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

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 05 May 07 - 03:13 PM

Syria's Sunni leader supports Mecca call for peace in Iraq
Damascus - Syria's Sunni leader Sheik Salah El-Deen Kiftaroof on Saturday said he 'strongly' supported an agreement between Iraqi Sunni and Shiite religious figures rejecting sectarian violence and calling for peace between different religious sects in Iraq reached in Mecca.

'We at the Compound of Sheik Ahmad Kiftaro, religious leaders and employees in the field of Islamic studies, strongly support what was contained in this document and call upon our brothers in Iraq in all sects and ethnicities to commit themselves to it,' Sheikh Salah El- Deen Kiftaro, head of the compound, said in a statement Saturday.

The Mecca meeting was sponsored by a Saudi-based organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and attended by the group's Turkish Secretary General, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu.

Participants represented a broad cross section of Iraq's shattered society, including senior Shiite and Sunni religious leaders, the former leader of Iraq's largest Sunni party and a senior official from the largest Shiite party, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

A ten-point communique issued at the end of the two-day meeting condemns kidnappings and incitement of the people, attacks on mosques and shrines, and attempts to clear neighbourhoods of members of other sects.

It also demands the release of Iraqis detained without charge.

Kiftaro reiterated in the statement that 'it is not allowed to kill a Muslim under any pretext, explanation or suspicion' and called upon all religious leaders in Iraq to declare their support for the agreement and make their followers commit to it.


http://news.monstersandcritics.com/middleeast/article_1213205.php/Syrias_Sunni_leader_supports_Mecca_call_for_peace_in_Iraq

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 05 May 07 - 03:00 PM

Was Israel at the meeting? If not, why not.

...and why is the U.S. sucking up to Syria? Is it because they are Sunni?

I'm beginning to believe that the U.S. is playing a very dangerous game of backing Sunnis. Is Bush still attempting to create a Sunni/U.S. alliance?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 05 May 07 - 02:32 PM

A very optimistic report by Radio Free Europe, Dickey.

I wonder why they left out the fact that Kuwait, Russia and China have not offerred any debt relief.

Sometimes you have to listen carefully to what is left unsaid.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 05 May 07 - 12:27 PM

Iraq Conference Declared A Success

Egypt -- The conference center where preparations are underway for the International Compact with Iraq Conference in Sharm el-Sheikh, 02 May 2007. The conference drew top officials from Iraq's neighbors and beyond

A two-day conference on Iraq's future was declared a success, although a much-anticipated meeting of top U.S. and Iranian officials never materialized.

"I'm very much encouraged by the successful outcome of the two-day meeting on Iraq," UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said in closing the conference. "The first meeting on the International Compact with Iraq was a great success."

Ban noted that many participants at the event, held at Egypt's Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, promised to forgive much of Iraq's prewar debt, estimated at between $50 billion and $60 billion.

Participants at the conference included foreign ministers from Iraq's neighbors -- including Iran and Syria -- as well as representatives of the G8, the United Nations, and the European Union. Also attending was U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

The ministers worked on a five-year plan -- called the International Compact with Iraq, or ICI -- which included not only financial help but political support to help stabilize the country, which is now beset by an insurgency and sectarian fighting.
The ministers worked on a five-year plan that includes financial and political support to help stabilize Iraq.

But several delegations said the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki had to earn such support by acting more decisively to end the country's civil strife. Particularly outspoken was Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal, who demanded that al-Maliki disarm Iraq's warring militias.

Al-Maliki countered that it was up to neighboring states to help stop the inflow of foreign fighters and weapons into his country.

"Now after the fall of the dictatorship [of Saddam Hussein], we will not allow terrorist organizations to [find] shelter in the Iraqi territories," al-Maliki said. "And this is what urges us to demand that neighboring countries stop the infiltration of terrorist groups inside Iraq, and prevent them from getting any funds and political and media support -- as has been agreed at [all] the meetings of the Arab interior ministers, and the conferences of the foreign ministers of Iraq's neighbors."

Syria-U.S. Meeting

The United States says weapons and fighters have entered Iraq from both Iran and Syria. However, on May 3 in Baghdad, the U.S. military said Syria seemed to be gaining better control over its border. Shortly after that announcement, Rice held her meeting with Walid al-Muallim, Syria's foreign minister.

Rice said today that she and al-Muallim discussed ways of keeping insurgents from using Syria as a base from which to send weapons and foreign fighters into Iraq. She said she hoped Iran would do the same...."

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 04 May 07 - 06:40 PM

Confused as always. They are probably giving the body as many high-ranking names as possible. It sounds to me as if they are getting two for the price of one.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 04 May 07 - 05:05 PM

Iraq Says Insurgent Leader Killed In Baghdad

May 3, 2007 -- Iraqi Deputy Interior Minister Husayn Ali Kamal said today that U.S. and Iraqi forces have killed the head of the so-called Islamic State of Iraq, an umbrella group of Sunni insurgents linked to Al-Qaeda.

Kamal told Reuters that the Interior Ministry has Abu Umar al-Baghdadi's body, and state television broadcast images purporting to show him.

Meanwhile, the U.S. military says that U.S. forces have killed a senior Al-Qaeda figure in Iraq.

U.S. military spokesman Major General William Caldwell said Muharib Abd al-Latif al-Juburi, described as the "senior minister of information" for Al-Qaeda in Iraq, was killed north of Baghdad on May 1.

Al-Juburi, aka Abu Bakr al-Juburi, was identified by the Islamic State of Iraq as its "public relations minister" in an Internet posting last month. The militant was accused of involvement in the kidnapping and killing of U.S. nationals and other foreigners in Iraq in 2006.

The Islamic State in Iraq today denied that al-Baghdadi had been killed. In a posting on an Islamic website, the group said the person killed was its spokesman, possibly referring to al-Juburi.

The Iraqi Interior Ministry has claimed that Islamic State's "war minister," Abu Ayyub al-Masri, aka Abu Hamzah al-Muhajir, was killed north of Baghdad on May 1, but that claim has not been verified.

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2007/05/5FD1B2A8-CFF1-4695-A41A-CCB5E54AC4C9.html

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 May 07 - 11:52 AM

from the Washington Post:

Don't Abandon Us

By Hoshyar Zebari
Friday, May 4, 2007; Page A23

Last weekend a traffic jam several miles long snaked out of the Mansour district in western Baghdad. The delay stemmed not from a car bomb closing the road but from a queue to enter the city's central amusement park. The line became so long some families left their cars and walked to enjoy picnics, fairground rides and soccer, the Iraqi national obsession.

Across the city, restaurants are slowly filling and shops are reopening. The streets are busy. Iraqis are not cowering indoors. The appalling death tolls from suicide attacks are often high because of crowding at markets. These days you are as likely to hear complaints about traffic congestion as about the security situation. Across Baghdad there is a cacophony of sirens from ambulances, firefighters and police providing public services. You cannot even escape the curse of traffic wardens ticketing illegally parked cars.

These small but significant snippets of normality are overshadowed by acts of gross violence, which fuel the opinion of some that Iraq is in a downward spiral. The Iraqi people are indeed suffering tremendous hardships and making grave sacrifices -- but daily life goes on for 7 million Baghdadis struggling to take back their capital and country.

Today, at an international summit on the future of Iraq in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, my government will ask the international community to maintain its engagement in our country to help us achieve our goals of security and stability. We recognize that our request conflicts with a plethora of voices decrying the situation in Iraq and those in the British and American publics who seek an expeditious withdrawal from a war they claim is all but lost.

So why should the world remain engaged in Iraq?

There is no denying the difficulties Iraq faces, and no amount of good news can obscure the demons of terrorism and sectarianism that have risen in my country. But there is too much at stake to risk failure, and everything to gain by helping us protect our hard-won democratic achievements and emerge as a stable, self-sustaining country.

We remain determined in spite of our losses. Spectacular attacks may dominate foreign headlines, but they cannot change the reality that Iraq has made steady political, economic and social progress over the past four years. We continue to strengthen our nascent democratic institutions, pursue national reconciliation and expand Iraqi security forces. The Baghdad security plan was conceived to give us breathing space to expedite political and economic development by "securing and holding" neighborhoods across the capital. There is no quick fix, but there have been real results: Winning public confidence has led to a spike in intelligence, a disruption of terrorist networks and the capture of key leaders, as well as the discovery of weapons caches. In Anbar province, Sunni sheikhs and insurgents have turned against al-Qaeda and to the side of Iraqi security forces. This would have been unthinkable even six months ago.

Contrary to popular belief, most government ministries are located outside the Green Zone, and employees drive to work every day despite death threats and attacks on colleagues and families. We government ministers are always at risk of assassination. When a suicide bomber attacked parliament last month, the legislators sat in defiance in an extraordinary session the following day. I am particularly inspired by the commitment of the young diplomats in the Foreign Ministry, a diverse mix of Sunni, Shiite, Christian, Arab and Kurdish men and women who serve their country without subscribing to religious or sectarian divisions.

Iraqis are standing up every day, and we persevere because there is no other option. We will not surrender our country to terrorists. They have failed to cripple the elected government, and they have failed to intimidate us into submission. Iraqis reject their vision of a future whose hallmarks are bloodshed and hatred.

Those calling for withdrawal may think it is the least painful option, but its benefits would be short-lived. The fate of the region and the world is linked with ours. Leaving a broken Iraq in the Middle East would offer international terrorism a haven and ensure a legacy of chaos for future generations. Furthermore, the sacrifices of all the young men and women who stood up here would have been in vain.

Iraqis, for all our determination and courage, cannot succeed alone. We need a healthy and supportive regional environment. We will not allow our country to be a battleground for settling scores in regional and international conflicts that adversely affect stability inside our borders. Only with continued international commitment and deeper engagement from our neighbors can we establish a stable democratic, federal and united Iraq. The world should not abandon us.

The writer is foreign minister of Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 May 07 - 10:35 PM

Dickey--

Another rumor. Some prove true. But your source is not impressive.   Again, we'll see.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 03 May 07 - 08:56 AM

TV: top leader of al-Qaida in Iraq killed in Baghdad

BAGHDAD, May 3 (Xinhua) -- The top leader of al-Qaida in Iraq organization Abu Umer al-Baghdadi, also known as head of the so-called Islamic State of Iraq, was killed in western Baghdad neighborhood, state-run Iraqia television reported on Thursday.

    "Abu Umer al-Baghdadi was killed in Ghazaliah and his body is under control of the Interior Ministry. His body has been identified," Brigadier General Abdul Karim Khalaf, spokesman ofthe Interior Ministry, was quoted as saying.

    Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell, spokesman of the Multi-National Force-Iraq, said that he will hold a press conference to discuss recent success against the senior leader of al-Qaida in Iraq. Earlier in the day, a source from Salahudin province told Xinhua that another senior leader of al-Qaida was killed in the same area on Wednesday.

    Muharib Muhammad Abdullah, also known as Abu Abdullah al-Iraqi,is the head of al-Qaida media office.

    Al-Iraqi was slaughtered with a knife by militants from the "Islamic Army in Iraq," a Sunni insurgent group, on Wednesday afternoon in Baghdad's western neighborhood of Ghazaliyah, the source added..."

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-05/03/content_6055814.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 May 07 - 12:36 AM

Dickey--

As you might gather, it ain't easy.

No question, it should be (Shiite) majority rule in Iraq. But the rights of minorities need to be protected too. Main minority seems to be the Sunnis--Kurds have "Kurdistan", which will soon be taking over Kirkuk--and its oil.

If you don't take Sunni wishes into consideration, you just assure a bottomless supply of Sunni insurgents---as I've told Teribus more than once--(not that it ever sank in.)

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

Properly punctuated, the statement shoud have read:

"...let's see it in the original arabic, Asswipe...anything else is phonetic."

Thereby making clear to what (whom) the pejorative "asswipe" refers.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 02 May 07 - 10:03 AM

Ron:

How would you satisfy both groups, Sunni and Shia?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 May 07 - 11:50 PM

Dickey--

Possibly more significant than either of your articles is something I've read today-- that a large Sunni group is growing impatient at the lack of progress toward taking their interests into account--and may soon withdraw from Maliki's cabinet. Al Sadr is already not happy with Maliki. Maliki's government seems to be getting progressively shakier.

We'll see what happens.

But so far it seems that unfortunately you'll have to limit your jubilation to modified rapture.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 May 07 - 11:43 PM

Al-Masri dead? Scholars bicker. There have been false reports of his death before. Let's see what happens when the smoke clears.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 01 May 07 - 10:19 PM

Maliki tells US senators pressure not acceptable
Published: Sunday, 29 April, 2007, 08:29 AM Doha Time
BAGHDAD: Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki told a delegation of visiting US lawmakers yesterday that foreign powers should not try to influence the Iraqi political process.
He also resisted calls for his Shia-led government to rehabilitate former members of ousted Sunni dictator Saddam Hussain's regime.
Maliki met a group of US congressmen shortly after their chamber voted for a law calling for a timetable for American troop withdrawal from Iraq.
"During his meeting with members of the US Congress headed by Democratic Senator Ben Nelson, Maliki said allowing influence over our affairs to this state or that is a red line that we will not cross,".....

http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=146339&version=1&template_id=42&parent_id=18

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 01 May 07 - 08:43 AM

Iraq's al-Qa'ida head killed
    * May 01, 2007

THE leader of al-Qai'da in Iraq, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, was killed today in an internal fight between insurgents north of Baghdad, the Interior Ministry spokesman said. Brigadier-General Abdul Kareem Khalaf told Reuters: "we have definite intelligence reports that al-Masri was killed today".

Another source in the ministry also said Masri had been killed. Khalaf said the battle happened near a bridge in the small town of al-Nibayi, north of Baghdad.... "

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Wolfgang
Date: 01 May 07 - 08:38 AM

let's see it in the original arabic asswipe

I also cannot read or understand it, but I would use nicer language to describe it.

Wolfgang (grin)

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Apr 07 - 01:27 PM

Dickey--

Maliki's is not an easy job- may well be impossible.

As I've said before, we'll probably never see "Iraq" as before 1990--any more than we'll see Yugoslavia. "Kurdistan" is as good as gone.

But the reason for the situation is not far to seek--it's your boy Bush's tragic stupid war. And don't bother with your tired accusations of sympathy for Saddam. I've said before we should have supported internal Iraqi moves to kill him.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 29 Apr 07 - 11:53 AM

Ron:

I am sure you could do better but I can't even imagine what it would be like trying to do his job.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Apr 07 - 10:42 AM

Poor Dickey. My heart bleeds for you. But Maliki, as I said, talks a good game--but has no follow-through. That's the problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 28 Apr 07 - 01:43 PM

I shrank it down to one screen but you seem to have your own set of rules you want to impose.

I have answered your questions and suffered all of your personal insults about the answers over and over again but if you want to satisfy your ego with more bullying tactics, ask away.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Apr 07 - 01:16 PM

I checked your link.   Thanks for linking--but that means you need not use bandwidth to post the article. I believe it's the same source as BB's favorite these days. In fact I think this article has already been posted.

My questions are still unanswered.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Apr 07 - 01:11 PM

1) Source, please.

2) The operative word is "maybe". We'll see.

It will particularly be interesting to see how Maliki deals with "Kurdistan"s insistence in carrying out oil commerce without regard to Maliki's government--and including Kirkuk.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 28 Apr 07 - 12:55 PM

Maybe Maliki is Doing Something Right
A few months ago, Washington circles saw him as "Tehran's man" in Baghdad. Today, Tehran circles label him "Washington's man" in Baghdad. The man thus targeted is Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki whose coalition government has the unenviable task of keeping the Americans in, when they do not want to stay, and the Iranians out, when they want to come in. Those Americans, including some leaders of the new Democrat majority in Washington, who opposed the liberation of Iraq from the start, or changed their minds about it later, blame Maliki for doing nothing to hasten the departure of US troops. They attack Maliki for not imposing a blanket pardon of Baathists regardless of what they did during four decades of despotic domination. They also take him to task for rejecting federal schemes that could lead to the disintegration of the Iraqi state. Also, they criticize Maliki because he refuses the sharing out Iraq's income form oil as if it were loot among thieves.These American critics want Maliki to throw Iraq to the wolves so that Jack Murtha and Michael Moore can prove that toppling Saddam Hussein was wrong. Maliki's Khomeinist critics in Tehran have their own beef with him.
    To start with, as the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) noted recently, Maliki is "too pro-Arab". Translated into plain language this means that the Khomeinists dislike Maliki because he emphasizes the Iraqi Shiite majority's Arab identity rather than religious affiliation. Last month, Ali Khamenehei the top mullah in the Khomeinist system, attacked Maliki in a round-about way. He recalled that many leaders of new Iraq spent years in Iran as exiles, and implied that it was payback time.
    Maliki, however, has offered no favors to the mullahs. He visited half a dozen capitals in the early stages of his premiership, but pointedly left out Tehran. He also turned out Tehran's offer of hosting a regional conference on Iraq, preferring to hold the exercise first in Baghdad and, later this year, in Cairo. Maliki has also given the green light to a crackdown on Shiite militias and death-squads, serving notice that the war of the sectarians must end.
    Within the next few weeks, Maliki is expected to further anger Tehran by dropping from his Cabinet all the five Sadrist ministers beholden to the mullahs. Tehran has already indicated its displeasure by activating its networks in Iraq to organize last week's demonstrations in Najaf. Despite months of pressure from Tehran, Maliki has also refused to scrap the maritime inspection mission of the coalition forces under a mandate from the United Nations Security Council. (The 15 British sailors captured by Tehran last month were operating within that mission.)
    Tehran wants the mission terminated for two reasons. First, it wants to impose total control on the Shatt al-Arab, a border waterway between Iran and Iraq, thus violating the 1975 Algiers agreement that established the thalweg (the deepest channel in the river) as the frontier between the two neighbors. Exclusive control of the estuary would enable the Islamic Republic to impose its terms for a future continental shelf agreement with both Iraq and Kuwait. In plain language, the Islamic Republic wishes to control access to Iraq's 75-kilometre long coastline on the Gulf, turning the Iraqi ports of Basra, Um-Qasar, Al-Bakr and Fao into strategic hostages.
    If such a scheme were imposed, the Islamic Republic would also control access to the Kuwait islands of Warbah and Bubiyan, designated as new development zones by the Kuwaiti government. The second reason why Tehran wants Maliki to scrap the maritime inspection mission is the mullahs' fear that the UN might, at some point, use the mechanism against the Islamic Republic in the context of the current showdown over the nuclear issue.... ....Worse still, the Maliki government has arrested, or acquiesced in the arrest of, more than a dozen senior IRGC officers, including two generals still held by the Americans in Baghdad. The most important cause of Tehran's anger, however, is Maliki's strategic vision of Iraq's relations with the Western democracies, led by the United States.
    The mullahs want Iraq to become a theatre of historic humiliation for Western democracies, especially the US. They hope to see the Americans and their allies running away, not withdrawing in the context of an agreement with a friendly Iraqi government. They want the credit for chasing away the Americans to go to Tehran and its Iraqi allies, notably Muqtada al-Sadr. Maliki, however, wants the US-led coalition out of Iraq only when new Iraq is capable of defending itself against its enemies, including the Khomeinist regime in Tehran. Beyond that, he wants to maintain a strategic partnership with the Western democracies in the interest of Iraq's economic development and social transformation. Maliki is attacked by both the mullahs and Jack Murtha Democrats in Washington. Both hate him because he is working to prevent their respective dreams from coming true.
    The mullahs dream of that "last helicopter" that flies from the rooftop of the US Embassy in Baghdad, spelling the end of the American hopes of bringing decent government to Iraq.The Murtha Democrats may not want a conclusive American defeat in Iraq, but would like something that looks like one. Only perceived defeat in Iraq would give their party something with which to unite its base and make a bid for the White House next year.
    It may be a coincidence. However, each time Congressman Murtha throws a poisonous arrow at Maliki, he is followed by one of Tehran's mullahs doing the same. Who knows, may be Maliki is doing something right!

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 10:52 PM

Teribus--

Sorry you're not getting enough sleep. Believe it or not, the world won't stop if you don't answer a post at 6:23 AM. Won't your ego allow to you to sleep? You really could tend to Mudcat later.

And I'm also just crushed to hear that your ego is still so tender as to not be able to admit you're wrong about the Bush Iraq propaganda campaign--recognized by the overwhelming majority of all educated English-speakers--too bad that evidently doesn't include you.

It certainly is telling, that when asked to provide direct quotes for your completely offbase characterizations of what I've said--in every case-- you can find precisely nothing.

Actually, I must congratulate you--as far as Iraq is concerned you are virtually the perfect negative indicator--(wonder if you know what that means). But take my word for it, it's a signal achievement on your behalf.

It's certainly a fortunate thing for the world that you have limited influence, to say the least.   With your policies, Iraq would definitely be in even worse shape than it is now--an amazing feat.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 10:36 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 01:23 AM

Ron,

regarding your last post - irrelevant waffle.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 11:40 PM

Teribus--

Sorry I haven't had a chance to get to this recently. But I certainly don't want you to feel neglected.

It pains me beyond measure, you can imagine, to have to point out some problems with your logic, reading etc.

Sure is big of you to finally admit that Iraq has no WMD's. But it's a mystery how such a masterful foreign policy analyst as yourself could be quite so gullible as to swallow hook line and sinker the feeble story the Bush regime was peddling.

Sorry, your "FACT"s are pretty transparent meaningless statements. For instance, we will never know if there would have been "subsequent terrorist attacks" on the US if Bush had dedicated all his attention to Osama--and let the UN inspectors continue in Iraq. And you say we should be so grateful to Mr, Bush for protecting us-----by invading Iraq? And of course if there had been another terrorist attack on the US after 9-11, you and the other giant intellects who support Bush would have claimed that proved Bush was right to fear al Qaeda--and right to invade Iraq, since there was a link between Saddam and al Qaeda.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

As far as the wonderful accomplishments of Bush's Iraq war--as the #1 Bush cheerleader you might want to check that bleeding heart leftist organ, the Economist--issue of 24 March 2007--especially the article on Iraq 4 years on. For instance: "It is now absurd to expect Iraq to serve as a democratic inspiration--it has done more to inspire jihad".

Not that I expect you to recognize that fact--after all it doesn't fit with your comfortable assumptions about how Western use of force is virtually always right--and certainly was right in the case of the Iraq war. If you protest that this is not your view, I invite you to cite instances of when Western use of force outside Europe since World War II was not justified.

And don't bother with your pathetic transparent falsehood about how opponents of the Iraq war want to surrender to al Qaeda. As I and others have pointed out, many Iraq war opponents, myself included, were totally in favor of attacking Afghanistan and chasing down--and capturing Osama.



I wouldn't want to imply, of course, that you are a Western military fossil who can't grasp anything outside your narrow military experience. Perish the thought.

Though sometimes, it's a bit hard to shake that impression.

For instance the good old "chain of command" business. You lurch crazily from one extreme to the other, desperately trying--without much success, sorry to say-- to squeeze the Iraq situation into the straitjacket of your limited military experience.

First Sadr with his "chain of command" will enforce discipline--and of course you provide absolutely no evidence. But that's how real armies--or gangsters--- behave, and, in your mind, Sadr is either a gangster or the head of an army. Anything outside this is a bit baffling for you.

Now you speculate "Sadr's Mahdi army might be breaking up"--again with no evidence. But this time you attribute this idea to me. Direct quote, please. Thanks so much.

Then you make another wild absurd statement--blubbering about how lack of a chain of command will make Sadr's "army" easier to "dust up"--in your, pardon the language, smugly stupid phrase. Wrong again. To put it in terms you might possibly grasp, it's franchises, not IBM.

Propaganda campaign--you're right, I haven't convinced anybody--since the vast majority of thinking English-speakers didn't need me or anybody else to point out the obvious.

Of course their egos are not riding on denying the obvious.



But probably the most spectacularly obvious misreading you've made is your favorite theme of how the Sunnis had best realize they are not in charge, deserve no consideration, if they don't like the new order they should leave Iraq--etc. ad nauseam.

While I kept trying patiently to instruct you--with little success--you're not the quickest study, it appears--that the #1 issue is the necessity that the Sunnis realize they are not being shut out of power---specifically, I said, more than once: the Sunnis must: 1) be able to trust the police--(still not accomplished) and 2) be guaranteed more oil income than would accrue just to the "Sunni parts" of Iraq--in theory now conceded by Maliki--but, as usual, the devil is in the....

And every time I gently tried to explain the facts to you,, you blustered on about how the Sunnis should just accept the new situation. Sorry, that's not how to deal with an insurgency--you actually have to make it worth their while to not support the rebels. And even though it goes against your cherished dogma--threats and use of force is not always the best way to solve the problem. After all, look what a wonderful success Britain had with your idea circa 1775--1783 in North America. And at the start of that period, virtually no American colonist wanted independence.

Well done, good job.

And if you think I said that Maliki's government would cut off the Sunnis--direct quote please. What I said is that the Maliki government had best not try to cut off the Sunnis--and that--citing that well-known foreign policy sage Shania Twain-- Maliki's words "don't impress me much."

Sorry I'll have to stop trying to instruct you tonight. It is, after all, a job for Sisyphus.

Looking forward to your next missive--hoping that it might have a little more to do with reality.

Well, I can dream.

Speaking of which.

Sweet dreams.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 10:29 AM

Ron--

Do you ever use your head?

While, a "war on terror" may be by definition endless. That doesn't mean for one second that it shouldn't be fought. So in your opinion Bush was stupid to declare it-----except of course that he now can--point to the following benefits since declaring that "war on terror" in the aftermath of the attacks of 11th September, 2001:
- There have been no subsequent attacks by international terrorist groups on targets within the borders of the USA - FACT;
- There been no subsequent attacks by international terrorist groups on any US Embassy - FACT;
- There have been no subsequent attacks by international terrorist groups on US or any other country's shipping - FACT;
- Libya has renounced its WMD programmes
- There is still unprecedented co-operation between intelligence agencies, law enforcement agencies, customs officials and financial intelligence units - FACT;
- Introduction and adoption of the IMO's ISPS system - FACT;
- Instances of terrorist attacks in Israel are down - FACT;
- It is now known for certain that Iraq has no WMD and no programmes to develope any such weapons - FACT;
- Of the "Axis of Evil" contenders Iraq is now harmless, North Korea is at the negotiating table and Iran is becoming more and more isolated by the day - FACT.

Whole host of things Ron.

Sunnis--you Ron were the one who stated on many occassions that Maliki's Government would cut them off from any share of Iraq's oil revenues----Didn't happen did it Ron? I on the other hand said that for the game to move forward the Sunni's had to come to realise that their insurgency was going nowhere, and that with the mounting level of sectarian violence that they themselves initiated, they realised that they were playing a game of diminishing returns that eventually they could only lose. The Sunni tribal, civic and religious leaders had to engage in political dialogue, and turn their backs on the insurgency and Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq. That is now beginning to happen Ron.

Propaganda--I refuse to acknowledge the Bush Iraq propaganda campaign because it never existed. You only think it existed because somebody told you it did, certainly by your arguements and attempts to convince others that it did clearly illustrate that you haven't given it much thought. As Dickey puts it you resort to obligatory false statements and personal attacks in an attempt to bludgeon someone else into agreeing with you--Got news for you Ron it won't work.

Chain of command--so you finally realize your attempt to graft the British Navy onto al Sadr's "army" is absurd? That's progress. Of course it is Ron, particularly when that was something I never attempted to do - Go back and check Ron--Another case of you putting words into my mouth, then attempting to take me to task over them. I believe that what I originally said was that disciplinary procedures within a paramilitary organisation tend to be a bit more stringent than QRRN. At least that was my experience with the paramilitaries in Northern Ireland - you very rarely get executed for disobeying orders or stepping out of line in the modern day Royal Navy Ron (Happened quite regularly in the PIRA, INLA, UVF, UDF, etc) - Knee-cappings, etc were also few and far between in the Royal Navy as well Ron. I bet Ron, that if Moqtad Al-Sadr told his Mehdi Army to cool it, adopt a low profile and lay low - they bloody well would, if any faction of it didn't, they'd be brought into line by the others in pretty short order.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 09:54 PM

Ron: You seem to be very familiar with the agony of a tender ego. Your ego forces you to continually assault others in order to survive.

I haven't attempted to graft anything anywhere. That is your obligatory false statements and personal attacks at work again in an attempt to bludgeon someone else into agreeing with you. Ron the crusher cannot allow anyone to disagree with him or he is unhappy.

I suppose you think the war on drugs, the war on crime, the war on poverty etc. are stupid because they are endless.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 09:02 PM

Teribus--

Do you ever use your head?

As has been pointed out, a "war on terror" is by definition endless. That's why Bush was stupid to declare it-----except of course that he now can--and does-- justify any assault on the Constitution, civil rights--or anything else of his choosing--by claiming it's necessary to fight the "war on terror".

Sunnis--as I indicated, it's the rejection of your idea that the Sunnis deserve "no consideration"--which may possibly make negotiations between the Maliki government and other factions a reality. Even that is uncertain--whether these negotiations bear fruit has yet to be seen.

The only thing which is absolutely clear is that your attitude--as in the quote--cited above-- from your collected works-- was the worst possible one--and guaranteed to worsen the civil war.

Propaganda--I understand that you refuse to acknowledge the Bush Iraq propaganda campaign. As I've said before, it must be agony to have such a tender ego.

Chain of command--so you finally realize your attempt to graft the British Navy onto al Sadr's "army" is absurd? That's progress.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 04:13 PM

"I think its amazing how the Shia have manipulated the U.S. into ridding Iraq of Saddam and laying the ground work for a theocracy in Iraq."

But you agree that the vast majority if Shia want Democracy in Iraq.

"Dickey - The graph tells us nothing we do not already know.

The Shia prefer a democracy"

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 02:06 PM

"Sadr's Mehdi Army might be breaking up, those under Al-Sistani's influence however are not."

I think this statement is over-simplified. Another error in thinking. Al-Sistani is highly respected religious leader. He does not control a military faction. He is like the pope to Shias.

Part of al-Sadr's army and in fact al-Sadr himself have been reported to have crossed into Iran. I think its wishful thinking to assume that this indicates a permanent split in the Mahdi army.

Al-Sistani and al-Sadr control different realms. They are not necessarily opposed to each other. It is prudent for al-Sadr to lie low at this time. This has been at the request of Maliki. Maliki wants U.S. support ($$$ for reconstruction) and the troops go with the 'surge' package. If anything, the more militant of the Mahdi army are getting out of harms way so that the U.S. can go after their enemy, the militant Sunnis and al-qaeda.

In a year or so the U.S. will be gone, it will be a different situation and al-Sadr and the Mahdi army may or may not be needed in Iraq. They will re-enter the scene to keep the Sunnis (including Allawi)in line if it is necessary. At present, it is prudent to allow the U.S. to do the dirty work. If you think that is some kind of victory for the U.S. and Britain, think again.

I think its amazing how the Shia have manipulated the U.S. into ridding Iraq of Saddam and laying the ground work for a theocracy in Iraq. I hope that Iraq can maintain a more secular form of government but I can't help but admire the strategic thinking of the Iranians.

In fact, the best scenario I can think of is that Arab Sunnis and Arab Shiites will be pushed out of both Iraq and Iran eventually. It would be a great day to see the liberation of Persians and Kurds.

I doubt if that will happen in my lifetime, but I can dream.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 06:49 AM

Let's take a look at the facts Ron


1) Propaganda campaign-- never existed, figment of your imagination, which in over a year of pathetic attempts you have been unable to convince anyone apart from your fellow travellers that it ever existed.

2) Negotiations--Oh Ron the Iraqi Government has got people to negotiate with to draw the insurection to a close. On the other hand the US has got nobody to negotiate with to draw their "war on terror" to a close.


3) Sunnis--Your take on things IIRC was that the predominantly Shia Government of Iraq were going to keep all oil revenues for themselves and starve the Sunni minority of investment capital for reconstruction. Malaki's Government didn't do that, did they? That is why the Sunni's are now willing to talk to the Government, they also have finally figured out that the insurgency is leading them nowhere apart from assued destruction.

4) the "chain of command" of Sadr's "army". I sincerely hope that you are right on this one, it will make them easier to dust up. By the bye Ron, which Shia Leader was it that bolted for Iran again? Al-Sistani or Sadr? Sadr's Mehdi Army might be breaking up, those under Al-Sistani's influence however are not. You were the one who previously claimed that Sistani was entirely without influence didn't you Ron.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Mar 07 - 02:49 PM

Yes, there have been in fact Western military fossils in positions of power in Iraq--quite a few. Probably the only thing Bush has done right in Iraq--possibly ever--is to put Gen. Petraeus in charge.   In contrast to giant brains like Teribus, Petraeus knows the strategy in Iraq has to be different. The main question now is if it's too late.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 24 Mar 07 - 01:23 PM

"...a clueless Western military fossil, who can't understand anything unless it fits snugly into the Western military model you know."

Precisely why military strategies in Iraq have been a dismal failure to date.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Mar 07 - 11:08 AM

Teribus--


Well, let's take a look at your track record, shall we?


1) Propaganda campaign--never able, in over a year of pathetic attempts, to find even one clear quote to contradict the Bush regime's propaganda campaign, acknowledged by the vast majority of sentient English speakers.

2) Negotiations--while you insisted there were no parties with whom the Maliki government could negotiate, that government is indeed doing so. I expected negotiations would have to wait til the end of the "surge" but in fact they are going on now. You told us nobody could negotiate--since the other parties were lying murdering scum. Wrong.


3) Sunnis--"deserve no consideration". Dead wrong. As Amos has pointed out, one of the few promising developments now in Iraq is negotiations between the Maliki government and Sunnis--including Sunni militants--with an eye to driving al Qaeda--foreign agitators--out of Iraq. Your approach would have driven Sunnis into the arms of al Qaeda. Brilliant.

4) the "chain of command" of Sadr's "army". As I pointed out several months ago, you have mistaken al Sadr's "army" for the Royal Navy. We now see, as I noted earlier, even more armed struggle within this "army"--with more splinter groups.

"Chain of command"? Not likely.

If I didn't know you were a highly respected foreign policy analyst, I might think you were in fact a clueless Western military fossil, who can't understand anything unless it fits snugly into the Western military model you know. Good thing we know that's not so.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 07:34 PM

Nothing cheap about it at all dianavan - these are the people who are attacking you. You have been their enemy for more than twenty years, long before Afghanistan, long before Iraq. The people who placed those children in that car ARE the ones you would have to negotiate with.

Don't flounder around and attempt to divert from the questions being asked by coming out with crap such as:

"Saddam's supporters were and are a nasty lot but that is not to say they are acting on behalf of all Muslims or all Iraqis. All terrorists, do not represent all Muslims."

Forget the rest dianavan - Its the nasty ones you have got to deal with.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 05:43 PM

Cheap shot, teribus. Nobody wants to see children killed.

Saddam's supporters were and are a nasty lot but that is not to say they are acting on behalf of all Muslims or all Iraqis. All terrorists, do not represent all Muslims. Thats why the invasion of Iraq is so wrong. Why invade Iraq if you after terrorists? There were no terrorists in Iraq until the U.S. created them.

Whenever there are acts of aggression and an occupation by foreign forces, terrorist factions will emerge to fight back. Those children would not have died if it weren't for the U.S. bringing their military might to Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 05:01 PM

Oh! so people who put children into the back of a car containing a bomb, in order to get through a check point then run for it before they detonate the bomb, leaving the children inside are going to compromise on their beliefs and the calling of their faith. Don't think so dianavan, doesn't matter what you offer it will never be enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 05:00 PM

Perhaps Muslims could remove their presence for all non Arab/Muslim lands.

That would be a start. Let them eat oil.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 03:59 PM

The rest of it?

That would be part of the compromise on their part.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 02:37 PM

So, mister know-it-all-T thinks he can spell al qaeda (let's see it in the original arabic asswipe -- anything else is phonetic), but cannot tell us the specific and well known reason why they turned on the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 02:32 PM

As for the rest of it?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 01:57 PM

"US to remove their presence from all muslim lands, but with particular emphasis placed on Arab muslim lands in the middle-east."

Maybe we could start here.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 01:42 PM

Insurgents top Iraq's daily death toll
BAGHDAD, March 21 (UPI) -- The daily death tally from Iraq Wednesday showed 13 of the 20 reported deaths were insurgents and al-Qaida sympathizers, local and military reports said.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 12:36 PM

Dianavan: "You apply pressure through international diplomacy. If that doesn't work you impose sanctions. If that doesn't work, you deploy a multi-national task force"
All that was done in Iraq.

Latest atrocites byt people that Dianavan thinks can be bargained with:

Maj. Gen. Michael Barbero, deputy director for regional operations on the Joint Staff, said Tuesday that a vehicle used in the attack was waved through a U.S. military checkpoint because two children were visible in the back seat. He said this was the first reported use of children in a suicide car bombing in Baghdad.

"Children in the back seat lowered suspicion, (so) we let it move through, they parked the vehicle, the adults run out and detonate it with the children in the back," Barbero told reporters in Washington. "The brutality and ruthless nature of this enemy hasn't changed."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070321/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq;_ylt=AmWdbgsA7JuYFKtLWztsorPMWM0F

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 02:32 AM

Brilliant from dianavan we get the following, which by and large is roughly how things are supposed to happen in an ideal world - unfortunately the world in reality is far from ideal:

dianavan - 21 Mar 07 - 01:26 AM

1) "You apply pressure through international diplomacy."

In general, yes that is normally what happens.


2) "If that doesn't work you impose sanctions."

Unilaterally - completely ineffective. Through the UN? Well this is where it gets tricky and you run into that "veto" thing. Even when passed, those who originally objected to the imposition of sanctions will conspire with the targeted country to circumvent those sanctions. Classic example Iraq's "Oil for Food". Sanctions did not work against South Africa, Rhodesia, Libya, Serbia, Iraq, the list goes on.

3) "If that doesn't work, you deploy a multi-national task force..."

Now let's see, since its formation how many times has this been done dianavan? I think that you will find that this course of action is extremely rare. Your multi-national task force is tasked with doing what exactly? Even in the most blatant circumstances which scream out from the roof-tops for international intervention (Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Darfur, Zimbabwe) the UN will always find some way of stepping back to "monitor" the situation from the side-lines. This has happened time and time again, no point in even attempting to deny it.

4) "but you should never be so arrogant as to think you can, "go it alone."

What about a nation's right to self defence dianavan? Do you seriously advocate delegating the exercise of that right to the UN, given its track record? You must be joking.

5) "Somewhere during the diplomatic negotiations you find out what the terrorists are demanding and why."

OK dianavan this is what they want:

- US to remove their presence from all muslim lands, but with particular emphasis placed on Arab muslim lands in the middle-east.

- For the US as a whole to convert to Islam.

- For the US as a whole to adopt Sharia Law as the only law applicable throughout the country.

- For the US to become a subject state as part of a world-wide Islamic Caliphate.

6) "Together you work on a solution thats agreeable to all. That doesn't mean that one side gets everything they want. Both sides have to compromise."

OK dianavan, given the above set of demands, what are you going to compromise on? Where do you think that you will find common ground agreeable to all?

7) "I am a great believer in effective problem solving."

No dianavan, you are a great believer in running away, you are a great believer in appeasement, you are a great believer in capitulation.

8) "War doesn't solve anything."

Certainly does in some cases. The situation that the US is in, in both Iraq and in Afghanistan are classic examples of such cases. You have nobody to negotiate with. Your declared enemy in all his various guises is implacable. Your declared enemies demands are totally outrageous and unreasonable. By the bye dianavan although I mention the US in the demands detailed above, they generally apply to all countries, they do after all want a world-wide Islamic Caliphate.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 01:26 AM

You apply pressure through international diplomacy. If that doesn't work you impose sanctions. If that doesn't work, you deploy a multi-national task force but you should never be so arrogant as to think you can, "go it alone."

Somewhere during the diplomatic negotiations you find out what the terrorists are demanding and why. Together you work on a solution thats agreeable to all. That doesn't mean that one side gets everything they want. Both sides have to compromise. I am a great believer in effective problem solving. War doesn't solve anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 10:47 PM

Dianavan:

What do you do if the government of a nation supports terrorisim?