Troops Have Lost Faith In the Administration's Iraq Policy

[jillian]

Just thought I'd counter some of the spin on this issue with a truthful assessment:

http://iava.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=2466&Itemid=116

 

[Gunny]

Just thought I'd counter some of the spin on this issue with a truthful assessment:

http://iava.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=2466&Itemid=116

MSNBC and Keith Olberman? That's as likely to sell as "truthful assessment" as OBL converting to Christianity.

 

[jillian]

MSNBC and Keith Olberman? That's as likely to sell as "truthful assessment" as OBL converting to Christianity.

lol.. nope. would never have sourced Keith Olberman. You have to keep watching for the interview with Paul Reikoff. It was posted on the IAVA site.

 

[Gunny]

lol.. nope. would never have sourced Keith Olberman. You have to keep watching for the interview with Paul Reikoff. It was posted on the IAVA site.

My point is, I can dig up as many or more who support our presence in Iraq. This is opinion stuff, not fact.

The strategy in Iraq sucks. You can get ME to say THAT. Our presence in Iraq at this point is essential, and does not reflect the poor strategy. Two different animals.

 

[jillian]

My point is, I can dig up as many or more who support our presence in Iraq. This is opinion stuff, not fact.

The strategy in Iraq sucks. You can get ME to say THAT. Our presence in Iraq at this point is essential, and does not reflect the poor strategy. Two different animals.

True. But there was a thread that claimed the "troops" want to stay in Iraq. Just thought I'd counter that with an alternative pov which is equally, if not more, valid.

We both agree that our Iraq strategy sucks. I would agree that our presence was essential if we laid down the law to the Iraqis and said there has to be a political settlement or we're gone. But we're not doing that. The place needs to be divided in three, with the oil revenues divvied up between Sunni, Shi'a and Kurd.

And then we need to get out of the way and stop getting our folk blown up.

 

[Care4all]

True. But there was a thread that claimed the "troops" want to stay in Iraq. Just thought I'd counter that with an alternative pov which is equally, if not more, valid.

We both agree that our Iraq strategy sucks. I would agree that our presence was essential if we laid down the law to the Iraqis and said there has to be a political settlement or we're gone. But we're not doing that. The place needs to be divided in three, with the oil revenues divvied up between Sunni, Shi'a and Kurd.

And then we need to get out of the way and stop getting our folk blown up.

that can't be done, the usa is pushing iraq towards privitization of their oil to foreign countries (like the good ol' usa, exxon/mobile etc) and it takes a ''united as one'' iraq for this ''oil deal'' to come in to fruition....

soooo, don't hold your breath....we will be in iraq until those 30 year, unprecedented profitable leases, are signed with the Texas Oil biggies....you can count on that....

sadly, it appears that this war, is for them...imo.

this is why all of those in the ''know'' say diplomacy is the answer to this civil strife....to get the tribes to agree with what ''we want'' and ''are pushing'' the iraqi ministry towards supporting... so far, it's a ''no go'' and the tribes are NOT agreeing to these contracts or how the oil money will be divvied up per tribe sector....nor on how much percent of the profits these foreigners will take...



care

 

[Gunny]

that can't be done, the usa is pushing iraq towards privitization of their oil to foreign countries (like the good ol' usa, exxon/mobile etc) and it takes a ''united as one'' iraq for this ''oil deal'' to come in to fruition....

soooo, don't hold your breath....we will be in iraq until those 30 year, unprecedented profitable leases, are signed with the Texas Oil biggies....you can count on that....

sadly, it appears that this war, is for them...imo.

this is why all of those in the ''know'' say diplomacy is the answer to this civil strife....to get the tribes to agree with what ''we want'' and ''are pushing'' the iraqi ministry towards supporting... so far, it's a ''no go'' and the tribes are NOT agreeing to these contracts or how the oil money will be divvied up per tribe sector....nor on how much percent of the profits these foreigners will take...



care

Wow. This is TRUE tinfoil hat stuff.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Wow. This is TRUE tinfoil hat stuff.

No NO, Care is a moderate, she would never post any Liberal propaganda.

 

[Care4all]

Wow. This is TRUE tinfoil hat stuff.

You know, I don't want to be mean here, but this is a perfect situation where I would have to say to you and retsgt, that

"Ignorance is Bliss, isn't it?"

Please keep yourselves informed and "up" on the situation, you won't seem so Tin Foil Hattish yourselves, and living in never, never land ...

Here's some info, the link goes in to it much deeper....but here is the gist of it:

Oil in Iraq

Oil gurgles from the ground at a refinery in Basra in October 2002. Photo Credit: Laura Boushnak, Agence France Presse



Iraq has the world’s second largest proven oil reserves. According to oil industry experts, new exploration will probably raise Iraq’s reserves to 200+ billion barrels of high-grade crude, extraordinarily cheap to produce. The four giant firms located in the US and the UK have been keen to get back into Iraq, from which they were excluded with the nationalization of 1972. During the final years of the Saddam era, they envied companies from France, Russia, China, and elsewhere, who had obtained major contracts. But UN sanctions (kept in place by the US and the UK) kept those contracts inoperable. Since the invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003, everything has changed. In the new setting, with Washington running the show, "friendly" companies expect to gain most of the lucrative oil deals that will be worth hundreds of billions of dollars in profits in the coming decades. The new Iraqi constitution of 2005, greatly influenced by US advisors, contains language that guarantees a major role for foreign companies. Negotiators hope soon to complete deals on Production Sharing Agreements that will give the companies control over dozens of fields, including the fabled super-giant Majnoon. However, despite pressure from the US government and foreign oil companies, the current Iraqi government has not passed a national oil law. While regional governments angle for influence over the foreign oil contracts, most Iraqis favor continued control by a national company and the powerful oil workers union opposes de-nationalization. Iraq's political future is very much in flux, but oil remains the central feature of the political landscape.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/irqindx.htm

There are many other official gvt reports that have also gone in to this situation with the lucrative oil contracts that we are trying to get them to sign like the latest commision with Jim Baker on it to study the situation in Iraq....

I AM NOT a tin foil hat wearer, but I believe those that think there is not a huge diplomatic crisis going on over in Iraq and believe that it is just some civil strife that goes back thousands of years, have no idea what these peole over there are TRUELY fighting over....and that is the oil, the oil contracts, and the power and the profit that goes with it....

Care

 

[Gunny]

You know, I don't want to be mean here, but this is a perfect situation where I would have to say to you and retsgt, that

"Ignorance is Bliss, isn't it?"

Please keep yourselves informed and "up" on the situation, you won't seem so Tin Foil Hattish yourselves, and living in never, never land ...

Here's some info, the link goes in to it much deeper....but here is the gist of it:



There are many other official gvt reports that have also gone in to this situation with the lucrative oil contracts that we are trying to get them to sign like the latest commision with Jim Baker on it to study the situation in Iraq....

I AM NOT a tin foil hat wearer, but I believe those that think there is not a huge diplomatic crisis going on over in Iraq and believe that it is just some civil strife that goes back thousands of years, have no idea what these peole over there are TRUELY fighting over....and that is the oil, the oil contracts, and the power and the profit that goes with it....

Care

If the Iraqi government awards contracts to US oil companies, those contracts are only as good as the Iraqi government, right? When the Iraqi government proves it can stand on its own, and/or some actual exploitation by US oil companies occurs, it's nothing but conspiracy-theory type conjecture.

Common sense dictates I would expect nothing less than ruthless US oil corporations to try and get some deals on iraqi oil. They try to do it ANYWHERE they can get a deal.

And what the fighting is truly over is religious ideology. The person not understanding is you, attributing Western-style ruthless capitalist thinking to the Arab mind.

Sectarian violence has held Arabs back since the 7th century. They were draggeed kicking and screaming into the 20th century only insofar as oil production is concerned, by the victors of WWI.

 

[jillian]

that can't be done, the usa is pushing iraq towards privitization of their oil to foreign countries (like the good ol' usa, exxon/mobile etc) and it takes a ''united as one'' iraq for this ''oil deal'' to come in to fruition....

soooo, don't hold your breath....we will be in iraq until those 30 year, unprecedented profitable leases, are signed with the Texas Oil biggies....you can count on that....

sadly, it appears that this war, is for them...imo.

this is why all of those in the ''know'' say diplomacy is the answer to this civil strife....to get the tribes to agree with what ''we want'' and ''are pushing'' the iraqi ministry towards supporting... so far, it's a ''no go'' and the tribes are NOT agreeing to these contracts or how the oil money will be divvied up per tribe sector....nor on how much percent of the profits these foreigners will take...



care

I think you're off the mark. I don't think the issue is getting the tribes to agree with what *we* want. I think it's that we need them to agree with each other as to division of weath so they don't continue to blow each other iup.

All I know is that as of this afternoon, 102 of our troops died in Iraq during the month of May. That's unacceptable and inexcusable when we have no definition of "victory"; no exit strategy; and a president who is stubborn and intransigent and who won't allow people smarter than he is to plan.

 

[Care4all]

I think you're off the mark. I don't think the issue is getting the tribes to agree with what *we* want. I think it's that we need them to agree with each other as to division of weath so they don't continue to blow each other iup.

All I know is that as of this afternoon, 102 of our troops died in Iraq during the month of May. That's unacceptable and inexcusable when we have no definition of "victory"; no exit strategy; and a president who is stubborn and intransigent and who won't allow people smarter than he is to plan.

You've misunderstood....

What I have stated is the administration's concerns with leaving before this contract is up and signed....

My ass would have never gone in, in the first place, because it was not a Just War....we were not in any imminent danger of being attacked by Iraq or saddam....this was a war of choice, and I am just posting one of the reasons why I believe it is such...



Care