Thread: Iraq/Dinar News. before Febuary 2nd 2006

Originally Posted by bigred52

"who's on first " was performed by Abbott and Costello not Laurel and Hardy

Ok, I knew all this stuff was confusing

Originally Posted by day dreamer

I wasn't sure where to put this, I didn't want to put it in rumor (because it's not a rumor) and to me it's news from the bank I went to so here it is
Last Friday Jan 19, a friend and me went to Chase bank in Beaumont, Tx to buy more dinars and open an account.
The lady opening our acount asked me how much I wanted to open my account with and I told her minimum amouont for now until the dinars revalued. When i said that to her she then asked me and my friend "What's up with that, the dinars, all of a sudden Exxon people started coming in this week like crazy buying dinars"
My friend and I looked at each other and smiled, because to us exxon people starting to buy dinnars the way she said was good news to us.
Anyway just wanted to let everybody know of our banking experience and the news we had learned.

Originally Posted by shotgunsusie

gotta know them oil folks know EXACTLY what is about to happen, lol.

And now this:

Iraq in talks with Chevron, Exxon for $3 bln petrochemical plant

PrintE-mailDisable live quotesRSSDigg itDel.icio.usBy Spencer Swartz
Last Update: 2:58 PM ET Jan 25, 2007


LONDON (MarketWatch) -- Iraq is in negotiations with Chevron Corp (CVS) and Exxon Mobil Corp (XOM) towards building a new $3 billion petrochemical facility and is in talks with several other Western firms over industrial projects.
In an interview Thursday, Iraq's minister for industry and minerals Fawzi Hariri said the discussions with Chevron and Exxon began this week in Washington and are at an early stage.
"It will be one or the other company for this new facility, not both," he said. "We're hoping to have a (Memorandum of Understanding) in place by about July."
-Contact: 201-938-5400

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/stor...3AD120474FA%7D

Iraq in talks with Chevron, Exxon for $3B petrochemical plant

01/25/2007

By SPENCER SWARTZ / Associated Press


Iraq is in negotiations with Chevron Corp. and Exxon Mobil Corp. to build a new $3 billion petrochemical facility, and is in talks with several other Western companies over industrial projects.

In an interview Thursday, Iraq's minister for industry and minerals Fawzi Hariri said the discussions with Chevron and Irving, Texas-based Exxon began this week in Washington and are at an early stage.

"It will be one or the other company for this new facility, not both," he said. "We're hoping to have a (Memorandum of Understanding) in place by about July."

Hariri took his first trip to Washington early this week and met with several companies about industrial projects. The other leg of his trip took him to London, where he also met with a number of firms.

The minister, who has been in his post since last June, said the issue of security was a prominent feature of the discussions, given the sectarian conflict that has come to characterize Iraq over the past year. He said he emphasized to the companies that much of the violence has been in Baghdad. "What you see on the television is real ... but it's concentrated in the capital," said Hariri.

The discussions with the companies have been greatly aided by an Iraq foreign investment law that won final approval last October, he said.

Hariri said he hoped discussions with ABB Lummus, a unit of Swiss-Swedish electrical engineering company ABB Ltd., Dow Chemical Corp. and KBR Inc. over rehabilitating existing facilities would lead to tentative agreements by around March. "This is what we're hoping for but we will see," he said.

The contract with ABB Lummus could be worth $100 million, while Dow Chemical's contract could be $40 million to $50 million, the minister added. The contract forms for all the deals under discussion would include joint ventures.

While in the United States, the minister also held talks with the U.S. Geological Survey about performing a nationwide survey of Iraq's potential mineral base. He said he "had a good discussion" with the Export-Import Bank about possibly providing some of the financing for a nationwide survey to gauge Iraq's resources.

"We know we have iron ore and we think we have copper and probably gold," he said, adding that those opinions were based on old data.

Hariri plans to have discussions with General Electric Corp. over possible power turbine contracts and with General Motors Corp. over contracts for service vehicles, such as fire trucks and ambulances. The latter contract would be worth $80 million or less.

Over the next several years, the minister said Iraq would look to privatize all of state-owned industry, which number around 60 companies. He also said Asian companies were keen to enter discussions with the Iraqi government over industrial contracts.

Hariri said Iraq was also in discussions with San Francisco-based Bechtel Corp. over engineering contracts, but did not elaborate. The company recently said it was leaving Iraq after suffering through a spree of violence that killed 52 workers. The departure of the company served as another sobering reminder of how the carnage in Iraq has scrambled the United States' ambitions to rebuild the country.
Dallas Morning News | News for Dallas, Texas | Texas/Southwest

Iraqi PM, Sunni lawmaker exchange insults

By BASSEM MROUE





Al-Maliki vows no letup against terrorism

Insurgent group posts video of helicopter wreckage

Sadr City mayor: Deal reached to keep weapons off streets

Saddam deputy's sentencing delayed


Images of Iraq




BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) — A Sunni lawmaker accused the Shiite prime minister of persecuting his sect and said his government’s efforts at national reconciliation were nothing more than a sham. The premier accused the Sunni of supporting the kidnapping of Shiites and refused to shake his hand.

This televised display from the floor of the Iraqi parliament on Thursday mirrored the sectarian divide on the streets of Baghdad, where a suicide car bombing killed at least 26 people in the Shiite neighborhood of Karradah and two rockets slammed into the heavy fortified Green Zone not far from the U.S. Embassy.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s heated exchange with Sunni legislator and cleric Abdul-Nasser al-Janabi came as he sought support from lawmakers for his and President Bush’s plan to crush sectarian violence in Baghdad.

The prime minister vowed to go after those behind Baghdad’s rampant violence no matter where they try to hide and regardless of sectarian beliefs, promising at the same time to ensure the human rights of innocent Iraqis.

“We are full of hope. We have no other choice but to use force and any place where we receive fire will not be safe even if it is a school, a mosque, a political party office or home,” al-Maliki said. “There will be no safe place in Iraq for terrorists.”

But al-Janabi took the floor and said al-Maliki’s government had gratuitously and summarily fired former members of Saddam Hussein’s ousted Baath party from government jobs, sentenced people to death for political reasons and detained without reason Sunni pilgrims returning from the hajj in Saudi Arabia this month.

He also accused prime minister of running a sham program to reconcile Sunni-Shiite differences that have produced a near-civil war in Baghdad and prompted the new security drive — the third since al-Maliki took office May 25.

“The firing of officers and civil servants under the pretext of de-Baathification should stop. What kind of national reconciliation are you talking about when you are implementing rules that marginalize” Sunnis, he asked.

“Stop sentencing innocent people to death because such sentences are politically motivated,” al-Janabi implored, adding that Sunnis do not trust the government.

Al-Maliki counterattacked by implying al-Janabi was responsible for the kidnapping of 150 people in Anbar province, the Sunni stronghold west of Baghdad.

“This brother will trust the Cabinet when I come forward with your file and show that you are responsible. There are 150 people detained in Buhayrat area and you don’t speak about them,” al-Maliki snapped. Buhayrat is an insurgent stronghold in Anbar.

Legislators believed to be Shiites applauded the remark.

Parliament speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, a Sunni, then organized a short suspension of the debate, called a vote on the security plan — which was approved unanimously — and continued with normal business.

Al-Maliki refused to shake hands when al-Janabi approached him after the session.

Angry and insulting exchanges have become normal in Iraq’s 275-member parliament, but the involvement of the nation’s leader heightened the tension.

Parliamentary sessions previously were broadcast live, but the government has since ordered them to be aired with a 30-minute delay to allow editing. During Thursday’s session, state-run Iraqiya television stopped airing the session shortly after the exchange and later aired an edited version.

Al-Maliki gave no details for the security plan, which he named “Operation Imposing Law,” nor did he say when it would begin. U.S. officials have indicated the security operation, to which Bush has pledged an additional 21,500 American soldiers, should start in earnest about Feb. 1. A brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division already has arrived for the mission.

In his address, al-Maliki also called on lawmakers to pass laws on distribution of the country’s oil wealth and reverse measures that have excluded many Sunnis from jobs and government positions because of Baath party membership.

Al-Maliki also promised to stop the so-called practice of sectarian cleansing that has driven thousands from their homes.

“You should know that today or tomorrow we will detain every person who is living in the house of a displaced person in order to open the door for those displaced to return,” al-Maliki said.

White House spokesman Tony Snow called the speech “a very assertive address. ... We certainly welcome that, because it demonstrates the kind of vigor we’ve been talking about and that the American people expect, and also responds specifically to concerns members of Congress have been expressing, in terms of the aims of and the determination of the government of Iraq.”

Until Monday, parliament had not had a quorum since late November, when 30 legislators and five Cabinet members loyal to renegade Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr announced a boycott of the government and the National Assembly to protest al-Maliki’s meeting with Bush in Jordan.

The boycott was a blow to al-Maliki, who owes his job to support from the Sadr bloc in parliament.

On Sunday the Sadr legislators ended their walkout under threat that they would be ousted from the political process and that their allied militia, the Mahdi Army, could face wholesale attack by American soldiers in the coming security sweep.

The parliament session came on a day that police reported 61 killed in sectarian violence nationwide, including the bodies of 22 torture victims dumped in Baghdad as well as the 26 dead in the Karradah bombing.

Angry Karradah residents took to the streets chanting “We want the Sunnis out!” after the blast, the second suicide bombing in three days in the neighborhood. The explosion destroyed three minivans, 11 cars and dozens of shops, as well as the local post office, according to a resident.

Seven charred bodies were visible in one of the vans, including that of a woman who was half out a window in an apparent attempt to escape the inferno. Another women dressed in black was seen screaming in front of her son’s shop, where he was killed. Ambulances raced from the scene, at least one with the back door still open and bodies stacked in the back.

A second huge explosion later rattled the capital, but police said it was a controlled blast to destroy a second car explosive that had been disabled before its suicide bomber could detonate it.

As the rockets fell and bombs exploded across the Tigris River, the public address system inside the Green Zone compound could be heard warning in English that people should take cover because “this is not a drill.”

Five people were wounded in the rocket attack, none seriously. Mortar and rocket attacks hit the zone frequently but reported casualties are rare.

CANOE -- CNEWS - World: Iraqi PM, Sunni lawmaker exchange insults

Friday, January 26, 2007



Share this story!
EDITORIAL: Why does President Bush still want to ‘stay the course’?

In his State of the Union speech Tuesday, President George W Bush said nothing new on Iraq except that he wanted to see the Baghdad regime remain in place and that American troops had to stay in Iraq to see that chaos didn’t take over the country. He described both Sunni and Shia versions of Islam clashing in Iraq as hostile to the United States and paid no heed to the fact that 70 percent of the American people supported the bipartisan recipe of withdrawal from Iraq.

Mr Bush spoke of ‘success’ but did not explain how this success would be achieved. He did not commit himself to any diplomatic initiative in the Middle East, including dialogue with Iran and Syria, so clearly endorsed by the polls. What he was most interested in projecting was the post-withdrawal plight of Iraq which would threaten the security of the United States: ‘If American forces step back before Baghdad is secure, the Iraqi government would be overrun by extremists on all sides’.

The Democratic response immediately after the address was negative. The main objection was that if Iraq could not be set right in three years with 150,000 troops how could it be secured now with a ‘surge’ of 20,000? It referred to the views expressed by the country’s military high command — the chief has since been changed — and questioned the president’s sincerity in claming that the army in Iraq wanted more troops. Vice President Dick Cheney defended the president’s stand and the Maliki government in Iraq — ‘he is not a Persian!’ — the following day, saying unless it is secured Iraq would be the next base from where Al Qaeda could target the United States.

Most Americans are puzzled and angered by Mr Bush’s stubbornness. Some say he is concerned about his role in history and wants to be judged by the coming generations rather than the gallup polls of today. There is no doubt that Americans are also undecided about what to do with Iran and are mystified by Mr Bush’s moves in the Gulf even though they are against an invasion. The US Congress as a whole is still uncertain whether it should take him on by ‘de-funding’ the war in Iraq at the cost of offending the nation that cares for American troops there.

Could there be another ‘unexpressed’ reason? Britain’s The Independent newspaper (7 January 2007) points to the factor of Iraqi oil, about which the present Iraqi government has to make some very important decisions shortly. If the Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki at times tends to make rebellious comments about Mr Bush — ‘go but leave us the weapons’ — he could be speaking from a position of some strength. His US-installed Shia-dominated government has to ‘approve a new hydrocarbon law that will hand unprecedented control of the country’s vast oil reserves to US and British energy conglomerates’.

In his address, Mr Bush has asked the US Congress to ordain the doubling of the US oil reserves. What he did not say is where the oil will come from. Iraq has 115 billion barrels of known oil reserves, which is 10 percent of the world’s total, and most of it is found around Basra in the Shia-dominated south. The Iraqi oil is close to the surface and cheap to take out compared to North Sea Oil and other locations. The Independent says production sharing agreements (PSAs) give up to 60 percent of the revenue to American and British oil companies, ExxonMobil, Chevron and BP, etc, till they have recouped their investments, after which they will take 20 percent of the profits. And any breaches of contract will have to be adjudicated in international courts!

Baghdad is dragging its feet, probably waiting for Mr Bush’s decision to start withdrawing, after which it might conceivably make a different decision about its oil after consulting Iran. That may be why Mr Bush is not ready as yet to give a schedule of withdrawal as that might provoke the Iraqi government dig in and not sign. We should recall that Saddam Hussein had given out oil contracts to more than 60 companies from 30 countries headed by France, Russia and China. It would be very important for the US to make sure that these contracts are now repudiated by Baghdad.

The American president will face a very tough year ahead of him as more American casualties are posted and the ‘surge’ he has ordered will not put down the bloody civil war going on in Iraq. Far too many entities in and around Iraq are interested in creating chaos there to make it easy for the Americans to leave. Perhaps they know the real reason why Washington is interested in creating order in the country. Finally it is going to be a battle of wills between Mr Bush and his gradually dwindling Republican supporters, on the one hand, and the Democratic opposition that dominates the US legislature, on the other. Can the US oil lobby win this battle for Mr Bush? *

SECOND EDITORIAL: More plots for bureaucrats!

Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz has told the Senate that 47 federal secretaries, including Grade 22 officials, have been allotted plots in Sector D-12 of the capital Islamabad. As if to lighten the blow, he announced that ‘no federal secretary will be allowed to sell these plots, each of which has an area of 600 square yards and is valued at Rs2.7 million, before the next two years’.

There is nothing novel in the fact that expensive land is being sold cheaply to civil servants. Top bureaucrats have always had access to plots in Islamabad and some have managed to get several, selling some and building on the others. Army officers, especially generals, also get this kind of ‘concession’ from the state. But the problem is that this sort of largesse never looked nice in the past and doesn’t look nice now; and in the long run it doesn’t stand to reason. Other countries don’t do this. India builds large apartment buildings for senior officers and saves precious land. Pakistan too should break out of this scandalous practice. Civil servants and army officers and judges etc should all be paid top market rates for salaries rather than compensated in dubious ways via perks and privileges. *

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

US welcomes Maliki''s "assertive" address that responds to Congress concerns

POL-US-WHITE HOUSE-IRAQ
US welcomes Maliki's "assertive" address that responds to Congress concerns

WASHINGTON, Jan 25 (KUNA) -- The United States welcomes the "assertive" address by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki today because it demonstrates the kind of vigor the American people expect, and it responds specifically to concerns members of the U.S. Congress have been expressing about the aims and determination of the Iraqi government, White House spokesman Tony Snow said on Thursday.

Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One en route to Kansas City, Missouri, where President George W. Bush was to participate in a health care roundtable discussion, Snow noted that Maliki made three important points.

The Iraqi prime minister again made it clear that there will be no safe haven for those committing acts of terror within Baghdad, regardless of whether they are Shia, Sunni, Kurd or Arab, Snow noted.

Second, Maliki told the Iraqi Council of Representatives that he wants the council, during the next two weeks of its legislative session, to pass a hydrocarbon law and de-Baathification reform, Snow said, adding, "As you know, those are two hugely important political benchmarks." Three, Maliki talked about the fact that in certain Baghdad neighborhoods people have been pushed out of their homes, "quite often by advocates or practitioners of sectarian violence," Snow said. "He says that the government is determined to allow those people back into their homes, and to push out what he referred to as the squatters." Snow also noted that Muqtada al Sadr has told members of the Mahdi army to stop wearing black and put their arms down, and has also instructed members of his political party to return to the Iraqi political process.

"We have seen assertive action on the part of Iraqi forces and joint Iraqi-U.S. forces within Baghdad taking on terror," Snow said.

A sign of American determination "not only builds confidence but also activism on the part of the Iraqi government," Snow said, "and we continue to believe that it is important to make it clear to the Iraqis that our job is to help them build capability, and we will do it." Switching topics, Snow confirmed a Washington Post report that the United States will substantially increase its commitment to Afghanistan by 7 billion to 8 billion additional dollars, an amount Snow said was "basically correct." The additional funds are for a wide range of initiatives, Snow said, "but it will have a military component." (end) rm.

Kuna site|Story page|US welcomes Maliki''s "assertive" address that res...1/25/2007

World News
Business News
Sports News
Entertainment
Features
Young Editors
Commentary
Editorial
Photo Gallery
Discussion Forum
From Our Archives
Search

All Sections Local News World Watch Business Briefs Sports Corner Entertainment
Free Newsletter
e-mail:
Contact Us
Contact Details
Advertising
Newspaper Subscribe
Letters To The Editor
Site Feedback
Iraq’s refugees are fleeing their homes ()

One of the few postwar problems the Bush administration prepared for before the invasion of Iraq was a refugee crisis. It didn’t occur in the spring of 2003, and for months afterward administration officials pointed to that fact as a sign of the war’s success. Now, four years later, a refugee crisis is exploding—and, as is so often the case with Iraq, the administration has been slow to recognize the problem and even slower to respond.

The crisis essentially began last February, when the bombing of a Shiite mosque touched off sectarian war across Iraq. Since then, according to the United Nations, some 500,000 Iraqis have been displaced from their homes, and 40,000 to 50,000 more are leaving every month. As many as 2 million Iraqis are abroad, including many who left during the regime of Saddam Hussein. The majority are in Jordan and Syria.

The negative consequences of this exodus could go well beyond a humanitarian tragedy. Jordan could be politically destabilized by the influx of Iraqis. Most of the refugees in Jordan and Syria are Sunni; as the history of the Palestinians vividly demonstrates, these communities could easily become bases and breeding grounds for the Iraqi insurgency.

The U.S. response has been shockingly small. Though it is spending $8 billion a month on the war, the Bush administration has budgeted only $20 million for refugee assistance this year. Only 466 Iraqis have been allowed to immigrate to the United States as refugees since 2003, including 202 last year. Most shameful has been U.S. treatment of translators and drivers who have risked their own and their families’ lives to work for military units in Iraq: Just a handful have been granted asylum, and a special visa program has a six-year waiting list.

At a Senate hearing last week, State Department official Ellen R. Sauerbrey suggested that the number of Iraqi refugees accepted in the United States could be expanded, using most of the 20,000 emergency slots set aside annually, if funding were provided. Pressed by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., she also indicated that State would consider a special parole program to expedite the admission of Iraqis. Congress should make sure the necessary funding is included in an upcoming administration supplemental budget request for the war.

More steps are needed. The United States ought to greatly increase funding for U.N. refugee programs; it should allow Iraqis to request U.S. asylum at the embassy in Baghdad and consular offices around the country and not just outside of Iraq. It should begin working with Jordan on ways to ensure that Iraqi refugees there are provided with adequate services and jobs.

The best way to help Iraqi refugees, of course, is to secure their country so that they can return home safely. Since that won’t be possible anytime soon, the United States is bound by both practical and moral considerations to address a crisis that it helped to create.

The Peninsula On-line: Qatar's leading English Daily

25 January 2007

State’s Satterfield Outlines Plans To Rebuild Iraq
Reconstruction projects aimed at supporting military operations

By David Shelby
USINFO Staff Writer



Washington –The United States plans to improve the distribution of economic reconstruction funds in Iraq as part of a strategy to support military operations aimed at securing neighborhoods from insurgents and sectarian violence, officials tell a Senate Committee.

Ambassador David Satterfield, the State Department’s senior coordinator for Iraq policy, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee January 25 that the Bush administration is working to create a situation where “if, on a given day, a neighborhood has been cleared and secured, we … are able to move monies, to begin employing people, taking them out of their houses, putting them onto the streets in a positive sense, working, and then to build longer-term sustainable projects to give a stake in the economy of those areas, those neighborhoods.”

General Michael Jones, deputy director of Middle East affairs for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the senators that the ability to coordinate economic reconstruction with military operations serves as a “combat multiplier,” creating goodwill with the local population and ensuring that cleared areas remain secure.

Satterfield said the key principles of the U.S. reconstruction strategy are decentralizing the effort and supporting Iraqi government and local officials in their priority projects. He said the United States also would renew its diplomatic efforts to obtain political and financial support for Iraq’s reconstruction from Jordan, Egypt and the Gulf countries. (See related article.)

He said the administration plans to double its number of provincial reconstruction teams (PRTs) from 10 to 20 and staff them with specialized technical personnel, such as agricultural and veterinary experts, to ensure that they are effective.

The PRTs are designed to move civilian personnel out of the Green Zone and into the provinces where they can provide local officials with assistance in governance and economic development. (See related article.)

Satterfield told the senators that the United States has fundamentally transformed its reconstruction efforts over the past 18 months from large projects to small local undertakings.

He said the United States has sought to “reallocate funds to achievable projects, to Iraqi-contracted projects, rather than multinational or design-build contracts, to place greater responsibility and accountability into Iraqi hands” and to improve oversight. He said future projects would likely be focused on microfinance, business development and job creation in coordination with local officials.

Satterfield said the reconstruction of Iraq is ultimately an Iraqi responsibility and that Iraqis would have to take the lead in all future efforts, but he added that they need international assistance to move the process forward. In particular, he noted that the Iraqi government has difficulty in budget execution.

“Iraq does have fiscal resources. It has money in the bank, some 12 1/2 billion dollars from unspent prior budget years, and also a certain amount from windfall profits from unexpected oil prices. They lack the resources, the mechanisms, to move that money within their own budget on an urgent basis,” he said.

Satterfield said the primary focus of U.S. efforts to build administrative capacity is improving the Iraqi government’s ability to move its funds into effective programs. He added that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice plans to appoint a new coordinator for economic transition to facilitate these efforts.

(USINFO is produced by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: USINFO - The United States Department of State)
State’s Satterfield Outlines Plans To Rebuild Iraq

Does the U. S. secretary of state Condoleezza Rice have the right to make decisions on behalf of Iraqi Kurds?

1/25/2007 KurdishMedia.com - By Assad Waissi
I was shocked by the news that was reported by Reuters on January 9, 2007, which indicated that the U.S. secretary of state Condoleezza Rice said that “Kurds do not have the authority over oil in their region” (KurdishMedia.com).

First of all, I don’t think Condoleezza Rice has right to make this kind of decision or judgment on behalf of the Iraqi Kurds. Secondly, she does not represent them, and has absolutely no right to make such a decision or judgment on their behalf. What she stated was not very wise or appropriate. The Iraqi Kurds have representatives in various positions in the Iraqi government, and it is up to them to make this kind of decision and judgment for their constituencies. She also stated, “the oil law would not give the Kurds such authority, even though the Kurds might have been expected to insist that they will simply control all the resources themselves, that’s not what the oil law does”. The Bush administration has not the authority or right to tell us - Iraqi Kurds - what to have or not to have of our land and resources because it is our land and resources. What Rice stated was to please the neighbouring countries, such as Turkey and other Arab leagues, because USA influence and interest in these countries are in decline.

These are again some of the many American policies that deny the Iraqi Kurds the right to their own resources and rights. We constantly hear from many USA allies, particularly USA and Britain, talking about how to rebuild Iraq and the Arab regions. While it is about rebuilding Iraq, it is never been about rebuilding Kurdish regions; it is only about the Arab regions within Iraq. Besides the Kurdish representatives Barzani, Talabani, and others are working tirelessly to achieve these goals, but it seems they have forgotten that it was the Kurdish people and regions that suffered under Saddam’s dictatorship. It was the Kurdish regions that were bombed, burned, destroyed, and gassed.

Unfortunately, it has never been about Kurdish people and regions and will never be because of the lack of Kurdish leadership in Baghdad. The Iraqi Kurdish politicians are too nice and polite, and they fear making decisions that might upset President Bush and Iraq’s neighbours. For example, Mr. Barzani holds conference after conference on how to restore power and stabilize the government in Baghdad. Has he lately held a conference about what Condoleezza Rice’s stated about the oil law, or Turkey allying with United State that Kurds will not have control over the oil regions particularly Kirkuk? I believe not. The Iraqi Kurds should not blame President Bush, Tayb Ardogan, and Baghdad for this unfairness. They should blame their leaders and representatives for the lack of responsibility they are exhibiting. If they don’t have the courage to speak out, then they should step down; and let someone else to do the job. By the way if they think they are perfect, they are wrong.

Bush and his administration regularly claim ignorance when it comes to Iraq’s policy and Kurdish rights, such as the constitution, oil law, rights, equality, etc. He is not valuing the Iraqi Kurds questions and demands. President Bush, in his speech on January 10, 2007, mentioned “Shia” four times, “Sunni” twice, and “Arabs” twice but never mentioned “Kurds” or “Kurdistan”. Later he said, “To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy”, which will not happen. Bush clearly meant the Iraqi Kurds. He meant they would not get what Rice stated, “even though the Kurds might have been expected to insist that they will simply control all the resources themselves, that’s not what the oil law does”. Bush’s administration is telling us that we don’t have the right to control our land and resources, he tells us what we will have of our land and resources. These are some of the many examples showing that the USA and Bush’s administration has no respect for the Iraqi Kurds’ rights and for those who lost their lives for these causes. Is it because we welcomed the American soldiers and officials with honour and flowers? Is it because we are putting too much trust and faith in this administration, or we are being too polite and quite?

The Bush administration should know that we don’t depend on them and never did because we achieved what we believed was our fundamental rights and freedoms. We fought against the most oppressive and dictatorial regime, at the time used to be an ally to the USA which provided Saddam regime with weapons, costing thousands of lives of the Iraqi Kurdish men, women and children. We are capable of defending our rights, freedoms, home, and maintaining peace and order in our regions without American’s help.

At the same time, our neighbours publicly hold meetings regularly with the current Iraqi government members to jeopardize and destabilize the peaceful Kurdish region. How about the recent Turkish conference with the Turkmen and Arabs about Kirkuk? Our poor neighbours are holding conference after conference passionately to help stabilize poor Iraq. The goals of these conferences are to jeopardize the order, harmony, and peace established in Iraqi Kurdistan. They believe this harmony, order, equality, and peace will spread to their countries and create chaos and violence in the future. We should know that these countries, as well as United State and Britain are not acting in our favour and never did before, even though we are the group most victimized by the former regime, and we still continue to be.

For generations we have wanted to be better, more pure in heart than those who persecute us. You have all seen the result: Saddam Hussein and the massacres of Halabja, Barzan, and Anfal in Iraq.

We have had enough of trying to be more just than those who claim to speak in the name of justice. When Saddam’s Baath regime killed hundred thousands of Kurdish men, women, and children, these countries found nothing to say. If ever it’s a question of killing off Kurds, everyone is silent; there are centuries of history to prove it. Yet we see the fascist regimes of Turkey, Iran, and Syria are doing exactly the same as the former Iraqi fascist regime: jailing, hanging, torturing, and massacring Kurdish men, women, and children. Nobody is criticizing these countries not even the United State who always says “it is our duty to support democracy, peace, and equality, and free people who resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressure”. We can rely only on ourselves. If we must become more unjust and inhuman than those who have been unjust and inhuman to us, then we shall do so.

Our rights and freedoms are in our hands, and we should be the ones to decide on them, not George W. Bush, Condoleezza Rice or Tayb Ardogan.

I think it is time for Kurdish politicians and citizens in Iraq and around the world to step up and stop putting too much trust in this administration. It is time for the Iraqi Kurd representatives to step up and stop being shy. It is time for the Iraqi Kurds to put pressure on their leaders and representatives and hold them accountable for their actions. They should stop acting like Mr. “nice guy” and being too polite for fear of upsetting Mr. President Bush and our neighbouring countries Turkey, Iran, and Syria. They did not get upset when Saddam Hussein slaughtered thousands Kurdish men, women, and children. Saddam did not even go to trial for the crime he committed against Kurds. They did get upset when he was hanged, and they even held funeral for him. They considered him a hero. There the world is not safer and more equal for Kurds than ten or fifty years ago. Our reliance on the United State or other countries will do us no good. It will only cause future problems.

We should get what is right today not tomorrow, and it is the right time and opportunity for the Iraqi Kurds to get their rights today, not tomorrow. History tells us, 87 years ago we were promised, in the Treaty of Sevre, which was signed on August 10, 1920, the state of Kurdistan was to be established in the region. Unfortunately, this promise was not fulfilled. Our history is full of good lessons, and we should look at those lessons before we make future decisions. I beg the Kurds of Iraq and around the world not to sit at home and say Mr. Barzani, Talabani, and other representatives will do the work. It is your job and my job, to pressure these representatives to do what is best for us and for new generations.

Assad Waissi
Tel: 306-949-8705
863 Seymore Cres
Regina, Saskatchewan,
S6H 0E2
Canada
Does the U. S. secretary of state Condoleezza Rice have the right to make decisions on behalf of Iraqi Kurds?

Pentagon Study Narrows Down Iraq Options
By JOHN HEILPRIN 01.25.07, 5:59 PM ET


A Pentagon review of Iraq has come up with three options - injecting more troops into Iraq, shrinking the force but staying longer or pulling out, The Washington Post reported Monday.

The newspaper quoted senior defense officials as dubbing the three alternatives "Go big, go long and go home."

The secret military study was commissioned by Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and comes as political and military leaders struggle with how to conduct a war that is increasingly unpopular, both in the United States and in occupied Iraq.

The postelection debate over Iraq is intensifying as members of Congress from both parties pose remedies and the Bush administration hunts for answers.

Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel of New York proposed a military draft, which the administration has repeatedly said it doesn't need.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said more troops should be sent in and that the soldiers there now are "fighting and dying for a failed policy."

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the incoming chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said troop withdrawals must begin within four to six months.

"I believe the consequences of failure are catastrophic," said McCain. "It will spread to the region. You will see Iran more emboldened. Eventually, you could see Iran pose a greater threat to the state of Israel."

Taking the opposite tack, newly empowered Democrats pressed their case for a phased withdrawal of American forces.

They hope a blue-ribbon advisory panel led by Bush family friend and former Secretary of State James Baker and former U.S. Rep. Lee Hamilton, would propose a way ahead for Iraq, while making clear the U.S. military mission shouldn't last indefinitely.

Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., the incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he'd like to see the commission assert that U.S. troop commitments are not open-ended; propose a clear political road map for Iraq; and recommend engaging Iraq's neighbors in a political and diplomatic solution.

The United States should "begin to let the Iraqi leadership know we're not going to be staying," he said Monday on NBC's "Today" program.

"Over the next four months let them know we're going to start to phase out, force them to have to address the central issue. That is not how to stand up Iraqis, but how to get Iraqis to stand together," Biden said.

"The idea that we're going to have 140,000 troops in Iraq this time next year is just not reasonable," he said.

McCain, a front-running GOP presidential hopeful for 2008, said the U.S. must send an overwhelming number of troops to stabilize Iraq or face more attacks - in the region and possibly on American soil.

"The consequences of failure are so severe that I will exhaust every possibility to try to fix this situation. Because it's not the end when American troops leave. The battleground shifts, and we'll be fighting them again," McCain said. "You read Zarqawi, and you read bin Laden. ... It's not just Iraq that they're interested in. It's the region, and then us." He was referring to Osama bin-Laden and the late al-Qaida leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

With about 141,000 U.S. troops in Iraq more than 3 1/2 years into the war, the American military has strained to provide enough forces while allowing for adequate rest and retraining between deployments.

Rangel, the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said Sunday "there's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft."

In a speech Monday at Baruch College, Rangel said he wants to hold hearings into current troop levels and future plans for Iraq and other potential conflict regions, noting that the administration has said more troops may be needed.

If they are, the congressman said, it is impossible not to ask where more troops would come from - making the draft an egalitarian way to meet those demands.

"If the country's in danger, everyone should share in the sacrifice," Rangel said.

Speaking with reporters afterward, Rangel said, "You cannot increase the military without raising the possibility of the draft."

He said the purpose of a hearing would be to ask questions, such as, "Mr. President, share with me what is victory, and if you have any clue what you're talking about, who is the enemy ... who do we negotiate the victory with ... who sets the agenda in the Middle East?"

House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi said Monday that restoring the draft will not be on that list and was not something she supported. "The speaker and I discussed scheduling and it did not include that," said her top deputy, incoming House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.
Pentagon Study Narrows Down Iraq Options - Forbes.com