Thread: Iraq News

Hell, no need to look further than this forum ...

Just not interesting anymore. I suspect the focus will move toward Afghanistan. Bush is really screwing up that one. No, really!

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Now that we are winning the War in Iraq, the media has devoted up to 92% less time on the story. Network news devoted to Iraq dropped from 23% to 3% (92% decline) compared to last year:



Those Lefties can't stand Good News, eh?

Gateway Pundit: Larry Elder Takes On the Media For Ignoring Iraq War

Since when does the media prefer to report good news?

The media conspiracy theory is just a bit of right wing paranoia.
People don't want to told over and over again that things are going well, but when things are going bad they want daily updates. The media makes its money by selling stories about things that are extraordinary because that's what people want to hear about. Eg: Zimbabwe make the international media news headlines just about every day now because whats happening there is extraordinary. Same with Iran and the tussle over their nuclear energy project. Whats happening in Iraq today is pretty tame now compared to what it was a couple of years ago (though its still pretty fucking bad if you happen to be an Iraqi).

What ever happened to Osama Bin Laden and the war in Afghanistan? Well it was overshadowed in the media by the war in Iraq wasn't it.

Plus you got a world financial crisis and a US election to divert attention this year.

The media are not the moral watchdogs of society in a democracy, although they do play an integral part in the process. But basically the media is out there to make money by selling stories people want to hear about. And good news stories don't sell. Plus after all the lies and distortions the US government has fed into the media about Iraq in the past, the general media has become a little more objective and therefore reticent to become the mouthpiece of the US government.

Originally Posted by Texpat

Hell, no need to look further than this forum ...

Just not interesting anymore. I suspect the focus will move toward Afghanistan. Bush is really screwing up that one. No, really!

I don't think Bush screwed up in Afghanistan at all as I don't think he was ever serious about going after Osama Bin Laden or avenging 9/11.

The US put a minority of its military into Afghanistan to chase down Bin Laden then sent the majority of their forces to Iraq to gain access to their oil.
Then the US started whinging like cry babies that their NATO allies wernt doing enough to help them in Afghanistan. Now the US is making rumblings about starting a war with Iran.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Now that we are winning the War in Iraq, the media has devoted up to 92% less time on the story. Network news devoted to Iraq dropped from 23% to 3% (92% decline) compared to last year:

Oh dear, we're only 'winning the war' now? Six months ago I thought we were on 'the final push'?

Were we pushed back?

Is it proof of change when the biggest story out of Iraq is about a journalist's sex life?

Originally Posted by Panda

Originally Posted by Texpat

Hell, no need to look further than this forum ...

Just not interesting anymore. I suspect the focus will move toward Afghanistan. Bush is really screwing up that one. No, really!

I don't think Bush screwed up in Afghanistan at all as I don't think he was ever serious about going after Osama Bin Laden or avenging 9/11.

The US put a minority of its military into Afghanistan to chase down Bin Laden then sent the majority of their forces to Iraq to gain access to their oil.
Then the US started whinging like cry babies that their NATO allies wernt doing enough to help them in Afghanistan. Now the US is making rumblings about starting a war with Iran.

It's NATO. Everyone agrees to help get the job done, not just show up for the group photo.

Listen up all you Nattering Nabobs of Negativism. Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress, according to a report by the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

If this article proves correct, it's important news- it means that the Bush admin's strategy to have a long term military presence in Iraq is going down the pan. From the Asia Times-

WASHINGTON - Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's demand for a timetable for complete United States military withdrawal from Iraq, confirmed on Tuesday by his National Security Adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie, has signaled the almost certain defeat of the George W Bush administration's aim of establishing a long-term military presence in the country.

The official Iraqi demand for US withdrawal confirms what was becoming increasingly clear in recent months - that the Iraqi administration has decided to shed its military dependence on the United States.

The two strongly pro-Iranian Shi'ite factions supporting the government in Baghdad, the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC) and Maliki's own Da'wa party, were under strong pressure from both Iran and their own Shi'ite population and from Shi'ite clerics, including the pre-eminent Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, to demand US withdrawal....

But after the US draft agreement of March 7 was given to the Iraqi government, the attitude of the Maliki government toward the US military presence began to shift dramatically, just as Iran was playing a more overt role in brokering ceasefire agreements between the two warring Shi'ite factions.

The first indication was Maliki's refusal to go along with the Basra plan and his sudden decision to take over Basra immediately without US troops. General David Petraeus, who this week was confirmed by the US Senate as as Washington's most senior commander in the Middle East, later said a company of US Army troops was attached to some units as advisers "just really because we were having a problem figuring where was the front line".

That Maliki decision was followed by an Iranian political mediation of the intra-Shi'ite fighting in Basra, at the request of a delegation from the two pro-government parties. The result was that Muqtada's forces gave up control of the city, even though they were far from having been defeated.

US military officials were privately disgruntled at that development, which effectively canceled the plan for a much bigger operation against the Sadrists during the summer. Weeks later, a US "defense official" would tell the New York Times, "We may have wasted an opportunity in Basra to kill those that needed to be killed." ...

The use of military bases in Iraq to project US power into the region to carry out regime change in Iran and elsewhere had been an essential part of the neo-conservative plan for invading Iraq from the beginning.

The Bush administration raised the objective of a long-term military presence in Iraq based on the "Korea model" last year at the height of the US celebration of the pacification of the Sunni stronghold of Anbar province, which it viewed as sealing its victory in the war.

But the Iraqi demand for withdrawal makes it clear that the Bush administration was not really in control of events in Iraq, and that Shi'ite political opposition and Iranian diplomacy could trump US military power.

Full article - http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JG12Ak01.html


This is not the sort of stuff that makes our mainstream Press Headlines, but if the gist of the article proves correct it signals the total strategic failure of the whole Iraqi invasion and occupation. Not only does the US fail to gain a sizable military presence in Iraq/ the Middle East as planned- this being one of the fundamental reasons to invade in the first place, but Iraq (thanks to the invasion) effectively becomes part of the Iranian sphere of influence, with a Shiite dominated government that listens to Iran. This already seems the case. Add to that the financial cost of the excercise and the human casualties, and this spells one massive blunder by the Neo-cons.

If they had envisaged this, I reckon they would have preferred to keep Saddam in charge.

Originally Posted by sabang

But the Iraqi demand for withdrawal makes it clear that the Bush administration was not really in control of events in Iraq, and that Shi'ite political opposition and Iranian diplomacy could trump US military power.

Full article - http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JG12Ak01.html


This is not the sort of stuff that makes our mainstream Press Headlines, but if the gist of the article proves correct it signals the total strategic failure of the whole Iraqi invasion and occupation. Not only does the US fail to gain a sizable military presence in Iraq/ the Middle East as planned- this being one of the fundamental reasons to invade in the first place, but Iraq (thanks to the invasion) effectively becomes part of the Iranian sphere of influence, with a Shiite dominated government that listens to Iran. This already seems the case. Add to that the financial cost of the excercise and the human casualties, and this spells one massive blunder by the Neo-cons.

If they had envisaged this, I reckon they would have preferred to keep Saddam in charge.

That's exactly the way it appears to be panning out. The Yanks are not the only ones who can switch sides and change strategy in their own national interests.

I believe the original Neocon plan Iraq was to oust Saddam and set up a pseudo democratic puppet government, de-nationalize the oil industry, break from OPEC, and occupy the country indefinitely to ensure control. It doesn't seem to working out as planned though.

^^Very interesting. What a shambolic stratagist. No wonder he couldn't even chew a Pretzel properly!

Ahhh the expert TD foreign policy analysts telling us how it all panned out.

How refreshing to have such a clear view on the inner workings of the relationship between a fledgling government and a world superpower (I know you simply abhor that term).

Thanks for the insightful wisdom and clever analysis. You guys are the greatest.

Originally Posted by Texpat

Ahhh the expert TD foreign policy analysts telling us how it all panned out.

How refreshing to have such a clear view on the inner workings of the relationship between a fledgling government and a world superpower (I know you simply abhor that term).

Thanks for the insightful wisdom and clever analysis. You guys are the greatest.

Any heads up apart from winning the war against terror there Tex? Wrong country I guess. Bush missed that one too.

Yea, it was all about regime change so the ex-US friend and allie wouldn't attack the world with WMDs and go on killing his own people hey? Now, after 5 years it looks like the US got the regime change that they really didn't want. With the farce of WMDs exposed and a million dead, now the Iraqi government wants the US out. Hardly what I would call a victory.

Originally Posted by Panda

and a million dead

Ah what the heck, make it two million while you're at it.

You coming with me to the ticker-tape parade down Fifth Avenue? I don't suppose they'll have one in London or Sydney.

Originally Posted by Texpat

Ahhh the expert TD foreign policy analysts telling us how it all panned out.

How refreshing to have such a clear view on the inner workings of the relationship between a fledgling government and a world superpower (I know you simply abhor that term).

Thanks for the insightful wisdom and clever analysis. You guys are the greatest.

What a complete and utter waste of a post. Why don't you drop the sarcasm and contribute your point of view then Tex?

or Wellington.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by Texpat

Ahhh the expert TD foreign policy analysts telling us how it all panned out.

How refreshing to have such a clear view on the inner workings of the relationship between a fledgling government and a world superpower (I know you simply abhor that term).

Thanks for the insightful wisdom and clever analysis. You guys are the greatest.

What a complete and utter waste of a post. Why don't you drop the sarcasm and contribute your point of view then Tex?

Because it would be incorrect in any case?

Originally Posted by Texpat

Originally Posted by Panda

and a million dead

Ah what the heck, make it two million while you're at it.

You coming with me to the ticker-tape parade down Fifth Avenue? I don't suppose they'll have one in London or Sydney.

Hey Tex, While I can understand that you might be lost for words right at the moment, I kind of get the impression that you might be an allright kind of bloke under that brazen US patriot persona.

Somewhere down the track I hope that we can meet up for a quiet beer (without talking politics).

Originally Posted by Texpat

Do you really think they're playing hardball with Bush and Co?

Not really, I think they're playing two faced diplomacy- but with the Iranians increasingly pulling the strings. I think the Iraqi gov't still relies on the US miltary presence for it's short term survival, but I also think they are weaning themselves away from this- with the Iranians now the prime broker between the Shiite factions.

Meanwhile, the US is in a tricky position, because it is (understandably) aligning itself with some Sunni factions, even arming them, in the fight against the radical Sunni Al Qaeda, and allied elements. This can't be seen positively by the Shiites.

A damn can of worms- but you opened it.

Originally Posted by Texpat

Do you really think they're willing to tell the US to get stuffed?

Not yet, Tex. Not yet.

By Dean Yates
Reuters

BAGHDAD - U.S. and Iraqi negotiators have ended efforts to reach a formal security pact before President George W. Bush leaves office in favor of an interim deal, the Washington Post said on Sunday, citing senior U.S. officials.

The two sides had been negotiating a Status of Forces Agreement that would provide a legal basis for U.S. troops to remain when a U.N. mandate expires at the end of the year.

But in the past week Iraqi leaders have spoken of only agreeing what they call a memorandum of understanding. Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has also raised for the first time the prospect of setting a timetable for U.S. troops to leave Iraq.
The Washington Post quoted one U.S. official close to the negotiations as saying "we are talking about dates", even though Bush has previously rebuffed calls for a timetable.

Iraq is a major issue in November's presidential election battle between Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama. McCain supports the Bush administration's current strategy, while Obama has called for a timetable for withdrawal.

The Post said the "bridge" security document would be limited in both time and scope and would allow basic U.S. military operations to continue once the U.N. mandate ended.

Iraq has rejected a number of Washington's demands, insisting they infringe on the country's sovereignty.

The document now under discussion with Iraq was likely to cover only 2009, the Post said.

Negotiators expected it to include a "time horizon", with specific goals for a U.S. troop withdrawal from Baghdad and other cities and installations, it added.
The fixed dates are likely to include caveats referring to the ability of Iraqi forces to take over security. Some Iraqi officials themselves have said any timetable would be determined by security conditions on the ground.

PRESSURE

There is strong domestic pressure in Iraq to set dates for a withdrawal of U.S. forces, especially with violence at a four-year low and with Iraqi security forces getting larger and taking the lead in more security operations.

Maliki's political opponents would also likely try to exploit the issue of an undefined U.S. troop presence in provincial elections later this year.

The most contentious unresolved issue was the legal immunity of U.S. troops in Iraq, the Post reported.

U.S. officials have said this is non-negotiable. But Iraq's deputy parliament speaker has said lawmakers would probably veto any deal that gave U.S. soldiers immunity from Iraqi law.

The Bush administration has always opposed setting any withdrawal timetable, saying to do so would allow militant groups to lie low and wait until U.S. troops in Iraq have left.

U.S. troop levels are already being cut, with the last of five additional combat brigades Bush deployed last year expected to pull out this month. That will leave 15 combat brigades in Iraq, or around 140,000 soldiers.

Washington was considering withdrawing additional troops beginning in September, The New York Times reported on Sunday, citing administration and military officials.
The withdrawal stemmed partly from the need for more U.S. troops in Afghanistan to fight the rising insurgency by the Taliban and other fighters.

No final decisions had been made, but up to three combat brigades in Iraq could be withdrawn, or slated for withdrawal, by the end of the administration in January, the Times said.

The White House declined to discuss the withdrawals, but spokesman Gordon Johndroe told the newspaper that while Bush hoped to bring more troops home, he would await recommendations in September from General David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, the Times said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTKM00295920080713?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNew s&rpc=22&sp=true

***

It makes sense to have a MOU in favor of a full SOFA anyway. I'm not aware of any nations that have a SOFA with the US that don't have permanent bases. Japan and Korea and UK and Germany do. Thailand does not. The Philippines does not. Iraq does not. I doubt if Australia does. The US has already announced there will be no permanent basing in Iraq.

SOFAs are more precise than MOUs, but they cover the same scenarios. A SOFA is usually a very long-term proposition with a country that shares a defense treaty. I'm not aware of any treaties the US shares with Iraq.

Leaving this alone until after the US election is probably a good idea anyway.

Originally Posted by Texpat

Originally Posted by Panda

and a million dead

Ah what the heck, make it two million while you're at it.

You coming with me to the ticker-tape parade down Fifth Avenue? I don't suppose they'll have one in London or Sydney.

Whatever the figure is the U.S of A had and has no right to be there simple as fuck now if you wanna Yank it up then go ahead but that would only explain that you are an ignorant moron which we already know.

Look what the cat dragged in.

Originally Posted by Texpat

Look what the cat dragged in.

whatever you say!