce the oil for sale on the world market. The oil/gas dianavan is still owned by the Governments of those countries as a natural national resource, privatisation allows them to reap the benefits of those resources without them having to spent one penny on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 23 Jun 07 - 02:52 PM

You're right teribus, I am not an expert on the oil industry and my use of the phrase "oil baron" is only used to reflect those captains of industry that make huge profits from extracting and transporting oil. Some would refer to these oil barons as neo-cons.

I will choose to believe the following statement rather than any convulted explanation you have to offer. You have no interest in protecting the rights of the Iraqi people.

"We think the proposed oil law doesn't serve the interests of the Iraqi people at all," said Faleh Abood Umara, general secretary of the Southern Oil Company Union and the Iraqi Federation of Oil Workers' Unions, at a news conference in New York on June 18. "It emphasizes or confirms American hegemony over Iraqi oil fields."

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 23 Jun 07 - 03:09 PM

"Equal sharing" among the conflicted groups in Iraq sounds good. But the oil law giving most of Iraq's oil wealth to private foreign oil companies is the only "hydrocarbon law" under consideration by Iraq's parliament. So all the talk by U.S. politicians and news media about "equitable distribution of oil revenue" between Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish factions is really about "equitably sharing" the mere 12 or 13 percent of Iraqi oil revenues that would be left over after the big oil companies have fattened themselves."

"Under the proposed oil law, big oil companies would be awarded "production-sharing agreements." These are very different from the service contracts under which oil companies operate in other Middle East countries. Under a service contract, control over oil resources and profits remains exclusively with the country's government. But with production-sharing agreements, Iraq would give up control over its oil, and much of its national independence, to oil executives. Foreign oil companies could repatriate (take home) all the profits they make, reinvesting nothing in Iraq, and they would likely be given seats on the "Oil and Gas Council" that would award contracts."

Support the Iraq Labour Unions

http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org./

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Jun 07 - 05:40 AM

Dianavan, I would suggest you go to Google type in "Oil Who Gets What?" It's an OPEC site it tells you the FOB price of oil in a whole rake of countries, then gives the Company mark up and most important of all the tax taken by each country (55% for the UK per barrel - not bad when you consider that they have not spent, or risked, a penny to accrue that major slice of the pie).

"Some would refer to these oil barons as neo-cons." - In no way, shape, or form dianavan. Purely by it's nature and the places that they do business the international oil business and companies involved in it have to be extremely flexible and pragmatic enterprises, if they weren't they wouldn't survive.

"We think the proposed oil law doesn't serve the interests of the Iraqi people at all," said Faleh Abood Umara, general secretary of the Southern Oil Company Union and the Iraqi Federation of Oil Workers' Unions, at a news conference in New York on June 18. "It emphasizes or confirms American hegemony over Iraqi oil fields."

Well dianavan everybody knows what thought did. I would like to ask this buffoon exactly how, "It emphasizes or confirms American hegemony over Iraqi oil fields." when there is not one single Iraqi oil field in existence, or in prospect, being developed or operated by an American oil company. The man is talking out of his arse, like most Union officials when addressing the media, normally a load of ill-informed, misleading, populist crap designed to inflame the situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Homey
Date: 10 Nov 07 - 06:44 PM

http://www.gulfnews.com/region/Iraq/10166531.html

Former Al Qaida members take up painting houses for a living

By Basil Adas, Correspondent
Published: November 10, 2007, 18:22

Baghdad: After years of carrying weapons, dozens of Iraqi elements who were involved in Al Qaida have turned professional painters for a living.

Now they carry paint brushes and paint houses in bright colours in Al Saydia, Al Baya'a, Al Qadissia and Al Yarmouk neighbourhoods in Baghdad.

Abu Saher told Gulf News: "I have lived in Al Qadissia neighbourhood for 40 years. I know personally all youth who were involved with Al Qaida over the past two years and I have known them since their birth."

He continued: "A few weeks ago Fakheri, Uday, Abdul Salam and Mahdi used to carry weapons but now they have turned painters after buying painting tools and equipment. This is a positive development and the most important is that they do not use this job to facilitate kidnapping and killing people."

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Homey
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 10:27 PM

7,000 Families Return to Iraq: Iraqi PM Maliki
'Pakistan Times' Monitoring Desk

http://www.pakistantimes.net/2007/11/12/top10.htm

BAGHDAD (Iraq): Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said on Sunday that 7,000 families who fled the war-ravaged country have returned to their homes on the back of a sharp drop in violence.

"Due to the improvement in the security situation, 7,000 families have returned to Baghdad and other provinces," Maliki told reporters, without giving a time frame.

He said the country's streets and markets were returning to normal after a series of security crackdowns by Iraqi and US security forces over the past eight months.

"People are enjoying the life that is returning to their streets and markets. We have been able to return life after eight months of a security crackdown."

On Wednesday, Brigadier General Qassim Ata, spokesman for the Baghdad security plan, said that 46,000 Iraqis who had fled the violence returned to the country last month.

Maliki said car bombs and roadside bombings had dropped by 77 percent compared to levels prior to February when US and Iraqi troops launched a major drive against insurgents and militias in Baghdad and its surrounds.

"Many terrorists have fled the country and some are hiding here and there. Our expertise in chasing terrorists has also developed."

Maliki's comments came just hours after a roadside bomb attack on a US military convoy in Baghdad's eastern Al-Baladiyat suburb, which an Iraqi security official said killed a 12-year-old girl and wounded three other civilians.

US military spokesman Major Winfield Danielson confirmed the attack but said there were no casualties.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Homey
Date: 16 Nov 07 - 08:07 AM

US-Iraqi Forces launch attack against Qaeda
Alsumaria Iraqi Satellite Network
Friday, November 16, 2007 09:14 GMT
600 US and Iraqi troops backed by air force launched an attack on Al Awsat and Al Batraa villages in Anbar province in an attempt to chase down militants thought be Al Qaeda members hiding among residents. Colonel Dominic Caraccilo, commander of the 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division said that this operation is aimed to set a line of combat bases to protect the southern part of Baghdad. According to the Intelligence Official in the Division, the operation is also a bid to find two missing US soldiers kidnapped on May in an ambush on their patrol near the village of Karguli east of the Euphrates. For his part, Major Jason Waggoner noted that the troops will later build a bridge across the river connecting Awsat with the east side of the Euphrates. The bridge will also facilitate troop movements, especially those involved in the search for the two missing soldiers, he added.

http://www.alsumaria.tv/en/Iraq-News/1-10249-US-Iraqi-Forces-launch-attack-against-Qaeda.html

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Nov 07 - 11:11 PM

Truly fascinating, Homey. Mind if we call you Pollyanna for short? (Actually not short).

When you get finished pillaging the web for happy happy news, perhaps you can tell us what the reason for the "surge" was. Don't worry, if you can't figure it out, we can help you.

Then we can discuss what progress there has been in that area. I'll clue you: virtually none.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Nov 07 - 04:05 AM

Then Ron, like Joe Binden, you can tell us that the "Surge" has had no effect.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Homey
Date: 17 Nov 07 - 02:23 PM

U.S. pulling 3,000 troops from Iraq's Diyala province
Tue Nov 13, 2007 3:28pm EST Reuters

By Missy Ryan

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The U.S. military is sending 3,000 soldiers home from Diyala province, the second large unit to leave Iraq as troop levels are cut after a 30,000-strong "surge" earlier this year.

Soldiers from the 3rd Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division, will not be replaced by a new unit when they leave the ethnically and religiously mixed province north of Baghdad by January, military officials said on Tuesday.

Instead, troops from the larger 4th Striker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, located near Baghdad, will take over the area, said military spokeswoman Major Peggy Kageleiry.

"Most of the (brigade) will be home by Christmas and indeed a few people have left," Kageleiry said.

About 2,200 Marines from the 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit left western Anbar province in late September under President George W. Bush's plan to cut troop levels in Iraq.

Bush poured in an extra 30,000 troops from mid-February in a bid to stop Iraq spiraling into sectarian civil war. There are around 162,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq, the Pentagon said.

U.S. and Iraqi officials say the troop "surge", more efficient Iraqi security forces and the use of neighborhood patrols have helped bring about sharp falls in U.S. military and Iraqi civilian casualties in the past two months.

Kageleiry said the overall number of troops in Diyala, where violence spiked when al Qaeda fighters were driven out of western Anbar province earlier this year, would not decrease.

With the daily toll of suicide bombs, sectarian killings and other violence slowing, General David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, plans to pull out five of his 20 brigades in Iraq by July 2008.

"The security situation in northern Iraq has improved exponentially," Kageleiry said. "The ultimate goal is to transition Iraqi security forces to be able to provide security to citizens of Diyala independent of coalition forces."

Mortar and rocket attacks dropped to their lowest level in October since February 2006. In Baghdad, Iraqi military officials plan to reopen some streets and hope to end a joint U.S.-Iraqi security operation in Baghdad soon.

Despite the security improvements, 2007 has been the deadliest year for U.S. soldiers since the 2003 invasion to topple Saddam Hussein, with 857 killed so far.

The U.S. military says drawdowns in troops will occur only where security conditions allow. Other areas in northern Iraq such as Mosul, Iraq's third largest city, often suffers fierce fighting between security forces and al Qaeda.

The troop surge and improved security were meant to pave the way for political progress on legislative benchmarks designed to promote national reconciliation, but progress has been slow.

http://www.reuters.com/articlePrint?articleId=USRYA32414220071113

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Nov 07 - 04:39 PM

Since you, Teribus, and your current sidekick, have not figured out the reason for the "surge", I'll have to tell you. It was "national reconciliation". Ever heard of that?

Now, tell us how much of that has happened. Especially, how eager is the Maliki government to have the Sunnis who now are ready to join the armed forces or the police?

Thanks so much.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Nov 07 - 04:51 PM

And of course, please give your exact sources and dates. Not that we wouldn't trust you to be completely objective. Heaven forbid.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Nov 07 - 06:50 PM

So the "Surge" didn't fail then Ron, because that is what that prat Binden preached to General Petraeus when he came to deliver his Report last September.

As I've stated previously Ron the current crop of Democratic hopefuls for nomination, they couldn't even lead a dog on a leash.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Nov 07 - 08:02 PM

Really, the question whether "the surge" failed or succeeded is a joke... The entire last 5 years plus has been about troop levels which have gone up and down and up and down... "The surge" is just a PR game...

The bottom line isn't about whether or not "the surge" has succeeded but about whether ot not Bush can figure any way to calim victory... That is paramount...

Iraq is quickly bankruptuing the US... We are borrowing from the Chinese to bankroll our war efforts... Domestic p0-riorites are now being looked upon as pipe-dreams... Our currency is falling lijke a stone... Our economy is on the ropes... Our kids futures and their kid futures are being spent every day in spending in Afganistan and Iraq...

This is the reality... It has nothing to do with "the surge"... The us has lost this war regardless of what benchmark it redifines at the one goalpost of what constitutes victory...

We are throwing a billion $$$ a week down the Iraq rathole... Where does this money come from???

Yes, the US has badly lost Iraqumire... Badly... There in no victory to be had... We are hopelessly involved in some sh*t that we should have never taken on... We are screwed and like other empires that have gone before us we may very well be beyond where it is fixable...

This goes way beyond the battlefiled... It goes way beyond UN (usless) resolution... It goes the heart of our economy... That is the real war now... The other war is allready lost and now it's goin' to take some serious changes to survive this ill-though-out imperialistic/colonialistic ventures by the neocons and the Bush administartion...

If I were a betting man, I'd give the US only a 50/50 chance of surviving Bush...

No matter, the next president better be ready to do some very serious cleaning up...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Homey
Date: 18 Nov 07 - 12:56 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/15/AR2007111502032.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

... Like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, who insist that nothing of significance has changed in Iraq, the Democrats are living in what Bob Woodward would call a state of denial. Do they not notice anything?
        
France has a new president who is breaking not just with the anti-Americanism of the Chirac era but also with 50 years of Fifth Republic orthodoxy that defined French greatness as operating in counterpoise to America. Nicolas Sarkozy's trip last week to the United States was marked by a highly successful White House visit and a rousing speech to Congress in which he not only called America "the greatest nation in the world" (how many leaders of any country say that about another?) but also pledged solidarity with the United States on Afghanistan, Iran, Lebanon, the Middle East and nuclear nonproliferation. This just a few months after he sent his foreign minister to Iraq to signal an openness to cooperation and an end to Chirac's reflexive obstructionism.

That's France. In Germany, Gerhard Schroeder is long gone, voted out of office and into a cozy retirement as Putin's concubine at Gazprom. His successor is the decidedly pro-American Angela Merkel, who concluded an unusually warm visit with Bush this week. All this, beyond the ken of Democrats, is duly noted by new British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who in an interview with Sky News on Sunday remarked on "the great change that is taking place," namely "that France and Germany and the European Union are also moving more closely with America."

As for our other traditional alliances, relations with Australia are very close, and Canada has shown remarkable steadfastness in taking disproportionate casualties in supporting the NATO mission in Afghanistan. Eastern European nations, traditionally friendly, are taking considerable risks on behalf of their U.S. alliance -- for example, cooperating with us on missile defense in the face of enormous Russian pressure. And ties with Japan have never been stronger, with Tokyo increasingly undertaking military and quasi-military obligations that it had forsworn for the past half-century. So much for the disarray of our alliances. The critics will say that all this is simply attributable to the rise of Russia and China causing old allies to turn back to us out of need.

So? I would even add that the looming prospect of a nuclear Iran has caused Arab states -- Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, even Libya -- to rally to us. All true. And it makes the point that the Bush critics have missed for years -- that the strength of alliances is heavily dependent on the objective balance of international forces and has very little to do with the syntax of the U.S. president or the disdain in which he might be held by a country's cultural elites.It's classic balance-of-power theory: Weaker nations turn to the great outside power to help them balance a rising regional threat. Allies are not sentimental about their associations. It is not a matter of affection but of need -- and of the great power's ability to deliver.

What's changed in the past year? Bush's dress and diction remain the same. But he did change generals -- and counterinsurgency strategy -- in Iraq. As a result, Iraq has gone from an apparently lost cause to a winnable one. The rise of external threats to our allies has concentrated their minds on the need for the American connection. The revival of American fortunes in Iraq -- and the diminished prospect of an American rout -- have significantly increased the value of such a connection. This is particularly true among our moderate Arab allies who see us as their ultimate protection against an Iran-Syria-Hezbollah-Hamas axis that openly threatens them all.

It's always uncomfortable for a small power to rely on a hegemon. But a hegemon on the run is even worse. Alliances are always shifting. But one thing we can say with certainty: The event that will have more effect than any other on the strength of our alliances worldwide is not another Karen Hughes outreach to the Muslim world, not an ostentatious embrace of Kyoto or even the most abject embrace of internationalism from the podium of the United Nations. It is success or failure in Iraq....

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Nov 07 - 01:03 PM

Interesting that you, Teribus, and your faithful lapdog, Homey, can't seem to find any evidence of the "national reconciliation" which was the goal of the "surge". If you don't believe me that it was the goal, just listen to Petraeus, Bush and the rest of your team.

You're very good at pillaging the Net for meaningless articles, though. Congratulations.

Too bad your posts are full of sound and fury and signifying.....

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Nov 07 - 03:27 PM

Of course national conciliation was and still is the goal Ron, early days yet but things do seem to be moving in the right direction. What has happened though is that various parties are now prepared to try talking and co-operating. MNF Troops have not been scared off, the "insurgent" groups now realise that they (MNF troops) may be there for the long term and that the "insurgent" groups have not the backing to fight them. This is not the "Cold War" the Russians are not pouring money and resources into backing them just in order to embarrass America. If the insurgency in Iraq was ever to gain any headway it had to scare you off about a year ago, give them their due they did try their best to foment the civil war that you lot kept wittering on about, but they failed, they failed miserably.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Nov 07 - 05:51 PM

Teribus--

Whatever you say, Mr. Pollyanna.

All parties said the "surge" itself was only to buy time for "national reconciliation". So where is the "national reconciliation"? And if it is not occurring, why should any "Coalition" soldiers be dying in Iraq--(except possibly in "Kurdistan" where it is obvious they are wanted).

So we are down to "only" 38 or so "Coalition" soldiers dying per month. You and the other Bush apologists should be detailed to explain in person to the parents of each dead soldier just exactly why that death was necessary.

Sunnis are volunteering for the armed forces and the police--mainly since it is a paying job--paid by US taxpayers. But the Maliki government does not want them.

Why? Since the Maliki government has learned from you--that all Sunnis are the equivalent of hardcore Nazis in 1945. That was certainly a brilliant observation on your part.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 19 Nov 07 - 02:44 AM

"What has happened though is that various parties are now prepared to try talking and co-operating."

You are so full of BS, teribus!

What has happened is that Iran has exerted pressure on Sadr and halted the flow of weapons to Iraq. The talking and co-operating has absolutely nothing to do with what the U.S. has done in Iraq. Maliki is the first to tell you so.

The surge accomplished nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Nov 07 - 03:13 AM

Now let me see, on whether or not things are working or not. On one side I have the evidence of my own eyes and ears, plus what is and has been reported by General Petraeus and his Staff, on the other I have Ron Davies and Dianavan.

The counter-insurgency situations that I have had personal experience of have been in Borneo and in Northern Ireland, General Petraeus is reportedly the US armed forces expert on counter-insurgency warfare. As opposed to Ron (I-never-read-anything-from-first-hand-source) Davies and a rabidly anti-US, school teacher living in British Columbia. All your opinions are coloured by your prejudices and driven by an agenda that has often got nothing whatsoever to do with the subject you are discussing.

Hope you will not be too offended if I just agree to disagree with the pair of you.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 19 Nov 07 - 12:24 PM

teribus -

Your opinions are coloured by prejudices too. Since you are the father of a military man, and ex-military yourself, I am sure you would never doubt the word of anyone in higher command. For you, blind obedience is a way of life.

I was schooled in the U.S. and taught to question authority. If I have an agenda, perhaps you could explain it to me. I am not anti-U.S. but I do believe their foreign policy has to change.

Since you are not a U.S. citizen but continue to rally behind GWB and his war mongers, I can only deduce that your blind support is that of a man whose livelihood and way of life is threatened by peace and diplomacy.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 10:43 AM

"I am sure you would never doubt the word of anyone in higher command. For you, blind obedience is a way of life." - Dianavan

For anyone who knows me reading that would render them helpless with laughter. One well respected and very senior Captain(D) during my time in the Navy very forcefully advocated that it was every junior officers duty to knock "the system" as rigorously as they could in order to effect change to meet future requirements. "Blind obedience is a way of life", by God but you're clueless.

Reviewing some of your previous posts Dianavan, both as "dianavan" and "Guest Dianavan" if you are not anti-U.S. then I'd hate to bump into anybody that was.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 Nov 07 - 12:24 AM

Teribus--

So, you were going to tell us how "national reconciliation", which all parties agree was the goal of the "surge" is progressing in Iraq.

Gee, you keep forgetting to tell us. Incipient Alzheimer's?

Specifically, how eager is Maliki now to have the Sunnis who are volunteering for service in the police and the armed forces?

If I didn't know you were a towering intellect who also is a brilliant internationally respected foreign policy analyst, I'd be tempted to think you might be a clueless Western military fossil who, like your hero Mr. Bush, refuses to read anything which doesn't support the decision he's already made. Good thing we know you aren't the above-cited fossil.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Nov 07 - 03:55 AM

Ron Davies - 21 Nov 07 - 12:24 AM

"Teribus--

So, you were going to tell us how "national reconciliation", which all parties agree was the goal of the "surge" is progressing in Iraq."

Now where and when did I say I was going to do that Ron, or is it back to basic English comprehension lessons again.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: ard mhacha
Date: 21 Nov 07 - 04:57 AM

Is Teribus still here, I thought he may have booked up for a holiday in Iraq or Afghanistan now that all of the remaining pockets of resistance have been wiped out. Well that`s what he forecast, away back when.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 Nov 07 - 10:28 PM

Teribus--

Can't understand why you don't want to tell us how "national reconciliation" is progressing in Iraq.

Or perhaps, as a fossil in good standing (whoops, sorry about that--just slipped out--) you're back in the good old Vietnam syndrome days--where body count--up or down--was supposed to tell the tale.

Sorry, things have changed. You may want to start reading a bit more.

If you don't believe me that the "surge" was only a means to an end, and that end was "national reconciliation", read what Gen. Petraeus says.

Not that I want to tempt you to take your rose-colored glasses off--I'm afraid you couldn't see at all without them.

But when you're finally ready to face reality, a particularly salient issue which you've been studiously ignoring is, as I've said: the attitude of the Maliki government toward the Sunnis who are now ready to become part of the armed forces and the police.

Since at least Petraeus has been smart enough to completely reject your singularly shortsighted--did I say stupid?--idea that the Sunnis deserve, in your words, "no consideration".

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Nov 07 - 02:28 AM

Ah Ron, so you can't show me where I said that I was going to tell how "national reconciliation" is progressing in Iraq.

Ron tell us how many Iraqi refugees are now living in Damascus.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: ard mhacha
Date: 22 Nov 07 - 05:04 AM

No Teribus, tell us how many refugees are living in Jordan?, as there was no work or accommodation for the Iraqis in Syria they preferred to starve or die in their homeland,this was the reason why they returned to their ravaged homeland.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Nov 07 - 09:32 AM

Congratulations, Teribus--you're right, you never did say you would tell us how "national reconciliation" is progressing in Iraq.

You win your point--now you can finally sleep tonight.


Gee, I wonder why you haven't told us about "national reconciliation". Could it be since it's not in fact progressing?--the whole country is breaking up into a crazy-quilt of "Green Zones"--protected by walls and/or the fact that only one faction is dominant within each enclave--either Shiite or Sunni--or in "Kurdistan", the Kurds.

Meanwhile the US arms the Sunnis, and Maliki refuses to incorporate the armed Sunnis into the Iraqi armed forces and police--thereby ensuring an armed Sunni force outside national control.

And Sadr just waits for the "surge" to end and the US to start pulling out.

Yep, it's just hunky-dory in Iraq.

And it's mainly due to the fact that Maliki agrees with you--that all Sunnis are the equivalent of hardcore Nazis in 1945 and deserve "no consideration", in your felicitous phrase.

Now perhaps you can bring yourself to finally give a straight answer to this question: was buying time for"national reconciliation" the ultimate goal of the "surge"?

Yes or no?

No agonizing attempt to bury us in irrelevant lists, gleaned from your ongoing pillaging of the Net for red herring is necessary--for once.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Nov 07 - 09:37 AM

"herring, is..."

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Nov 07 - 09:45 AM

Is that like "happiness is..." Ron?

Herring is    a kipper in waiting

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Nov 07 - 09:55 AM

Precisely, Keith.

However, I'm just waiting for Teribus--or any other supporter of the Iraq war--to tell us how "national reconciliation" is progressing in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Homey
Date: 24 Nov 07 - 08:01 PM

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=9804

Mission Accomplished

Bartle Bull

With most Sunni factions now seeking a deal, the big questions in Iraq have been resolved positively. The country remains one, it has embraced democracy and avoided all-out civil war. What violence remains is largely local and criminal


The question of what to do in Iraq today must be separated from the decision to topple Saddam Hussein four and a half years ago. That decision is a matter for historians. By any normal ethical standard, the coalition's current project in Iraq is a just one. Britain, America and Iraq's other allies are there as the guests of an elected government given a huge mandate by Iraqi voters under a legitimate constitution. The UN approved the coalition's role in May 2003, and the mandate has been renewed annually since then, most recently this August. Meanwhile, the other side in this war are among the worst people in global politics: Baathists, the Nazis of the middle east; Sunni fundamentalists, the chief opponents of progress in Islam's struggle with modernity; and the government of Iran. Ethically, causes do not come much clearer than this one.................

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 25 Nov 07 - 03:15 AM

Since their is no progress in national, political reconciliation don't you think its a bit premature to declare any kind of victory?

Where are the Sunnis in Maliki's democratic government?

In fact, no laws have been passed to equitably divide the oil wealth.

Doesn't sound very democratic to me. Seems to me that in the long run, Maliki would prefer Sadr's Army and the support of Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 07 - 07:03 PM

You do not think that there has been progress Dianavan? Why is that because Ron told you so? Because that is what you want to believe? I believe that in an immensely complex situation, massive strides have been taken, I know it doesn't suit your point of view, but there again you can't have everything.

Tell us again about the "neo-con oil barons" stealing Iraqi oil. Whatever did happen to that "civil war" that was tearing Iraq apart.

In terms of timing it is roughly equivalent to what happened in Greece at the end of the Second World War, still early days yet, but I will go along with Guest Homey, "What violence remains is largely local and criminal".

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 25 Nov 07 - 11:29 PM

"Whatever did happen to that "civil war" that was tearing Iraq apart?"

Not paying attention are we?

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

Most certainly Guest TIA, are you? "Civil War"? Maybe you should read some history and at least find out what a modern day one looks like, and discover what a successful insurrection requires - It ain't Iraq or Afghanistan.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 26 Nov 07 - 04:14 AM

teribus - "massive strides have been taken"

That still doesn't mean there has been any national, political reconcilliation.

Nor does it mean the Sunnis have been included in any oil deals.

What do you think the country would look like without the U.S. presence? If there were "massive strides," the U.S. wouldn't have to be there to enforce this so-called democracy.

What would you call the present form of government in Iraq?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Nov 07 - 09:02 AM

My, my dianavan, it's all "blacks" and "whites" with you isn't it, no shades of grey at all - Begs the question how you actually manage to live on this earth. The most astounding thing of all is that you are a teacher, as I said once before, thank Christ you had nothing to do with the education of anyone I care about.

Go back and read your last post and then do an objective critique of it and come back and tell us all how bloody stupid it was.

Of course as far as you have convinced yourself there can be no oil deals with anybody in Iraq as those "big-bad-evil-neo-con-oil barons" have stolen all the oil, haven't they?

Tell us dianavan how would the US, or anybody else for that matter, "enforce" a democracy? Like your absolutely barmy oil theft statements this too is utterly ridiculous.

The present government in Iraq is a secular two chamber democracy elected on the basis of universal suffrage, or at least that is what the United Nations view it as, as did those international representatives who monitored the elections and formation of the Iraqi Parliament. No doubt you know better, but I would wager that your view on things is based on bugger all apart from your insatiable desire to bash America at every opportunity.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 26 Nov 07 - 12:51 PM

"The common scholarly definition has two main criteria. The first says that the warring groups must be from the same country and fighting for control of the political center, control over a separatist state or to force a major change in policy. The second says that at least 1,000 people must have been killed, with at least 100 from each side."

Google {"civil war" +definition}, and you will find nearly all definitions with any specificity pretty much match this quote (from NY Times).

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 26 Nov 07 - 01:18 PM

I asked you what you would call the present form of government in Iraq, not a U.N. definition.

As to my teaching career - As an educator you have only two choices.

1. Teach to maintain the status quo
or
2. Teach for political change

I too, am glad I didn't teach your children. However, I might have been able to educate your child to become critically conscious and saved him from your tyranny and the pressure to risk his life for an unjust cause.

I would also have taught your son that personal attacks are no substitute for a reasonable discussion.

Can you please tell me more about the massive strides that have been achieved toward national, political reconcilliation and what decisions have been made regarding the distribution of oil revenues?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Nov 07 - 06:02 PM

How coy Guest TIA, here's the full whack:

Definition
A civil war is "a violent conflict within a country fought by organized groups that aim to take power at the center or in a region, or to change government policies".

Everyday usage of the term does not entail a clear threshold for how much violence is necessary to qualify a conflict as a civil war, as opposed to terrorism or low-level political strife.

SCHOLARS use two criteria: the warring groups must be from the same country and fighting for control of the political center, control over a separatist state or to force a major change in policy. Their second criterion is that at least 1,000 people must have been killed in total, with at least 100 from each side. Other social scientists consider this casualty number rather low and prefer for instance a definition of an average of 1,000 people killed per year.

International Definition
The Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, (Volume II-B, p. 121) does not specifically define the term 'civil war'. It did, however, describe the criteria that separate any act committed by force of arms (anarchy, terrorism, or plain banditry) from those qualifying as 'armed conflict not of an international character' which includes civil wars. Among those conditions listed are these four basic requirements.

• The party in revolt must be in possession of a part of the national territory.

• The insurgent civil authority must exercise de facto authority over the population within the determinate portion of the national territory.

• The insurgents must have some amount of recognition as a belligerent.

• The legal Government is "obliged to have recourse to the regular military forces against insurgents organized as military."

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) further clarified Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. They stated that the nature of these armed conflicts, not of an international character "generally refer to conflicts with armed forces on either side which are in many respects similar to an international war, but take place within the confines of a single country."


U.S. Military Definition
The U.S. military has adopted the principles set by the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva for their definition of civil war. However, it does include an additional requirement for identifiable armed forces. The December 1990 version of FM 100-20 (Military Operations in Low Intensity Conflict) defines a civil war as:

"A war between factions of the same country; there are five criteria for international recognition of this status: The contestants must control territory, have a functioning government, enjoy some foreign recognition, have identifiable regular armed forces, and engage in major military operations."

NATO Definition
NATO does not directly define civil war. However, in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Glossary of Terms and Definitions (Organisation Du Traite De L'Atlantique Nord Glossaire De Terms Et Definitions) NATO does provide a reference for what is not classified as a civil war. The manual states that 'civil disturbance' is defined as "group acts of violence and disorder prejudicial to public law and order".

This definition supports the premise shared by the Geneva Convention, ICRC, and the U.S. Military that a civil war is a higher level of violence commensurate with that of a conventional war of movement.

None of the above would qualify the situation in either Iraq or Afghanistan as representing a country in the grips of a civil war.

Guest dianavan:

"As to my teaching career - As an educator you have only two choices.

1. Teach to maintain the status quo
or
2. Teach for political change"

This does not say much for the education system in British Columbia. If any teacher came out with that statement in the UK they would be removed from their post and quite rightly so. Your job as a teacher is to educate, not indoctrinate. With the attitude described above that makes you pure poison and certainly not someone who should be around children.

On the subject of reasonable discussion. Talking as someone who knows remarkably little, or more correctly absolutely nothing, about my children, here's an example of what you as a teacher, sorry educator, launch into:

"I too, am glad I didn't teach your children. However, I might have been able to educate your child to become critically conscious and saved him from your tyranny and the pressure to risk his life for an unjust cause."

I will gladly pass your concerns on to my children, all of whom enjoyed a happy childhood and a good education to university level. I hope that they do independently get in touch with you and put you right on a number of points that you have made from a position of complete and utter ignorance - Which sadly does not surprise me as you do exactly the same on other topics time and time again.

All my children chose their own careers, so sorry no tyranny or pressure involved. Now what is this "unjust cause" that you are wittering on about, that as a tyranical parent I pressured my son into risking his life for? As I have said before, on most things you are completely clueless, if you had a brain you'd be dangerous.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Nov 07 - 07:40 PM

T can't believe that you people are still taking Teribus seriously.
In a recent "discussion" on another thread, his guard dropped and he was reduced to making the observation that his opponents were "easier to wind up than clockwork mice".
That is what Mr T is ...a wind up merchant. I don't think for one second that he believes the rubbish he writes.
The whole world now perceives Iraq and Afghanistan as disasters.
In the UK Blairs madness has led to the demise of the Labour Party, they now stand 13 percentage points behind the Conservatives in the latest poll and the rot started with the invasion of Iraq.
Bush will soon be gone in America and they have left behind in Iraq not a "democracy"...not even the chance of a democracy, but either an Islamist republic or, if the Americans can find another Saddam, a country dominated by Sunni death squads and once again supported by the USA.
IThe arguments have all been won. We have egnited a fire in the Middle East that is now beyond our control.
For the next chapter watch Pakistan!!......Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Nov 07 - 08:00 PM

First of all, Americans are still dieing on a regular basis in Iraq so lets put this "success" in some kind of persepctive...

But nevermind that, what we have is a treasury draining occupation that isn't moving Iraq toward any level of stability... Quite the opposite... The Iraqi's, by in large, want the US the heck out...

But stubborn Bush won't go... Why??? Oil, oil and oil... That's why...

So here the US is a hostage as an occupier... They have way too much invested in lives and $$$ and now finds itself as having no way of finding that elsuive "victory" that would give a stubborn lame duck president who is trying to run out the clock and let the next guy, or gal, have to do the cleaning up...

This is why Iraq has become a text-book case of what a quagmire looks like...

And meanwhile, more and more Amercans and Iraqis will die because the Republicans (and some Dems) don't want to admit that they royally screwed up...

There won't be a "political solution" until the US is gone... And you can take that to the bank...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 26 Nov 07 - 09:48 PM

U.S., Iraq sign plan for long-term relations


Story Highlights
Plan designed to move U.S., Iraq "closer to normalized, bilateral relations"

Plan considered a "set of principles from which to begin formal negotiations"

Iraq wants to be free of U.N. restraints

Bilateral relationship would address military, political, diplomatic, economic spheres


   
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. and Iraqi leaders signed a plan for bilateral relations, setting the stage for formal negotiations about the long-term presence of American troops in Iraq.


President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki sign the nonbinding agreement via video conference.

President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki on Monday signed the nonbinding agreement via video conference.

The plan is based on a more informal agreement between the United States and Iraq that was developed in August and discussed in September during a nationwide address by the president.

The joint statement is called the "U.S.-Iraq Declaration Of Principles For Friendship And Cooperation" -- which the document says would move both countries "closer to normalized, bilateral relations."

"Today's document is now the first of a three-step process that actually codifies this mutual decision for a long-term partnership," said Gen. Douglas Lute, assistant to the president for Iraq and Afghanistan, speaking to reporters at a press briefing.

The next step would be the renewal of a U.N. mandate for the Multinational Force-Iraq's mission for a final year and a bilateral military relationship without U.N. restraints after the mandate expires. The renewals have been done yearly since 2003 and the next renewal is expected by the end of this year.

Al-Maliki said on Iraqi TV on Monday that Iraq will ask the United Nations to approve the mandate for one final year, a period that will last through 2008. He said negotiations based on the declaration will start as soon as possible.

Iraq has been under U.N. constraints since the Saddam Hussein era and the invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Iraq wants to be free of those restrictions since Hussein is no longer in power.

Lute said that "in the course of 2008, the two countries, the United States and Iraq, will codify formally our bilateral relationship with, as we're calling it, the strategic framework agreement. Today's declaration outlines the main parts of what we expect that emerging agreement to contain."

Don't Miss
Bush optimistic ahead of Mideast summit
He said the document is not a treaty, but instead a "set of principles from which to begin formal negotiations. Think of today's agreement as setting the agenda for the formal bilateral negotiations that will take place in the course of '08."

The declaration says this process would put the United States and Iraq "on a path toward negotiating agreements that are common throughout the world."

"The U.S. has security relationships with over 100 countries around the world, including recent agreements with nations such as Afghanistan and former Soviet bloc countries," it says.

The bilateral relationship would also address military, political, diplomatic, and economic spheres.

The declaration's security principles call for supporting "the Iraqi government in training, equipping, and arming the Iraqi Security Forces so they can provide security and stability to all Iraqis."

It also calls for supporting the Iraqi government "in contributing to the international fight against terrorism."

Both countries say they are "committed to strengthening Iraq's democratic institutions, upholding the Iraqi Constitution, supporting Iraqi national reconciliation, and enhancing Iraq's position in regional and international organizations."

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 26 Nov 07 - 10:45 PM

Coy?

If that means less than 300 words with 60 bullet points, I'm guilty.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 27 Nov 07 - 01:04 AM

As usual, teribus, you have it ass-backwards.

To maintain the status quo, you must indoctrinate.

To teach for political change, you must teach them to question.

Funny, I could have sworn you told me your son was in the military.

I guess it must have been another lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Nov 07 - 01:59 AM

Simple Dianavan - There should be absolutely no place for politics in schools.

"Funny, I could have sworn you told me your son was in the military."

I have he completed his education at University them joined the Royal Marines, his choice Dianavan that he was perfectly free to make.

Ake:

The Labour Government, even after the "Brown Bounce" as it became known is 13 points behind because:

- Since 1979 it has singularly failed to deliver on one election promise;

- It has constantly increased the number of taxes people pay by "stealth".

- Been perceived as breaking pledge and promise time after time, the most damaging being the promised referendum on the new EU Treaty.

The only way Iraq or Afghanistan enter the equation Ake is in the current Labour Governments treatment of the armed forces of the UK in general.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Nov 07 - 01:59 AM

700 Up!