0
   

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

 
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 11:55 am
Duplicate post
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 12:04 pm
Gelisgesti wrote:
Shocked
Ican, do you realize what this means ......... we agree 100% on something....... AIIEEEEEE Run away run away!!! it's the last sign of the Apocalypse ..... So it is written that the elephant shall lie down with the donkey and they shall become one in the last days Shocked Shocked Shocked

My cup runneth over! Smile
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 12:07 pm
Braggart
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 12:11 pm
Gelisgesti wrote:
Braggart

Try my cup. Then if you like it, make one like it for your own. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 12:14 pm
Not after you've had your stuff in it ..... ewwwwwww
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 12:18 pm
Gelisgesti wrote:
Not after you've had your stuff in it ..... ewwwwwww

Ok! Then make a cup for yourself that will run over, instead of flaking and cracking when other people's cups run over. Laughing
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 12:40 pm
Nah, I'll just stick with my old burlap one .... thanks n e how
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 01:22 pm
Quote:
ITALY TO BEGIN WITHDRAWAL

Italy will start withdrawing its troops from Iraq in September, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi has said.

"We will begin to reduce our contingent even before the end of the year, starting in September, in agreement with our allies," he said in an interview on state television.


Mr Berlusconi said he had spoken with British Prime Minister Tony Blair and had concluded that public opinion in both countries favored a troop withdrawal.

Italian deputies voted by a large majority this week to maintain Rome's 3,000 troops in Iraq for another six months, mirroring the approval of the upper house Senate last month.

Berlusconi's centre-right government deployed the peacekeeping force in June 2003, following the US-led invasion of Iraq.

Italy has 3,000 troops in Iraq, the fourth largest foreign contingent after the United States, Britain and South Korea.

Last Updated: 19:07 UK, Tuesday March 15, 2005
Source
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 01:26 pm
Who does that leave?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 01:27 pm
I am sure grateful for the assisstance they have given. Hopefully US troops won't be too far behind them.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 01:34 pm
Quote:
Iraqi general shot dead by US troops at checkpoint west of Ramadi: police

Published: 3/15/2005

RAMADI, Iraq - The deputy commander of the Iraqi army in western Al-Anbar province was shot dead by US troops at a checkpoint Tuesday night, a police officer said.

"The US forces opened fire at 8:00 pm (1700 GMT) on Brigadier General Ismail Swayed al-Obeid, who had left his base in Baghdadi to head home," police Captain Amin al-Hitti said.

"They spotted him on the road after the curfew, which goes into effect at 6 pm," the officer said in Baghdadi, 185 kilometres (142 miles) west of the capital.

No immediate reaction was available from the US military.

US forces have struggled to build up Iraqi security forces in Al-Anbar, where the country's insurgency is at its strongest, and many police and national guard units are suspected of having been infiltrated by rebels.


03/15/2005 19:13 GMT
Source
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 01:36 pm
Sad

Apparently we have a small, embarassing checkpoint problem these days...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 01:49 pm
Put some of those guys on the Mexican border .... voila .... no more illegal aliens
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 01:49 pm
Quote:
THE CONFLICT IN IRAQ

Army Ignored Broker on Arms Deal

U.S. general supervised an Iraq contract that a slain American said was tangled in kickbacks.

By Ken Silverstein and T. Christian Miller, Times Staff Writers


BAGHDAD ?- Soon after interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi took office last summer, he announced plans to create a tank division for the new Iraqi army.

The $283-million project was supposed to display the power of Iraq's new government. But under the guidance of a task force overseen by one of America's top generals, it has become another chapter in a rebuilding process marked by accusations of corruption.

The U.S. contractor working on the project repeatedly warned the task force headed by Army Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus that a Lebanese middleman involved in the deal might be routing kickbacks to Iraqi Defense Ministry officials. But senior U.S. military officials did not act on the contractor's pleas for tighter financial controls, according to documents and interviews.

"If we proceed down the road we are currently on, there will be serious legal issues that will land us all in jail," the contractor, Dale Stoffel, wrote in a Nov. 30 e-mail to a senior assistant to Petraeus.

Eight days later, Stoffel was shot dead in an ambush near Baghdad. The killing is being investigated by the FBI, according to people who have been interviewed by the bureau.


Since then, senior U.S. military officials have continued to work with the middleman, Raymond Zayna, who has taken over part of Stoffel's contract, documents and interviews show.

Although the U.S. military initially insisted that the Iraqi government was in control of the project, e-mails obtained by The Times show that Petraeus' task force supervised it.

The case raises concerns about the U.S. commitment to accountability in projects involving Iraqi money. The inspector general for Iraq's reconstruction recently criticized the failure of the former U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority to properly account for $8.8 billion in contracts issued using Iraqi funds.

A $24.7-million payment on the contract that was supposed to go to Stoffel is unaccounted for.

Through a spokesman, Petraeus declined to be interviewed, referring inquiries to the Iraqi Defense Ministry. Ministry officials did not respond to requests for comment.

In January, Capt. Steve Alvarez, a spokesman for Petraeus' task force, said the arms contract was an "MOD [Ministry of Defense] matter."

"There really isn't much more to our involvement," he said.

Later, after being told about the e-mails indicating that task force officers were directing work on the contract, Alvarez said that "performance under this contract was of interest" to U.S. officials.

"Quite naturally, there were contacts and communications between [the task force] and the parties to the contract in order to coordinate," Alvarez said. He added that Petraeus "was never told of any improprieties."

The weapons deal took shape last year, after Allawi began pressing U.S. military officials for the formation of a tank brigade.

Although the U.S. did not consider the brigade vital to fighting the insurgency, Allawi saw it as a politically important demonstration to Iraqi citizens that the government was reconstituting its armed forces, an official with the U.S.-led coalition said. The Iraqis agreed to pay for an entire mechanized division at an estimated cost of $283 million.

Allawi wanted at least one tank brigade in place before the Jan. 30 national assembly election. The deadline put pressure on the U.S. military to deliver the tanks quickly.

Petraeus backed Stoffel, a weapons dealer with extensive experience in the Eastern European equipment used by the Iraqi army, as a man who could obtain and deliver the goods.

Stoffel had a long history of working with the U.S. government. He acted on behalf of U.S. intelligence agencies to covertly buy foreign military equipment for research and testing by the U.S. military, documents show.

In a letter to Iraqi Defense Minister Hazem Shaalan on July 20, 2004, Petraeus pledged to "fully support" Stoffel, who proposed to refurbish Iraq's tanks and personnel carriers and buy new equipment from Eastern European sources.

On Aug. 16, Stoffel's firm, Wye Oak Technology of Monongahela, Pa., signed a "broker's agreement" with the Defense Ministry, giving Stoffel the exclusive right to buy tanks and other equipment for the mechanized division on the ministry's behalf.

Stoffel was awarded the contract without competitive bidding. The contract was structured so that Stoffel was paid a percentage of the price of goods purchased ?- an arrangement barred by U.S. law but allowed in Iraq.

Iraqi Deputy Defense Minister Mashal Sarraf insisted on another unusual provision, according to sources with knowledge of the contract: He required that Stoffel conduct all financial transactions through middleman Zayna.

Sarraf did not respond to requests for comment made through the Defense Ministry.

In September, Stoffel signed a limited power of attorney allowing Zayna to "arrange financing and request banking guarantees" for the contract, records show. Zayna was to act as a broker between Stoffel and the Defense Ministry, reconciling invoices and disbursing payments.

Another Lebanese businessman, Mohammed abu Darwish, worked with Zayna's firm, General Investment Group, on the contract and participated in meetings with task force officials, e-mails and interviews show. In an unrelated case in September, the Pentagon barred Darwish from receiving future American contracts because of his alleged role in a scheme to defraud the U.S. of millions of dollars on a security contract in Iraq, according to a U.S. Air Force document.

Soon after he started work on the contract, Stoffel began to voice concerns about Zayna and his relationship with Iraqi defense officials, according to e-mails and interviews.

In conversations with military officials, Stoffel complained that Zayna was charging him a 3% fee on financial transactions. He suspected that a portion of the fee was being kicked back to the Defense Ministry. Stoffel also said Zayna was trying to force him to use certain subcontractors that he believed were secretly controlled by Zayna and Iraqi officials.

Asked for comment, Darwish referred questions to Zayna, saying that "the deal belongs to him." Efforts to reach Zayna were unsuccessful.

By October, the Defense Ministry had issued Zayna's firm $24.7 million in payment for the refurbishing work Stoffel had done, the contractor told military officials.

The money was never delivered to Stoffel, who in October began complaining to U.S. officials in Washington and Baghdad. He wrote letters, previously disclosed by The Times, to Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and a senior Pentagon official spelling out his suspicions about Zayna.

Stoffel also e-mailed U.S. Army Col. David Styles, Petraeus' assistant on the project. He asked Styles to have Petraeus intervene to stop millions of dollars being funneled without oversight through Zayna.

"There is no oversight of the money and if/when something goes wrong, regardless of how clean our hands are, heads will roll and it will be the heads of those that are reachable, and the people who are suppose to know better (US citizens, military, etc.)," Stoffel wrote in the November e-mail to Styles.

Stoffel's concerns were shared by an official with the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq who worked as an advisor to the Defense Ministry. On learning of Zayna's role in the contract, this official urged the ministry to suspend further payments. The official also had concerns about Stoffel, who had come under scrutiny for previous arms dealings unrelated to the Iraqi contract.

The official suggested that the Defense Ministry establish a clear audit trail on the use of the funds. However, the official noted that Styles was worried that additional accounting measures would cause delays.

Styles said the concern over accounting was "getting in the way," the official said. "It was a pretty big issue for Petraeus to get it done and delivered, and he was riding Styles hard."

In one e-mail, Styles referred to Stoffel and business associates as his "team." The e-mail describes orders to both Stoffel and Zayna on how to implement the contract, down to such mundane details as fixing an oil leak and having Zayna buy sets of tools.

Styles pressed Stoffel to draft a progress report for coalition and Iraqi officials to "get the advisors off our [backs] and ensure the uninterrupted flow of funds for the project."

Petraeus worked with top Iraqi officials to allow Stoffel access to bases across the country, according to a letter from Bruska Noori Shaways, the Defense Ministry's secretary-general.

"With the assistance, cooperation and support of Lt. Gen. David J. [sic] Petraeus and the U.S. company Wye Oak Technology, the Iraq Ministry of Defense has instituted and initiated" the program to create a mechanized division, Shaways wrote in September to Army Gen. George W. Casey, commander of coalition forces in Iraq.

Task force spokesman Alvarez initially said the U.S. military did not get involved in the contract dispute. "We were not aware of any U.S. military working with Wye Oak," Alvarez wrote in January. In response to follow-up questions from The Times, Alvarez acknowledged that Petraeus intervened with Iraqi officials after learning of problems with the contract.

"When told that there was a holdup regarding refurbishment of the armored vehicles, Lt. Gen. Petraeus did ask the ministry to get on with whatever they were going to do with the contract so that the stand-up of the mechanized brigade would not be delayed," Alvarez said.

By late November, Stoffel had returned to the United States to seek help in getting his payment. He asked Pentagon officials and Santorum's office to pressure the Iraqis to release the $24.7 million to him.

Stoffel suggested that an international accounting firm be brought in to supervise the contract's financial transactions and clear up questions about the missing money.

He warned of consequences if the money was not recovered.

"News of it will be on the front page under the photos of President Bush, [Defense Secretary Donald H.] Rumsfeld, me" and Petraeus' task force, Stoffel wrote to another military officer in early December. "Jobs will be lost and congressional hearings will be held."

U.S. military officials informed Zayna about the allegations of corruption, according to several people familiar with the matter. British Brig. Gen. David Clements summoned the parties to a Dec. 5 meeting in Iraq. Afterward, Clements ordered Zayna to release the money to Stoffel, sources said.

As of Dec. 8, Stoffel still had not received the money. That day, after he left the Taji military base outside Baghdad, his SUV was rammed by another vehicle. Stoffel and a business associate, Joseph Wemple, were cut down in a hail of bullets.

Another occupant of the vehicle apparently escaped unharmed, leading to suspicions among the victims' friends that he may have been involved in the attack.

About a week later, a previously unknown insurgent group, Brigades of the Islamic Jihad, claimed responsibility.



Since the killing, U.S. military officials have continued working with Zayna. He is doing construction work on a U.S.-controlled military base outside Baghdad related to the project, said officials with the U.S.-led coalition.

Stoffel's firm tried unsuccessfully to keep the contract. Wye Oak Technology sent a letter to U.S. and Iraqi officials on Jan. 25 saying it was prepared to resume work so long as "transparency and accountability" were established.

The U.S. military and Iraqi Defense Ministry have not responded. A Wye Oak official declined to comment.

Petraeus' task force has also pressed ahead with the creation of the mechanized division. The first brigade was operational just before the January election, and some elements of it are guarding Iraqi government buildings.

Coalition officials met in February with the Defense Ministry to try to track down the $24.7 million.

So far, they have had no luck accounting for the money.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miller reported from Baghdad and Silverstein from Washington.


Now, we ask ourselves, how could this money be unaccounted for? Isn't it just sitting in a bank somewhere waiting to be transferred?

The answer is no. Why? Because we pay people in cash in Iraq, and it's hard to trace. Makes it convienently easy to steal money, doesn't it?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 02:31 pm
Who ever said bringing democracy to Iraq was without kickbacks and fraud? That still happens in many parts of the world with western contractors.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 03:01 pm
Quote:
Shi'ites and Kurds close to Iraq deal
Tue Mar 15, 2005

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Shi'ite Muslim and Kurdish politicians are nearing agreement on forming Iraq's next government, officials from the two sides have said.
"We expect to sign a declaration in the next few days on general principles that include dealing with the city of Kirkuk according to the interim constitution," Mohammad Bahr al-Uloum, a member of the majority Shi'ite bloc in parliament told Reuters on Tuesday.

A Senior Kurdish politician said the Kurdish leadership has agreed to deal with Kirkuk according to the interim constitution, which says land disputes there must wait until a new constitution is written by October and a census is conducted to determine the ethnic mix-up of the city.

"There is agreement with the United Iraqi Alliance on these principles," he said.

Discussions between the Shi'ite bloc and the Kurds who won between them the two-third seats needed to form a government in the January 30 elections have foundered, mainly over Kurdish wishes for control over Kirkuk, an oil centre inhabited by Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens, and over power sharing.
Source
0 Replies
 
George
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 03:13 pm
This is merely postponing the showdown over Kirkuk. Kurds, Turkomen,
and Arabs will want to pack the city with their numbers before the census.
It could get very ugly indeed.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 05:22 pm
Normally I would post an excerpt of an article this long with just a link. But to counter all the negative, black shroud, defeatist posts over the last several days, I'm going to post it in its entirety.:

Amir Taheri: Pests in freedom's way

15mar05

THROUGHOUT the debate that preceded the liberation of Iraq two years ago, supporters of Saddam Hussein claimed that any attempt at removing him from power by force would trigger an explosion in "the Arab street". As it turned out, the explosion they had predicted did take place, but only in Western streets, where anti-Americans of all denominations, their numbers inflated by the usual "useful idiots", marched to keep the Baathist butcher in power.

More than two years later, however, the Arab street seems to be heading for an explosion. From North Africa to the Persian Gulf and passing by the Levant, people have been coming together in various "Arab streets" to make their feelings and opinions known. These demonstrations, some big, some small, have several features in common.

Unlike the rent-a-mob marches concocted by the Mukhabarat secret services, this latest spate of demonstrations was largely spontaneous. Nor are the demonstrations controlled by the traditional elites, including established opposition groups and personalities.

In almost every case, we are witnessing a new kind of citizens' movement, an Arab version of people power in action. But the most important feature of these demonstrations is that they are concerned not with imagined external enemies - be they Israel or the US - but with the real deficiencies of contemporary Arab societies. In almost every case the key demand is for a greater say for the people in deciding the affairs of the nation.

It is, of course, far too early to speak of an "Arab spring".

It is not at all certain that the ruling elites will have the intelligence to manage the difficult transition from autocracy to pluralism. Nor is it certain that the budding democratic movement would produce a leadership capable of mixing resolve with moderation. The deep-rooted Arab tradition of political extremism may prove harder to dissipate than one imagines.

What is interesting is that there are, as yet, no signs that the "Western street" may, at some point, come out in support of the new "Arab street".

Over the past two weeks several Western capitals, including London and Paris, have witnessed feverish activity by more than two dozen groups organising meetings and marches to mark the second anniversary of the liberation of Iraq. The aim is not to celebrate the event and express solidarity with the emerging Iraqi democracy, but to vilify George W. Bush and Tony Blair, thus lamenting the demise of Saddam Hussein.

I spent part of last week ringing up the organisers of the anti-war events with a couple of questions. The first: Would they allow anyone from the newly elected Iraqi parliament to address the gatherings? The second: Would the marches include expressions of support for the democracy movements in Arab and other Muslim countries, notably Iraq, Lebanon and Syria?

In both cases the answer was a categorical no, accompanied by a torrent of abuse about "all those who try to justify American aggression against Iraq".

But was it not possible to condemn "American aggression" and then express support for the democratic movement in Iraq and the rest of the Arab world? In most cases we were not even allowed to ask the question. In one or two cases we received mini-lectures on how democracy cannot be imposed by force. The answer to that, of course, is that in Iraq no one tried to impose democracy by force. In Iraq force was used to remove the enemies of democracy from power so as to allow its friends to come to the fore.

That remnants of the totalitarian Left and various brands of fascism should march to condemn the liberation of Iraq is no surprise. What is surprising is that some mainstream groups, such as the British Liberal-Democrat Party and even some former members of Tony Blair's Labour Government, should join these marches of shame.

The Lib-Dems at their spring conference last week found enough time to reiterate their shameful opposition to the liberation of Iraq at some length. But they had no time to take note of what looks like a historic turning point in favour of democracy in the Middle East. As for those Labour ministers who resigned from Blair's cabinet in protest against the toppling of Saddam Hussein, there is as yet no sign that they might express any support for freedom marches in various Arab capitals.

The situation is no better in continental Europe. Joschka Fischer, the German foreign minister, has yet to show the same degree of activism in support of the Arab democratic movement as he did in 2003, when he fought desperately to prevent the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. For his part, France's President Jacques Chirac, who in February 2003 proposed an emergency summit to save Saddam Hussein, and appeared almost daily on television opposing the liberation of Iraq, is yet to give the slightest hint that he might favour the demise of any more tyrannies in the region.

Why are so many Westerners, living in mature democracies, ready to march against the toppling of a despot in Iraq but unwilling to take to the streets in support of the democratic movement in the Middle East?

Is it because many of those who will be marching in support of Saddam Hussein this month are the remnants of totalitarian groups in the West plus a variety of misinformed idealists and others blinded by anti-Americanism? Or is it because they secretly believe that the Arabs do not deserve anything better than Saddam Hussein?

Those interested in the health of Western democracies would do well to ponder those questions.

Amir Taheri is an Iranian author of 10 books on the Middle East and Islam. He can be reached through www.benadorassociates.com.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,12544386,00.html
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 05:48 pm
The whole thesis is wrong; he assumes everybody against this war is a Saddam supporter. That's the biggest stretch I've read in during the past four/fifteen years.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 09:28 pm
Amir wants to sell more books ..... he wrote a piece in May 2003 that claimed the terrorist movement was waning and his basis was the decline of terrorist suicide bombings ...... not exactly spot on wouldn't you say?


Article here
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 03/10/2026 at 05:33:24