As British forces pull back from Basra in southern Iraq, Shiite militias there have escalated a violent battle against each other for political supremacy and control over oil resources, deepening concerns among some U.S. officials in Baghdad that elements of Iraq's Shiite-dominated national government will turn on one another once U.S. troops begin to draw down. Three major Shiite political groups are locked in a bloody conflict that has left the city in the hands of militias and criminal gangs, whose control extends to municipal offices and neighborhood streets. The city is plagued by "the systematic misuse of official institutions, political assassinations, tribal vendettas, neighborhood vigilantism and enforcement of social mores, together with the rise of criminal mafias that increasingly intermingle with political actors," a recent report by the International Crisis Group said. After Saddam Hussein was overthrown in April 2003, British forces took control of the region, and the cosmopolitan port city of Basra thrived with trade, arts and universities. As recently as February, Vice President Cheney hailed Basra as a part of Iraq "where things are going pretty well." But "it's hard now to paint Basra as a success story," said a senior U.S. official in Baghdad with long experience in the south. Instead, it has become a different model, one that U.S. officials with experience in the region are concerned will be replicated throughout the Iraqi Shiite homeland from Baghdad to the Persian Gulf. A recent series of war games commissioned by the Pentagon also warned of civil war among Shiites after a reduction in U.S. forces. For the past four years, the administration's narrative of the Iraq war has centered on al-Qaeda, Iran and the sectarian violence they have promoted. But in the homogenous south -- where there are virtually no U.S. troops or al-Qaeda fighters, few Sunnis, and by most accounts limited influence by Iran -- Shiite militias fight one another as well as British troops. A British strategy launched last fall to reclaim Basra neighborhoods from violent actors -- similar to the current U.S. strategy in Baghdad -- brought no lasting success. ‘Surrounded like cowboys and Indians’ "The British have basically been defeated in the south," a senior U.S. intelligence official said recently in Baghdad. They are abandoning their former headquarters at Basra Palace, where a recent official visitor from London described them as "surrounded like cowboys and Indians" by militia fighters. An airport base outside the city, where a regional U.S. Embassy office and Britain's remaining 5,500 troops are barricaded behind building-high sandbags, has been attacked with mortars or rockets nearly 600 times over the past four months. .............................................. The current U.S. security operation to "clear, hold and build" in Baghdad and its surroundings is almost a replica of Operation Sinbad, which British and Iraqi forces conducted in Basra from September 2006 to March of this year with a mission of "clear, hold and civil reconstruction." Although Operation Sinbad initially succeeded in lowering crime and political assassinations, attacks rose in the spring and British forces withdrew into their compounds. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20137025/ Is anyone who still doubts that the current "strategy" of this administration for Iraq is doomed to fail?
MSNBC is always a good source for stories like this. Their stories thrive on anonymous and unnamed sources. Any credit to those who do not have the ability to live peacefully amongst themselves? This is a good argument that muslims simply do not have the ability to live in peace, even when the opportunity for such exists. Thanks for inadvertently pointing that out.
Quote The administration has been reluctant to publicly criticize the British withdrawal. But a British defense expert serving as a consultant in Baghdad acknowledged in an e-mail that the United States "has been very concerned for some time now about a) the lawless situation in Basra and b) the political and military impact of the British pullback." The expert added that this "has been expressed at the highest levels" by the U.S. government to British authorities. Who is responsible for this latest fiasco UK or USA or both
More importantly, who are all these unnamed experts and sources that MSNBC always uses in their anti-war propaganda?
The usual MSNBC incompetents what they should write :- Is that the USA and UK are going to annexe all the oil fields and oil resources Then the Iraqis can still fight it out amongst themselves although in reality there would then be nothing to fight over, as the Oil will already by then be secure in the safe hands of the rightful owners
We are not talking about the Gas station that you work in after school, we are talking about OIL COMPANIES.
The source for the MSNBC article is the Washington Post. The Post has reporters on the ground in Iraq. Consider two divergent perspectives when reading this article. 1) There are no al-queda in southern Iraq. The violence and conditions currently in Basra do not reflect fighting al-queda. 2) While conditions in Basra were relatively peaceful in the first few years after the military whupped Saddam's army....as the British have pulled out of the region it has turned into pure chaos. On the one hand....the war in Iraq is not a battle exclusively against al-quada, as Bush has been emphasizing of late. The fighting against al-quada in Iraq is one component of a large anarchic situation. On the other hand pulling out of Iraq leaves an incredibly dangerous and anarchic situation with ramifications that would be difficult to assess. All in all an incredibly ugly situation no matter how you look at it.
Check the financials. The big oil companies operate within a margin of about 11-12%, which is about the same as walmart. They only have huge revenues because the demand for oil, across the world, is getting higher and higher each year as more countries develop. It's not rocket science. Well, maybe to you, it is.
Energy department report: "Financial Performance Twenty-four major U.S. energy companies reported overall net income (excluding unusual items) of $16.7 billion on revenues of $213 billion during the second quarter of 2004 (2Q04). This level of net income represented a 67% increase relative to the second quarter of 2003 (2Q03) (see EIA's "Financial News for Major Energy Companies "). Domestic upstream oil and natural gas production operations accounted for $6.3 billion of net income, with domestic refining and marketing operations also earning $6.3 billion. Foreign upstream oil and natural gas production operations accounted for $5.0 billion of net income, with foreign refining and marketing operations at $1.3 billion. Independent oil and natural gas producers, oil field companies and refiner/marketers reported a sharp increase in net income (up 75%) during 2Q04 compared to 2Q03 (see EIA’s "Financial News for Independent Energy Companies"). This increase in net income was due primarily to large increases in the prices of natural gas and crude oil, and a rise in gross refining margins of 49% year-over-year. " As you know the price of oil is even higher now.
Note to gworld. Oil refiner/marketers are not the big oil companies. Refineries are the big problem with price right now, but that's a supply/demand issue. We haven't built any refineries since the 70's I believe, so the ones we have are running at peak volume. If you remember last month when prices rose, it was due to outages/breakdowns at the refineries. Prices are coming down now again, because the refineries are operating at better performance. You are trying to make an argument that doesn't even make sense. If you actually read what you quoted, it is all about refining capacity. To get prices down; I suppose you'd support building new oil refineries wouldn't you? If so, I'd have your american buddies call up the democrats/republicans in congress who are not allowing refinery building permits to get put through because of trumped up environmental concerns. So, gworld, gonna call your american buddies to have them demand congress to allow the building of more refineries?
Are you this stupid or are you deliberately try to ignore my post? It is a simple math, if you sell something for more without increase in your cost, your profit goes up, but as long as you have your Bible who needs math. 2 (price)- 1 (cost)= 1 (profit) 10 (price)- 1 (cost)= 9 (profit)
Yes, gworld. I do suggest you learn the math. You are making my point, for the second post in a row. You must enjoy it; you are making my job here awfully simple. 16.7/213 = 7.8% operating margin. Revenue is higher because of increased costs; but clearly profit did not follow. Are you mad that the company makes 7 cents on every dollar it sells. Is that your beef here? If it is; I suggest you get on board and support more refineries, which will bring the price of oil down. Would you like to go ahead and do that now or no?
Again I have to ask: Are you this stupid or are you deliberately try to ignore my post? This level of net income represented a 67% increase relative to the second quarter of 2003. Do you know what Net Income is?
Having worked in corporate accounting for publicly held company, when companies are tremendously profitable...they can manipulate the numbers that start at the top--Revenues; and the numbers at the bottom --profits (hopefully) and eat up lots of reported profits--some of which gets reported in other quarters or years. (Likewise companies can do this in lean years. companies often do this. Typically more telling numbers reflect actual cash generated in any one reporting period...and then the uses of cash during those periods. At this point in time oil companies make a lot of money!! But this thread was about what is going on in Basra. I'm curious as to comments. I see 2 impacts that reflect on the war in Iraq and the debates about it; 1.) The war is not strictly a battle between al-quada and the west. 2.) Leaving a portion of Iraq can result in chaos. BTW: Basra is one of those areas w/ a lot of oil and it is the shipping pt from Iraq.
You are quoting a next to meaningless statistic. I'm showing you actual margins, you are showing percent gains. They don't mean anything, gworld. Do you not grasp that? The numbers do not reflect previous years gross revenues so they cannot be compared. If you cannot compare 2002 gross to 2003 gross; a comparison of 2002 net to 2003 net is meaningless; now isn't it? You are attempting to derive some sort of price gouging from incomplete information and that's dishonest. You realize it; just won't admit it. Do you, that's the question. I'm curious if you understand the incomplete comparison you are making. I've clearly shown that the net operating margins are 7.8% under your own numbers. Do you disagree? Do you think that's too much or how much would you like it to be? Again, care to show support for increased refining capacity?