3
   

Who Lost Iraq?

 
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 08:27 am
Bush and Blair's press conference- the Guardian humourist's summary.

A good laugh, if you're not Republican.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1967316,00.html
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 09:24 am
So George Bush and the conservatives invaded Iraq to bring freedom to the Iraqi people and, hopefully, to the Middle East.

What a bunch of crap. Like religion conservative ideology is based on faith, not reality or common sense.

Look at Saudi Arabia, one of our best friends in the Middle East. Very oppressive with virtually no democracy at all.

It's the country where a majority of the 9/11 terrorist came from. And, as it is turning out, it is the country financing our enemies in Iraq.

Quote:
Saudis reportedly funding Iraqi Sunnis
By SALAH NASRAWI, Associated Press Writer
Fri Dec 8, 2006

Private Saudi citizens are giving millions of dollars to Sunni insurgents in Iraq and much of the money is used to buy weapons, including shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles, according to key Iraqi officials and others familiar with the flow of cash.

Saudi government officials deny that any money from their country is being sent to Iraqis fighting the government and the U.S.-led coalition.

But the U.S. Iraq Study Group report said Saudis are a source of funding for Sunni Arab insurgents. Several truck drivers interviewed by The Associated Press described carrying boxes of cash from Saudi Arabia into Iraq, money they said was headed for insurgents.

Two high-ranking Iraqi officials, speaking on condition of 96(typo from article) because of the issue's sensitivity, told the AP most of the Saudi money comes from private donations, called zaqat, collected for Islamic causes and charities.

Some Saudis appear to know the money is headed to Iraq's insurgents, but others merely give it to clerics who channel it to anti-coalition forces, the officials said.

In one recent case, an Iraqi official said $25 million in Saudi money went to a top Iraqi Sunni cleric and was used to buy weapons, including Strela, a Russian shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missile. The missiles were purchased from someone in Romania, apparently through the black market, he said.

Overall, the Iraqi officials said, money has been pouring into Iraq from oil-rich Saudi Arabia, a Sunni bastion, since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq toppled the Sunni-controlled regime of Saddam Hussein in 2003.

Saudi officials vehemently deny their country is a major source of financial support for the insurgents.

"There isn't any organized terror finance, and we will not permit any such unorganized acts," said Brig. Gen. Mansour al-Turki, a spokesman for the Saudi Interior Ministry. About a year ago the Saudi government set up a unit to track any "suspicious financial operations," he said.

But the Iraq Study Group said "funding for the Sunni insurgency comes from private individuals within Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states."

Saudi officials say they cracked down on zakat abuses, under pressure from the United States, after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington.

The Iraqi officials, however, said some funding goes to Iraq's Sunni Arab political leadership, who then disburse it. Other money, they said, is funneled directly to insurgents. The distribution network includes Iraqi truck and bus drivers.

Several drivers interviewed by the AP in Middle East capitals said Saudis have been using religious events, like the hajj pilgrimage to Mecca and a smaller pilgrimage, as cover for illicit money transfers. Some money, they said, is carried into Iraq on buses with returning pilgrims.

"They sent boxes full of dollars and asked me to deliver them to certain addresses in Iraq," said one driver, who gave his name only as Hussein, out of fear of reprisal. "I know it is being sent to the resistance, and if I don't take it with me, they will kill me."

He was told what was in the boxes, he said, to ensure he hid the money from authorities at the border.

The two Iraqi officials would not name specific Iraqi Sunnis who have received money from Saudi Arabia. But Iraq issued an arrest warrant for Harith al-Dhari, a Sunni opponent of the Iraqi government, shortly after he visited Saudi Arabia in October. He was accused of sectarian incitement.

Saudi Arabia is a key U.S. ally in the Middle East. The Iraq Study Group report noted that its government has assisted the U.S. military with intelligence on Iraq.

But Saudi citizens have close tribal ties with Sunni Arabs in Iraq, and sympathize with their brethren in what they see as a fight for political control ?- and survival ?- with Iraq's Shiites.

The Saudi government is determined to curb the growing influence of its chief rival in the region, Iran. Tehran is closely linked to Shiite parties that dominate the Iraqi government.

Saudi officials say the kingdom has worked with all sides to reconcile Iraq's warring factions. They have, they point out, held talks in Saudi Arabia with Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose militia is accused of killing Sunnis.

These officials say zakat donations are now channeled through supervised bank accounts. Cash donation boxes, once prevalent in supermarkets and shopping malls, have been eliminated.

Still, Iraq's foreign minister expressed concern about the influence of neighboring Sunni states at a recent Arab foreign ministers meeting in Cairo.

"We hope that Saudi Arabia will keep the same distance from each and all Iraqi parties," Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari later told the AP.

Last month, the New York Times reported that a classified U.S. government report said Iraq's Sunni Arab insurgency had become self-sufficient financially, raising millions from oil smuggling, kidnapping and Islamic charities. The report did not say whether any money came from Saudi Arabia.

Allegations the insurgents have purchased shoulder-fired Strela missiles raise concerns that they are obtaining increasingly sophisticated weapons.

On Nov. 27, a U.S. Air Force F-16 jet crashed while flying in support of American soldiers fighting Anbar province, a Sunni insurgent hotbed. The U.S. military said it had no information about the cause of the crash. Gen. William Caldwell, a U.S. military spokesman, said he would be surprised if the jet was shot down because F-16's have not encountered weapons capable of taking them down in Iraq.

But last week, a spokesman for Saddam's ousted Baath party claimed that fighters armed with a Strela missile had shot down the jet.

"We have stockpiles of Strelas and we are going to surprise them (the Americans)," Khudair al-Murshidi, the spokesman told the AP in Damascus, Syria. He would not say how the Strelas were obtained.

Saddam's army had Strelas; it is not known how many survived the 2003 war. The Strela is a shoulder-fired, low-altitude system with a passive infrared guidance system.

The issue of Saudi funding for the insurgency could gain new prominence as the Bush administration reviews its Iraq policy, especially if it seeks to engage Iran and Syria in peace efforts.

Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, wrote in a recent leaked memo that Washington should "step up efforts to get Saudi Arabia to take a leadership role in supporting Iraq, by using its influence to move Sunni populations out of violence into politics."

Last week, a Saudi who headed a security consulting group close to the Saudi government, Nawaf Obaid, wrote in the Washington Post that Saudi Arabia would use money, oil and support for Sunnis to thwart Iranian efforts to dominate Iraq if American troops pulled out. The Saudi government denied the report and fired Obaid.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061208/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_insurgency_saudi


Did not Bush say to the effect that if you support terrorist you are our enemy. Is that not one of the reasons he gave for attacking Iraq?

Well the citizens of Saudi Arabia support our enemies and Pakistan supports the Teliban which, in turn, support Al Qaeda. But both of them are our friends.

One other thing I might mention about democracy. Hamas, a freely elected government in Gaza, was rejected by the Bush administration because it refuses to recognize Israel and is labeled a terrorist organization. So democracy is not just a freely elected government, it is a freely elected government that must meet the approval of the American government.

I wonder what kind of government Saudi Arabia would have if held a free election and chose its leaders.

I may also mention that this is an indication that this unnecessary invasion of Iraq by Bush is slowly turning into a regional conflict between the Sunnis and Shiites. This has been something Saudi Arabia, as well as other countries in the Middle East, have been fearful of. I believe it is coming to a point that we can no longer control it and a far worse conflict will emerge in the future.

George Bush's invasion of Iraq is a blessing for terrorist who want to destabilize the Middle East.
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 10:38 am
Who Lost Iraq?

The PNAC.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 10:47 am
Bush destablized the Middle East all by himself; what a legacy! The governments of the Middle East should award Bush the "medal of freedom."
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 10:52 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
Bush destablized the Middle East all by himself; what a legacy! The governments of the Middle East should award Bush the "medal of freedom."


Yes, the Middle East was the very model of stability prior to 2003. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 10:54 am
Some people don't understand anything!
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 11:34 am
McT

Wonderful piece! Tah. Lots of good bits, but this war my fav...

Quote:
Alongside Hirohito's concession after Hiroshima - "the war has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage" - we can now add another majestic euphemism, "disappointed by the pace of success".
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 12:45 pm
McGentrix wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
Bush destablized the Middle East all by himself; what a legacy! The governments of the Middle East should award Bush the "medal of freedom."


Yes, the Middle East was the very model of stability prior to 2003. Rolling Eyes


A hell lot more stable then than now, after George Bush screwed things up. Saddam was doing us a big favor. He was a counterweight to Iran and kept a lid on the different factions that's currently tearing the country apart. Things are so bad now we have had Bush apologist on A2K suggesting we should do as Saddam did in order to bring stability to Iraq. They even suggest nuking Iran, literally.

Containment worked and it was cheap.

And now your trying to suggest things are more stable than in 2003 prior to Bush's war?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 12:52 pm
Whose suggesting that Xingu?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 12:57 pm
McG wrote: Yes, the Middle East was the very model of stability prior to 2003.

xingu wrote: A hell lot more stable then than now, after George Bush screwed things up.

McG responded with: Whose suggesting that Xingu?

Do you understand anything about inference? Naw.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 01:11 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
McG wrote: Yes, the Middle East was the very model of stability prior to 2003.

xingu wrote: A hell lot more stable then than now, after George Bush screwed things up.

McG responded with: Whose suggesting that Xingu?

Do you understand anything about inference? Naw.


Laughing Laughing Please stop.... my sides hurt.

C.I. wrote: Bush destablized the Middle East all by himself

McG wrote: Yes, the Middle East was the very model of stability prior to 2003.

Xingu wrote: And now your trying to suggest things are more stable than in 2003 prior to Bush's war?

Obviously the rolly eyes emoticon was not enough to note the sarcasm in my post. Please try to follow what's going on C.I., though I do appreciate the laugh. It is always appreciated.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 01:48 pm
McG, You didn't say anything by your last post, except it provided you with a good laugh. Is that the best you can do?
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 06:09 pm
It's been a bad week for the Pres, even by his standards.

What are his approval figures now?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 06:17 pm
27 percent - and dropping.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 06:19 pm
BTW, with his impossible pursuit to bring democracy to the middle east, his approval rating may drop to the teens - something I predicted many months ago. Bush is so out of touch with the real world, it's a wonder some still support this sociopath.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 06:24 pm
Mac wrote-

Quote:
What are his approval figures now?


What do approval figures have to do with serious issues?

It's mid-term Mac. The voters can have a grumble without it costing them anything. It's called a protest vote or a "Can I have a little more?" squeal.

How were the "approval figures" derived?

Surveys can be conducted at various times of the day and in different locations to arrive at any idea you might care to mention. And that is allowing that the question is objectively phrased which it sometimes isn't.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 06:26 pm
Quote:

Surveys can be conducted at various times of the day and in different locations to arrive at any idea you might care to mention.


A bunch of Righties swore the same thing prior to our elections - that the surveys were meaningless. But the votes matched them pretty closely in the end.

Even more, I think that you would be hard pressed to take a survey at any time or location which would give Bush a positive approval rating.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 06:32 pm
Editorial: Bailing Bush out of his Iraq folly
Dec. 7, 2006. 01:00 AM


U.S. President George Bush brushed aside the United Nations and much of the world when he invaded Iraq in 2003 to topple Saddam Hussein, falsely claiming that Baghdad had weapons of mass destruction. Since the invasion, the human and material cost has been staggering.

More than 55,000 Iraqis have died, as have nearly 3,000 Americans. The United States has spent $400 billion, and may spend $1 trillion. U.S. credibility in the Middle East has been shattered. Terrorism has been fanned.

In recent months, American opinion shapers, including many conservatives who initially cheered Bush on, have abandoned the pretense that Bush is making headway on giving Iraqis "a united, stable and free country." For them, there is no light at the end of this tunnel.

Bush's policy is "not working," and the situation in Iraq is "grave and deteriorating," the Iraq Study Group reported yesterday in the harshest appraisal yet of this rush to folly. The bipartisan panel is headed by James Baker, a Republican and Bush family adviser with long experience on Middle East issues, and Lee Hamilton, a Democrat.

The picture is so bleak that the panel bluntly advises the U.S. to cut its losses and pull most of its 140,000 troops out by early 2008. The rest should train Iraqi troops and provide backup. Washington should also "reduce its political, military or economic support" unless Baghdad makes "substantial progress ... on national reconciliation, security and governance." As well, the U.S. must try to get Iraq's neighbours working together to stop the Sunni-Shia fighting that has plunged Iraq into chaos.

This report is more a lifeline to Bush and his stumbling Republicans in the run-up to the 2008 presidential election than a blueprint for bringing peace and stability to Iraq's 23 million people. Bush will bristle at the panel's critical assessment of his policy. But Congress, now controlled by the Democrats, will press him to embrace the attractive pullout option, whatever may befall Iraqis, and then reap the credit as the U.S. goes to the polls.

The report affects Canada as well. It urges Washington to beef up its military and economic commitment to Afghanistan, where Canada has 2,500 troops and a $1 billion aid program. The report will also increase pressure on the Kabul government to adopt benchmarks for progress.

The Iraq Study Group's chief recommendations may sound the death knell for Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's shaky government and for Iraq's future as a stable unitary state, unless the Bush administration manages in the next 12 months to pull off an improbable string of diplomatic successes that have eluded it for the past six years.

Somehow, Bush must persuade Iraq's feuding Sunnis and Shias to call off their fighting and work together, freeing up U.S. troops to train the new Iraqi army instead of trying to keep a nonexistent peace. After demonizing Iran and Syria, Bush must reverse course, engage them and persuade them to stop fanning the conflict. And he must make good on his promise of a Palestinian state, with security guarantees for Israel.

This is all sensible advice worth trying.

But in Washington, whether Bush succeeds or not is fast becoming a secondary issue. The main issue is how quickly will the troops come home. In that light, the Iraq Study Group has not cobbled together a "winning" strategy so much as an exit strategy. After one last diplomatic flurry, Washington will feel free to cut its losses and call it a day, come what may. For Americans, who are souring on the war, that spells relief.

For Iraqis, who were promised better when the U.S. invaded, it spells uncertainty at best ?- and very possibly tragedy.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 06:34 pm
c.i. wrote-

Quote:
Bush is so out of touch with the real world, it's a wonder some still support this sociopath.


Do you mean to say that all that electoral process which we followed avidly in the run up to Mr Bush's election by American voters and the hundreds of millions of dollars expended and all that razz resulted in you being led by a "sociopath".

Perhaps Irish and Polish jokes are out of date. A new level of mass stupidity has been discovered by c.i.

Perhaps you should run a monkey in 2008.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 06:36 pm
Seriously, a monkey would have been much safer for the world - including the UK.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Who Lost Iraq?
  3. » Page 34
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.13 seconds on 02/26/2026 at 08:59:36