Chance of oil law reaching Iraqi Parliament soon called dim

[postcon]

Chance of oil law reaching Iraqi Parliament soon called dim

The United States and Iran have set a date for ambassador-level talks in Baghdad on the deteriorating security situation in Iraq — the first such meeting since late May, U.S. and Iraqi officials said Sunday.


The two sides will sit down together on Tuesday, according to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari and U.S. Embassy spokesman Philip Reeker, amid U.S. allegations that Tehran is supporting violent Shiite militias in the country, but Zebari's comment was the first confirmation of a date.
"I can confirm that the United States and Iran have agreed to meet on July 24th in Baghdad," Zebari told The Associated Press in a telephone interview. He said the discussions would be at the ambassadorial level and would focus on the situation in Iraq as opposed to U.S.-Iran tensions. Reeker also confirmed the date but said he had no other information to what has previously been announced.
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Tuesday that Washington was ready to hold new direct talks with Iran on the security situation in Iraq.
Iraq's fragile government has been pressing for another meeting between the two nations with the greatest influence over its future, and Iran has repeatedly signaled its willingness to sit down.
The May 28 meeting marked a break in a 27-year diplomatic freeze and was expected to have been followed within a month by a second encounter. But following that meeting, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other U.S. officials said Iran had not scaled back what the United States alleges is a concerted effort to arm militants and harm U.S. troops.


Tensions also have risen over Tehran's detention of four Iranian-American scholars and activists charged with endangering national security. The U.S. has demanded their release, saying the charges against them are false.
At the same time, Iran has called for the release of five Iranians detained in Iraq, whom the United States has said are the operations chief and other members of Iran s elite Quds Force, which is accused of arming and training Iraqi militants. Iran says the five are diplomats in Iraq with permission of the government.
As recently as Sunday, U.S. troops detained two suspected weapons smugglers who may linked to Iran's elite Quds force, the military said. The suspects and a number of weapons were seized during a raid on a rural farm compound in eastern Iraq, near the Iranian border, according to the statement.
"The suspects may be associated with a network of terrorists that have been smuggling explosively formed projectiles (EFPs), other weapons, personnel and money from Iran into Iraq," the military said, referring to powerful, armor-piercing roadside bombs that have killed hundreds of American forces.


McCormack said the U.S. wanted to use the meeting to warn Iran against continuing its support for militants, and he offered no explanation for the apparent change of heart about meeting with Tehran.
Iraq had hoped to arrange a higher-level meeting between Rice and Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, but the two exchanged only stiff pleasantries during a recent international conference on Iraq's security in Egypt.
The United States is pursuing a two-track strategy with Iran that reflects the high stakes in any engagement with a nation President Bush accuses of bankrolling terrorism and building a nuclear bomb.


The fitful talks in Baghdad are one element. Then there are the U.S. Navy's exercises in the Persian Gulf this spring and a U.S. push to impose new U.N. sanctions on Iran over its disputed nuclear program.
The United States broke off diplomatic ties with Iran following the 1979 storming of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and the holding of American hostages for 444 days.


Any direct talks between the two nations are rare, and even fleeting encounters at larger gatherings or diplomatic dinners are scrutinized for clues to the future of a troubled relationship.
Iran denies the U.S. allegations about its activities in neighboring Iraq, which like Iran has a majority Shiite Muslim population.


In Baghdad, two powerful legislators said on Sunday prospects were dim for passage of the a U.S.-backed oil law before parliament's August vacation, casting a new cloud over a pivotal September progress report that could weigh heavily on the future of the U.S. military presence in Iraq.
American officials have pressed Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and parliament to pass laws that Washington deems essential to restoring stability in Iraq — the oil law is at the top of the list.
Absent progress of legislative matters and sectarian reconciliation, there is flagging support in Congress for keeping American soldiers, Marines and Air Force personnel in the country.


Mahmoud Othman, a Kurdish lawmaker, and Abbas al-Bayati, a Shiite Turkman parliamentarian, said the oil law was not likely to be debated before September because political leaders have been unable to agree on a final draft of the legislation.
"There must first be political consensus between the major blocs on the law but there is not enough time for this to be done before the August break," said al-Bayati, a member of the United Iraqi Alliance, the largest Shiite bloc in the 275-seat house.


The oil law, approved by al-Maliki's Cabinet but not sent to parliament because of major opposition, calls for a fair distribution among Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis of the income from Iraq's massive petroleum resources .
Sunnis, who make up the bulk of the insurgency, have virtually no known oil reserves in their territories yet still oppose the current draft legislation. Kurds, who control large reserves in northern Iraq, oppose the measure because it could loosen their control over a key asset.
American commander Gen. David Petraeus must report to Congress on progress in Iraq by Sept. 15, and the absence of legislative progress will make it difficult to issue a positive assessment.

Al-Maliki has called for parliament to cancel its monthlong vacation or at least limit it to two weeks — a plea that has not resonated among lawmakers.


The infusion of about 30,000 more American forces, completed last month, was U.S. President George W. Bush's attempt to calm the capital and provide "breathing space" to pass the legislation. But so far nothing of consequence has reached the parliament floor and violence has persisted.
Iraqi police, morgue and hospital officials reported at least 38 Iraqis were killed or found dead across the country Sunday.


U.S. troops, meanwhile, captured two suspected weapons smugglers believed linked to Iran's elite Quds force, the American military said, as Washington pressed allegations — just days before a resumption of bilateral talks on the issue — that Tehran is supporting violence in Iraq.


The suspects and a number of weapons were seized during a raid on farm in eastern Iraq, near the Iranian border, according to a military statement.
"The suspects may be associated with a network of terrorists that have been smuggling explosively formed projectiles (EFPs), other weapons, personnel and money from Iran into Iraq," the military said, referring to powerful, armor-piercing roadside bombs that have killed hundreds of U.S. soldiers in recent months.
http://www.iraqupdates.com/p_articles.php/article/19835

[Kurt3628]

I told everyone this was going to happen

[jcav]

You told everyone what? That they would be sending out smoke screens?

There is no way in hell that GWB would let them go away without having this done first. They would leave and be told, don't come back. Maliki will pass all the laws and put new people in their place. Sorry, no link. Just common sense. Plus $3.00 plus for the RV. Where's the party??? :happy64:

[Goes4ever]

I told everyone this was going to happen
hmm, never told me :drunk:

[everwiser]

There is no way in hell that GWB would let them go away without having this done first.
GWB can command the troops to be there and to do this or that. However, GWB has no control over ther GOI; period...

[Shau - Kenshin]

Its starting to be come a thing where you could almost set your watch by these articles. One says yeah, the other says no....

With so much on the line for Sept with the OIL SUMMIT HAPPENING THEN, you see this article for what it is....

[hammerhead]

GWB cancommand the troops, and it is time th=o command them to start getting ready to re-deploy in time for the "vacation"!!!!!!! Our guys, on the ground don't get vacations...just hit the ground running. If the Iraqi governing body takes a vacation, the ships and planes containing our troops, And EVERYTHING WE SENT OR CARRIED IN, should head for the U.S. I personally getting tired of them "thumbing their noses" and having absolutely no regard for our dead and wounded, not to mention their attitude toward the guys that are currently putting their lives on the line daily, so these people can act like the United States Congress.
Just my thinking on this, but is there anyone out there who is tired of being the Police force for the world, just to be ridiculed for the effort?!?!?!?!!!!!!

[jcav]

GWB can command the troops to be there and to do this or that. However, GWB has no control over ther GOI; period...


Yes he does. But, he doesn't want to make it seem like that. He will give them a chance to do it alone, and if not, well we will see. The big boys have way too much riding on this. Time will tell if I am wrong. Hope I am not.

[MR32SLIM]

You told everyone what? That they would be sending out smoke screens?

There is no way in hell that GWB would let them go away without having this done first. They would leave and be told, don't come back. Maliki will pass all the laws and put new people in their place. Sorry, no link. Just common sense. Plus $3.00 plus for the RV. Where's the party??? :happy64:

Hate to break the bad news, but GWB has been an utter failure in every nearly one of his endeavors, and Iraq is no exception.

The dinar probably will appreciate in value, but I don't think that Bush will have anything to do with it. He can only apply pressure, and he's already said he won't pull out the troops, and by doing that he's basically lost any leverage he might have had. All he can do is sit there and ask the Iraqi legislation to pass the laws soon, but what's he going to do if they don't? Leave Iraq and have to own up to America that he wasted all of our tax money and is responsible for thousands of wasted lives?

We're not going to leave Iraq, and as long as we stay fighting their war for them, they aren't going to have the incentive to get things done. Maliki, not Bush, holds all the cards here. Slow, stable growth is how it's going to go down. If there is a sudden RV, it won't be because of anything Bush says or does.

[JamesbodeanAR]

noted MRMUSLIM
have a good day

[DallasDinar]

Why would we think even if they skipped or postponed their vacation that anything would change they have had months and have done nothing. I just thought these guys were worthless, they make the US congress look like hard working braniacs.....Wow unbelievable!

[British Bulldog]

Well...... What can I say. Best go home then, nothing to see anymore. :lmao:


Hate to break the bad news, but GWB has been an utter failure in every nearly one of his endeavors, and Iraq is no exception.

The dinar probably will appreciate in value, but I don't think that Bush will have anything to do with it. He can only apply pressure, and he's already said he won't pull out the troops, and by doing that he's basically lost any leverage he might have had. All he can do is sit there and ask the Iraqi legislation to pass the laws soon, but what's he going to do if they don't? Leave Iraq and have to own up to America that he wasted all of our tax money and is responsible for thousands of wasted lives?

We're not going to leave Iraq, and as long as we stay fighting their war for them, they aren't going to have the incentive to get things done. Maliki, not Bush, holds all the cards here. Slow, stable growth is how it's going to go down. If there is a sudden RV, it won't be because of anything Bush says or does.

[MR32SLIM]

Well...... What can I say. Best go home then, nothing to see anymore. :lmao:

Trust me, I want to see Bush's plan work as well as the rest of you. The difference is, I'm a realist in the sense that I'm willing to acknowledge that perhaps Bush screwed things up in the pre-planning phase. That's what happens when you surround yourself with sycophants who know nothing about history or geography.

Bush needs Iraq to progress, or else he will undoubtedly go down in history as a failure. The problem is that he went "all in" before the flop (a poker analogy for those who play) and now he can't get out, even if he wants to. Maliki has publicly stated that he doesn't want the US in Iraq, that the Iraqi security forces are equipped to handle the situation, and whether or not that's the case is a moot point--if Bush really had the power to make change, as some here believe, he would have already exercised it. The more influence he exerts, the more backlash it will create as people will see Maliki as just a puppet. If he replaces Maliki, so much for the theory of democracy at work--how can he just replace a democraticaly elected leader in a sovereign nation who hasn't broken any international laws?

The dinar will probably appreciate, and Iraq's economy will eventually improve but Bush is on the sidelines watching with the rest of us, hoping for the best. More than likely, all of this will unfold after he leaves office, and he'll receive no credit for success, and all the credit for a failure.

I'm just trying to be impartial and realistic. I think there are too many people here living off blind faith which is great for providing a direction in life, but not always practical in economic matters, otherwise we'd all be millionaires by now.

[KnightsCharger]

Hate to break the bad news, but GWB has been an utter failure in every nearly one of his endeavors, and Iraq is no exception.

The dinar probably will appreciate in value, but I don't think that Bush will have anything to do with it. He can only apply pressure, and he's already said he won't pull out the troops, and by doing that he's basically lost any leverage he might have had. All he can do is sit there and ask the Iraqi legislation to pass the laws soon, but what's he going to do if they don't? Leave Iraq and have to own up to America that he wasted all of our tax money and is responsible for thousands of wasted lives?

We're not going to leave Iraq, and as long as we stay fighting their war for them, they aren't going to have the incentive to get things done. Maliki, not Bush, holds all the cards here. Slow, stable growth is how it's going to go down. If there is a sudden RV, it won't be because of anything Bush says or does.

Don't be so quick to say GWB cannot pull the trigger on that miserable amalgamation of "stupid" called the parliment. If GWB choses too, he could set off an economic firestorm in support of Gen. Patreus, that would send that group running for cover from their own constituents. The US military is gaining the trust of the Iraqi citizens just as was done in Anbar, the citizens have had a stomach full of their goverment. If politically, the parliment can't get their house in order Bush will do it for them.

I like to think of the possibilty as an "Economic Nuclear Bomb" with his appointments heading the World Bank and the IMF, he simply needs to initiate a back up plan to drive out the hardliners from parliment.I believe that the US can leverage/back up internationally the nid, with or without the support of the GoI.

The result would be the bankruptcy of the goverment in Iraq. An NID with real value would empower the KRG literally overnight, it would initiate investment in the ISX, and put the GoI in the difficult position of having to back the NID or risk collapse. They only way they could avoid a collapse of the GoI, desolve parliment and replace Maliki would be to pass an oil law immediately in what ever form it is at the time.

GWB will order them to pass the law or the US will demand payment in USD for all NID held at the Federal Reserve at the rate set by the IMF. At that point the GoI has 2 options "payup or open up" He has the power to force the the NID to be traded internationally, don't think he doesn't. It's not the option he would want to take, but if the parliment is too infested with terrorist/Iranian sympathizers to reconcile the parties, then he will see to it that they answer to their constituents one way or the other.

That oil is coming out of Iraq whether they like it or not, And those that play by the rules will be wealthy and at peace just like the arraingments made with the Sunni leaders in Anbar, they would be so rich they will be able to spread their wealth to their tribesman, and will fight along side of the US to protect the oil fields and the companies that will increase their wealth in line with the Sunnis of SA.

The big loser with this scenario is the the Shiite and their Iranian allies, The US will have no problem with embargoing everything coming in from Iran, GWB is looking for an excuse to cut them out anyway in order to put more economic pressure on them as it is. But thats why Malaki is PM, and has GWB's support. GWB would preffer that the Shiite with a fellow Shiite as PM reconcile w/o interference from Iran, but if not I can almost garantee that he will do what is necessary to get the oil out, no matter who dies or who lives. The US will ally with the kurds and the Sunni, and down goes the Shiite. Tick,Tick,Tick, BOOOOOM!! economically speaking!!!!

That's all I've got too say about that!!!

[DallasDinar]

Trust me, I want to see Bush's plan work as well as the rest of you. The difference is, I'm a realist in the sense that I'm willing to acknowledge that perhaps Bush screwed things up in the pre-planning phase. That's what happens when you surround yourself with sycophants who know nothing about history or geography.

Bush needs Iraq to progress, or else he will undoubtedly go down in history as a failure. The problem is that he went "all in" before the flop (a poker analogy for those who play) and now he can't get out, even if he wants to. Maliki has publicly stated that he doesn't want the US in Iraq, that the Iraqi security forces are equipped to handle the situation, and whether or not that's the case is a moot point--if Bush really had the power to make change, as some here believe, he would have already exercised it. The more influence he exerts, the more backlash it will create as people will see Maliki as just a puppet. If he replaces Maliki, so much for the theory of democracy at work--how can he just replace a democraticaly elected leader in a sovereign nation who hasn't broken any international laws?

The dinar will probably appreciate, and Iraq's economy will eventually improve but Bush is on the sidelines watching with the rest of us, hoping for the best. More than likely, all of this will unfold after he leaves office, and he'll receive no credit for success, and all the credit for a failure.

I'm just trying to be impartial and realistic. I think there are too many people here living off blind faith which is great for providing a direction in life, but not always practical in economic matters, otherwise we'd all be millionaires by now.


Well lets see we have pumped billions into Iraq and have forgiven over 10 billion in debt. I guess we could back out on that and request payment do immediately. I believe there is so much going on behind the scenes that we are not privy to. Lets see whats happens, could be one of these :) or one of these :mad: , who knows...

[CaddieMan]

I think Iraqis have invented a new meaning for the word D-E-L-A-Y:no: :( :mad: :eek:

[kev655]

You told everyone what? That they would be sending out smoke screens?

There is no way in hell that GWB would let them go away without having this done first. They would leave and be told, don't come back. Maliki will pass all the laws and put new people in their place. Sorry, no link. Just common sense. Plus $3.00 plus for the RV. Where's the party??? :happy64:

Really? GWB told them they had until June 30th to pass the HCL or he'd withdraw support for the Maliki Govt. He did nothing and the Iraqis don't believe he has the guts to withdraw support because of the OIL. They have him by the proverbial xxxxx!! That's why they don't care...

[MR32SLIM]

"he simply needs to initiate a back up plan to drive out the hardliners from parliment.

I agree that with international support, the dinar can be valued at anything. But if the intent of Iraq's mission was to create a democracy in the middle east, driving out "hardliners" is kind of hypocritical, don't you think? After all, these parliament leaders were in fact elected to represent their constituents through a democratic process that Bush himself hailed as a huge milestone.

I agree that they need to be removed, but that's why Bush is stuck in between a rock and a hard place. The democratic procedure he so very much wanted is not working to pass the legislation he wanted even more (access to oil). How would you feel if, because your district is small, a congressman from a larger district had the ability to kick out whomever he pleased because they didn't support the laws he wanted to pass? It's the same idea here--Bush, no matter how much he wants to, cannot simply drive out the hardliners because they are in fact doing their job. Unless, of course, he's willing to admit that he wants to create a democracy in the middle easy pursuant to a US agenda, in which case he'll pretty much lose the support of the rest of the world.

I think Van Bismark said it best: "Laws are like sausages. It's better not to see them made." There's a lot of history and geography behind these laws, lots of special interests playing a role too, and it's going to be a long, drawn out mess before tangible progress is visible. At this point, Bush's best option is to pray to the God that told him to get us into the war and ask for a little more assistance.

[EBJNYC]

Don't be so quick to say GWB cannot pull the trigger on that miserable amalgamation of "stupid" called the parliment. If GWB choses too, he could set off an economic firestorm in support of Gen. Patreus, that would send that group running for cover from their own constituents. The US military is gaining the trust of the Iraqi citizens just as was done in Anbar, the citizens have had a stomach full of their goverment. If politically, the parliment can't get their house in order Bush will do it for them.

I like to think of the possibilty as an "Economic Nuclear Bomb" with his appointments heading the World Bank and the IMF, he simply needs to initiate a back up plan to drive out the hardliners from parliment.I believe that the US can leverage/back up internationally the nid, with or without the support of the GoI.

The result would be the bankruptcy of the goverment in Iraq. An NID with real value would empower the KRG literally overnight, it would initiate investment in the ISX, and put the GoI in the difficult position of having to back the NID or risk collapse. They only way they could avoid a collapse of the GoI, desolve parliment and replace Maliki would be to pass an oil law immediately in what ever form it is at the time.

GWB will order them to pass the law or the US will demand payment in USD for all NID held at the Federal Reserve at the rate set by the IMF. At that point the GoI has 2 options "payup or open up" He has the power to force the the NID to be traded internationally, don't think he doesn't. It's not the option he would want to take, but if the parliment is too infested with terrorist/Iranian sympathizers to reconcile the parties, then he will see to it that they answer to their constituents one way or the other.

That oil is coming out of Iraq whether they like it or not, And those that play by the rules will be wealthy and at peace just like the arraingments made with the Sunni leaders in Anbar, they would be so rich they will be able to spread their wealth to their tribesman, and will fight along side of the US to protect the oil fields and the companies that will increase their wealth in line with the Sunnis of SA.

The big loser with this scenario is the the Shiite and their Iranian allies, The US will have no problem with embargoing everything coming in from Iran, GWB is looking for an excuse to cut them out anyway in order to put more economic pressure on them as it is. But thats why Malaki is PM, and has GWB's support. GWB would preffer that the Shiite with a fellow Shiite as PM reconcile w/o interference from Iran, but if not I can almost garantee that he will do what is necessary to get the oil out, no matter who dies or who lives. The US will ally with the kurds and the Sunni, and down goes the Shiite. Tick,Tick,Tick, BOOOOOM!! economically speaking!!!!

That's all I've got too say about that!!!

NOW THAT'S A POST.....WOW....SCARED OF YOU DUDE...FEELS LIKE MY FIRST BRUCE LEE MOVIE....BAM....BAM...BAM !!!!

[DallasDinar]

That's all I've got too say about that!!![/quote]


And boy you said it...I agree 100%, all those that think Bush doesnt have the power make a change think again...it will get done.

[KnightsCharger]

I agree that with international support, the dinar can be valued at anything. But if the intent of Iraq's mission was to create a democracy in the middle east, driving out "hardliners" is kind of hypocritical, don't you think? After all, these parliament leaders were in fact elected to represent their constituents through a democratic process that Bush himself hailed as a huge milestone.

I agree that they need to be removed, but that's why Bush is stuck in between a rock and a hard place. The democratic procedure he so very much wanted is not working to pass the legislation he wanted even more (access to oil). How would you feel if, because your district is small, a congressman from a larger district had the ability to kick out whomever he pleased because they didn't support the laws he wanted to pass? It's the same idea here--Bush, no matter how much he wants to, cannot simply drive out the hardliners because they are in fact doing their job. Unless, of course, he's willing to admit that he wants to create a democracy in the middle easy pursuant to a US agenda, in which case he'll pretty much lose the support of the rest of the world.

I think Van Bismark said it best: "Laws are like sausages. It's better not to see them made." There's a lot of history and geography behind these laws, lots of special interests playing a role too, and it's going to be a long, drawn out mess before tangible progress is visible. At this point, Bush's best option is to pray to the God that told him to get us into the war and ask for a little more assistance.

That's the hitch "democracy", rest assured the prospects of a democratic goverment in the heart of the ME "is" and allways "was" a high profile cover for the the true nature of Arabic deal making/diplomacy with the US, Just look at our relationship with the Saudi's. The US could care less if the oil is pumped from a "dictator"/Iraq prior to 1991, or a "monarchy"/Saudi Arabia. Absolutly their would be a star along side of the Bush family crest for establishing a parlimentary goverment in the middle of the ME, but that's just a bonus.

This country will never leave Iraq, we're their to stay and it's not in order to establish a democracy, if that were the case we would be all over the world uprooting dictators like plucking peaches from a tree, we're there for the oil "period". And could care less who we ally with, or who has to be "removed" in order to keep our soccer moms from flippin' their wigs when they have to park their SUV's for a 4 seat, no power Hybrid.

Bottom line this president is about the US economy, and the stability of our economy and our allies over the long haul. There is zero chance that any US president would put US troops at risk for "democracy" since the debacle of the Vietnam War. It's a beautifull thing to behold, We can raise the bar with "democracy" as the battle cry for war, but at the end of the day It's about oil allways has been and allways will be.

Now don't go sayin' oil is not worth the sacrifice, you and others will be whistling a different tune when a gallon of gas costs you as much as an hours wages, this is real world politics and it's played for keeps, there are no second chances. You can't ask for a do-over, The NID is as safe an investment as we will ever come again for generations, No ticked off Jihadi is gonna stop the US from getting the oil it needs to run our economy, It's just that simple!!:cool:

[jcav]

Don't be so quick to say GWB cannot pull the trigger on that miserable amalgamation of "stupid" called the parliment. If GWB choses too, he could set off an economic firestorm in support of Gen. Patreus, that would send that group running for cover from their own constituents. The US military is gaining the trust of the Iraqi citizens just as was done in Anbar, the citizens have had a stomach full of their goverment. If politically, the parliment can't get their house in order Bush will do it for them.

I like to think of the possibilty as an "Economic Nuclear Bomb" with his appointments heading the World Bank and the IMF, he simply needs to initiate a back up plan to drive out the hardliners from parliment.I believe that the US can leverage/back up internationally the nid, with or without the support of the GoI.



The result would be the bankruptcy of the goverment in Iraq. An NID with real value would empower the KRG literally overnight, it would initiate investment in the ISX, and put the GoI in the difficult position of having to back the NID or risk collapse. They only way they could avoid a collapse of the GoI, desolve parliment and replace Maliki would be to pass an oil law immediately in what ever form it is at the time.

GWB will order them to pass the law or the US will demand payment in USD for all NID held at the Federal Reserve at the rate set by the IMF. At that point the GoI has 2 options "payup or open up" He has the power to force the the NID to be traded internationally, don't think he doesn't. It's not the option he would want to take, but if the parliment is too infested with terrorist/Iranian sympathizers to reconcile the parties, then he will see to it that they answer to their constituents one way or the other.

That oil is coming out of Iraq whether they like it or not, And those that play by the rules will be wealthy and at peace just like the arraingments made with the Sunni leaders in Anbar, they would be so rich they will be able to spread their wealth to their tribesman, and will fight along side of the US to protect the oil fields and the companies that will increase their wealth in line with the Sunnis of SA.

The big loser with this scenario is the the Shiite and their Iranian allies, The US will have no problem with embargoing everything coming in from Iran, GWB is looking for an excuse to cut them out anyway in order to put more economic pressure on them as it is. But thats why Malaki is PM, and has GWB's support. GWB would preffer that the Shiite with a fellow Shiite as PM reconcile w/o interference from Iran, but if not I can almost garantee that he will do what is necessary to get the oil out, no matter who dies or who lives. The US will ally with the kurds and the Sunni, and down goes the Shiite. Tick,Tick,Tick, BOOOOOM!! economically speaking!!!!

That's all I've got too say about that!!!

Thank you. Exactly.

[Jimbojoe]

Some said it Passed and some say it didn't . Dose anybody know REALLY Know ? :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

[Hot Sauce 080]

That's the hitch "democracy", rest assured the prospects of a democratic goverment in the heart of the ME "is" and allways "was" a high profile cover for the the true nature of Arabic deal making/diplomacy with the US, Just look at our relationship with the Saudi's. The US could care less if the oil is pumped from a "dictator"/Iraq prior to 1991, or a "monarchy"/Saudi Arabia. Absolutly their would be a star along side of the Bush family crest for establishing a parlimentary goverment in the middle of the ME, but that's just a bonus.

This country will never leave Iraq, we're their to stay and it's not in order to establish a democracy, if that were the case we would be all over the world uprooting dictators like plucking peaches from a tree, we're there for the oil "period". And could care less who we ally with, or who has to be "removed" in order to keep our soccer moms from flippin' their wigs when they have to park their SUV's for a 4 seat, no power Hybrid.

Bottom line this president is about the US economy, and the stability of our economy and our allies over the long haul. There is zero chance that any US president would put US troops at risk for "democracy" since the debacle of the Vietnam War. It's a beautifull thing to behold, We can raise the bar with "democracy" as the battle cry for war, but at the end of the day It's about oil allways has been and allways will be.

Now don't go sayin' oil is not worth the sacrifice, you and others will be whistling a different tune when a gallon of gas costs you as much as an hours wages, this is real world politics and it's played for keeps, there are no second chances. You can't ask for a do-over, The NID is as safe an investment as we will ever come again for generations, No ticked off Jihadi is gonna stop the US from getting the oil it needs to run our economy, It's just that simple!!:cool:



Bravo.. KC.. Bravo:happy64:
Come On you Freakin Dinar!!!

[KnightsCharger]

Thanx all for the positive responses! Bottom line for me is the sacrifices our and our allies troops are making and will continue to make is as justifiable in Iraq just as it was on Europe and Asia in WW2.

They sacrifice on the orders of their commander and chief to maintain our way of life. To keep us free and w/o fear of reprisal from terrorist and extremists, reference 9/11 hear, we cannot be a great nation if we live in fear. It is far better that we mobilize our forces on the battle field where the enemy makes plans to attack the US and our allies.

There is no magic bullet to end the hatred of the Jihadists against the western powers, but I thank God our troops stand in honor before our enemy, so that I can walk to the park and play catch with my grandkids without fear for their safety.

From my perspective there is no "choice" for war, but there has to be a necessity greater than any one individual. I can sit back and reflect on the history of the war, and be thankfull that since 9/11 our troops have kept us all safe.

If diplomacy was the answer the Cole would not have been hit, the twins would have been shaken in 94, and they would be standing today. Ripping daily articles out of Iraq can be both fun and frustrating, but make no mistake we are safer today than we have been in the past. And w/o the actions of GWB we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. I just hope he doesn't delay too long before he really gets economically tough, our troops have allready proven their metal, now it's up to our politicians to prove theirs. God bless the troops!:cool:

[Rving]

The Hydrocarbon law ....the crime of the centry!!!

[DinarDuane]

What do you think about this?
You don't want to know.

[crabman]

Well Mr. Cheney is showing up in Baghdad on Tuesday wonder what is all about.

[williambedloe]

Really? GWB told them they had until June 30th to pass the HCL or he'd withdraw support for the Maliki Govt. He did nothing and the Iraqis don't believe he has the guts to withdraw support because of the OIL. They have him by the proverbial xxxxx!! That's why they don't care...

Bush may have said that, but ICI has the target date for oil law as end of 2007, and I think they are trying to meet that.

What we now have is that Council of Ministers (Fed) and Kurds agreed to the draft, some changes were made to it that the Kurds did not like, and we are back to the drawing board again. What they don't seem to get is that the longer the oil law is delayed, the longer the delay in getting much needed FDI to rebuild their dilapidated infrastructure.

Bush can do nothing, as they are a sovereign nation, and as such, if they want to royally screw things up by delaying, it is well within their right to do so.

[AAD]

The Hydrocarbon law ....the crime of the centry!!!

Moved to...

http://www.investorsiraq.com/showthread.php?t=48584