|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1721
Location: San Francisco
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 6:19 pm Post subject: Secret Plan to Keep Iraq Under US Control |
    |
|
Revealed: Secret Plan to Keep Iraq Under US Control
Thursday 05 June 2008
by: Patrick Cockburn, The Independent UK
Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors.
A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.
The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.
But the accord also threatens to provoke a political crisis in the US. President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated. But by perpetuating the US presence in Iraq, the long-term settlement would undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to withdraw US troops if he is elected president in November.
The timing of the agreement would also boost the Republican candidate, John McCain, who has claimed the United States is on the verge of victory in Iraq - a victory that he says Mr Obama would throw away by a premature military withdrawal.
America currently has 151,000 troops in Iraq and, even after projected withdrawals next month, troop levels will stand at more than 142,000 - 10 000 more than when the military "surge" began in January 2007. Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government.
The precise nature of the American demands has been kept secret until now. The leaks are certain to generate an angry backlash in Iraq. "It is a terrible breach of our sovereignty," said one Iraqi politician, adding that if the security deal was signed it would delegitimise the government in Baghdad which will be seen as an American pawn.
The US has repeatedly denied it wants permanent bases in Iraq but one Iraqi source said: "This is just a tactical subterfuge." Washington also wants control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000ft and the right to pursue its "war on terror" in Iraq, giving it the authority to arrest anybody it wants and to launch military campaigns without consultation.
Mr Bush is determined to force the Iraqi government to sign the so-called "strategic alliance" without modifications, by the end of next month. But it is already being condemned by the Iranians and many Arabs as a continuing American attempt to dominate the region. Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the powerful and usually moderate Iranian leader, said yesterday that such a deal would create "a permanent occupation". He added: "The essence of this agreement is to turn the Iraqis into slaves of the Americans."
Iraq's Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is believed to be personally opposed to the terms of the new pact but feels his coalition government cannot stay in power without US backing.
The deal also risks exacerbating the proxy war being fought between Iran and the United States over who should be more influential in Iraq.
Although Iraqi ministers have said they will reject any agreement limiting Iraqi sovereignty, political observers in Baghdad suspect they will sign in the end and simply want to establish their credentials as defenders of Iraqi independence by a show of defiance now. The one Iraqi with the authority to stop deal is the majority Shia spiritual leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. In 2003, he forced the US to agree to a referendum on the new Iraqi constitution and the election of a parliament. But he is said to believe that loss of US support would drastically weaken the Iraqi Shia, who won a majority in parliament in elections in 2005.
The US is adamantly against the new security agreement being put to a referendum in Iraq, suspecting that it would be voted down. The influential Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has called on his followers to demonstrate every Friday against the impending agreement on the grounds that it compromises Iraqi independence.
The Iraqi government wants to delay the actual signing of the agreement but the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney has been trying to force it through. The US ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, has spent weeks trying to secure the accord.
The signature of a security agreement, and a parallel deal providing a legal basis for keeping US troops in Iraq, is unlikely to be accepted by most Iraqis. But the Kurds, who make up a fifth of the population, will probably favour a continuing American presence, as will Sunni Arab political leaders who want US forces to dilute the power of the Shia. The Sunni Arab community, which has broadly supported a guerrilla war against US occupation, is likely to be split.
_________________
"I'm the commander . . . see, I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation." GWB |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1721
Location: San Francisco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1721
Location: San Francisco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ArchiMotion
Joined: 31 May 2008
Posts: 315
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I say we get the "H" out of Irack as quickly as possible.
How we gonna do that?
No so difficult. Got a plan -->>
1. Give control over to a US puppet government.
2. Protect the borders with US troops and technology, anti-missile technology and "tech schtuff"
3. Allow a few military personnel to stay around to guarantee the security.
With this plan, we remove 70 to 80 percent of the forces there and maintain only a strategic presence, allowing the puppet government to run the country, with full US support, and if needed, military action to avoid attempts to overthrow the government.
4. We keep the troops out of there, in other regions, but with easy reach, if needed, as step 1. Step two, as the local government grows stronger on it's own, we slowly move those troops further away... until the majority are no longer needed.
5. The borders are kept secure and the local government continues to enjoy US strategic support.
There will be of course some internal infighting, but this is a natural consequence of the presence of multi-ethnic groups there....
Eventually local balance is restored.
We maintain intelligence in there to prevent another dictatorship.
They only get our support if they are playing by the rules.
Anybody got a better plan ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antisthenes
Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Posts: 688
Location: Phoenix
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 9:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
you would have to be kidding yourself if you think USA would let go of the prize. the payoffs only start when the oil starts running out ever where else around 2011. sad but true, a greedy self sustainable only plan with the intention of starving china, india or anybody else who thinks they are going to keep growing a bigger energy need past a certain point in world Peak when iraq is the only source left.
_________________
The most necessary/useful piece of learning is that which unlearns what is untrue: 'evil'
may be acquired, Happiness through virtue which is based on knowledge!/? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ArchiMotion
Joined: 31 May 2008
Posts: 315
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So you are saying we are essentially only there for the oil? Not to sound stupid, but how much really is the US benefiting from the oil in Iraq?
From what I see, there is a debate on this.
For what it is worth, here is one link -->>
http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/iraq.asp
Personally I don't take a stand on this issue, as we may be benefiting, but I believe it is too extreme to say we only went there for the oil. To do this, further, is only encouraging our enemies to hate us. In fact, in foreign countries the US has lost much prestige as many believe the US is only there for oil, so many hate Americans for this.
People think the US is being hypocritical - this only encourages terrorism.
If people believe the US is unjust and hypocritical, we are going to only have more terrorism.
Besides, aren't the actions of this country determined by what the people want, and not what a select few in Washington want? If we as a whole would like the US OUT of Iraq, who is Washington to go against the wish of the people? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antisthenes
Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Posts: 688
Location: Phoenix
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
yes the short term expense is very huge especially in the loss of life and costs. but from all the charts i have seen after 2014 iraq will be one of the few places on earth with oil reserves, these war criminals know what they are doing and plan to get away with it. let us just hope Obama does not become complicit at some point.
_________________
The most necessary/useful piece of learning is that which unlearns what is untrue: 'evil'
may be acquired, Happiness through virtue which is based on knowledge!/? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ArchiMotion
Joined: 31 May 2008
Posts: 315
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter has warned that an attack on Iraq will have disastrous consequences for peace and security in the Middle East and is likely to aggravate increased support for future attacks on America. It is certain that the war will damage Western economies, triggering a substantial increase in oil prices until the allies seize control of Iraq's abundant oil fields. |
I like this part of the text. It is suggesting we are having this huge oil crisis now as a direct result of the US invading Iraq. In other words, we made our own peanut butter sandwich and now we have to eat it, no matter how bad it tastes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antisthenes
Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Posts: 688
Location: Phoenix
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
the list goes on
creating the contras, arming the Iranians, putting Saddam in power, creating the Taliban...
_________________
The most necessary/useful piece of learning is that which unlearns what is untrue: 'evil'
may be acquired, Happiness through virtue which is based on knowledge!/? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ArchiMotion
Joined: 31 May 2008
Posts: 315
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:49 pm Post subject: The US is not benefitting from militarism & Iraq Oil |
|
|
Are we really benefiting from Iraq oil ?
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/economy/2008/0310oilforwar.htm
| Quote: | | But America’s presence in Iraq isn’t making use of the local riches. Indeed, little, if any, Iraqi oil is being used by the American military. Instead, the bulk of the fuel needed by the U.S. military is being trucked in from the sprawling Mina Abdulla refinery complex, which lies a few dozen kilometers south of Kuwait City. In 2006 alone, the Defense Energy Support Center purchased $909.3 million in motor fuel from the state-owned Kuwait Petroleum Corporation. In addition to the Kuwaiti fuel, the U.S. military is trucking in fuel from Turkey. But some of that Turkish fuel actually originates in refineries as far away as Greece. |
I believe the US military went there to "secure the oil", not to take control of the oil. This is thus a popular myth, an after the fact type of event.
And here is another consequence of all this -->>
| Quote: | While the U.S. military chases its own fuel tail in Iraq, a country that sits atop 115 billion barrels of oil—about 9.5 percent of the world’s total—the global energy industry is racing forward with new alliances and deals, many of which would have been unthinkable before the invasion. Those alliances have far-reaching significance for America’s foreign and energy policy. The world’s oil market is no longer shaped by U.S. military power. Markets are trumping militarism. As one analyst put it recently, dollars are replacing “bullets as shapers of the geopolitical picture.”
The importance of this point is obvious: as the effectiveness of militarism in controlling global energy trends is declining, the U.S. is spending billions of dollars a week in Mesopotamia on a war effort that—if John McCain is right—could drain the American treasury for decades to come. Meanwhile, America’s key rivals, China and Russia in particular, are using their influence to forge economic alliances that are realigning the global balance of power. They are creating a multi-polar world in which America’s influence will be substantially diminished.
This realignment is particularly advantageous for major energy exporting countries such as Russia, Abu Dhabi, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and of course, Iran. These states are taking advantage of higher energy prices caused by ever-increasing global energy demand and tightening supplies. And while the Bush administration has tried to diminish the influence of countries like Iran and Russia, there’s little, if anything, the U.S. can do to slow the trend. The myriad of energy exploration and production contracts that the Iranians have signed in recent months proves the point.
Meanwhile, Russia’s state-controlled behemoth, Gazprom, has consolidated its hold on the European natural gas market. Add the massive financial power of the sovereign wealth funds of just three countries—Abu Dhabi, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, who hold a combined $1.4 trillion in assets—and the shift in power becomes even more apparent. Higher energy prices are the main difference between the first Iraq War and the second, says Jeff Dietert, a managing director at Simmons & Company International, a Houston-based investment banking firm that focuses on the energy sector. “It’s a completely different result from the first Iraq War, which was really a demonstration of military prowess. It was quick and decisive versus the current situation in Iraq, which is slow, expensive and drawn out.” |
and further, Dubai and the neighboring area is to blame yes also -->>
| Quote: |
Another indication of the shift in power can be seen by looking at the new the Dubai Mercantile Exchange, which last June began trading the Oman Crude Oil Futures Contract. By getting into the energy futures business, Dubai is assuring that the crude oil coming out of the Persian Gulf has its own benchmark price—one that is not reliant on Western crude oil standards such as West Texas Intermediate and North Sea Brent. It also puts Dubai in competition with the traditional trading hubs in New York and London. In July 2006, Gary King, the CEO of the Dubai exchange, told me that the emergence of the exchange and the new futures contract indicates that the Persian Gulf is “the center of the world’s biggest hydrocarbon province. Most of the growth in oil consumption is in Asia-Pacific. So it’s a natural shift in gravity. Our timing is very opportune to be in that center of gravity.”
This change cannot be stopped or ignored. In today’s multi-polar world, economic interests, not military force, predominate. “It used to be that the side with the most guns would win,” says G.I. Wilson, a recently retired Marine Corps colonel, who has written extensively on terrorism and asymmetric warfare and spent 15 months fighting in Iraq. Today, says Wilson, the side “with the most guns goes bankrupt.”
Since World War II, America has held fast to the idea that controlling the oil flow out of the Persian Gulf must be assured at the point of a M-16 rifle. But the cost of that approach has been crippling. As the U.S. military pursues its occupation of Iraq—with the fuel costs approaching $1 billion per week—it’s obvious that the U.S. needs to rethink the assumption that secure energy sources depend on militarism. The emerging theme of the 21st-century energy business is the increasing power of markets. The U.S. can either adapt or continue hurtling down the road to bankruptcy. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ed Ziomek
Joined: 07 Jun 2005
Posts: 561
Location: Stamford, Connecticut
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 6:10 pm Post subject: 8-8-8-8-8 |
|
|
Bad feelings about this one date. 8:08 AM, 8-8-08.
Today we have the news that a Marine detachment has been extended thirty days in-country in Afghanistan.
Or this week of the possibility of American financing covert activities within Iran. (surprised?)
Or more troops to be sent to Afghanistan.
Two movies... Platoon, where the sergeant tells the guy..."I've got bad feelings about this one, like I'm not coming back."
Or the Deer Hunter scene where Robert DeNiro begs his buddy Chris Walken...not to pull the trigger... but it is a certainty he can't control.
Folks, there are things we can control, and things we cannot control, and I think human nature seeks out the least common denominators, with the most cataclysmic. self devastating repurcussions.
Cultural Suicide? I hope not. Why are we at this predicament, in the first place, for what gain? Oil? Economic dominance?
Seether...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO2nqcN3EGg
_________________
Ed Ziomek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antisthenes
Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Posts: 688
Location: Phoenix
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 1:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
slavery to the corporation
_________________
The most necessary/useful piece of learning is that which unlearns what is untrue: 'evil'
may be acquired, Happiness through virtue which is based on knowledge!/? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WorldDesigner
Joined: 08 Jun 2008
Posts: 38
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 8:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Heck, America has long been over-extending itself, and now with the mortgage crisis, government deficit, staggering economy and bullish refusal of the government to promote more alternative energies, and sit back and blame the system it created, not only is it shooting itself in the foot, but is undermining our hopes and dreams of being true world leaders. The government has lost it's course and strayed us into a near Armaggedon and man do we need to wake up fast. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ed Ziomek
Joined: 07 Jun 2005
Posts: 561
Location: Stamford, Connecticut
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 9:03 am Post subject: Agree, with one exception |
|
|
Worlddesigner... I agree with everything you said except one...
Why do we need to be "world leaders"? Does Switzerland try to be number one, or is it content with being #27? Does anyone care if Sweden is number 16 or 46?
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae failing? Who should be surprised?
T Boone Pickens for President. This is an emergency, and we have to change right now!
_________________
Ed Ziomek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1721
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 2:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was shocked and saddened to learn, only recently, of the concept called "American exceptionalism," a belief that America and Americans are somehow apart from and (presumably) better than people of other nations ! Something about our devotion to family, and religion; our supposed greater generosity to others, blah blah. As if every people didn't want to believe that they are "chosen," and somehow better than their neighbors.
William Buckley was apparently of this mind; last week's Bill Moyers Journal interview presented a younger conservative who also espoused this view. If this is the sort of "magical thinking" and arrogance that characterizes the Right in this country, we are in for a helluva ride. . .
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
