Iraq’s Future

Iraq is like fire burning in the Arab neighborhood. And Arabs are ``as usual`` watching Tamasha (circus) as if they are watching WWF wrestling on satellite TV. Princes and Princesses ``Tell`` Americans where things are wrong. All the while terrorists and criminals spill innocent blood in the streets of Bag-Dad or Bugh-Daad.

This is very similar to a hypothetical scenario, where Margla hills are on fire. But the people in Islamabad are cursing the winds doing nothing to stop the fire from reaching their homes and businesses.

Ultimately the whole city or neighborhood goes up in flames just because people around the fire didn`t care to extinguish it.

Sure all these Mullahs and all their himayti Arabs (and not-so much Arabs) love to blame Americans.

Worst case scenario! If Americans leave, the same Arabs and Iranians will be pulled into the death and destruction. Then there will be no Prince, Princesses, the Ayatullahs, and their marble floor castles. Only then they will realize their susti and kahili. Unfortunately it would be too late.

Oh Well what`s new in the Middle East. This gad-Awful place has seen so much death and destruction for 1000`s of years.

You ever wonder why they call them ``Middle`` Easterners? Because just like ``Hazrat Mukhannas``, they are (intellectually) neither ``he``, nor ``she``.

Utterly & Completely respected Masadi Sahib,

Your fans are waiting for pearls of wisdom from you on the Musharraf Board.

Please return there at the earliest.

Re: # 31

While all this might be true, my point was slightly different. In May, The Economist had published a detailed research telling about how the growing inequalities in the United States are harming that country`s citizens. Though it identified that not more than a million jobs have been outsourced, but in the end it came to the conclusion that the current conflict in Iraq and as to how the current people are managing the economy in Washington, America`s future is not good. Pay differentials are rising and so is poverty. The war in Iraq has drained America`s currency reserves so much so that Health care benifits and Social Security has been slashed and the No Child Left Behind act has not moved forward for implementation because of the purported lack of finances. The Bush Administration is engaged in the development of a near four hundred billion dollar global missile defence project. IT is similar to the Star Wars project of Ronald Reagan. The funding is being done through taxpayers money and they are being made to suffer.

John Kerry had a solid position on economic issues during the 2004 election campaign. He had been claiming that tax reliefs given to top officials and bureaucrats, i.e. the richest one percent of the Americans (all of them supported the Iraq war) had cost the American economy one trillion dollars during Bush`s first term. Bush has given the Americans their highest ever trade deficit in their more than two hundred years history.

The handling of the economy is the only thing that differentiates Bush and Reagan is the ay they handled the American economy. Bush`s over-occupation into Iraq has drained American taxpayers money in the sense that America`s middle class is constricting. The rich gets richer. Poverty today in the United States is around 13.7%, up from two percentage points at the time Bill Clinton left! Social and economic issues of home have been ignored by Bush because of his occupations abroad.


Invading Iraq was surely not a wise decision.....

In an investigative article in Newsweek in June 2006, Fareed Zakaria had shown that how quickly was America losing its edge over commerce, science and technology to Europe and Asian countries like China, India and to an extent, Pakistan. Home grown issues need to be addressed by this lame duck President before he packs up and leave in 2008. Home grown issues will require solid funding and that can only be done when the issues of terrorism, Middle East conflict, Iraq, etc are resolved politically and the manpower of the military and the money that would be saved shall be employed on other things of more concern!

#30 by mehrozsiraj731

Thanks for your response Mehroz. First I complement your efforts in trying to unravel the mess which is Iraq, and next I look forward to your further articles in this series.

Our disagreement comes mainly from two points i.e. (1) Whether or not Iraq war was a mistake; and (2) Whether or not the impact on US economy has been adverse because of the Iraq war.

Let`s examine these:

(1) Iraq war may have gone against the best expectations of US, but that doesn`t mean they lost their `objectives` in such policy failures. That `objective` was always to establish a permanent presence in Iraq, which they have done. The Iraqi civilians and the bloodshed amongst them are of-course of no consequence to that objective which US has achieved.

The key permanent bases with the lead role in future US presence in Iraq are the Green Zone in Baghdad and the Camp Anaconda in the midst of the so-called Sunni Triangle.

The Green zone, mind you, is not just a fortified diplomatic enclave; the green zone is a 7 sq. mile area in Bagdad, that looks like downtown NY or downtown NJ: pizza parlors, 7-11`s, massage parlors, shops and botiques, bowling allies; sports bars; exercise centers; music stores; coffee/latte shops; catalog stores; ethnic restaurant cuisine; fast food; movie theaters etc., you name it. It is permananent. For more info go here.

Camp Anaconda, 50 miles north of Baghdad in Balad, with 14,000 troops, facilities and location make it more than just an ideal base from which to fight just the insurgents in Iraq. It is perfectly positioned to project U.S. power throughout the Middle East, and it will likely do so for many years to come. This camp too has much of the facilities as the Green zone including its own water supply. Six major U.S. bases in Iraq are producing their own drinking water. Camp Anaconda is the first base to produce its own drinking water, followed in short order by Camp Victory, Speicher, TQ, Q’-West and Al Asad.

The point is, such facilities are hardly those of a kind required in a temporary war zone. These are permanent facilities designed to continue occupation and to project it further.

(2)....total war expenditures have seemingly crossed $300billion. Oil revenues are not being of benifit to America as a whole. ... why are the American taxpayers paying such a high price???

The point is they are not. The expenidutures may be anything and compensated to whatever extent by the Iraqi oil, but the american taxpayer is not being made to suffer for it. The US economy is booming to the extent that the Fed has had to raise rates since the past 19 months or so to cool it down. The consumer confidence is high. Retail sales are up. Housing market though cooled still shows healthy new home sales. For a clear idea of whether the ordinary US citizen is worse-off or better-off, do check the economic statistics on United States Bureau of Labor Statistics

As for where the extra money, if any, for war is coming from, it is quite simple. The Fed can print as many dollars as it wants. No problem at all and with no harmful effects to US domestic economy. All these are financed by US debt held by foreign exporters to US, but that`s another story!

Regards.

Zeemax,

``Your entire thesis is that USA has made terrible mistakes in Iraq and USA needs to correct them. You are wrong on both counts. USA did exactly what it wanted to do and the results are exactly what USA wants.``

Yes indeed! Invading Iraq was a mistake. Yes, I know about America`s aims and objectives of controlling all the natural resources and political activities in Central Asia and the Middle East in order to keep China, Russia, Europe and Pakistan in check, but the way it is being pursued, needs an introspection. America`s invasion of Iraq has been backfiring all throughout. If you have read (if you have not, then read it) Bob Woodward`s Plan of Attack, you would surely come to know about how America planned the invasion and as to how was it meddling into Iraqi affairs after Operation Desert Storm! I will not go into the details about how the occupation/invasion and how it has been carried out, for I leave it for detailed analysis in the next part of this series of essays about Iraq on which I am working now adays!

``The international community has had to bear the brunt of high oil prices but not the Americans because gas at $3 a gallon is well within reach when family incomes in USA have grown by 5%+ every year, and now gas is back to previous levels. In the meantime, Exxon Mobil posted the largest quarterly profit in US history of $9.9bn. Plus there`s a fire-sale of Iraqi assets going on.``

All this might be true, but your arguement that the Americans are getting all the richer after this war might not be true if you venture out of the oil and defence industries and the Jewisdh lobby. I mean, look at the masses. Unemployment is rising, inflation has shown a rise recently, yeah, taxes might not be rising, but certainly the middle class is under increasing strain when it comes to paying the bills and the oil prices. This is not only because of the overall higg prices, but also because of reduction in the purchasing power of the dollar in the domestic and international market.


Hurricane Katrina was the one that informed the American masses that how much is their administration pre-occupied with the war in Iraq that it does not have the time to deal with emerging and evolving problems at home. America`s financial treasury is being emptied. Bill Clinton left in 2000 with a surplus of $5.6trillion and Bush so far has given in a budget deficit of $4.6 trillion. This means that the Bush administration`s spending has been at around $10.2 trillion! That surely is the size of China`s and India`s total GDP, perhaps much more than that!

According to Newsweek, the revenues coming in from oil, are less than ten percent of the total war expenditures which have seemingly crossed $300billion. Oil revenues are not being of benifit to America as a whole. I mean like if oil is coming in so cheap, then why are the American taxpayers paying such a high price???

Re: # 28

Many thanks for the kind words, have a nice life...

#27 by rf786

Okay rf. Next time, kindly ensure you have facts to back up your statements. Thanks.

Re: # 26

Calling ppl names is your only escape cause u have nothing meaningful to add....why dont u give yourself a break and stop embarrasing your heritage.....

#25 by rf786

Finished village idiot? At-least you`re down from $283 billion to $172 billion. Keep going ...!

Ref: 24 Contd:

Data released by DOE a US Govt agency is considered to be the least reliable since it does not have the same credibility as that of the IEA which is an independent agency. More importantly, it is on the interest of the US Govt to paint a rosy picture of Iraq.

Numbers we have assumed for our analytical purposes ignores the fact that Iraqi oil proceeds did not accrue any benefit to the US in the year 2003 as the war continued till the end of year. Niether does it include costs paid for extracting oil and shipment cost. We have made exceptions for these important factors to satisfy Zee`s anti-US paranoia.

Having calculated revenues collected and cost incurred we still have a shortfall of US$172Billion.

As for the refining side of the business, well if US forces can guard Iraqi oil fields with such diligence then why not iraqi refineries? After all, refining is the downstream business which has been a great source of increased revenues in this tight gasoline market. Fact is, ppl like Zee and Dr Dread have no fkng idea of economics, politics or anything else. These kinda ppl are a pack of drones who are brainwashed because of their inadequate existence and jaundiced view of life.

The end....

ZeeTv & Dr Dread (Hum pyala, hum niwala)

According to International Energy Agency (IEA) and OPEC, Iraq was producing 2.48MMB/D in February of 2003, invasion statrted on 20th March 2003. As of August 2006, Iraqi oil production is 1.94MMB/D ie a shortfall of 540K/D. These numbers can be verified through IEA website or Bloomberg sources.

According to US Govt released data and reported by mainstream press, war effort from 2003-2006 has incurred cost of US$283Billion. Now let us re-examine Zee`s thesis and I quote:

``However my contention is that all the war expenses including imports for domestic consumption is being met from Iraqi oil, while you have said the war is being financed through debt. How so? Where have the $200 billion+ oil revenues in 4 years been spent?``

In order to ascertain actual revenues generated oneneeds to know the real production numbers and oil prices. Listed as follows data provided by IEA:

Production Oil Price Days Revenues (Ann)
2003 1431 x 31 x 240 = 10,646,640
2004 2034 x 42 x 360 = 30,754,080
2005 1813 x 57 x 360 = 37,202,760
2006 1906 x 70 x 240 = 32,020,800

TOTAL REVENUES Generated by Iraqi oil production 110,624,280
US Govt Spending for same period 283,000,000

Net Shortfall: (172,375,720)

#22 by DrDr

One factor is that Iraqi oil is the cheapest in the world to extract at less than $5 a barrel, while refining is the expensive part. Americans don`t want to refine Iraqi oil in Iraq. They`re making money left right and centre ... i.e `loot mar at an unimaginable scale`.

zeemax, u`r absolutely right that iraqi oil is shipped out of basra while oil for domestic consumption is imported. Theres a severe shortage of gasoline domestically & theres a thriving black market.
The oil revenues r supposed 2 be spent on infrastructure development but instead its going to service debt, pay 4 security & food subsidies, ngo`s etc.

#17 by DrDr

Thanks for bringing up the point of imports for domestic consumption. Actually it appears the refineries are not functional and all the oil is being shipped in crude form by the contractors, while refined products are being imported from Kuwait. That is why there was the big scandal of Halliburton ripping off Pentagon with highly inflated prices for Kuwaiti petroleum.

In fact immediately after the occupation, the oil shipped out of Iraq was not even metered. Just pumped and sent off.

However my contention is that all the war expenses including imports for domestic consumption is being met from Iraqi oil, while you have said the war is being financed through debt. How so? Where have the $200 billion+ oil revenues in 4 years been spent?

Re: # 18

Hey HotLips
I hope u dont mind me calling u hotlips cause Iam simply following your given directions: ``Ok watch my lips``....

Your statement, the basis of debate:

``Do you see taxes going up in the US to fund their war effort through taxpayer money? The answer is no. Iraqis paid for their destruction and they will pay for their reconstruction``

Now go back to your supporting theory and suck on it....cause its not worth discussing anymore with a imbecile, blunderbuss....

Re: # 17

Dear DrDRr,

``iraq is IMPORTING oil 4 domestic consumption``....It is Zee`s contention that US led war effort expenses are being funded through Iraqi oil EXPORTS.

``zeemax is also right that the american tax payer has not been asked 2 pay 4 this war. almost all the money to support the US troops is borrowed.``.....

US Govt is the borrower since it incurred a budget deficit because of increased spendings, war payments and tax reduction policies set in the recession period. US Govt has already spent US$250BN on Iraq and maybe even more, that is the crux of the argument, this amount could not be funded by Iraqi oil exports.

#16 by radio-fraud786

Ok watch my lips:

I said: Iraq is pumping oil at pre-war levels.

You challenged: ``Iraqi oil is pumping at pre-war levels? For starters do u even know how much oil Iraq was producing pre-invasion?``

I proved: ``Iraq is not only back to producing at pre-war levels but in fact producing more than pre-war levels.``

You backtracked with: ``Iraqi production was lets be generous and assume ....blah blah`` But then started to chase your tail trying to clutch at straws by surmising how much revenue would have been generated, when that was not the debate.

So, it is clear that you are an un-informed ignoramus. You should stick to your area of expertise in being the head-gofur for some ABCXYZ Corp Inc in hicksville.

As for my lack of `basic manners of debate`, it is just that I respect informed debate but do not suffer fools gladly who do not even know the basic facts of what they`re arguing about!

#16 im not sure what u r arguing here.
iraq is IMPORTING oil 4 domestic consumption. what do u find wrong w/ zeemax`s #s?
iraq is incurring an enormous debt load as we speak most of which is indirectly 2 continue 2 fight the war. money that wud go 2 infrastructure development is being spent on security. zeemax is also right that the american tax payer has not been asked 2 pay 4 this war. almost all the money to support the US troops is borrowed. Cud u clarify what ur point is?

Re: # 15 & 14

Zee Tv,
Your hypocrisy, duplicity has no limits.....what u said when oil was @$75 has no bearing to this discussion. You may thump yourself or whatever, no one gives a sh!t what u said back in 1961....

Since u suffer from selective amnesia and keeping the gist of argument in perspective, lets examine what u said in your post in this thread....

``The cost may be much more than that but it is not to the Americans. It is coming right out of Iraqi oil. Iraq is pumping oil at pre-war levels and the most protected facilities are the Oil facilities of Kirkuk etc.....``

Then u go on with your humungous stupidity...

``Do you see taxes going up in the US to fund their war effort through taxpayer money? The answer is no. Iraqis paid for their destruction and they will pay for their reconstruction.``

Your incorrect assertion that Iraqi oil production was sufficient and US tax payers had no contribution towards the $250Bn spent was the basis of this argument, if u wish to retract your absurdity I have no problem.

In a nutshell, your conclusions were totally false and based on flawed/prejuidiced information.

What will happen going forward is a different story, whether oil prices stay at $70 or $60 those are assumptions and u r trying to divert the discussion away from your earlier crap droppings. Any case, if I need advise regarding oil prices rest assured I will not be looking for Zee TV cause u have completly exposed yourself.

As I said earlier, youhave no idea of economics, politics or basic manners of debate ie you are a complete fake with bad manners.

As they say in urdu...khisyani billee khamba nochay.....that applies perfectly to Zee Tv..

....contd....

Okay I read your garbage re oil production and Iraq. Of-course in your immense stupidity you`re saying whatever domestic consumption was for free. The total revenue estimated from 2.09m barrels production per day @ even average $60/bbl comes to $183 billion in four years, when Oil has been over $70 in the past year. The total revenue would thus be no less than the $250 billion you quoted, even assuming that is indeed the war cost. And it is the TOTAL revenue ... profits have nothing to do with it. The Americans are operating the filelds themselves and that is included in the war cost.

Then you quote `me` as saying (``2) You say ``Iraq has already cost the Americans more than two hundred and fifty billion dollars already.``}. I didn`t say that. The author did.

You`re just enormously ignorant.

#13 by rf786

Damn-Fool radio frquency, this is what I had written back in March 2006.

#1 by zeemax on March 5, 2006 12:47pm PT

Oil prices will touch $ 75 and crash when the others increase production.

What was the max traded oil price in the current crisis? Was it $75? Now it is below $60.

You can keep your moronic hypothetical arguments about oil prices to yourself. I didn`t read them.

As for the contractors` casualties, there are no figures. You can go and ask Blackwater whose 4 were dismembered and hung on a bridge in full public view in Falluja alone on a warm summer day.

Re: # 10 & # 12

Zee Jee,

Some ppl do have a life, a job, a family, friends...thus the delay, a thousand apologies for havinga life dearest....

Now coming back to your thesis...First of all, you are using data provided by Uncle Sam `Govt` agency, now we have two problems here (1) Zee using kuffar ka data and (2) its the `Govt` stupid, even the ppl of America do not believe what they say. Do you really believe their assertion that Iraqi Oil fields are back to normal? Either u r very naive or simply clutching for straws.

More importantly, assuming US Govt numbers are correct. Lets use Oil averaging $60 (which is being generous) for the last One year. Iraqi production was lets be generous and assume averaged 2.0MMBD. Now everyone knows fields do not operate for the full 365days of a year, but lets for Zee sake assume they did. Now we also know Iraqi domestic consumption to be 0.5Million, that leaves 1.5MMBD for export. Meaning:

60x360x1,500,000=US$32.4BN of oil revenues.

Since we are in the mood of being overly generous, lets assume profit margins were 50%..which leaves us with net profits of $16.2BN per annum.

Now lets go back to what u had pontificated:

{2) You say ``Iraq has already cost the Americans more than two hundred and fifty billion dollars already.``}

$250BN has been spent on Eye Rak, according to your thesis they have generated $16.2BN in oil income....Hoond sumaj mai aasy thay na aasy? There remains a deficit of US$233.8BN
Assuming the entire oil revenues were taken by the US Govt, even then the shortfall is a mammoth US$220 Billion.

Yaani ke, Jinaab e aaloo...u have no fkng idea of what u r talking about. Next time u wish to be erudite and not be embarrased take a course in humility.

And, Iam still waiting for your source with reference to the lost contractors.

With love and care.....

#11 by rf786

....later

What else. You need time to google something to defend your stupid assertion.

Re: # 10

Zee Jee,
Namashkaar, Salaam, Shalom, Aadab arz hai....jehan punna kee jai ho...reading your angry riposte reminds me of that beloved chocolate hero Waheed Murad and his famous song....Kuch log ruht ker bhee lagthay hein kithnay pyaray.....

Maths does not seem to be your forte....later

#8 by rf786

Iraqi oil is pumping at pre-war levels? For starters do u even know how much oil Iraq was producing pre-invasion?....political and supply risk premiums...lack of oil supplies

Just to prove the damn fool that you are, here`re the figures from none other than Energy Information Administration of the US Govt. In fact production now is more than pre-war levels at 2.093 million bbl/day Vs. 2.03 million bbl/day in 2002:



Rest of your post is equally damn-foolish.

the new colonialists have the same arguments the old colonialists had.....

....oh we can`t abandon the country the natives will kill each other -- the country will disintegrate in chaos...!

if the criminal invaders had so much love for that country and their people -- as the statistics of Fallujas, Ramadis, and Abu Gharibs show -- 150,000 Iraqis dead -- 300,000 maimed and injured -- the infrastructure in shambles -- the irresponsible bastards would not have invaded a fully functioning country, in the first place -- would they?

of course the natives will kill each other -- some scores for quislingship will be settled -- the pent up animosities -- deliberately promoted by the invaders -- between the ethnic groups, sects and the religious communities will boil over -- so what -- the countries will remain where they are -- wont disappear -- as in Vietnam -- as in case of the desi subcontinent......

and that will happen to Iraq as well -- despite the permanently prostrate `President` Jalal Talabani and his back stabbing killer kurdish kuislings.....the man would like his American Uncle to Karve Kurdistan for him from Turkey, Syria and Iran -- like they did from Iraq -- or stay with 2 permanent bases and 10,000 Americans as his personal life guards in Iraq -- (what 140,000 couldn`t do 10 thousand will do!) -- what a moron!.

......little does he know that as soon as the Americans depart it is his `presidentship` that will be carved out in four parts by the neighbors -- not the country.

Re: # 7

Zee Jee,

Jaan ke amaan ho tho kuch arz hai...

``.....Perhaps regular army soldiers. The actual number of Americans killed is several times that because the occupation is not only by the US regular army but in equal part by `contractors` i.e. mercenaries``....

Do u have any actual numbers? What is the source of your thesis?

``....The cost may be much more than that but it is not to the Americans. It is coming right out of Iraqi oil. Iraq is pumping oil at pre-war levels and the most protected facilities are the Oil facilities of Kirkuk etc. You read about insurgent attacks everywhere but never at oil facilities. It is because these are protected same as the green-zone in Baghdad........``

Iraqi oil is pumping at pre-war levels? For starters do u even know how much oil Iraq was producing pre-invasion? Passing sweeping statements that have no factual backings or realistic basis. If you ha the slightest inkling of energy markets u wud have known that oil prices are carrying political and supply risk premiums which includes lack of oil supplies.

``....Do you see taxes going up in the US to fund their war effort through taxpayer money? The answer is no. Iraqis paid for their destruction and they will pay for their reconstruction``

US budget surplus till 2001....now deficit....kapeesch.....Republican economic policies....spend, spend, lower taxes.....

Thats enough for one day, your entire economic/political thesis is flawed and premised on deep-seated prejuidices.

cheers....

Author,

The situation in Iraq is getting worse each passing day. A lot needs to be done in order to put the house in order in Iraq and it must be done soon.

Your entire thesis is that USA has made terrible mistakes in Iraq and USA needs to correct them. You are wrong on both counts. USA did exactly what it wanted to do and the results are exactly what USA wants.

Let me state a few facts which you have not addressed:

1) You say ``More than two thousand five hundred American soldiers have been killed``

Perhaps regular army soldiers. The actual number of Americans killed is several times that because the occupation is not only by the US regular army but in equal part by `contractors` i.e. mercenaries. The most dangerous missions are carried out by these mercenaries who are the second largest force in Iraq numbering 120,000. These are the people running supply lines and convoys which are regularly attacked but the numbers are not counted in military casualties. The relatively modest number of 2500 (2600+ now) is therefore misleading. Details here.

The US army in Iraq actually lives in luxury. It is a far cry from when GIs used to wash their own socks and cook potatoes and beans in helmets. Now they are served hot food and laundry services by Halliburton/KBR, and their food trucks are guarded by Blackwater.

2) You say ``Iraq has already cost the Americans more than two hundred and fifty billion dollars already.``

The cost may be much more than that but it is not to the Americans. It is coming right out of Iraqi oil. Iraq is pumping oil at pre-war levels and the most protected facilities are the Oil facilities of Kirkuk etc. You read about insurgent attacks everywhere but never at oil facilities. It is because these are protected same as the green-zone in Baghdad. Do you really believe all that revenue is going to the `elected` democratic government of Iraq? Do you see that money being spent anywhere in Iraq? Do you see taxes going up in the US to fund their war effort through taxpayer money? The answer is no. Iraqis paid for their destruction and they will pay for their reconstruction. They`re still paying for Kuwait BTW.

3) Then you say ``American failures in Iraq have been potentially dangerous for all: the Americans, the Iraqis and the world at large. Today, the world is significantly less safer than what it was prior to the war in Iraq. The international community has had to bear the brunt of high oil prices—a direct outcome of America’s current policies in the Middle East.

Let`s take this one by one. The world is less safe but not the Americans. They are more or less as safe or as unsafe as before Iraq but certainly a lot richer. Look at the growth figures since 2003. The Iraqis of-course are unsafe (understatement) but that is besides the point and of no consequence to Americans. The international community has had to bear the brunt of high oil prices but not the Americans because gas at $3 a gallon is well within reach when family incomes in USA have grown by 5%+ every year, and now gas is back to previous levels. In the meantime, Exxon Mobil posted the largest quarterly profit in US history of $9.9bn. Plus there`s a fire-sale of Iraqi assets going on.

There are more observations, but I`ll suffice with this. US destroyed Afghanistan and left the mess with NATO to clean up. US destroyed Iraq and will soon leave it to Iraqis to handle while keeping the Oil under its bases it is building there. US destroyed Lebanon through Israel and has assigned Israel never to let it get back on its feet as it sees it as a conduit for Iranian influence in the heart of M.E. In fact, all that USA is doing, is right according to plan while laughing all the way to the bank.

But history has a way of upsetting even the most well thought out plans.

In addition to #4 read this FAKE SHOWMANSHIP

As the poet has said,

Raaz khud mushtahar ho to mein kya karoon?

Amir Jamaat-e-Islamia-e-Chowk-Ibn-Al-Qaeda, Pir of the Jamaat-e-men-only-club, Shreek of the Cult of the Fortune Tellers, Nostraduamn-e-Chowk! Masadus Complexii Psuedo Scholarii; opines below (re #4).

O Great Amir of the Jamaat, #3 is talking about folk like you and me. Ofcourse O great Shreek, you are also into prostituing your mind and selling your books sitting in the west. What difference does it make to the pakistani if an arab or two goes AWOL. The average Pakistani is in dire need of your serivces intellectual or otherwise.

The great Man in Islamabad has to make a living legally. If he does it through S&S so be it - you should not feel jealous of his abilities O Great Amir, Worlds greatest Shreek.
He has not sold Pakistan`s national Sovereignity. It was never there in the first place. He got it back from the the Buttos and the Nawazs.

Re #3, when selling books is of greater importance than national sovereignity, when the ``president`` of a nation answers more to Simon & Schuster and gets a pat on the back for a ``good job`` as he wags his tail in elation to Bush, a nation with such a ``leader`` is indeed in deep trouble.

Re: # 2
Again same problem, let Arabs do what they want. No body is bothered about Pakistans Future. Things are not going well. Prices are shooting as usual for coming religious days. Indian agents in B.Stan are blowing up as usual electic wire carrying pylons,and back at work to blast pipelines. Baloch. Nationalists are making noises. All in mess and its strange people are worried about arabs. They are rich nations they can manage but what about Pakistan or it has to wait till iraq finds solution. As in another article this Arabphobia is making too much atteintion of people. No body is bothered about pakistan , the country they live in, Pakistani intelligent people worried about other`s business when our house is in disorder. We have this too much of Arabism. Let us talk about future of Pakistan for change.
Sabse Pehela Pakistan, reapeat ten tiimes.

Read <<< Make one or two mistakes and miscalculations and they are see as such > as

Make one or two mistakes and miscalculations and they are seen as such (i.e. mistakes)

The author ignores the fact that this mayhem and choas might actually be what the US desires in that region, afterall it is extremely profitable and there is nothing to show for where that money is being spent not to mention the higher oil prices, a windfall through and through, like a capitalist wet dream where the profits come in without a product or any input.

Make one or two mistakes and miscalculations and they are see as such make a whole series of them and do nothing to alter that pattern and you see deliberate design behind these ``mistakes``. Regarding the newly trained Iraqi military, there was a report a while back on NPR about how lightly they are equipped, one reason for why the Americans don`t want to equipt them properly is because they don`t trust them, those same Iraqi units might turn against the Americans or at the very least defy them as they did in the assault on Falluja. Reports coming out of Iraq suggest that Saddam was even willing to sell his mama to the Americans were they to put off the invasion but they refused, war and the resulting mayhem and profits were on their mind from the very start, we have a whole series of US interventions where they prefer to gate themselves in what they`ve bombed back into ``the stone age``. Saddam did much better in reconstruction after Gulf War 1 than what the US has done after comparatively smaller scale war, that should tell us something about US intentions.

Picture Iran being built up by the US as a mini hegemonous power of sorts, its actions in Iraq have ensured that, if the US moves out Iran will move in a step towards larger mayhem in the general middle east region. Their barbarism and long term plans are just warming up, as the poet has said

ibtada e ishq hey rota hey kya
aagey aagey dhaikh hota hey kya.