Thread: Iraq wants U.S. withdrawal deadline

[QUOTE=cirrrocco;514549]

Maliki is "a politician," McCain told MSNBC. "He is a leader of a country that's finally coming together. The fact is that we and the Iraqis will deal in what is in the national security interests of both countries."

QUOTE]

So what exactly are we saying here? "both countries"?

Is Iraq a sovereign country or not?

Or is it just all about us?

Or are they allowed to be "Sovereign" only as long as they "behave" our way? comments?

Can we be honest with our people as to what is going on? fog of war?

Holy crap - that darn can of worms...

"...Or is it just all about us?"

Let me know when we start "getting ours". How's the great oil heist going? Was the removal of the baathist party, Saddam Hussein, his sons, the WMD programs, and the mass suppression of two-thirds of the nation by one-third solely for OUR benefit?

Please explain how these conditions (and MORE) don't benefit the region and, in particular, the Iraqi people.

I think the question around the propriety of saying "interests of both countries" is a valid one.

Granted the US does not want Iraq to turn into a FATA, and so has a valid security interest in ensuring that it does not withdraw and leave an unstable Iraq (officially) - but if the GoI is confident that it is up to the task of controlling the nation, then I see no reason why the US gets to have any say.

Unless the US considers itself a better judge of the situation than the Iraqis.

Could be tough talk with the elections coming up - but if this idea latches on with the Iraqi politicians, and then permeates into the populace, I am not sure how the US will be unable to accede to the demand for withdrawal of forces from a "Muslim nation" whose democratic government wants those forces out.

The above scenario seems a bit of a nightmare in terms of propaganda for anti-US groups.

Originally Posted by S-2

"...Or is it just all about us?"

Let me know when we start "getting ours". How's the great oil heist going? Was the removal of the baathist party, Saddam Hussein, his sons, the WMD programs, and the mass suppression of two-thirds of the nation by one-third solely for OUR benefit?

Please explain how these conditions (and MORE) don't benefit the region and, in particular, the Iraqi people.

I agree getting rid of Sadaam, his sons, etc. was a good thing.

I'm not quite sure about the baathist party. Other than the "hardcore" members, I think most members joined purely for self-interest ( promotions, better careers etc.) and provide for their family, better housing among other things. They probably cared nothing for Saddam, but being a member also ensured safety in a despotic regime.

We have supported dictators in the past and we do so even now. As long as they are "our bastards" we are fine with them. Ex: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan ( meaning Musharraf, and even Saddam during the 80s). We only get pissed off when they "misbehave".

The minority Sunnis controlling the majority Shias in a realistic sense may not have been a bad thing. They are a moderate lot as opposed to the Shias who have strong ties to Iran. Iran today has more and more influence on Iraq than ever. A large part of the insurgency is in fact nationalistic and not Al-Queda. As a matter of fact Iraq has almost dismembered the Queda.

There is NO oil heist...heck I am paying out the a$$ at the pump. Iraq is pumping less oil now than during Saddam's days.

The common Iraqi went through 10 years of sanctions, following by a massive destruction of their infrastructure ( that would be us). I don't see how we helped them in that regard. Rebuilding is riddled with corruption. We are doing some good as far as providing security, but it is not enough.

Benefits for the region?? a Shia majority is certainly making Saudi Arabia, Jordan and UAE nervous. A unstable Iraq is no benefit to anyone.

Hey! I'm no expert. I'd like to hear other views...

I agree getting rid of Sadaam, his sons, etc. was a good thing.

Why is that?

There is NO oil heist...heck I am paying out the a$$ at the pump. Iraq is pumping less oil now than during Saddam's days.

That will change, or haven't you heard about the great oil heist. Four foreign companies that were kicked out in the 1970s by Saddam are back; Shell, Exxon Mobile, BP and Total, and Chevron with no-bid contracts. The contracts should be finalized this month, with or without an oil sharing deal. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/wo...sein,%20Saddam Thirty-five other companies will get the table scraps, well not really table scraps since there are an estimated 30 trillion dollars of oil there, at current market rates. I guess retaining a nationalized oil industry, like under Saddam, wasn't an option.

The minority Sunnis controlling the majority Shias in a realistic sense may not have been a bad thing.

The Shiites chose that role for themselves, centuries ago they eschewed politics preferring to wait around for the 12th Imam. They allowed the Sunnis to rule them under a Caliphate which they never recognized anyway. Secular Persians ruled Iran, and tried to balance with what the Shiite clergy wanted. That all changed when Khomeini led the 1979 Shiite revloution, making Iran into a theocracy, combining politics and religion. Now the same danger is ever present in Iraq, with DAWA and SCIRI, led by Shiite fundamentalists, in power.

Originally Posted by Herodotus

Why is that?

Because he was a tyrant guilty of several crimes, including murder and rape( his sons and their cronies) Tyrants everywhere should be removed, I think.

However, the top proirity should have been to fill the vacuum quickly stabilise the area, and win the population over. We failed miserably there.

I need to read up more on the oil heist thing. The companies given the contracts also happen to be the best in the industry.

Because he was a tyrant guilty of several crimes, including murder and rape( his sons and their cronies) Tyrants everywhere should be removed, I think

Why is that our business? If you think all tryants should be removed then I assume you advocate for regime change via miltary force in...get ready: Myanmar, Iran, Libya, Algeria, Egypt, Zimbabwe, Cameroon, Russia, Belarus, Kazhakstan, China, Vietnam, Laos, Saudi Arabia, Maldives, Sudan, Somalia, Angola, Nigeria, Syria, and Uzbekistan. That's just off the top of my head, but these countries are ruled by, what at least some people would argue are tryants or a group of tryants. What is tryanny anyway? Is denying citizens access to free housing or free health care tryanny? Some people would argue that. Our Founders argued that high taxes that we didn't ask for was tryanny. That's a big slippery slope we don't want to go down. If Saddam was so bad, and the Iraqi people deserved liberation, and American blood and treasure to be spent on their liberation, why not do the same for any members of any of those countries I just listed.

I need to read up more on the oil heist thing. The companies given the contracts also happen to be the best in the industry.

It's pretty convenient that the best oil companies in the industry are American and British, and those countries just happen to have lots of their troops running around a country with 30 trillion dollars of oil in it. I wonder why Gazprom or PetroChina weren't allowed to bid?

Originally Posted by Herodotus

That will change, or haven't you heard about the great oil heist. Four foreign companies that were kicked out in the 1970s by Saddam are back; Shell, Exxon Mobile, BP and Total, and Chevron with no-bid contracts. The contracts should be finalized this month, with or without an oil sharing deal. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/wo...sein,%20Saddam Thirty-five other companies will get the table scraps, well not really table scraps since there are an estimated 30 trillion dollars of oil there, at current market rates. I guess retaining a nationalized oil industry, like under Saddam, wasn't an option.

Good. We are merely returning the companies kicked out illegally back into Iraq to continue where they left off 30 years ago. All is well.

French company. So named companies are four of the six largest. Who's missing? B.P. and Conoco. Who would you have that can compete? A conspiracy under every rock gets old.

Originally Posted by Herodotus

Why is that our business?

National self-intrest makes it your business. Nothing wrong with that.

Covering that intrest with BS, is what makes it pathetic and wrong.

Originally Posted by Herodotus

I wonder why Gazprom or PetroChina weren't allowed to bid?

There were reported links to Al-Qaida.

Originally Posted by Herodotus

Why is that our business? If you think all tryants should be removed then I assume you advocate for regime change via miltary force in...get ready: Myanmar, Iran, Libya, Algeria, Egypt, Zimbabwe, Cameroon, Russia, Belarus, Kazhakstan, China, Vietnam, Laos, Saudi Arabia, Maldives, Sudan, Somalia, Angola, Nigeria, Syria, and Uzbekistan. That's just off the top of my head, but these countries are ruled by, what at least some people would argue are tryants or a group of tryants. What is tryanny anyway? Is denying citizens access to free housing or free health care tryanny? Some people would argue that. Our Founders argued that high taxes that we didn't ask for was tryanny. That's a big slippery slope we don't want to go down. If Saddam was so bad, and the Iraqi people deserved liberation, and American blood and treasure to be spent on their liberation, why not do the same for any members of any of those countries I just listed.



It's pretty convenient that the best oil companies in the industry are American and British, and those countries just happen to have lots of their troops running around a country with 30 trillion dollars of oil in it. I wonder why Gazprom or PetroChina weren't allowed to bid?

I am not trying to create a perfect world. But yes regime changes are needed in Myanmar, Zimbabwe, North Korea, and I could argue Saudi Arabia because a lot of funding for psycho Islam ( not to be confused with the real religion) comes from there. These may not even need military action.

I have no idea where you are coming from on the "denying citizens access to free housing or free health care" bit.

Gazprom is a natural gas company. why would they care about oil?

PetroChina has been pretty unsucessful in most of the Mid East except maybe Iran.

Originally Posted by S-2

French company. So named companies are four of the six largest. Who's missing? B.P. and Conoco. Who would you have that can compete? A conspiracy under every rock gets old.

PetroChina is the second largest company in the world, after Exxon Mobil. GazProm is number four by market capitalization. http://media.ft.com/cms/7f24a88e-0fa...00779fd2ac.pdf

Gazprom is a natural gas company. why would they care about oil?

No its not.

A $13 billion deal to buy a controlling stake in the private oil company Sibneft appears to realize the long-held ambitions of Gazprom, the Russian natural gas monopoly, to become a global energy heavyweight capable of supplying even remote markets like the United States.

$13 billion Sibneft deal fulfills Gazprom quest - International Herald Tribune

PetroChina has been pretty unsucessful in most of the Mid East except maybe Iran.

And why is that? They haven't really been given a chance, but China's demand for oil is gorwing, its only a matter of time.

I have no idea where you are coming from on the "denying citizens access to free housing or free health care" bit.

It depends on how you define tryanny. We're nation-building right now in Iraq, it's not enough to just remove the regime, now we have to provide the citizens with amenities; otherwise could they not accuse us of tryanny?

Maliki is merely showing strength and distancing himself from the United States. This is to bring in the fringe who think he is a puppet of the United States. What has been going on lately with... allowing anyone to bid on Oil development and now this, is to show that the Iraqi government is not just puppet regime of the United States.

But he cannot do without the US troops to control the environment.

He is merely posturing.

He is well aware that once the US quits, it will back to the ancient Islamic game of Shia vs Sunni and mayhem!