Thanks for the Ad hom- it's the last resort of the argumentatively challenged.
Things aren't the same? Maybe, maybe not. Mideast politics can be deceptive, to say the least. Yeh, they're not killing each other at quite the frequency of the past, but that doesn't mean they've quit entirely. All the Iraqi factions realize that America doesn't have the stomach for a prolonged occupation, and that the quickest way to get us out is to lay low, work on their infrastructure, recruiting, training, armaments, whatever. It's not like they've handed in their guns, at all...
Or maybe the Bush Admin just backed away from the Salvador Option...
Regardless, the Bush Admin has done a complete 180 in the span of less than a year wrt timetables for withdrawal, completely discarding their whole "conditions on the ground" song and dance.
If the Iraqi parliament agrees to this deal, then we're committed to withdrawal *regardless* of the oh-so-sacred conditions on the ground... It constrains the new Admin in ways that the Bush Admin wouldn't accept for themselves.
And, of course *we* doesn't include the Bush Admin players- they'll be long gone, retired wealthily or working as lobbyists or for the usual organs of propaganda, the thinktanks of the Rightwing...
"In Iraq you?ve got a nation that?s got the second-largest oil reserves in the world, second only to Saudi Arabia. It will generate billions of dollars a year in cash flow if they get back to their production of roughly three million barrels of oil a day, in the relatively near future." - Vice President Dick Cheney, 8-27-2000
"We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon." - Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, 3-03
Wolfowitz and Cheney's 5 year old, overly optimistic, views on how easy Iraq would go have nothing to do with them saying their oil will pay for the war. Their oil program only recently came up to relative steady operation (because AQI was controling key areas, taking out fields and tankers as often as they could), and it was said that would help them pay for reconstruction, not the war. Granted, we have paid close to $50B in reconstruction over there, but Iraq still has plenty of reconstruction to do on their own.
I apologize for the moron comment. As far as claiming Bush did a 180.. Well, last time I checked it was the Iraqis that are asking us to leave by a specific date, not the U.S. Congress. Bush was against us setting a timetable for when we were going to quit, not the Iraqi government setting a deadline for when they felt they were ready to take over.
Spin it any way you want, AFMatt. It's obviously what the Iraqis have wanted for a very long time- only support from congress and the looming UN deadline gave them the standing to get up on their hind legs and demand it.
Bush ran out of options to stay, once the Iraqis got hip to the fact that the only remaining rationale was the sectarian violence. They've set that aside, at least for the time being, forcing Bush's hand.
Despite all the pious intonations about "democracy!" and the "evil Saddam!", I figure that's just been a smokescreen all along. There were certain objectives to the whole invasion scenario that haven't been met- permanent US basing, sweetheart deals for American Oil, and the transformation of Iraq into a "Capitalist Paradise".
Yeh, sure, friends of the Admin sucked on the treasury most heartily, the Saudis and the Israelis may be slightly more secure, at least for awhile, and our military got some combat experience, but the real winners will be the Iranians, whose influence grows rather steadily, and the Taliban in Afghanistan, simply because we diverted resources away from that necessary struggle towards Iraq.
In terms of a total cock-up, it doesn't reach the magnitude of Vietnam, but that's not saying much.
Bush ran out of options to stay, once the Iraqis got hip to the fact that the only remaining rationale was the sectarian violence. They've set that aside, at least for the time being, forcing Bush's hand.
Despite all the pious intonations about "democracy!" and the "evil Saddam!", I figure that's just been a smokescreen all along. There were certain objectives to the whole invasion scenario that haven't been met- permanent US basing, sweetheart deals for American Oil, and the transformation of Iraq into a "Capitalist Paradise".
Yeh, sure, friends of the Admin sucked on the treasury most heartily, the Saudis and the Israelis may be slightly more secure, at least for awhile, and our military got some combat experience, but the real winners will be the Iranians, whose influence grows rather steadily, and the Taliban in Afghanistan, simply because we diverted resources away from that necessary struggle towards Iraq.
In terms of a total cock-up, it doesn't reach the magnitude of Vietnam, but that's not saying much.
Yes, the no-bid deals were called off. They were seen as deals that could potentially harm the region, not help it. Last time I checked, that negative attention to it originated right here in our senate. Since then, Shell has signed a natural gas deal. BP, Total, and Exxon are working deals, but awaiting Iraq's oil laws to be straightened out.
The deal Iraq signed with China is just a revised 11 year old contract already signed under Saddam. They worked that first to send a message they aren't only going to deal with the West, they want oil companies from around the world to come in and make bids. I haven't heard of any Russian oil companies working deals in Iraq.
Spin it? Looming deadline? Are you serious? First off, the UN mandate that authorizes forces over there is only good for one year at a time. Each year it had to be renewed, by Iraq. Yes, that is right, the Iraqi government has asked to extend the UN mandate authorizing forces, every year since 2003, until now.
Last year Maliki said it would be the last time he requested it. I remember it well, as I was in the country wondering what would happen if he decided not to. With that, he made the decision that all future agreements would be made between the government of Iraq and the parties concerned, not the UN. Just as he said, we now have an agreement with conditions and deadlines outlined by the Iraqi government.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
I hate to disagree with Jhhnn, but when he says, " In terms of a total cock-up, it doesn't reach the magnitude of Vietnam, but that's not saying much", I have to wonder if Iraq does in fact greatly exceed Vietnam in terms of degree of difficulty. A unified Vietnam had been a historical fact for thousands of years, even though possession by China or other occupying powers shifted back and forth countless times, but Iraq is a country that never should have been, and with less than a century tradition of being.
And with Iraq in the middle of the mid-east, a powder keg in itself, any civil war in Iraq threatens to spill far past the border of Iraq, a real damned if you do and damned if you don't. And even if the USA tries to deny the Pottery barn unwritten rule of if you break it you buy it, we broke it and now are on the hook, even if we withdraw.
Even if we enjoy a period of less Iraqi violence, we still have a pile of Iraqi insurgencies, happily looting the US and Iraqi government, and those Iraqi insurgencies are better armed than ever. Truth be told, Iraqi peace is more fragile than ever because the Iraqi insurgencies may be happy now, but any changes that threaten their long term survival is likely to met with violence. Once any faction plays the violence card, the rest are likely to follow.
My position is and remains, a one year temporary deal is more likely to clear the Iraqi parliament than a three year deal.
And with Iraq in the middle of the mid-east, a powder keg in itself, any civil war in Iraq threatens to spill far past the border of Iraq, a real damned if you do and damned if you don't. And even if the USA tries to deny the Pottery barn unwritten rule of if you break it you buy it, we broke it and now are on the hook, even if we withdraw.
Even if we enjoy a period of less Iraqi violence, we still have a pile of Iraqi insurgencies, happily looting the US and Iraqi government, and those Iraqi insurgencies are better armed than ever. Truth be told, Iraqi peace is more fragile than ever because the Iraqi insurgencies may be happy now, but any changes that threaten their long term survival is likely to met with violence. Once any faction plays the violence card, the rest are likely to follow.
My position is and remains, a one year temporary deal is more likely to clear the Iraqi parliament than a three year deal.
Ozoned
Diamond Member
- Mar 22, 2004
- 5,578
- 0
- 0
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
Thank you for the link Ozoned, and color me somewhat surprised that the three year pact passed so easily and by a large margin. Now I assume the UN will extent the UN stamp of legitimacy past the 12/31/2008 deadline, but the new UN mandate may not go the full three years is the other remaining joker to ponder.
This agreement with the Iraqi government supplants any mandates. As such, the U.N. mandate will now expire as planned on Dec 31. It was only a yearly mandate, and Maliki already made it clear he wouldn't extend it again.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter