Finally. Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis agree.

[Skyhunter]

Leaders of Iraq's sharply divided groups call for timetable for withdrawal of U.S.-led forces

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ_CONFERENCE?SITE=CAFRA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Let me see now. The three major factions in Iraq, congressional democrats, the majority of American people and most of the rest of the world agree. Now we just need to convince Dick Cheney and the troops can come home.

 

[ComputerGeek]

Now that Iraqies want us out... shoudl be we get out?

What do you all think now?

Bush said we will stay as long as the Iraqis want us to, and the Iraqi government is elected by the people.

edit: woops, added an e in iraqis in the title.

 

[Blahness]

We're done in Iraq, quit shipping oil out.

 

[russ_watters]

I do think it is probably time to start considering how we are going to withdraw. The government is largely set up, and the factions appear to be ready to make an honest effort.

The one major problem is that the Iraqi police and military are not very strong yet. However, in previous threads, I described a "tipping point" (not sure if that's actually the term I used) where the government would become inherrently stable. Prior to reaching that point, pulling out would decrease the stability and afterwards it would increase the stability. I think that the coalescing of the government is probably that point. And I think a pull-out over the course of the next year is probably a good idea. I'm not sure if it should be a complete pull-out or if we should leave 20,000 troops or so in Baghdad to protect the seat of government in the "green zone", but the such things can be based on how the withdrawal goes.

It might be interesting to dig up a few of those threads from 6 months or a year ago and see what criteria people had at the time and whether they have been met...

I don't know what (if anything) Bush is thinking about this issue, but the risk for him now is that any move towards a pullout can (will) be painted as a political defeat. Whether it be anouncing a pullout today or announcing a timetable or set of criteria, his opponents will say that they were responsible for making it happen. That is what was really at stake with the Murtha bill: everyone knows we need to pull out eventually, and everyone wants to be the guy/party responsible for making it happen.

 

[russ_watters]

We're done in Iraq, quit shipping oil out.

I'm not sure exactly what you are implying there, but are you implying that we are stealing Iraq's oil? We're not. Heck, we're not even requesting they give us a break on it to help defray the cost of the war. And if we stop buying their oil and/or helping them sell it, the lifeblood of their economy goes away.

So, what do you mean by "shipping oil out" and why should whoever is doing it stop?

 

[Astronuc]

We're done in Iraq, quit shipping oil out.

Iraq needs foreign exchange, otherwise the dinar is pretty worthless. Other oil countries are exporting oil - and other oil countries are selling oil to US. As Russ indicated, the US is paying fair market value.

Iraqis need to stop fighting and stop the insurgency, and start rebuilding their society, their economy, and their infrastructure, and that will take time. For now they have to export as much as they can in order to purchase what they cannot produce. Hopefully they will become more self-sufficient ASAP.

 

[russ_watters]

For now they have to export as much as they can in order to purchase what they cannot produce. Hopefully they will become more self-sufficient ASAP.

For that, I am not very optomistic. Most oil producing countries rely exclusively on oil for their economic strength. And in 50 years or so, when the wells start drying up and the money with them, the mid-east may drop into an Africa-like political/economic disaster.

 

[Astronuc]

For that, I am not very optomistic. Most oil producing countries rely exclusively on oil for their economic strength. And in 50 years or so, when the wells start drying up and the money with them, the mid-east may drop into an Africa-like political/economic disaster.

Well they (we?) better start planning for that 'inevitability'. It's not like they (and we) don't know that is going to happen.

But then I tried working with a local planning agency, and when I mentioned thinking 10 - 20 - 30 - . . . years down the road, someone said "more than 10 years, forget it. We are lucky if we look 3-5 years in the future."

I was stunned! What kind of planning is that? There is actually long-term plans, but those are so hypothetical, and often the government does not publicize them. For one, highway plans may involve expansion and aquisition of property - usually against the wishes of the owner.

A lot has to do with how the federal government does the $multi-billion transportation bills.

 

[Art]

Iraq needs foreign exchange, otherwise the dinar is pretty worthless. Other oil countries are exporting oil - and other oil countries are selling oil to US. As Russ indicated, the US is paying fair market value.
Iraqis need to stop fighting and stop the insurgency, and start rebuilding their society, their economy, and their infrastructure, and that will take time. For now they have to export as much as they can in order to purchase what they cannot produce. Hopefully they will become more self-sufficient ASAP.

Yes the Iraqis do need all the money they can get from oil exports but apparently that's not what's going to happen

Multinationals, not Iraqis, to reap oil fortune
Report accuses multinational companies of ripping-off Iraq's oil wealth.
LONDON - Up to 194 billion dollars in Iraqi oil revenues are going to multinational oil companies under long-term contracts, and not to the Iraqi people, a social and environmental group alleged Tuesday.
In a report, the group known as Platform said that oil multinationals would be paid between 74 billion dollar and 194 billion dollars with rates of return of between 42.0 percent and 162.0 percent under proposed production-sharing agreements, or PSAs.
"The form of contracts being promoted is the most expensive and undemocratic option available," said Platform researcher Greg Muttitt.

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/business/?id=15066

Iraq's oil: The spoils of war
By Philip Thornton
22 November 2005
Iraqis face the dire prospect of losing up to $200bn (£116bn) of the wealth of their country if an American-inspired plan to hand over development of its oil reserves to US and British multinationals comes into force next year. A report produced by American and British pressure groups warns Iraq will be caught in an "old colonial trap" if it allows foreign companies to take a share of its vast energy reserves. The report is certain to reawaken fears that the real purpose of the 2003 war on Iraq was to ensure its oil came under Western control.
<SNIP>
Earlier this year a BBC Newsnight report claimed to have uncovered documents showing the Bush administration made plans to secure Iraqi oil even before the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the US. Based on its analysis of PSAs in seven countries, it said multinationals would seek rates of return on their investment from 42 to 162 per cent, far in excess of typical 12 per cent rates.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=670335

Big oil has crude designs on Iraq wealth-report

By Peg Mackey and Janet McBride

LONDON (Reuters) - World supermajors may rob Iraq of billions and grab control of its oilfields unless ordinary Iraqis can have a greater say in how their country's riches are tapped, U.S. and British campaigners said on Tuesday.

Big oil is being lured by the Production Sharing Agreement (PSA), promoted by Washington and London, which gives them huge returns on investment, but deprives Iraq of up to $194 billion (113 billion pounds), according to "Crude Designs: The rip-off of Iraq's oil wealth".

"Under the influence of the U.S. and UK, powerful politicians and technocrats in the Iraqi oil ministry are pushing to hand all Iraq's undeveloped fields to multinational oil companies, to be developed under production sharing agreements," said Greg Muttitt, the report's author.

http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=143&sid=6258079&cKey=1132664748000

 

[SOS2008]

Yes the Iraqis do need all the money they can get from oil exports but apparently that's not what's going to happen http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/business/?id=15066
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=670335
http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=143&sid=6258079&cKey=1132664748000

Another good reason for why Iraqis want an end to the occupation. However, because they lack resources (capital, technology, etc.) to develop oil fields on their own, I believe this has been a common practice in the M.E.--to partner with foreign companies in such ventures. The questions are was this a reason for invasion, and why such unfair terms? And the U.S. is chastising other countries in the UN for exploitative behavior (not that it isn't deserved, just that the U.S. is as bad).

 

[Hurkyl]

Let me see now. The three major factions in Iraq, congressional democrats, the majority of American people and most of the rest of the world agree. Now we just need to convince Dick Cheney and the troops can come home.

Maybe you didn't mean how this sounds, but I still feel the need to point out that even if there was a timetable, that does not mean the troops will come home now, or even soon.

 

[Skyhunter]

Maybe you didn't mean how this sounds, but I still feel the need to point out that even if there was a timetable, that does not mean the troops will come home now, or even soon.

I was being facetious. Of course the troops will not come home immediately. The Iraqi factions are only calling for a timetable.

Sorry, I guess it does sound like Representative Hunter's proposal that was voted down in the house.

Saying that we will stay until the mission is accomplished, and not defining what that mission is, IMO is fueling the insurgency. With pressure from every direction Bushco will have no choice but to put forth a plan to get us out of Iraq. Hopefully it will be better than the one that got us in there to begin with.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Yes the Iraqis do need all the money they can get from oil exports but apparently that's not what's going to happen http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/business/?id=15066
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=670335
http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=143&sid=6258079&cKey=1132664748000

I can't find this "Crude Designs" report by Muttitt but I have found this report of his on PSAs...
http://www.carbonweb.org/documents/PSAs_privatisation.pdf
Aside from a summary overview of PSAs in general and in certain historical instances it is mostly filled with slanted conjectures and political spin about what will supposedly happen in Iraq. I have no idea why anyone would take this guys work seriously if it is all like this.
According to that last article you cited even the Iraqi government is saying that his reports are off base considering that they have yet to even begin negotiations. In the report I have read Muttitt only barely mentions the fact that Iraq WANTS a PSA and casts a sinister view of that matter making it seem as though the head of the Iraqi Ministry of Oil must be a shill for the oil consortium or that the Oil Consortium must be coercing or duping the ministry.
Muttitt has only made speculations on what the Iraq will be "losing" in revenue due to a PSA. Not only that but apparently he conviently neglects to mention how much revenue Iraq would be getting according to his speculations and how that would compare to any other sort of development plans, or at least if he has none of these news sources has mentioned it (again I am unable to find this new report they are quoting). He just focuses on the big bad oil companies who are going to supposedly exploit Iraq's resources and making gigantic profits without even putting his speculative figures into perspective with a comparison to Iraq's total (speculative) revenue. Or at least that's what I would surmise based on the way his report has been reflected in the media.
Maybe Muttitt needs to get a BLOG.

 

[kat]

There appears to be a little bit of disagreement between the link that skyhunter posted:

A day after the communique was finalized by Iraqi Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni leaders,

and this link:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-11-19-arab-league-chief_x.htm

Leaders of Iraq's Shiite and Sunni communities declined to attend.

 

[Hurkyl]

Saying that we will stay until the mission is accomplished, and not defining what that mission is, IMO is fueling the insurgency.

Just curious: why not simply ask for a clear definition of what the mission is, instead of a timetable? (I guess I'm singling you out as a representative of all the people demanding a "timetable", if you don't mind)

I am mildly opposed to the idea of a timetable because, in my eyes, it would do nothing more than hand people a liscence to complain, and could even seriously harm the efforts if this caused pressure to do a rush job, or even abandon an achievable goal just to meet a deadline.

And I have this feeling that your comment here is what many people really want to know anyways: to outline exactly what we want to do, as opposed to a date when we'll be gone.

 

[Polly]

Go Iraqis go, go go go! Join hands, Shiites, Sunnis and Kurdish people! Defend your land, defend your oil, defend your women and defend your children, defend what is rightfully yours from foreign greed and agression! Join hands and kick their butt, just as our ancestors in KMT and CCCP did to kick the teeth in of the Jap(anese)s!

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Go Iraqis go, go go go! Join hands, Shiites, Sunnis and Kurdish people! Defend your land, defend your oil, defend your women and defend your children, defend what is rightfully yours from foreign greed and agression! Join hands and kick their butt, just as our ancestors in KMT and CCCP did to kick the teeth in of the ***s!

Polly.. all political disagreements aside you should really be more careful with the language you use here.

 

[Polly]

Didn't realize you are so attentive to other people's feelings.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Which word I used is not to your liking?

Probably the one I edited out of the quote in my post.
Though I'm not so worried about my own sensitivities as I am about others and the possibility that you may receive warnings for using such language.

 

[Polly]

Probably the one I edited out of the quote in my post.
Though I'm not so worried about my own sensitivities as I am about others and the possibility that you may receive warnings for using such language.

I have made an amendment in my first post, is it okay now?

 

[kat]

Go Iraqis go, go go go! Join hands, Shiites, Sunnis and Kurdish people! Defend your land, defend your oil, defend your women and defend your children, defend what is rightfully yours from foreign greed and agression! Join hands and kick their butt, just as our ancestors in KMT and CCCP did to kick the teeth in of the Jap(anese)s!

I find it very telling that you would compare U.S. forces in Iraq to the japanese/Chinese conflict...
Anywhooo, I'm going to make a li'l prediction that after the election in December there will be calls by iraqi elected officials that the U.S. military remain for several more years.

 

[BobG]

Go Iraqis go, go go go! Join hands, Shiites, Sunnis and Kurdish people! Defend your land, defend your oil, defend your women and defend your children, defend what is rightfully yours from foreign greed and agression! Join hands and kick their butt, ...

This is a worthy goal to hope for. If the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds joined hands, the Iraq problem would be solved.

I don't think you have a good understanding the of the problem. When the borders of countries are arbitrarily set by outsiders, with no regard to the culture and history of the people within those borders, you get situations like Iraq.

One solution, and the most common, is for one person or group to become more powerful than the others and rule by oppression - that's the Saddam Hussein solution. It's been a short term method of stability in many of Europe's former colonies.

A second solution would be for the people within the borders to disregard them, since they had no say in them. This usually takes a war to establish each new country - that's the solution taken in Yugoslavia once the only person strong enough to implement the first solution died. That solution still could work in Iraq, but it will require a lot of bloodshed between the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites. It's further complicated by the interests of bordering countries. After enough years, the two regions with more resources (the Kurds and Shiites) would be strong enough to fend off challenges from the Sunnis, who would live in poverty since they have few resources.

The third would be your solution. Because of the disadvantages of the first two solutions (oppressive dictatorship or uncontrolled violence), all the groups would find some compromise where they could live together in peace as one country. Seeing as how stability doesn't make front page news, I'm not all that familiar with countries that have successfully implemented the third solution.

The US, Canada, China, India, and the old Soviet Union used to be the top five for having the most separate and distinct cultures living within their borders. Considering how the US has handled indigenous cultures existing within its borders, it wouldn't fit as an example of the third solution - it simply weakened the indigenous cultures to a point that they no longer even have to oppress them.

How about China and India?

I know at one time, India's solution was a very strict caste system, but how do they merge so many cultures into one country today? And was the caste system a necessary step along the way to bring enough stability that they could move slowly towards a third solution? (That wouldn't support the idea that Iraq could achieve the third solution just by establishing a democratic government - that it would still take years or decades, even with a legitimate government and a security infrastructure).

Does China actually incorporate all of its separate cultures into one government or is it a central government dominated by the strongest culture that imposes itself on the other cultures within the country? Or is it, too, just settling for stability in the hopes of creating an evnironment where the third solution might be achievable somewhere down the road?

 

[Art]

I can't find this "Crude Designs" report by Muttitt but I have found this report of his on PSAs...
(again I am unable to find this new report they are quoting).

Where were you looking?? You'll find google works fine for finding information, in fact it throws up 11,900 references to the report. Here's one of them for you (the first on the list). http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm

 

[Skyhunter]

There appears to be a little bit of disagreement between the link that skyhunter posted:
and this link:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-11-19-arab-league-chief_x.htm

I don't understand what you are trying to say here. You are comparing apples and oranges. One story is about the contention between the groups. The other is about the agreement that US troops need to get out.

Is this an attempt to discredit the AP story?

From the link I posted:

The Cairo meeting was marred by differences between participants at times, and at one point Shiite and Kurdish delegates stormed out of a closed session when one of the speakers said they had sold out to the Americans.

 

[kat]

skyhunter, one appears to say that the leaders of the kurd and shiite communities were present and the other that they refused to attend. Who were the shiite and kurdish delegates, and who did they really represent if the community leaders refused to attend?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Where were you looking?? You'll find google works fine for finding information, in fact it throws up 11,900 references to the report. Here's one of them for you (the first on the list). http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm

That's odd. When I looked for it Google came back with zero results. Maybe Google's spiders or what ever they use hadn't found it yet.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I've read some more. The report really glosses over the idea that the projected amount of profits that will be lost is only about ten percent of the total projected profits. The report offers up alternatives but I haven't seen any projections that compare potential profits from alternatives with the projections they have mave with regard to the PSA contracts. The report also seems to neglect to mention Iraq's own goals for getting their oil production on track as quickly as possible. The major inticement for them with a PSA is that if all goes well their production would be on track as quickly as possible and their total state revenue, regardless of how much they "lose" to the oil companies, will skyrocket.

Really it's up to Iraq if they want to sacrifice long term gains for the benifit of getting their economy back on track as quickly as possible. I'm sure that they are smart enough to know what the advantages and disadvantages are and to keep themselves from being ripped off.

 

[edward]

skyhunter, one appears to say that the leaders of the kurd and shiite communities were present and the other that they refused to attend. Who were the shiite and kurdish delegates, and who did they really represent if the community leaders refused to attend?

No one refused to attend. There was a one hour walkout after a comment made by the Christian delegate.

Arab foreign ministers, particularly Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal, promptly engaged the Shiite and Kurdish delegates and urged them to return to the chamber.

Within the hour, Sunni delegate Mohammed Shehab al-Dulaimi told reporters the conference had resumed after the delegate apologized and Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa ruled that al-Youssefi's comments would be struck from the record.

The link below gives a very good account of the meeting if anyone cares to read it.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2005/11/19/arab_league_chief_calls_for_iraq_aid/

The one consensus they did come to ,which is the topic of the thread, was that the USA must leave. Which is a bit ironic considering that the meeting was sponsored by the USA and the Arab League.

 

[kat]

"declined to attend" is what it states. The article clearly outlines the decline to attend and the walkout.. as two separate events.

 

[Skyhunter]

"declined to attend" is what it states. The article clearly outlines the decline to attend and the walkout.. as two separate events.

You are correct.

BTW Edward your link and kat's are the same piece.

I am not positive, but the article I linked mentions that there were objections to the conference, although it doesn't mention leaders declining to attend.

Here it mentions who was there.

The preparatory reconciliation conference, held under the auspices of the Arab League, was attended by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Iraqi Shiite and Kurdish lawmakers as well as leading Sunni politicians

This is a reference to opposition.

Shiites had been strongly opposed to participation in the conference by Sunni Arab officials from the regime of Saddam Hussein or from pro-insurgency groups. That objection seemed to have been glossed over in the communique.

But like I said, it is comparing apples to oranges. My link was the story about the content of the final communique, your link focused on the walkout and mentions that some leaders refused to attend. After reading both I have a better understanding of the reconciliation conference.

Thank you for the second link.

But the point I made is still valid, the one thing they agree on is the US needs to leave as soon as possible.

The language even legitimizes the insurgency.

In Egypt, the final communique's attempt to define terrorism omitted any reference to attacks against U.S. or Iraqi forces. Delegates from across the political and religious spectrum said the omission was intentional. They spoke anonymously, saying they feared retribution.

"Though resistance is a legitimate right for all people, terrorism does not represent resistance. Therefore, we condemn terrorism and acts of violence, killing and kidnapping targeting Iraqi citizens and humanitarian, civil, government institutions, national resources and houses of worships," the document said

 

[edward]

OOPS sorry about that. Seems like most of the news comes from AP or Reuters. The media buys it, publishes it, and then we disagree on what it says.

So here is a link from China with my appologies:

http://test.china.org.cn/english/international/149483.htm

 

[scott1]

We're done in Iraq, quit shipping oil out.

Insugents killed 2,000 american soilders, bombed jordan and they still think it's good to kill americans.I don't think were done yet.

 

[edward]

Insugents killed 2,000 american soilders, bombed jordan and they still think it's good to kill americans.I don't think were done yet.

Neither are the insergents.

 

[Gokul43201]

Insugents killed 2,000 american soilders, bombed jordan and they still think it's good to kill americans.

The point being ?

American soldiers killed thousands of insurgents, bombed Iraq and still think it's good to kill insurgents. So does that legitimize the insurgency ?

 

[Skyhunter]

Insugents killed 2,000 american soilders, bombed jordan and they still think it's good to kill americans.I don't think were done yet.

Insurgents are not terrorists.

"Though resistance is a legitimate right for all people, terrorism does not represent resistance. Therefore, we condemn terrorism and acts of violence, killing and kidnapping targeting Iraqi citizens and humanitarian, civil, government institutions, national resources and houses of worships," the document said.

And the terrorists who attacked the US 9/11/2001 are not Iraqis.