Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 82
  1. #26
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Post Count
    2,592
    Well, doing a little research, I found a whole 3 mentions that weren't on leftists sites (which I skipped since they are as much BS as the ultra righty sites). All three of those mentioned concerns over the amount of control foreign investers might have, but focused on the main reason being they wanted more regional control over the oil, including raises that the central government would then have zero control over.

    I could not find a single mention of the strike on any of the english language arab news sites I check.

    So apparently it was a big deal to leftist party-liners like you, but not really to anyone else, including the Arabs, in terms of concern over privatisation.

    And again, no mention of any sort of interference by the US into what the "hydrocarbon" law will say.

  2. #27
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Post Count
    15,842
    Iraqis Resist US Pressure to Enact Oil Law

    By Tina Susman
    The Los Angeles Times

    Sunday 13 May 2007

    Foreign investment and Shiite control are the primary concerns. A White House deadline for passage is in doubt.

    Baghdad - It has not even reached parliament, but the oil law that U.S. officials call vital to ending Iraq's civil war is in serious trouble among Iraqi lawmakers, many of whom see it as a sloppy do ent rushed forward to satisfy Washington's clock.

    Opposition ranges from vehement to measured, but two things are clear: The May deadline that the White House had been banking on is in doubt. And even if the law is passed, it fails to resolve key issues, including how to divide Iraq's oil revenue among its Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni regions, and how much foreign investment to allow. Those questions would be put off for future debates.

    The problems of the oil bill bode poorly for the other so-called benchmarks that the Bush administration has been pressuring Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's government to meet. Those include provincial elections, reversing a prohibition against former Baath Party members holding government and military positions and revision of Iraq's cons ution.

    Republican leaders in Washington have warned administration officials that if the Iraqi government fails to meet those benchmarks by the end of the summer, remaining congressional support for Bush's Iraq policies could crumble. Their impatience was underscored Wednesday by Vice President Cheney during a visit here.

    "I did make it clear that we believe it's very important to move on the issues before us in a timely fashion, and that any undue delay would be difficult to explain," Cheney told reporters.

    But Iraqi lawmakers show little sign of bending to accommodate Bush on an issue as crucial as oil.

    "We have two clocks the Baghdad clock and the Washington clock and this is a perfect example," said Mahmoud Othman, a lawmaker from the semiautonomous Kurdish region of northern Iraq. "This has always been the case. Washington has been pushing the Iraqis to do things to fit their agenda."

    Iraq is believed to have some of the world's largest oil reserves, about 115 billion barrels. The country's 2007 budget is based on predictions that oil proceeds will reach $31 billion, 93% of the government's revenue.

    But war and political instability have kept production down. Just before the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003, production was 2.6 million barrels per day. U.S. officials predicted a rapid rise to 3 million barrels. Instead, Iraq often has struggled to push the daily total to 2 million barrels because of obsolete equipment and security problems.

    The oil law is supposed to change this by opening the industry to foreign investors who could modernize equipment and increase production. U.S. officials hope that spreading oil profit fairly across the country would cause instability to ebb.

    Iraq's cabinet, the Council of Ministers, approved a draft oil measure in February. From there, it was to go to parliament. U.S. officials predicted passage would be quick, but it has stalled.

    The objections are as vast and technical as the measure itself and reflect the wider problems facing Iraq: regional distrust of the Shiite-led central government; wariness of foreign interest; and anger toward the United States, which many Iraqis believe invaded Iraq solely to get its hands on the oil.

    Kurds Object

    The Kurdish regional government voiced its opposition to the measure last month after seeing lists drawn up by the Iraqi central government that categorized the oil fields according to levels of development and geographical boundaries. Those factors would determine who would manage the fields and the contracts involving them regional authorities or the state-run Iraq National Oil Co., which has yet to be established.

    Kurdish authorities say the lists gave 93% of fields to the national oil company, including some they say are at least partially in Kurdish territory. Their dissatisfaction has been made blazingly clear on the Kurdistan regional government website, which has posted the lists along with comments in red letters beside the sections they oppose.

    "WRONG!" and "TOO BIG!" are common remarks.

    Kurdish officials have said that unless the lists are redrawn, they will not support the bill. Kurdish parties control about one-fifth of the parliament.

    Other points of contention, which have drawn in Sunnis as well as Shiites, involve the mechanism for distributing oil profit and the degree of foreign participation in a committee that would set policy on contracts and other industry issues.

    None of those is clarified in the proposed legislation.

    "Quite a lot of it is not good, to be honest," said a Western energy expert in Baghdad who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid angering Iraqi officials. "A lot of the difficult questions were fudged, like revenue sharing and who controls the oil fields. These obviously are vitally important, but they wanted a benchmark passed, so it was pushed," he said, referring to U.S. officials.

    The question of how to divvy the money is especially troublesome because of Sunni Arab and Kurdish distrust of the Shiite-led government. Under the proposed law, the central government would control a bank account used for distributing oil proceeds.

    "There were ideas that checks from the single oil account should have three signatures: one should be Sunni; one should be Shiite; one should be Kurd," said Zalmay Khalilzad, the former U.S. ambassador to Iraq who left the post in March.

    Passing the measure "requires a very hands-on effort by the international community, by the United States," Khalilzad said. "This is the paradox of this situation. We have a greater sense of urgency because of our situation than they do."

    The Western energy expert said Iraqi politicians estimate that a decision will take a few months or perhaps until the end of the year. "They say, 'Hang on, this is an important law, we're not just going to pass it,' " he said.

    Foreign Investment

    Next to how to divide the money, the most contentious issue appears to be the role of foreign investment. The measure envisions profit-sharing agreements, which reward foreign contractors for doing business in risky environments.

    Even those who support the proposal as a framework have reservations about the details.

    "All in all, we need the new law. The existing ones are very old," said Haider Abadi, a member of Maliki's Islamic Dawa Party, a Shiite group. "Having said this, though, it does not mean that at this stage we are for a full opening of the doors to foreign investment in the oil sector."

    Salim Abdullah Jabouri, a spokesman for the Sunni bloc, also expressed concern about having foreign companies profiting from Iraqi oil. "We think that the timing of this law is not suitable," he said.

    Some of the fiercest opposition has come from oil workers, who threatened to go on strike this week to protest the legislation.


    Imad Abdul Hussain, a leader of the Federation of Oil Unions, said workers want oil production to remain in government hands.

    "Oil is Iraq's sovereignty. It is the only wealth in Iraq. It unifies Iraqis. When we give it to a foreign investor, this means the sovereignty is taken away," he said.

    Energy experts, though, say Iraq has no hope of increasing production without foreign expertise and money.

    Beyond all the political issues looms Iraq's most basic problem: security. The country may need help from outside investors, but "without security and a stable regime, none of this will mean much, because they won't come in," said Gal Luft, an energy expert at the Ins ute for the Analysis of Global Security, a Washington think tank that studies energy-related security issues.

    There were at least 15 attacks on Iraqi oil facilities in the first three months of the year, according to the ins ute. They included slayings of oil industry workers and bombings of wells and the pipeline that carries oil from Baiji, in northern Iraq, to Turkey.

    The number of attacks is lower than during the same period last year, but Luft said that is because saboteurs' favorite target, the pipeline, has been hit so many times that it rarely functions.

    "They normally do not attack pipelines that are not in operation," Luft said.

  3. #28
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Post Count
    2,592
    See, now that's a better article to post that some BS from leftist sites like you normally do.

    Of course, it contradicts your claims in a couple parts, including parts that you highlighted yourself (btw, bolding like that doesn't actually help, makes you look quite juvenile too).

    It specifically mentions the US pushed legislation fails to resolve the issue of how much foreign investment to allow. In fact, the implication of the article is that it is practically empty legislation.

    Then you have the Kurds, whose complaint is that it would move control of their oil fields from regional control to the Iraqi National Oil Company. They're fighting to maintain regional control.

    The article also fails to mention the other problems that involved the strike, such as bonuses being eliminated, and again, the regional v central governmental control of oil revenues.

    The SUPER BOLD part about Washington pushing Iraq to fit it's agenda's is obviously referring to timeline wise, not actual platforms or ideals. Which is because Democrats are forcing the issue with a timeline of their own.

    Oh and yeah, the public opinion of an ethnic group historically opposed to the US anyway is a really good benchmark on what's really going on.

    The article also mentions that Iraq has no way of keeping it's oil sector up to date without foreign investors, and since the US pushed bill apparently doesn't resolve the amount of foreign investors, as per the article, it's highly possible the bill says only that foreign investors should be brought onboard.

    So you managed to post an article that supports your position that the US is pushing legislation that invokes foreign investments, and that a large chunk of Iraqis don't like that idea.. The article doesn't support your position that the US is trying to take control of it, plus the article glosses over and ignores several other problems that are related to it. Not suprising since this is the LA Times, and the Times should have a left bent to satisfy its customer base (not extreme, but it should favor that side, it'd be good business to).

    Still, it's a step in the right direction from your normal posts.

  4. #29
    I don't really care... Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    26,781
    Dayum! First the New York Times and now, a real live Democrat!

    I'm not yet persuaded the tide is actually turning in Washington, but this piece by Dan Balz and Chris Cillizza in the Washington Post provides some grounds for optimism. They report that House Majority Whip James Clyburn says a strongly positive statement progress in Iraq by General Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party's efforts to press for a timetable to end the war.

    According to Clyburn, Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House (i.e., the less than liberal Democrats). Sadly, it's not clear that Petraeus carries as much weight with moderate and liberal Republicans.

    As significant as what Clyburn said is the way he said it. According to Clyburn, a strongly positive report by Petraeus would be "a real big problem for us."

    Clyburn's candor may be commendable, but it's unfortunate that the Dems regard strongly positive news from Iraq as a problem.

  5. #30
    I don't really care... Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    26,781
    Bump

    According to Clyburn, a strongly positive report by Petraeus would be "a real big problem for us."
    I'm curious what the Democrats, anti-war, liberals, or Bush haters, on this forum, make of that statement.

  6. #31
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    ...has shifted its narrative on the war! Egads!!! Can the rest of the leftist media be far behind?
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have stated one or more times something to the effect:

    The main stream media reports unfavorable to republicans upon just rumor, but only reports unfavorable against democrats when the truth is undeniable.

    Isn't it obvious the reverse would be true?

    The MSM only reports positive for the republicans when the truth is undeniable, and always reports positive for the democrats unless the undenable truth is otherwise?

    Anyone who has half a brain and listens to multiple media sources knows the surge is working!

  7. #32
    keep asking questions George Gervin's Afro's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Post Count
    11,409
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have stated one or more times something to the effect:

    The main stream media reports unfavorable to republicans upon just rumor, but only reports unfavorable against democrats when the truth is undeniable.

    Isn't it obvious the reverse would be true?

    The MSM only reports positive for the republicans when the truth is undeniable, and always reports positive for the democrats unless the undenable truth is otherwise?

    Anyone who has half a brain and listens to multiple media sources knows the surge is working!


    It may be working but pardon us for not immediately taking the word of the administration as being completely truthful.

  8. #33
    keep asking questions George Gervin's Afro's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Post Count
    11,409
    Bump


    I'm curious what the Democrats, anti-war, liberals, or Bush haters, on this forum, make of that statement.

    Yoni I am sure there is much more to that story than you have posted. Conservtaives are very good at taking statements out of context and attaching them to whatever is politically convenient.

    If I were to guess what this dude was saying (and as i have mentioned there is probably much more to it) that if this surge is working then it will be hard to justify to start bringing the troops home now. it would cause us , those who want to start bringing GIs home, some trouble even passing the legislation now. That's a guess..

    I have a feeling that you are going to interpret this guy's statement and assign it to the 'all of the libs want us to lose' mantra

    If that's that's the case (the surge working) this is good news because the surge may in fact allow us to bring our troops home sooner rather than later. We want our troops home Yoni whether the surge works or not..anyway to end this war is good enough for me.. you on the other hand are hoping to save face.

  9. #34
    keep asking questions George Gervin's Afro's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Post Count
    11,409
    Dayum! First the New York Times and now, a real live Democrat!

    I'm not yet persuaded the tide is actually turning in Washington, but this piece by Dan Balz and Chris Cillizza in the Washington Post provides some grounds for optimism. They report that House Majority Whip James Clyburn says a strongly positive statement progress in Iraq by General Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party's efforts to press for a timetable to end the war.

    According to Clyburn, Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House (i.e., the less than liberal Democrats). Sadly, it's not clear that Petraeus carries as much weight with moderate and liberal Republicans.

    As significant as what Clyburn said is the way he said it. According to Clyburn, a strongly positive report by Petraeus would be "a real big problem for us."

    Clyburn's candor may be commendable, but it's unfortunate that the Dems regard strongly positive news from Iraq as a problem.

    Just found the REST of the article.. and not surprisingly Yoni and his editing skills have skewed the comments:


    Clyburn: Positive Report by Petraeus Could Split House Democrats on War

    By Dan Balz and Chris Cillizza
    Washington Post Staff Writer and Washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
    Monday, July 30, 2007; 6:26 PM

    House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Monday that a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq by Army Gen. David Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party's efforts to press for a timetable to end the war.

    Clyburn, in an interview with the washingtonpost.com video program PostTalk, said Democrats might be wise to wait for the Petraeus report, scheduled to be delivered in September, before charting next steps in their year-long struggle with President Bush over the direction of U.S. strategy.


    Clyburn noted that Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats. Without their support, he said, Democratic leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal.

    "I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us," Clyburn said. "We, by and large, would be wise to wait on the report.".....

    Yoni you are so blinded by your partisanship you probably have justified only providing 1 sentence of this article to prove a point... this is pretty pathetic and intellectually dishonest

  10. #35
    Retired Ray xrayzebra's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Post Count
    9,096
    It may be working but pardon us for not immediately taking the word of the administration as being completely truthful.
    Reid was shown stating: The surge is not working. That
    was just after the surge was announced. He has also
    stated we have lost in Iraq. And some are still saying it.
    Next on their agenda, yeah, well the military has done a
    good job but the political benchmarks haven't been
    attained. You know some of that good dimm-o-crap
    truthfullness......

  11. #36
    keep asking questions George Gervin's Afro's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Post Count
    11,409
    Reid was shown stating: The surge is not working. That
    was just after the surge was announced. He has also
    stated we have lost in Iraq. And some are still saying it.
    Next on their agenda, yeah, well the military has done a
    good job but the political benchmarks haven't been
    attained. You know some of that good dimm-o-crap
    truthfullness......

    Can we at leat wait until Petreus releases his report before we start running around telling everyone it's working. I'm willing to wait but I am not willing to take your or Yoni's word on it.

  12. #37
    Retired Ray xrayzebra's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Post Count
    9,096
    Gee GGA, I sorry I broke the spell for you. NYT and a couple of
    dimms just finally joined Yoni and I. Not the other way round.

    But you can wait if you wont. Take your time. We know you have
    a hard time understanding things. That is why we type slow so
    you can read it and hopefully have a little understanding.

  13. #38
    keep asking questions George Gervin's Afro's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Post Count
    11,409
    Gee GGA, I sorry I broke the spell for you. NYT and a couple of
    dimms just finally joined Yoni and I. Not the other way round.

    But you can wait if you wont. Take your time. We know you have
    a hard time understanding things. That is why we type slow so
    you can read it and hopefully have a little understanding.

    So your not going to wait for the report ot be released? Oh wait..you still believe there are stockpiles of wmds.... nevermind

    so can I get you committed to saying that what the NY Times writes is truth? Great! Now we can use them as gospel...

    Ray you have been wrong for over 4 yrs now... earth to ray..earth to ray..
    Last edited by George Gervin's Afro; 07-31-2007 at 08:42 AM.

  14. #39
    I don't really care... Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    26,781
    Can we at leat wait until Petreus releases his report before we start running around telling everyone it's working. I'm willing to wait but I am not willing to take your or Yoni's word on it.
    Hey, they weren't my words. It was two fellows from the liberal Brookings Ins ute writing in the freakin' New York Times. Then, you had a Democrat (presumably left of center but, admittedly, I don't know), also saying the surge is have positive results -- and lamenting how bad that was for Democrats, no less.

    Don't blame me.

  15. #40
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Post Count
    15,842
    "just wants that oil on the market to avoid an economic meltdown caused by high oil prices (we've experienced a part of it), not that they want it under US control."

    The Repugs love high oil and gas prices since it enriches the oilcos, that in turn have $Ms to lobby with and to give to political campaigns.

    One of the authors on Wolf Blitzer said he and his co-author did not write the headline and do not agree with it, disown the headline.

    The NYT paid these guys for the trip and the article and published it, proving the NYT is incapable of reporting the facts.

    The article says very clearly that in spite of positive signs, it's only a tiny beginning in the military area, with NO progress being seen in the political area, which dubya and Petraeus both say in the more important area.

    Iraq infrastructure still remains a disaster, and NO MORE US FUNDS are available for another go at re-building Iraq.

    And the Iraqi parliament has gone on vacation, probably out of Iraq and with all vacation expenses paid by the govt.

  16. #41
    keep asking questions George Gervin's Afro's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Post Count
    11,409
    Hey, they weren't my words. It was two fellows from the liberal Brookings Ins ute writing in the freakin' New York Times. Then, you had a Democrat (presumably left of center but, admittedly, I don't know), also saying the surge is have positive results -- and lamenting how bad that was for Democrats, no less.

    Don't blame me.

    Clyburn, in an interview with the washingtonpost.com video program PostTalk, said Democrats might be wise to wait for the Petraeus report, scheduled to be delivered in September, before charting next steps in their year-long struggle with President Bush over the direction of U.S. strategy.
    isn't this what you have been asking for? time for Petraeus to get back to us? That's what is going on and it's still not good enough for you.. sheesh

  17. #42
    I don't really care... Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    26,781
    isn't this what you have been asking for? time for Petraeus to get back to us? That's what is going on and it's still not good enough for you.. sheesh
    That is not what's going on. The Left is not waiting before declaring the war lost. You don't believe that should be countered?

    We should just let Harry Reid, et. al. go on pushing for surrender and making declarations about how bad things in Iraq are without anyone contradicting them?

    Yes, I'm willing to wait for the Petreaus report but, when something quite extraordinary occurs -- as in the case of liberals and liberal ins utions actually reporting good news from Iraq -- I think it's right to point it out.

    I think you're like Clyburn and are afraid of what good news from Iraq means for the partisan political narrative the left has been pushing for the past few years.

    Already, we're seeing a climb in the polls for both the President and Americans' views on the war in Iraq.

  18. #43
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Post Count
    15,842
    "The Left is not waiting before declaring the war lost."

    Left? plenty of people left, center, right of center see Iraq as hopeless. Check the polls you don't like to believe. The Iraq war is extremely unpopular, people want it reduced or shut down. The people are sovereign, not dubya and head.

    "something quite extraordinary occurs"

    for which the NYT gets no credit for financing and reporting.

    "something quite extraordinary occurs"

    ... after 4 years of total failure, anything positive out of Iraq is "something quite extraordinary occurs"

    The two authoris say there is a long way to go, militarily, infrastrucurally, and above all politically, buy Yoni is extrapolated tiny good news into TOTAL VICTORY.

    Petraeus will of course inflate his report with positives. It's his career and reputation, and he known is a politicized ass-kisser of dubya.

  19. #44
    keep asking questions George Gervin's Afro's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Post Count
    11,409
    That is not what's going on. The Left is not waiting before declaring the war lost. You don't believe that should be countered?

    We should just let Harry Reid, et. al. go on pushing for surrender and making declarations about how bad things in Iraq are without anyone contradicting them?

    Yes, I'm willing to wait for the Petreaus report but, when something quite extraordinary occurs -- as in the case of liberals and liberal ins utions actually reporting good news from Iraq -- I think it's right to point it out.

    I think you're like Clyburn and are afraid of what good news from Iraq means for the partisan political narrative the left has been pushing for the past few years.

    Already, we're seeing a climb in the polls for both the President and Americans' views on the war in Iraq.
    Americans still don't consider Iraq as a part of the war on terror. Since the definition of 'victory' has evolved I would think those same people who would try and paint the left as wrong will have to defend their evolutionary stance as well. The dems could easily turn around and point out what certain republicans said about victory 4 yrs ago and reconcile with a watered down version of victory is today. people want out of Iraq... what you fail to acknowledge is that we have already won the war..it is the post war that we have failed on... I would not guess that in the initial phases of post war Iraq you , or any other war , would be proclaiming that an Islamic based democracy that will align itsel with Iran would be a victory..I guess it's all about saving face now... I hope the surge is working so we can get out of Iraq..I wonder where you get the impression that I am worried about the surge working.. I hope it is so we can stop wasting our resources on a country that will turn it's back on us as soon as we leave.. You may think this sacrifice is worth it but if Iraq turns into an advisery, as opposed to an ally, your party should never be in control again..



    I think you're like Clyburn and are afraid of what good news from Iraq means for the partisan political narrative the left has been pushing for the past few years.
    what are you talking about? How is it that most polling shows that 70% of Americans who want out of Iraq will came back and punsih those trying to get out of Iraq? Your looking at this from your partisan blinded goggles..

  20. #45
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Post Count
    2,592
    The Repugs love high oil and gas prices since it enriches the oilcos, that in turn have $Ms to lobby with and to give to political campaigns.
    I can see where that might be true, considering over 80% of campaign contributions from oil industry individuals and PACS go to republicans, but please keep in mind that the oil industry ranked 16th in terms of total donations for campaigns in both 2004 and 2006. No single oil company ranked in the top 100 contributors in 2004.

    If you're curious:

    for 2006 (NOTE, this includes both PAC and individual donations):
    oil companies ranked 16th, giving $19m, 82% of which went to republicans.
    Building Trade Unions ranked 19th, giving $17m, 84% Dem
    Industrial Unions ranked 30, giving $12m, 97% Dem
    Lawyers ranked 2nd, giving $124m, 70% Dem
    Lobbyists ranked 12th, giving $23m, 57% Rep.

    Interestingly, historically lobbyists hover around 50/50, except in the first 6 years of Clinton, where there were over 70% Dem.

    I think you are vastly overassuming the strength of the oil cos lobbying efforts and influence...

  21. #46
    i hunt fenced animals clambake's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    25,321
    This report was completed and memorized months ago.

  22. #47
    I don't really care... Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    26,781
    Americans still don't consider Iraq as a part of the war on terror.
    Your entire disjointed and rambling response hinges on this statement. If this is not true, then the rest of your argument is meaningless.

    So, regardless of what "Americans" may or may not consider about Iraq -- depending on where and how they choose to inform themselves -- the war in Iraq is central to the war on terror.

    In fact, it is the American left, through their advancing the anti-war narrative over the past four yearst by which most Americans (who don't associate Iraq with the war on terror) have come to that belief.

    Al Qaeda believes Iraq is central to the war on terror. Iraq believes the war, in their country, is central to the war on terror. Republicans + Joe Lieberman believe Iraq is central to the war on terror. And, our allies around the world, believe Iraq is central to the war on terror.

    I think it is you and your ilk that are late to the party here. But, you go ahead and hang on to that article of faith.

  23. #48
    keep asking questions George Gervin's Afro's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Post Count
    11,409
    Your entire disjointed and rambling response hinges on this statement. If this is not true, then the rest of your argument is meaningless.

    So, regardless of what "Americans" may or may not consider about Iraq -- depending on where and how they choose to inform themselves -- the war in Iraq is central to the war on terror.

    In fact, it is the American left, through their advancing the anti-war narrative over the past four yearst by which most Americans (who don't associate Iraq with the war on terror) have come to that belief.

    Al Qaeda believes Iraq is central to the war on terror. Iraq believes the war, in their country, is central to the war on terror. Republicans + Joe Lieberman believe Iraq is central to the war on terror. And, our allies around the world, believe Iraq is central to the war on terror.














    I think it is you and your ilk that are late to the party here. But, you go ahead and hang on to that article of faith.

    Well most people don't consider Iraq as a part of the war on terror... so my argument stands.. I really hope the republicans try that crap because I would love to play the soundbites about how we would be greeted as liberators.. etc..better yet dusting off all of the soundbites of how wrong Bush and his war s were from the beginning and give the American people a choice. Do you trust the party that got you into a mess that they created and tried to blame everybody else f..or the party that was trying to clean that problem up .. I look forward to it..



    please tell me what party we are late too?

  24. #49
    I don't really care... Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    26,781
    Well most people don't consider Iraq as a part of the war on terror... so my argument stands..
    That doesn't make it right.

    I really hope the republicans try that crap because I would love to play the soundbites about how we would be greeted as liberators..
    We were greeted as liberators. You might recall, the sectarian violence didn't erupt for some time after Baghdad fell. In fact, the general concensus, among those who believe Iraq is central to the war on terror, is that it was during the relative calm after the regime was toppled that foreign fighters poured into the country, met up with internal insurgents and planned their course of action that soon became the insurgency.

    etc..better yet dusting off all of the soundbites of how wrong Bush and his war s were from the beginning and give the American people a choice. Do you trust the party that got you into a mess that they created and triend to blame everybody else for it ..or the party that was trying to clean that problem up .. I look forward to it..
    I think the American people will be forgiving of a president that took the proper course of action while, at the same time, prevented attacks here and oversaw an economic boom to boot.

    The American people will come to the same conclusions as Michael David Hanson:

    In a wider sense, the war is as most wars: an evolution from blunders to wisdom, with the side that makes the fewest and learns from them the most eventually winning. Al Qaeda and the insurgents in 2004-6 developed the means, both tactical and strategic, to thwart the reconstruction, but we, not they, have since learned the more and evolved.

    As in the Civil War, WWI, and WWII, the present American military — which has committed far less mistakes than past American forces — has shifted tactics, redefined strategy, and found the right field commanders. We forget that the U.S. Army and Marines, far from being broken, now have the most experienced and wizened officers in the world. Like Summer 1864, Summer 1918, and in the Pacific 1944-5, the key is the support of a weary public for an ever improving military that must nevertheless endure a final storm before breaking the enemy.

    The irony is that should President Bush endure the hysteria and furor and prove able to give the gifted Gen. Petraeus the necessary time — and I think he will — his presidency could still turn out to be Trumanesque, once we digest the changes in Europe, the progress on North Korea, the end of both the Taliban and Saddam, and the prevention of another 9/11 attack. How odd that all the insider advice to triangulate — big spending, new programs, uninspired appointments, liberal immigration reform — have nearly wrecked the administration, and what were once considered its liabilities — foreign policy, the war on terror and Iraq — may still save it.
    please tell me what party we are late too?
    The truth.

  25. #50
    I don't really care... Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    26,781
    From The Belmont Club:

    Making it up as you go along
    The Educated Soldier recalls the calm days after the fall of Baghdad.

    The level of calm that immediately followed the downfall of the Baathist regime in Baghdad was remarkable. It now seems asinine to suggest that the following events occurred, but they did. My unit used to travel to city center Baghdad, abandon our Humvees but to a couple rotating guards, drop all of our protective gear, enter restaurants and eat full-service meals. Imagine this: I used to travel to this same area of the city and receive a haircut from an Iraqi barber who would wield a straight-edged blade without so much of a raised eyebrow from my compatriots. There was even an instance that our Humvee, by its lonesome, left the Baghdad International Airport after escorting an official and traversed the streets of Baghdad in search of pirated DVDs. Occasionally, I will tell stories of complacency, of soldiers asleep while behind the gun atop a Humvee, that occurred during this period and then wonder how I ever let one partake in such lazy and dangerous activity. And then it occurs to me that this sort of activity was a product of the environment that we then knew. ...
    So this raises many questions that I have yet to hear quality answers. The answers lack, in part, because this is now a forgotten part of Iraq history. But this soldier, nonetheless, wonders, “What happened?” There was a notable period of time in Iraq between the fall of the government in Baghdad and the beginning of the greater insurgency conflict as we now understand it, which was void of violence. Why was this? Did the “bag guys” really need a month to two to regroup and retaliate? Or was it the case that, during this two month gap, combatants from outside the country were being filtered in?

    I have no good answers. I hope, however, that by continuing to spread the experiences that I remember, some may come to pass. And, hopefully, these answers can go a long way in helping us understand the enemy that we currently face.

    My own guess is that the subsequent violence was the result of two things. As soon as Saddam fell, forces opposed to the US began to plan and execute their riposte with remarkable speed. Ex-regime elements, Islamists etc. began to make their move. In contrast, the Coalition was unable to both take control of the post-Saddam situation and respond to enemy countermoves. There followed a period in which the Coalition was forced on the defensive all across Iraq. And that continued until the Coalition was eventually able to learn, adapt and regain some initiative.

    The stories related by the Educated Soldier illustrate the lack of continuity in the script. Having defeated the Iraqi Army, the idea was that it was "over". In retrospect things had only just begun. But not only was the force mentally unprepared for what came next, it was physically and organizationally unready. There were inadequate numbers of interpreters; I suspect that intelligence networks were underdeveloped; probably most importantly, the force was unfamiliar with Iraq. When the trouble began, much of the attention focused on the "armor" gap. The striking difference between 2003 and 2007 is not the lack of steel plate on the Humvees -- something which obsessed the media for a long time -- but the difference in at ude and doctrine between that era and Gen Petraeus' force.

    The fateful decision of Paul Bremer to dismantle Saddam's Army may have saved Iraq from a continuation of the fallen regime under other color; it might have avoided a Shi'ite insurgency that may have developed in response; it might had many things to commend it in the long run. But off-handedly dismantling the ancien regime without the Coalition capability to take up the slack meant that for some years it would be operating in a debatable void. It was as if the forces on the ground had to jump out of an airplane without a parachute and only a bale of silk from which they were expected to knit their own as they plummeted through the air and hopefully finish before they hit the ground. Policy makers may not have been aware they were doing it, but therein lies a tale.

    Yet fundamentally, I don't know the answer to Educated Soldier's questions. And apart from the few facile speculations I've sketched out it remains a stark and valid challenge, not simply to historians, but to operators and policy makers. The parachute isn't finished yet.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •