1000
STEPHEN BIDDLE, SENIOR FELLOW IN DEFENSE POLICY, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: I think it's unsound, and likely to -- to lead both to an increase in sectarian violence and, downstream, to an increase in U.S. casualties.
That is defamation of character of some of the finest minds this country has trusted to lead and not to follow. I am impressed with the dedication of all the members of the Iraq Study Group and if there is one member whom stands out as a consistent insightful influence it is Lee Hamilton. He was a member of the 911 Commission which meet with great resistance until Former Governor Kean made it perfectly clear there was no rejecting the results of that commission. I have a feeling the Iraq Study Group needs to 'tour' the country to promote insight to their views. It is a small enough book to read and every American interested in the best outcome of our soldiers needs to read it. The brevity is all too clear, especially when Lee Hamilton is stating 'weeks or days.'
There is no rejecting this. It exists. It has brevity and it matters. Diplomacy is a must and the incorporation of the regions' countries to bring about a peaceful measure for all Iraqis whether a Unity Government stands or not is vital.
Protest against U.S. Iraq Study Group report held in Iraq
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/12/12/africa/ME_GEN_Iraq_Protests.php
KIRKUK, Iraq: About 1,500 people marched through Kirkuk on Tuesday to protest a recommendation by the U.S. Iraq Study Group that a referendum on the future of this oil-rich city be delayed.
The commission, headed by former U.S. Republican secretary of state James A. Baker III and former Democratic congressman Lee Hamilton said: "Given the very dangerous situation in Kirkuk, international arbitration is necessary to avert communal violence. A referendum on the future of Kirkuk would be explosive and should be delayed."
The protesters carried placards with slogans such as "No, no for Baker" in three different languages: Arabic, Kurdish and Turkoman.
Iraq's constitution stipulates that the fate of the northern, oil-rich city of Kirkuk be decided in a regional referendum by the end of next year.
The city is claimed by the Kurds, who want to annex it to their self-rule region. But Kirkuk's Arab and Turkomen residents reject that claim, and the city has been plagued by sectarian violence and insurgent attacks since 2003.
Kirkuk is an important city to many, but, it has always been a Kurdish stronghold. I don't see that changing. Now that the country is dividing up assets, Kirkuk should not be about assets but about peace. The people there, under their current provincial authority needs to have a referendum to decide the sovereignty of the city. This is silly. Kirkuk has always been a Kurdish city.
Iran: Israel 'will end like USSR'
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has told a conference in Tehran questioning the Holocaust that Israel's days are numbered.
"Just as the USSR disappeared, soon the Zionist regime will disappear," he said to the applause of the participants.
The two-day conference provoked widespread international outrage.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6173941.stm
President Putin should pay attention, the world's moronic President from Iran is still shouting about destroying Israel. There was a court order today stating Israel could be held responsible for damages. Iran always gets carried away with such news. He thinks it will allow the world to remove Israel because of bad behavior. It hasn't removed Iran yet, has it? Evidently, President Ahmadinejad sees Russia as an unstable pushover by that comment. I would ask for an explanation if I were Putin. It is President Ahmadinejad's intention to assault Russia as well? This guy is off the wall. He needs a course in Diplomacy 101. But, I like the idea of cutting back oil production. That's a great idea. There are Democrats in DC now, we can really dig into alternatives.
Iran urges OPEC for further oil production cut
http://english.people.com.cn/200612/12/eng20061212_331604.html
Iranian Oil Minister Kazem Vaziri Hamaneh said on Tuesday that the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) still needs to cut the current oil output to boost the global crude price, the Shana news agency reported.
Hamaneh was quoted as saying that "Iran also considers oil price lower than 60 U.S. dollars per barrel inappropriate, just like most of OPEC member countries."
"Given the considerable oil oversupply, we will try to have a output cut," he said, two days before an OPEC meeting in Nigeria.
Several days ago, OPEC President and Nigerian Oil Minister Edmund Daukoru said that the estimated oversupply on the current oil market was about 1 million barrels per day and the organization's ministers would review the situation and make appropriate decisions.
OPEC countries last month made a decision to cut the current crude oil output by 1.2 million bpd to 26.3 million bpd in order to boost the oil price.
Iran, the second largest producer in OPEC, also decided to reduce its output by 176,000 barrels per day after the OPEC decision.
Olmert condemns Iran's Holocaust denial
Agencies
Berlin: Israeli Prime Minister Ehud OImert condemned Tehran’s public denial of the holocaust on Tuesday and criticised a conference in which prominent Holocaust-deniers from around the world will meet.
Prior to talks with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and President Horst Koehler, Olmert visited a memorial at Berlin’s Gruenewald train station, the departure point for thousands of the city's Jews to concentration camps during the Holocaust.
In an address, Olmert criticised Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s denial of the holocaust in which six million Jews were killed by the Nazis during World War II.
http://www.gulfnews.com/region/Iran/10088854.html
Calls for Olmert to resign after nuclear gaffe
Israel's prime minister, Ehud Olmert, was today trying to fend off accusations of ineptitude and calls for his resignation after he accidentally acknowledged for the first time that Israel had nuclear weapons.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1970616,00.html
POL-UN-COUNCIL-MIDEAST
Annan presents frank vision on how to solve Mideast conflict
UNITED NATION, Dec 12 (KUNA) -- Secretary-General Kofi Annan told the Security Council on Tuesday that The Middle East today faces "grim prospects," is in profound crisis and the situation is more complex, more fragile and more dangerous than it has been for a very long time, warning at the same time that if no solution in found in the near future, extremism will flourish."
Tensions in the Middle East region are near the breaking point. Extremism and populism are leaving less political space for moderates, including those states that have reached peace agreements with Israel. The opportunity for negotiating a two-state solution will last for only so long."
Should we fail to seize it the people who most directly bear the brunt of this calamity will be consigned to new depths of suffering and grief, other conflicts and problems will become that much harder to resolve, and extremists the world over would enjoy a boost to their recruiting efforts," Annan said in a statement to a council Ministerial meeting called for by Qatar and chaired by its Foreign Minister Shiekh Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jabr Al-Thani.Annan's speech, the bluntest ever, is his last before leaving office later this month.
http://www.kuna.net.kw/home/story.aspx?Language=en&DSNO=933549
Karzai Says Pakistani Collusion Threatens Region
“Afghanistan either has to be fixed and be peaceful or the whole region will run into hell with us,” Mr. Karzai told a small group of journalists during a visit to this southern city, his hometown, which has been reeling from almost daily suicide bombings in the last 10 days. “It’s not going to be like the past, that only we suffer. Those who cause us to suffer will burn in hell with us. And I hope NATO recognizes this.” Mr. Karzai charged that elements of the Pakistani government were still supporting Islamic militants, as they had in the past, and that if such sources of terrorism were not defeated today, Afghans and international soldiers would continue to die.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/12/world/asia/12cnd-afghan.html?hp&ex=1165986000&en=be73086634d7d4d8&ei=5094&partner=homepage
IT'S unpopular thing to say, but, Pakistan is a coupe government. Musharraf is causing trouble. He is confrontational with all his neighbors.
India unhappy with Pakistan short-circuiting Safta
http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=148756
NEW DELHI, DEC 12 : Voicing concern over Pakistan’s non-implementation of South Asian Free Trade Area (Safta), the government on Tuesday said Islamabad’s Safta notification on July 1, this year, was limited to tariff concessions for India on items in the positive list.
During the Dhaka SAARC council of ministers’ meeting in August this year, India had “very forcefully raised concerns regarding non-implementation of Safta by Pakistan, pointing out that this was a negation of Safta and jeopardised its implementation,” commerce minister Kamal Nath said in the Lok Sabha.
Taliban mini-state on Pakistan border
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20919331-2703,00.html
PAKISTAN'S appeasement of Islamic tribal militants in remote areas bordering Afghanistan has created a virtual Taliban mini-state where insurgents operating against the NATO-led forces are free to recruit, train and equip themselves, an international think tank reported yesterday.
In a sharp rebuke for the military-led Government in Islamabad, the International Crisis Group report lends weight to accounts that Pakistan's army in the tribal areas has effectively retreated to barracks, ceding control to the militants.
The report is critical of Pakistan's peace accords with the Taliban-linked militants in north and south Waziristan, and will intensify pressure on President Pervez Musharraf to rethink his approach to the remote region.
Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, are both believed to be in the area with hundreds of followers, and most analysts agree the al-Qa'ida leaders have benefited from Islamabad's peace deals with the militants in the region.
I AM SORRY, but, the area is unstable because Iraq has become a training ground for terrorists that then practice their skills in places like Afghanistan where NATO and the Brits are faced with regular bombings now. The USA has to leave Iraq and secure any issues though diplomatic channels with Iraq's neighbors that include countries like Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Staying in Iraq is out of the question. The entire region is escalating and it is due to the USA presence in Iraq.
FRUM: The status quo isn't acceptable. The ISG is not acceptable. So, there has to be some other way. There has to be something better that the president has to find. That's the job of the president, to go out and listen to people.
That is a hideous statement. The President's job is to serve and protect this country without corruption. He is the Executive Branch to the legislature, the will of the people of this nation. Bush hasn't listened to ANYONE to date and his 'attitude' of 'Stay the Course' has been a political directive for elections in the USA, NOT, a solution for Iraq. I would think Mr. Frum would at least have respect for Mr. Baker. I find Mr. Baker's input rather compelling actually. He and Mr. Hamilton make an interesting 'front' for change in Iraq. THEY are interested in listening, but, they are also interested in talking and NOT just political jargon to look intelligent or political rhetoric to justify crony policy.
Get over it.
PEREZ: One thing -- that's a gotcha game that Washington is playing right now, and the stakes are far too high for those kinds of games.
One thing I noticed that Frank -- and I greatly respect him. I read him all the time. But nobody ever talks about the consequences of our leaving. If you are going to recommend a policy, I think it's incumbent upon those who recommend that we leave Iraq immediately or in ten months, 15 months, 18 months, to give us your best guess of what those consequences would be.
THERE WON'T be any consequences than already exist. These people are suffering and have for years now under an American occupation. The USA has blinders on to believe the surrounding countries aren't already involved in some way or another. I believe ir was Saudi Arabia that recently promised funds.
Saudis 'funnelling' funds to Iraq rebels
http://www.kuwaittimes.net/Navariednews.asp?dismode=article&artid=2066843581
CAIRO: Private Saudi citizens are giving millions of dollars to Sunni insurgents in Iraq and much of the money is used to buy weapons, including shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles, according to key Iraqi officials and others familiar with the flow of cash. Saudi government officials deny that any money from their country is being sent to Iraqis fighting the government and the US-led coalition. But the US Iraq Study Group report released Wednesday said Saudis are a source of funding for Sunni Arab insurgents. Several truck drivers interviewed by AP described carrying boxes of cash from Saudi Arabia into Iraq, money they said was headed for insurgents.
You can believe it or not believe it but one thing is sure the resistence in Iraq is robbing armored trucks and why? To pass the time of day? Where does anyone believe the money is going? Probably to underground networks for munitions to the rebellion. So, is this a surprise. No. I am sure this has been going on for some time. There is no end in sight for the violence so long as this continues. The Iraqi borders are porous. If officially Saudi Arabia is saying they are concerned about the outcome of a USA withdrawal, they should first look at their own citizens and realize they are as much the trouble as any terrorist organization.
HERE YOU GO !
PEREZ: Let's remember that this is a region that even King Abdullah today was quoted in the "New York Times" as saying it's a tinderbox waiting for a spark to ignite it. That in Iraq, brothers are killing brothers. Now that's a fairly significant statement from the king of Saudi Arabia.
PEREZ: I think one of the ramifications of leaving is that we will probably be -- end up back there in 18 months or 18, 10 months after we leave, because right now the situation is so volatile, as King Abdullah says, a tinderbox, that, yes, I think we need to figure out a way to get it done.
It would seem the good King has his own tinderbox to contend with and needs to bring a resolve within Saudi Arabia to do what is best for Iraq and stop abandoning it to chronic war. The USA does not belong in Iraq. Evidently, Mr. Bush has no intention of offending his oil buddies to save American lives. This is a slap in the face to the USA military efforts in that country and for the Saudi King to stand in judgement of all our sacrifices while his own people support a Sunni rebellion only indicates he has no room to speak. We need to leave Iraq and tell the Saudi King to come up with a policy for his neighbor that works well for them both.
PEREZ: If it were as simple as that, that may be a policy we could consider. But it's nowhere near as simple as that, because it's just not Shia versus Sunni. It's Shia; it's Kurds; it's Shiites. But there's also the hole in the wall effect, which means that if we leave, and it becomes -- and Iraq become as failed state, next stop is, remember the Hole in the Wall gang?
More stupid war mongering jargon. "Hole in the Wall?" Please grow up, sometime before your die. If Perez had read the Iraq Study Group report and listened to Mr. Baker speak it was completely clear there is nothing going on but Civil War/Sectarian Violence. There is nothing else to 'fill in the hole' JERK ! There is an element of al Qaeda, but, show me a country in the Middle East that doesn't. I dare you. That is nothing. That is not a reason to stay in Iraq for the USA. The men who attacked the USA are reported to be in Pakistan and Afghanistan. You have the "W"rong war Perez. Need a map? Or. Maybe just THE TRUTH.
THIS IS nothing but war mongering Neocon hopefuls to try to bowl over Democrats and their current support base. It's stupid, Perez. Completely. Get the feeling you are nobody.
PEREZ: I think there's almost always benefits to engagement. Almost always. I can think of very few examples. And I'm no historian. I can think of very few examples where there wasn't. But in this case you have to ask yourself, do Syria and Iran, is it really in their interest to have a peaceful Iraq? Or are they in the business of chaos, of fomenting chaos, of supporting chaos? You can have example after example where the latter is true.
THIS IS a description of Bush and Bush's policies. Syria and Iran did not run an illegal invasion into that country. Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney did. Fomenting chaos? Who? Iran? Syria? I think it was Bush that rolled his military coalition into southern Iraq in March of 2003 and there has been nothing but chaos. Hello? Anything between those ears besides corruptable air?
enough
