Dangerous Intentions Behind The Bush43 Surge In Baghdad

Originally posted by SteveR
DonW, China may be busy internally but its priorities could certainly change. Didn't they sign a 100 billion dollar deal with Iran to supply energy?

Yes, you are right, while is not clear the actual amount of money in the deal is supposed to be big.

But supposedly is for the oil in Iran, but also US brags that the only equipment in the markets to extract oil and update the old oil fields equipment in Iran to make it work at capacity is in the US and only US companies have it.

Something that also is in the table as an option, US can denied selling this equipment to any country doing dealings with Iran.

Like china, but I wonder . . . is the equipment made in the US or is made in china.

posted by Regensturm

Bush's surge in Baghdad taking on the Shia Militias [could be] deliberately to make life harder for the British troops in Basra battling Shia militias, which would make it look humiliating for the British if they withdrew as the Shia militias intensified their attacks against British troops, to the extent Blair would change his mind about a withdraw, and make it harder for Brown to contradict him when he becomes PM. [Edited by Don W]

I am not sufficiently familiar with UK politics to offer an intelligent comment. What you say surely does sound reasonable and I admit I had not foreseen the possible consequences vis a vis the UK contingent.

I can only hope Brown is different from Blair, who to me is the worst Prime Minister this country has ever had. Worse than Thatcher, and that's saying something. The way Blair has been so slavish to Bush, 'yes sir, no sir' and doing his bidding has threatened the UK's credibility to the point of no return, and further threatens the UK's sovereignty as an independent country further.

Well, I must admit I liked Blair under Clinton. Because Labour - your spelling - and Neo Cons are poles apart in their social outlook, I was surprised to overwhelmed to see Blair so obsequious towards Bush43. I never saw that in the Reagan Thatcher relationship. At first, after the Nine Eleven Event, I thought the UN and EU had appointed Blair to be Bush43’s designated driver. Then it came to me that British corporate interests would share in the division of the natural resource wealth of Iraq. Oil. Truthfully, I don’t know how that has worked out. I heard that we wrote into the Iraq Constitution provisions calculated to prevent future governments from altering the early contracts signed by Paul Bremmer when he was Lord Protector of Iraq. I have read the Constitution but it is not clear to me how that was accomplished.

It may interest you to learn I have been to Pegasus Bridge, during a tour of Normandy three years ago. The original bridge is placed in a museum nearby (walking distance actually) and a new one, nigh on a replica which allows bigger boats through the canal, is in it's place. Stone monuments mark where the glider planes landed (so close) and the café (which was the first French house to be liberated on D-Day) is still open to all, run by the same family as in 1944. The hospital which Wally Parr unknowingly fired at with the German Anti Tank gun is still there, as is the gun. I do recommend the trip.

It is a pleasure to talk with someone who has been there. Thank you for the interesting and informative recounting of your visit. The Pegasus Bridges represent the importance of each small part of a very large puzzle. "For the want of a nail, the shoe was lost; for the want of a shoe the horse was lost; and for the want of a horse the rider was lost, being overtaken and slain by the enemy, all for the want of care about a horseshoe nail,” attributed to our own Benjamin Franklin.

British, not English on their own.

I understand British to include English, Welsh, Scots and maybe in some contexts, Irish even if they do not want to be so included. But would you write a couple more lines explaining what you had in mind when you penned that very short sentence?

Regrettably, I must report Major John Howard’s life has ended. (8 December 1912 - 5 May 2000). There is a tv program featuring him which may be re-run from time to time.

Thanks for you very excellent post.


[edit on 1/28/2007 by donwhite]

posted by marg6043

You are right, while it is not clear the actual amount of money, the deal is supposed to be big. But supposedly it’s for the oil in Iran . . [the] US brags that the equipment to extract oil and update the old oil fields in Iran to make it work at capacity is in the US and only US companies have it. [Edited by Don W]

I’m surprised. If China does not make the equipment, then I’m surprised the South Koreans or Japanese do not. Maybe the Iranian equipment is of American manufacture, when we were cozy with the Shah? That would make it older than 1980, so I should think it would be wise to throw it all out and buy new, regardless who makes it.

“ . . the option, [the] US can deny selling this equipment to any country doing dealings with Iran . . Like China, but I wonder . . is the equipment made in the US or is made in China.

I’d repeat, Made in USA before 1980.

Foot Note: A bit after WW2, a small town in Japan that made cheap export goods for the American market, changed its name to Usa. This made it legal for them to mark their goods Made in USA.

[edit on 1/28/2007 by donwhite]

Q. Are “Telic” and “Heric” shortened words, derived from familiar words or acronyms? I note “-ic” ends both words, leaving “Tel-“ and Her-“ for me to guess about. Even though it escapes me, I insist any word describing such an important undertaking must have some logical source. Like Norse gods? Help, please.

No UK operation code names are generated by a cmputer so that they are random and have no meaning, Sorry for the typo "Herrick"

Amongst the guys we say Op TELIC stands for (Tell Everyone Leave Is Cancelled)

But yeah sorry no cool explanaition of the op names, just random meaninglessness. It's basically so that if it's a secret mission if the enemy find the code name they won't know at a glance what it means. It also keeps some politcs out of the army i.e "Operation Iraqi Freedom" shouldn't be used as a military op's name! the name "Operation Iraqi Freedom" is purly a political tool.

Oh yeah, you are right about BRITISH, apart from Ireland they are a republic but Northern Ireland is still part of the UK. I hate it when people confuse England and Britain.

[edit on 28/1/07 by Jimmy1880]

Criminy, Marg and DonW, I hadn't thought about China and Iran dealings! Thanks for info!

Yes, D, re Iran's oil infrastructure

A report by the US National Academy of Sciences said rickety infrastructure dating back to the era of the Shah had crippled output, while local fuel use was rising at 6pc a year.

source

Wow, so who would replace it? China? Yes, they do make the equipment. Maybe they learned from our own oil executives and companies who were making deals with Communist China before Nixon's 1972 visit that "opened" it up. It ain't about people's rights and freedom's; it's about business.

Now, here's what I find interesting

Iran is also a major producer of natural gas. Under increasing diplomatic pressure from the Bush Administration to halt its suspected pursuit of nuclear weapons, Tehran has been eager to establish joint production and export projects with friendly nations in Europe and Asia. In the past two years alone, it has signed several multibillion-dollar deals with companies from France, Italy, Norway, Turkey, Japan and India for joint development of offshore gas fields in the Persian Gulf and the construction of new pipelines to Europe and Asia. Capping this drive was the signing in October 2004 of a $100 billion, twenty-five-year contract with the China National Petrochemical Corporation (Sinopec) for the joint production and export of liquefied natural gas (LNG), much of which will ultimately go to China. While all this makes perfect commercial sense, given Iran's need for foreign partners in the management of these ambitious projects, it is safe to assume Tehran is also seeking to increase the number of allies it can turn to in case of a showdown with the United States.
source

The article brings India into the picture

Ever since India announced plans more than a year ago to build a natural gas pipeline from fields in Iran to its own territory via Pakistan, the Bush Administration has been applying pressure on New Delhi to cancel the project, claiming it will undermine US attempts to isolate Tehran and curb its nuclear efforts. "We have communicated to the Indian government our concerns about the gas pipeline cooperation between Iran and India," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced after meeting with Indian Foreign Minister Natwar Singh on March 16. But the Indians have continued talks with Islamabad and Tehran over the pipeline plan.
source

So maybe it's mostly about natural gas and not "oil" persay. And, once again, it ain't about people's rights and freedom's (either in Iraq or here); it's about business. Now, the China co chosen is for offshore--is that why the US Navy is there?

And if Cheney thought it was OK 30 years ago to help Iran have nuclear power plants, why is he against it today? Is the nuclear a red herring?

Some United States "energy policy"!!!

And my grandmother said you can catch more flies with honey. Why can't we be friends with Iraq and Iran? Oh, wait, I forgot, we're friends with the House of Saud.

And, oh, yeah, it sure isn't about the war on terror.

Originally posted by donwhite

I have come to this conclusion concerning the President’s “surge” theory. Let’s admit he knows all the reasons why a “surge” will not pacify Baghdad. He also knows the limits on PM Malawki. Hey, we wrote Iraq's constitution. We meant to prevent the rise of another Saddam type strong man. Now we need one. Preferably with democratic principles. And we hand picked the people in the present Iraqi government, to a large extent. We certainly vetted all the candidates“allowed” to run for the Iraqi Parliament. The Iraqis were free to choose who they preferred, but only from a list we had prepared and approved.



[edit on 1/27/2007 by donwhite]

I have to correct you on this as there are some serious inaccuracies in this paragraph.

A-"Let’s admit he knows all the reasons why a “surge” will not pacify Baghdad. " Let's not assume anything. Maybe it will pacify Baghdad, maybe it won't, but to say that "we" know that Bush "knows" this won't work(and isn't even the reason he's sending them), is very presumptuous.

B.we hand picked the people in the present Iraqi government, to a large extent. We certainly vetted all the candidates“allowed” to run for the Iraqi Parliament. The Iraqis were free to choose who they preferred, but only from a list we had prepared and approved.

This statement is completely wrong. We got the ball rolling, assisting with structure and constitutional ideas, but once we handed over authority to the Iraqi government, they assumed sovereignty. We have no say over what candidates are allowed to run, and we certainly don't vet them. The reason why we haven't gone into the Shia areas to establish order thusfar is because we haven't had permission, or the support of the Iraqi government. Now we do, and they realize that something has to be done, which is why they have committed to send in their own forces along side ours to maintain a presence in these areas. The surge of 21,500 is certainly not to threaten Iran. That's what the naval power is for, to be a show of force to bring them to the bargaining table. That's how diplomacy works. Sticks and carrots in a geopolitical game of chess.

posted by GT100FV

A- "Let’s admit he knows all the reasons why a “surge” will not pacify Baghdad. " Let's not assume anything. Maybe it will pacify Baghdad, maybe it won't, but to say that "we" know that Bush "knows" this won't work(and isn't even the reason he's sending them), is very presumptuous.
[Edited by Don W]

You are right about me not really knowing what Busht43 knows. I was thinking of the various generals who have said they do not think it will work, so it follows, Bush43 would know that also. I thought the purpose of the surge - escalation - was to make Baghdad safe. I re-phrased that to “pacify.” What was the reason Bush43 is sending the 21,000 extra troops?

We got the ball rolling, assisting with structure and constitutional ideas, but once we handed over authority to the Iraqi government, they assumed sovereignty.

I think we are still in charge of the Iraqi government. For obvious reasons we want to pretend not to be, but I have heard polls of Iraqi who object to us and believe the current government is a puppet on a string pulled by Bush43.

The surge of 21,500 is certainly not to threaten Iran. That's what the naval power is for, to be a show of force to bring them to the bargaining table. That's how diplomacy works. Sticks and carrots in a geopolitical game of chess.

Bush43 has already declared many times that until the Iranians do what he wants them to do, he will not sit down with them. But if they do what he wants them to do, what is there to talk about and why sit down? He says the same ignorant thing to Hamas. Accept Israel’s right to exist and lay down your arms and we’ll talk with you. Crazy! Does anyone really think Israel and the US would talk to Hamas after the fact? They won’t talk to Hamas before the fact, there would be no reason to do so after the fact. Crazy.

Hezbollah. Same dumb declaration. Recognize Israel and lay down you arms. Then we’ll talk. Talk about what? North Korea. Stop your nuclear program, admit inspectors, comply with all rules and regulations and then we’ll talk with you. Is that man for real? Syria. Surrender first, then we’ll talk. Gotta be one goofy guy. He is responsible for whatever death and destruction flows from this dumb effort at stagecraft. He has already sat idly by and watch NK set off a nuclear device. I don’t know which of the 2 Maximum Leaders is the more dangerous. Kim Jong Il or Bush43.



[edit on 1/28/2007 by donwhite]

Originally posted by GT100FV

Originally posted by donwhite

I have come to this conclusion concerning the President’s “surge” theory. Let’s admit he knows all the reasons why a “surge” will not pacify Baghdad. He also knows the limits on PM Malawki. Hey, we wrote Iraq's constitution. We meant to prevent the rise of another Saddam type strong man. Now we need one. Preferably with democratic principles. And we hand picked the people in the present Iraqi government, to a large extent. We certainly vetted all the candidates“allowed” to run for the Iraqi Parliament. The Iraqis were free to choose who they preferred, but only from a list we had prepared and approved.


[edit on 1/27/2007 by donwhite]

I have to correct you on this as there are some serious inaccuracies in this paragraph.

A-"Let’s admit he knows all the reasons why a “surge” will not pacify Baghdad. " Let's not assume anything. Maybe it will pacify Baghdad, maybe it won't, but to say that "we" know that Bush "knows" this won't work(and isn't even the reason he's sending them), is very presumptuous.

B.we hand picked the people in the present Iraqi government, to a large extent. We certainly vetted all the candidates“allowed” to run for the Iraqi Parliament. The Iraqis were free to choose who they preferred, but only from a list we had prepared and approved.

This statement is completely wrong. We got the ball rolling, assisting with structure and constitutional ideas, but once we handed over authority to the Iraqi government, they assumed sovereignty. We have no say over what candidates are allowed to run, and we certainly don't vet them. The reason why we haven't gone into the Shia areas to establish order thusfar is because we haven't had permission, or the support of the Iraqi government. Now we do, and they realize that something has to be done, which is why they have committed to send in their own forces along side ours to maintain a presence in these areas. The surge of 21,500 is certainly not to threaten Iran. That's what the naval power is for, to be a show of force to bring them to the bargaining table. That's how diplomacy works. Sticks and carrots in a geopolitical game of chess.

The Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) was indeed selected by the US back in 2004. From this council the government in charge today has emerged, the IGC was selected and from that selection the Iraqi's elected a leader.

Soveignty was never taken from Iraq the coalition forces were theoretically there to keep the peace after the fall of Saddam, we have never officially invaded Iraq.

The huge surge in troops would only be effective in open warfare, in a stablising role the military needs to keep a lower profile as to not give the impression that they are an invading force thus creating more resistance.

21,500 troops is about the amount needed to advance on a fairly large front!

DonWhite,

I am really enjoying this thread, but one thing still puzzles me, What does the 43 in bush43 mean??

Originally posted by donwhite
A bit after WW2, a small town in Japan that made cheap export goods for the American market, changed its name to Usa. This made it legal for them to mark their goods Made in USA.

That's actually a myth. The town has had the name since the 8th century. Also, export stamps must designate the country not the town/region.

Still waiting to hear how the major energy deal with China doesn't affect plans for Iran.

Originally posted by Jimmy1880
DonWhite,

I am really enjoying this thread, but one thing still puzzles me, What does the 43 in bush43 mean??

43rd President. Father is Bush41.

Thanks for that SteveR.

Originally posted by donwhite

I am not sufficiently familiar with UK politics to offer an intelligent comment. What you say surely does sound reasonable and I admit I had not foreseen the possible consequences vis a vis the UK contingent.

It's certainly something to consider and watch out for. Don't be surprised if it happens.

Originally posted by donwhite
Well, I must admit I liked Blair under Clinton. Because Labour - your spelling - and Neo Cons are poles apart in their social outlook, I was surprised to overwhelmed to see Blair so obsequious towards Bush43.

Actually Blair has transformed Labour from it's original social outlook to a organistation of government that has none at all. There's barely difference now between the Tories and New Labour, which is called 'consensus politics' by observers but is called 'tweedledee and tweedledum' by myself.

Originally posted by donwhite
I never saw that in the Reagan Thatcher relationship. At first, after the Nine Eleven Event, I thought the UN and EU had appointed Blair to be Bush43’s designated driver. Then it came to me that British corporate interests would share in the division of the natural resource wealth of Iraq. Oil.

Agreed. I see Blair more as Bush's escort on his wild days and nights out, with Blair doing Bush's bidding and being subservient while thinking wrongly he has become an respected international statesman by doing so.

Originally posted by donwhite
Truthfully, I don’t know how that has worked out. I heard that we wrote into the Iraq Constitution provisions calculated to prevent future governments from altering the early contracts signed by Paul Bremmer when he was Lord Protector of Iraq. I have read the Constitution but it is not clear to me how that was accomplished.

More wars and assassinations and coups on the CIA's part. It happened in Iran in the 50's. Anything for Oil and geopolitical positioning.

Originally posted by donwhite
It is a pleasure to talk with someone who has been there.

Thankyou very much indeed, and likewise it is a pleasure to find someone also interested in Pegasus Bridge.

Originally posted by donwhite
Thank you for the interesting and informative recounting of your visit.

Thanks again, but I think it is made interesting and informative by what happened there.

Originally posted by donwhite
The Pegasus Bridges represent the importance of each small part of a very large puzzle. "For the want of a nail, the shoe was lost; for the want of a shoe the horse was lost; and for the want of a horse the rider was lost, being overtaken and slain by the enemy, all for the want of care about a horseshoe nail,” attributed to our own Benjamin Franklin.

I could not agree more.

Originally posted by donwhite
I understand British to include English, Welsh, Scots and maybe in some contexts, Irish even if they do not want to be so included. But would you write a couple more lines explaining what you had in mind when you penned that very short sentence?

Certainly. You were referring to the army structure that appeared not keen on promoting Major Howard for his actions.

I was pointing out that besides the English, the Scots, the Welsh, and the Northern Irish made, and still make up, the British Army, so that the mentality and the people who make up The British Army, are not just English.

For example, if you told The Black Watch that their actions in the past and present was a great English show of military brilliance, they would tell you they are Scottish, not English, and some may tell you they are British, not English.

In other words, it's not just the English in The British Army.

Originally posted by donwhite
Regrettably, I must report Major John Howard’s life has ended. (8 December 1912 - 5 May 2000). There is a tv program featuring him which may be re-run from time to time.

That is sad to hear, but also bizarre. Bizarre because the Battlefield Tour Guide who we had three years ago in Normandy, admittedly, often full of his own pompousness, told us that Major Howard was still alive and visted Pegasus Bridge, and the 60th D-Day commemorations on the television spoke of him as if was still alive too.

I can only conclude that these historians suffer what is the bane of all historians and people who claim to know their area of expertise: Not keeping up to date in relation with their subject and becoming content in recycling what they know that they have researched in the past and not done again in recent times.

RIP Major Howard. A tough man, but a man who his men came to love and respect.

Originally posted by donwhite
Thanks for you very excellent post.

And thankyou for yours.

[edit on 29-1-2007 by Regensturm]

The 'Surge' thing is freak'n stupid.

9,000 more troops? We should have had MANY more at the start to secure the place and we should be pulling out now, not building up.

This is just like Johnson & Vietnam.

Oh .. for those who think this is an act to go to war with Iran ... we are already in a proxy war with them. Our war with the insurgents is a proxy war with Iran.

I am learning more and more everyday also Thanks Donwhite and others.

I can only imagine how much damage to the people in the energy business dealings in Europe and middle east, that are friendly to the US and our own barons will have if Iran become a challenge to their energy control in the world.

Is incredible how we can put two and two together and see how the power behind our own government that deals with the economies of the world allow who will benefit of US friendship and who will become an enemy and should be targeted including wars.

This is all great if the beneficiaries of such dealings and war where the people . . . but the sad thing is that we are nothing to this powers wagging wars and controlling economies, countries and nations.

US energy task force job in which Rumsfeld and Cheney are in charge, wants control of the entire middle east for future energy needs and unrestricted profits for the interest they serve.

No wonder Cheney is starting to get agitated lately with the new congress and the ability to finish their business in Iraq and with Iran.

Great thread.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
9,000 more troops? We should have had MANY more at the start to secure the place and we should be pulling out now, not building up.

No, America's leaders should have ordered its troops to treat Iraqis with respect. America does not and probably won't for a while that you cannot bring American democracy to a Muslim Middle Eastern country. They have a different culture, have a different history, different values, and thus need a different approach. The foolish and ignorant American approach did not work out and definitely cannot be fixed.

Forcing Iraqi soldiers to shave off their beards (as Muslims) is just a small example of the ignorant doomed-to-fail approach. You don't force an American either to remove the American flag from his property.

Iraqi civilians should just have been treated like we modern human beings treat each other. You reach far more by kindly asking someone to come along with you for interrogation than kicking in one's door, beat him up and remove him.

Lina Massufi, a 32-year-old Iraqi laboratory assistant with two children, is a widow - her husband was killed by US troops when he accidentally drove down a closed road in 2003. In the past three months she has seen her house raided and her furniture smashed 12 times.

"Every time they raid my house, they break down the door," she told a UN official. When she asked them why they did not ring the bell " they laughed at me and called me an idiot". Her brother Fae'ek, a pharmacy student, was arrested and held in prison for a week. "He returned with signs of torture on his body, and was crying like a baby because of the pain."

Her story shows why the odds are against what may be President George Bush's final gamble in Iraq: the attempt by US troops, now receiving 17,500 reinforcements, to regain control of Baghdad. The plan is for US forces, along with Iraqi army and police, to enter Sunni and Shia districts in the capital, cleanse them of insurgents and militia and then stay put, preventing their return. In his State of the Union speech last week Mr Bush told Congress: "With Iraqis in the lead, our forces will help secure the city by chasing down the terrorists, insurgents, and the roaming death squads."

Source

Additionally, the lack of a solid political plan hasn't contributed to a stable situation either. There was a time that America was able to win the Iraqi hearts and minds, but it has made the mistake to throw this away.

How could you possibly expect to win the Iraqi hearts and minds when you treat them like dirt?

You can either make the decision to:

-Stay in Iraq, spend more billions and slink off in a matter of months or years and eventually leave Iraq in utter chaos, corruption and insurgency
-Leave at once and let the insurgency take control of Iraq, but save billions of Dollars and human lives.


The damage has been done, no one can change it and we're saddled with a greater risk of being attacked by terrorists.



[edit on 29-1-2007 by Mdv2]

i will have to agree with that also, when my husband was in the first gulf war station in Saudi they have many incidents of soldiers not respecting the Arab world and their social structure.

My husband said that they were very polite toward the American soldiers but many American soldiers were to arrogant toward their way of life and openly made fun of them, their looks and clothing.

The troop leaders had to discipline many of the soldiers.

So I can only imagine in Iraq that is no control in certain situations it most be worst.

At least in Saudi Soldiers were welcome at the time.

Originally posted by FlyersFan


Oh .. for those who think this is an act to go to war with Iran ... we are already in a proxy war with them. Our war with the insurgents is a proxy war with Iran.

The Shia insurgents are not just tools of Iran, they have their own reasons too for fighting.

And on the other side of the proxy war, there are reports there are American 'feet' in Iraq, and Israelis training Kurdish fighters in Northern Iraq.

"I think we are still in charge of the Iraqi government. For obvious reasons we want to pretend not to be, but I have heard polls of Iraqi who object to us and believe the current government is a puppet on a string pulled by Bush43. "

Well there are those that feel that, but they probably feel that anyone that deals with the Great Satan in anyway is merely a puppet. Folks like Bin Laden hate the idea of infidels being in the middle east at all, and other extremists over there, resent it as well, so they're not going to be unbiased. I was over there when the first elections took place, and sovereignty was handed over. We had to conduct business differently afterwards, as we had to get permission to do things from the government from that point on.