Thread: Iraq/Dinar News. 09/05 to 01/14/07

The author seems to be an activist against the accession.

"The US, or any occupying force, has no right to alter and implement new policies and legislation. As stated by many legal analysts, in altering Iraq’s economic policies, the US violated international law. Article 43 of the Hague Regulations of 1907 states "The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country." This means that the US had no right to restructure Iraq and turn it into a WTO-compliant economy. Even the UK Attorney General, Lord Peter Goldsmith advised Prime Mister Tony Blair that “(in his view) the imposition of major structural economic reforms would not be authorized under international law.” (23)"

"Iraq’s accession must be stopped. Only a legitimate and truly sovereign Iraqi government should be able to determine its future."

Hey Mary Lou Malig, blah, blah blah.

onedaysoon$;126438]FROM FEB 2006
good read, I was going to post it in full but thought it would fill the page lol

WELCOME TO THE CLUB
It is a little known fact that Iraq is now well on its way to becoming a fully-fledged member of the WTO. Iraq has now advanced to step 3 of the accession process and will most likely complete it without most Iraqis knowing it even happened.
FOLLOW LINK
Focus on the Global South - ACCESSION THROUGH THE BACKDOOR: HOW THE US IS PUSHING IRAQ INTO THE WTO

26 Oct 2006 18:23:58 GMT

BAGHDAD, Oct 26 (Reuters) - Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al- Maliki told Reuters on Thursday he could end the violence in Iraq in six months if the United States gave him the weaponry and control over Iraqi forces.

Following are edited excerpts from the interview (Reuters translated Maliki's remarks from Arabic):

Q. The United States says you have agreed to a 12-month "timeline" of measures to end the violence and bring stability to Iraq. Can you tell us in your own words about this?

A. They think building Iraqi forces will need 12 to 18 months for us to be in control of security. We agree our forces need work but think that if, as we are asking, the rebuilding of our forces was in our own hands, then it would take not 12-18 months but six might be enough.

Q. What sort of weapons are you saying you need?

A. I'm not talking about modern tanks or modern warplanes and missiles because we aren't fighting a war with another country and facing an army. I'm talking about having a well- trained army, swift and light on its feet and at the same time with medium weapons. The police are sharing rifles. That is why when the police clashed with the (Shi'ite Mehdi Army) militia in Amara, the police fled. This is the responsibility of the Coalition because they created them (the police). Maybe they thought that the country would not slip into this situation. Well, now that we are here we need them to build the army quickly.

Q. The U.S. ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, spoke on Tuesday of a series of "benchmarks" on political and security issues that were agreed with your government. Is this the case?

A. I want to clarify something ... Khalilzad was at a meeting between us and other officials including the president and his deputies. We discussed setting a timetable for solving pending issues. That was two months ago ... It is not a timetable for the government but rather the issues needed to be solved. We said, for example, 'In November we will finish this and in January this and in 2007 we will amend the constitution'. The term used by Khalilzad was not accurate. That is why it was negatively understood. It is a list of issues we need to solve and this was our decision. It was not Khalilzad's decision but he was present.

Q. Are you concerned that the United States could try to push you aside if there is no progress in the coming months?

A. I don't think American policy would commit the mistake of replacing a prime minister or a government in Iraq. That would be burning their slogans. I don't think they think like that as it would mean the failure of the entire political process. As far as 'tough decisions' go, I say we want to take firm and difficult decisions. But anyone who wants to take a difficult decision has to do so from solid ground and so the far the ground is unstable -- due to current security policies ...

If anyone is responsible for the poor security situation in Iraq it is the Coalition. I am now prime minister and overall commander of the armed forces yet I cannot move a single company without Coalition approval because of the U.N. mandate. So those who have the authority and could move the forces are also responsible. This should be clear ...

I have to be careful fighting some militias and terrorists ... because they are better armed than the army and police. The other point is that the army and police have been infiltrated because they were randomly formed. There are terrorists in the army and militias in the police and also members of the old regime.

Q. Ambassador Khalilzad also said you had told him that the Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr had promised to disarm his Mehdi Army militia. Is that the case?

A. He issued a statement after I went to see him saying that the Mehdi Army is a political organisation and is banned from doing any military activities, killings and kidnapping. It was the first time Moqtada al-Sadr has made a public announcement supporting the government ...

He told his people that he forbids use of force against the government and the Coalition forces and that opposition to the occupation should be peaceful and political. We support such a position because it will reflect positively on the security situation and we have started talking to them about how to disarm militias. We are thinking of ways to resolve this.

I have agreed with him that the efforts for all political groups should be focused on the most dangerous challenge, which is al Qaeda and the Saddam Baathists ... I told Moqtada that weapons should only be in the hands of the government and he supported that.

Q. You criticised a U.S.-led raid on Sadr City in Baghdad on Wednesday to try to capture an alleged death squad leader, saying you knew nothing about it. What was the situation?

A. There is a wanted man called Abu Deraa and of course the security forces are going to try to get him, but a few days ago an Iraqi holding American citizenship who works with U.S. forces was kidnapped. So the operation was not only to get Abu Deraa. They said it was targeting him and then they issued a statement saying it was to try to free the kidnapped soldier. We knew about the first part but they did not tell us about the second part. There is also the way they go after people. The first time they tried to get Abu Deraa they killed and wounded 17 people and demolished two houses (and) they did not arrest him in either operation.

I said we agree on arresting wanted criminals and we do not care whether they are Sunnis or Shi'ites, but that was not an arrest operation. Do you send in planes to arrest one person? There is no problem with the principle of arresting criminals but you should not harm people in the way you go to arrest people, spreading horror and at the risk of sabotaging political actions we have worked on.

Q. What do you know about the kidnapped soldier?

A. There are two brothers. One was released and the second is still being held. I do not know what his job is exactly. We tried to find out where he might have been taken but we could not. We asked the Sadr movement to look for him and they swear they know nothing about him. The brother who was released said he had been abducted by the Mehdi Army but we don't know what Mehdi Army means any more. Some Sunnis now operate in the name of the Mehdi Army and dress in black as well. Baathists also, and foreign intelligence. We have a problem on the subject of Mehdi Army. That is why Moqtada is trying to clean it up but I think he started late.

Q. How critical is it to start disarming the militias?

A. After the bombing in Samarra (of a Shi'ite shrine in February) there was sectarian tension. The Mehdi Army and the Badr group and some independents had a reaction to that. But the government managed to stop that ...

Terrorism and the militias are separate issues. There is a political plan aimed at making the militias the priority. The militias are not acceptable but they are not the main reason (for the security situation). Terrorism is the main reason.

There is Sunni pressure and Arab pressure on this but we reject drawing a veil over the Baath party and terrorism. At least we can talk to the militias, we know who they are. They follow Moqtada al Sadr, the Dawa party, Badr etc. We can talk to them but who are terrorists loyal too and who do they follow?

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/HOL661955.htm

26 October 2006 (n/a)

The Kurds throughout history have been a rugged warrior race, but they have no beef with democracy or America, and no U.S. forces have been killed or kidnapped in Kurdish areas of Iraq.

In fact, 90 percent of the Kurds have a favorable impression of America - a real anomaly in the Arab and Muslim world.

A major reason for that is because American forces and their allies did so much to protect the Kurds from the killing wrath of Saddam Hussein starting a few months after the end of the first Gulf war.

The long-time dictator definitely had it in for the Kurds, and if he's executed in the days ahead, one of the major reasons will be for the war crimes he committed against them in the 70s and 80s - gassing, bombing and killing them by the hundreds of thousands, chasing hundreds of thousands of others of them out of their ancient territories.

Much of that was over oil, because Kurds occupy some of Iraq's most oil-rich regions. There are those who are helping the Kurds build a new society. Among them is Heather Mercer, a U.S. Aid worker, who spent several months in an Afghan prison under the Taliban in 2001.

The same is true for Kurds in Turkey, Syria and Iran - they're sitting on some of the most valuable oil reserves in those three lands, which is why Iraq, Turkey, Syria and Iran have all so fiercely opposed the idea of a free Kurdistan, carved out of their four nations.

It's one of the reasons Kurds have been among the most enthusiastic of voters in post-Saddam Iraq. They figure there's a real chance in a truly democratic Iraq that they'll be able to wiggle their way out of Baghdad's control, and continue to at least maintain their status as a fairly autonomous region. Then maybe someday translate that into true freedom as a prosperous, independent Kurdistan.

They'll likely have to do it all on their own, though.

The same world that's so adamant in demanding 10 million Palestinians be given their own homeland, never raises a similar cry for the 30 million Kurds - by far, the world's largest ethnic minority without a home to call its own.

Note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Kurdistan Regional Government.

Kurdistan: Iraq's Success Story | Iraq Updates

26 October 2006 (The Kurdish Globe)

Within the next few days, the Iraqi Constitution Revision Committee will meet to discuss and perhaps change sensitive subjects in the new Iraqi constitution, local media reported.

Within the next few days, the Iraqi Constitution Revision Committee will meet to discuss and perhaps change sensitive subjects in the new Iraqi constitution, local media reported.

"So far, the chief of the commission has not been appointed and this is anticipated to be done in the near future," said Alia Nisaef, parliament member on the Al Iraqia list. She continued, saying, "Until then, no agenda has been set for the committee, although the issue of Kirkuk and federalism will absolutely be among the main subjects to be discussed during the meetings."

The 27-member committee was created from all divisions within the Iraqi parliament to examine Article 142 in the Iraqi constitution.

Iraqi Constitution Revision Committee to discuss Article 142 | Iraq Updates

ERBIL/ANKARA, 26 October 2006 (The New Anatolian)

Iraqi Kurdish leaders are planning to send a high-powered joint delegation of Kurdistan Democracy Party (KDP) and Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) officials to Turkey to mend fences with Ankara.

Iraqi Kurdish leaders, alarmed at the growing rift with Baghdad and the deteriorating general security situation in Iraq, see their dependence on Turkey increasing and feel the urge to establish closer links with Ankara.

The New Anatolian learned in Erbil that PUK and KDP leaders, who established a joint government for the northern Iraqi region in May, now plan to set up a joint team that will travel to Turkey. The same delegation will then visit Tehran and Damascus as well as Amman and Cairo.

The KDP tried to establish dialogue with Turkey by hosting the undersecretary of the Turkish intelligence agency in Salahaddin, where he met Massoud Barzani and other high-level officials.

Later a KDP delegation visited Turkish intelligence headquarters in Ankara. However, these contacts failed to establish a workable environment for dialogue between Turkey and the Iraqi Kurdish leaders.
The Iraqi Kurdish leaders see improving ties with Ankara as a priority because the oil they hope to produce and sell in the future can only reach world markets through Turkey.

However, the presence of Kurdistan Workers' Party PKK terrorists in the Kandil Mountains in northern Iraq and the impasse over the Kirkuk issue, in contention by Kurds, Arabs and Turkmens, remain serious stumbling blocks for Ankara to show any enthusiasm for any meaningful dialogue with the Iraqi Kurds.

The fact that the PKK presence is so obvious in the Iraqi Kurdish region where the terrorist group is allowed to man checkpoints on the roads leading to the Kandil Mountains and the fact that the KDP's KTV aired a one-hour interview with PKK leader Murat Karayilan has deepened Ankara's concerns that the Iraqi Kurdish leaders are not at all interested in wiping out the PKK, and instead are facilitating it.

The Iraqi Kurdish leaders led by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, who also heads the PUK, say the PKK has declared a cease-fire and now it is up to Ankara to reciprocate this "gesture." Ankara does not accept the PKK as a counterpart and has dismissed the so-called cease-fire.

Whether Ankara welcomes a joint KDP-PUK delegation in view of these conditions remains to be seen.

Iraqi Kurds seeking dialogue | Iraq Updates

26 October 2006 (KurdishMedia)

Former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, co-chairman of a bipartisan commission studying Washington’s Iraq policy, will release his panel’s alternative to the “stay-the-course” strategy next month. If partitioning Iraq into three countries is presented as an alternative, then the White House should earnestly consider and pursue the idea. This course of action will salvage Americans’ faith in the Iraq policy, and will be in the Iraqi people’s best interest.

The current “stay-the-course” policy has utterly failed. Insurgent activities are escalating, sectarian clashes are intensifying, the Iraqi people’s suffering is worsening, the loss of American lives is climbing, and war expenditures are rising. The existing plan to pursue terrorists until each one of them is captured or killed has proven unworkable. On the other hand, the United States’ military departure from Iraq would be ominous for the entire Middle East, calamitous to the Iraqi people, and a clear proclamation of the failure of American foreign policy. Slicing Iraq into three countries is the only viable plan that will pacify the majority of Iraq and promise the US success in Iraq.

The lack of security, sectarian violence and insurgencies are the main ailments plaguing the Iraqi people. And that’s only the beginning, considering the precarious nature of the serious and real threat of a wider civil war breaking out. But if Iraq were divided into three countries – a Shiite nation in the south, Kurdish in the north, and Sunni Arab in the middle – this would solve many of the current host of problems and obviate the threat of civil war.

How would the division of Iraq bring an end to the activities of insurgents? Consider the present traveling arrangements in Iraq. The Iraqis, by virtue of their citizenship, are at liberty to travel anywhere within their country. This means an entire terrorist cell or their members can travel freely within Iraq, and allows weapons, ammunition, and needed funds to be transferred from one place to another. Most dangerously, it gives terrorists the ability to organize and recruit across the region. It is widely known that the source of the problem emanates from the central part of the country. Narrowing the realm of the problem requires the seclusion of the Sunni Arabs in central Iraq. Partitioning Iraq is the most efficacious way to achieve this. Once Iraq is partitioned, borders would then be drawn, and border security would hinder illicit traveling since a passport would be required.

The partitioning of Iraq would also help decrease violence in Kurdistan. The present chaos in both Kirkuk and Mosul are largely engendered by the hundreds of thousands of Saddam’s followers who were settled in these cities and their surroundings during the Arabization campaign. Once an independent Kurdistan is declared, the Kurds will gracefully deport Saddam's followers to their respective homelands. Unfortunately, the Iraqi government and the US have not taken this predicament seriously enough, and as a result it has persisted and drags on, but in an independent Kurdistan it will be dealt with expediently to prevent further bloodshed and restore justice and equity.

An all-out civil war would be thwarted by the creation of three separate countries. The Sunni Arabs would not be able to freely enter the Iraqi Shiites’ country nor Kurdistan due to border restrictions. At the same time, the menace of civil war between Kurds and Arabs would be averted since Kirkuk and Mosul’s problematic non-natives would be deported, and the small native Arab Sunni population will not pose a grave threat.

In the central region, the most chaotic in Iraq, there would remain some violence after the partitioning of Iraq. But terror organizations eventually will be a thing of the past since the Sunni land will be squeezed between Kurds and Shiites, cutting off Sunni insurgents from their suppliers, thus lessening their ability to reach the outside world for ammunitions and material support.

When talking about the division of Iraq, or in particular about Kurdish statehood, Iraq’s neighbors put up resounding objections, as if it’s their right to predestine the Iraqi people’s future, and plan for their political and social arrangements. Those opposed to partitioning Iraq are Syria and Iran, both of whom are US enemies. The other foe is Turkey which has proven itself to be an unreliable friend to the US and a liability. America should not sell out or ignore its best friend in the region, the Kurds, to appease its enemies or an unworthy friend.

Should Mr. Baker’s panel be thorough, one of the alternatives to current US-Iraq strategy they come up with will have to be the partitioning of Iraq into three countries. When that presents itself as a solution, President Bush should act upon it promptly. If he does, the legacy of failure in Iraq policy will be transfigured into undisputed success, one of Bush’s triumphant, estimable legacies that will duly inspire the Iraqi people, in particular the Kurds.

Partitioning Iraq into three countries is the most viable plan | Iraq Updates

Originally Posted by $onedaysoon$

FROM FEB 2006
good read, I was going to post it in full but thought it would fill the page lol

WELCOME TO THE CLUB
It is a little known fact that Iraq is now well on its way to becoming a fully-fledged member of the WTO. Iraq has now advanced to step 3 of the accession process and will most likely complete it without most Iraqis knowing it even happened.
FOLLOW LINK
Focus on the Global South - ACCESSION THROUGH THE BACKDOOR: HOW THE US IS PUSHING IRAQ INTO THE WTO

It sounds good, but from what I gather, there is a lot of secrecy until the deed is done. What about the part where they said the US has broken an international law? Will that be a factor later on? or will it matter? Also, Iraq has to be able to stand on their own feet and govern themselves before they can become a member of the WTO. Not to sound negative, but the article wasn't ALL good. But thank you for giving it to us to read.

Originally Posted by pipshurricane

26 October 2006 (KurdishMedia)

Former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, co-chairman of a bipartisan commission studying Washington’s Iraq policy, will release his panel’s alternative to the “stay-the-course” strategy next month. If partitioning Iraq into three countries is presented as an alternative, then the White House should earnestly consider and pursue the idea. This course of action will salvage Americans’ faith in the Iraq policy, and will be in the Iraqi people’s best interest.

The current “stay-the-course” policy has utterly failed. Insurgent activities are escalating, sectarian clashes are intensifying, the Iraqi people’s suffering is worsening, the loss of American lives is climbing, and war expenditures are rising. The existing plan to pursue terrorists until each one of them is captured or killed has proven unworkable. On the other hand, the United States’ military departure from Iraq would be ominous for the entire Middle East, calamitous to the Iraqi people, and a clear proclamation of the failure of American foreign policy. Slicing Iraq into three countries is the only viable plan that will pacify the majority of Iraq and promise the US success in Iraq.

The lack of security, sectarian violence and insurgencies are the main ailments plaguing the Iraqi people. And that’s only the beginning, considering the precarious nature of the serious and real threat of a wider civil war breaking out. But if Iraq were divided into three countries – a Shiite nation in the south, Kurdish in the north, and Sunni Arab in the middle – this would solve many of the current host of problems and obviate the threat of civil war.

How would the division of Iraq bring an end to the activities of insurgents? Consider the present traveling arrangements in Iraq. The Iraqis, by virtue of their citizenship, are at liberty to travel anywhere within their country. This means an entire terrorist cell or their members can travel freely within Iraq, and allows weapons, ammunition, and needed funds to be transferred from one place to another. Most dangerously, it gives terrorists the ability to organize and recruit across the region. It is widely known that the source of the problem emanates from the central part of the country. Narrowing the realm of the problem requires the seclusion of the Sunni Arabs in central Iraq. Partitioning Iraq is the most efficacious way to achieve this. Once Iraq is partitioned, borders would then be drawn, and border security would hinder illicit traveling since a passport would be required.

The partitioning of Iraq would also help decrease violence in Kurdistan. The present chaos in both Kirkuk and Mosul are largely engendered by the hundreds of thousands of Saddam’s followers who were settled in these cities and their surroundings during the Arabization campaign. Once an independent Kurdistan is declared, the Kurds will gracefully deport Saddam's followers to their respective homelands. Unfortunately, the Iraqi government and the US have not taken this predicament seriously enough, and as a result it has persisted and drags on, but in an independent Kurdistan it will be dealt with expediently to prevent further bloodshed and restore justice and equity.

An all-out civil war would be thwarted by the creation of three separate countries. The Sunni Arabs would not be able to freely enter the Iraqi Shiites’ country nor Kurdistan due to border restrictions. At the same time, the menace of civil war between Kurds and Arabs would be averted since Kirkuk and Mosul’s problematic non-natives would be deported, and the small native Arab Sunni population will not pose a grave threat.

In the central region, the most chaotic in Iraq, there would remain some violence after the partitioning of Iraq. But terror organizations eventually will be a thing of the past since the Sunni land will be squeezed between Kurds and Shiites, cutting off Sunni insurgents from their suppliers, thus lessening their ability to reach the outside world for ammunitions and material support.

When talking about the division of Iraq, or in particular about Kurdish statehood, Iraq’s neighbors put up resounding objections, as if it’s their right to predestine the Iraqi people’s future, and plan for their political and social arrangements. Those opposed to partitioning Iraq are Syria and Iran, both of whom are US enemies. The other foe is Turkey which has proven itself to be an unreliable friend to the US and a liability. America should not sell out or ignore its best friend in the region, the Kurds, to appease its enemies or an unworthy friend.

Should Mr. Baker’s panel be thorough, one of the alternatives to current US-Iraq strategy they come up with will have to be the partitioning of Iraq into three countries. When that presents itself as a solution, President Bush should act upon it promptly. If he does, the legacy of failure in Iraq policy will be transfigured into undisputed success, one of Bush’s triumphant, estimable legacies that will duly inspire the Iraqi people, in particular the Kurds.

Partitioning Iraq into three countries is the most viable plan | Iraq Updates

This sounds as if this is the Kurdish Rebel media with it seperatist view. it's a non starter in my opinion. I do not believe this will happen for a second. Talk about Civil war, boy oh boy can you imagine the battle over the oil? and what's next seperate currencies? Forget it, knowing Bakers' connections this aint happening.

I just did a quick study of the money people and from the Iraqi national congress clear through the present government the money people are directly and first handedly involved with this situation as is. It's not in their interest to alter this course so forget it. It runs through the halls of Bilderberg. For those who do not understand that last phrase, all I'm going to say is do some research.

Great post everyone. With my starting with a new company this week I'm going through some serious RC withdrawls. If it wasn't for all of my "Forum Friends" I would be at a loss

Isn't it ironic (and frustrating) that it seems half the news coming out says things are getting worse in Iraq, where as, the other half says that things are going much better than anyone thought.

Originally Posted by wciappetta

This sounds as if this is the Kurdish Rebel media with it seperatist view. it's a non starter in my opinion. I do not believe this will happen for a second. Talk about Civil war, boy oh boy can you imagine the battle over the oil? and what's next seperate currencies? Forget it, knowing Bakers' connections this aint happening.

I just did a quick study of the money people and from the Iraqi national congress clear through the present government the money people are directly and first handedly involved with this situation as is. It's not in their interest to alter this course so forget it. It runs through the halls of Bilderberg. For those who do not understand that last phrase, all I'm going to say is do some research.

Very interesting...Illuminati News: BILDERBERG - SECRET WORLD GOVERNMENT