Politics/Elections/World News
Started by pcmodem · 6 Oct 2004 · 1,480 replies
General Discussion
![[image]](http://images.dermstore.com/catalog/100005/300x300/5505.jpg){kind=link}
Revealed: Secret plan to keep Iraq under US control
Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors
By Patrick Cockburn
Thursday, 5 June 2008
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.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/revealed-secret-plan-to-keep-iraq-under-us-control-840512.html
Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors
By Patrick Cockburn
Thursday, 5 June 2008
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.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/revealed-secret-plan-to-keep-iraq-under-us-control-840512.html
Tu_triky wrote:Revealed: Secret plan to keep Iraq under US control
Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors
Yow. :sweat:
That can't be good... If it goes through, the incoming President will be screwed, to say the least.
bmwracer wrote:
Yow. :sweat:
That can't be good... If it goes through, the incoming President will be screwed, to say the least.
Disconcerting to say at the very least. The lame duck is at his machinations again.
Interesting site. Updated daily with election status. Mouse over state to see state details:
http://electoral-vote.com/
http://electoral-vote.com/
This thing about Bush wanting to set up permenant bases in Iraq isn't exactly new. The link below is to a story from 2004 in which the General in charge of building the 14 "enhanced" bases was interviewed.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040323-enduring-bases.htm
I have trouble buying that they want 50 bases. I mean, Iraq just isn't that big. But since Bush and his boys went to the trouble (just this morning) of telling the press that they aren't planning permenant bases... I have to assume they are.
Assuming the opposite of whatever Bush says seems to be the best practise.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040323-enduring-bases.htm
I have trouble buying that they want 50 bases. I mean, Iraq just isn't that big. But since Bush and his boys went to the trouble (just this morning) of telling the press that they aren't planning permenant bases... I have to assume they are.
Assuming the opposite of whatever Bush says seems to be the best practise.
[Shocking and not so shocking... Since in the next few years, we might see a lot of energy fueled conflicts, better have a few bases where it's at. They still have a lot of WW2 era bases in Europe, 2 or 3 in Japan and in Korea IIRC.
Let me guess, does the new proposition has a footnote saying all bases activites should be provided by Cheney's former company? The contracts should be way overpriced and must includes kickbacks to various people. :beaten:
Let me guess, does the new proposition has a footnote saying all bases activites should be provided by Cheney's former company? The contracts should be way overpriced and must includes kickbacks to various people. :beaten:
tabana wrote:
Let me guess, does the new proposition has a footnote saying all bases activites should be provided by Cheney's former company? The contracts should be way overpriced and must includes kickbacks to various people. :beaten:
Sounds about right.
Btu with all these bases, what are they gonna use for troops? Enlisting in the Army or Marines now is pretty much a guaranteed one way ticket to Baghdad, at some point they're going to have a hard time getting volunteers.
It's so the Russians can take them over and say"All your base are belong to us" :hehe:
Anime Dad wrote:It's so the Russians can take them over and say"All your base are belong to us" :hehe:
The Russians don't care about bases anymore my friend...they have their OWN oil deposits and they are swimming in f------ loot!!!!! Moscow is now one of the most expensive cities to live in worldwide.
Tu_triky wrote:
Moscow is now one of the most expensive cities to live in worldwide.
Well, further incentive not to live/move to Russia. :banghead:
I believe Tokyo is the most expensive on average, no? :sweat:
adub2adub wrote:
Well, further incentive not to live/move to Russia. :banghead:
I believe Tokyo is the most expensive on average, no? :sweat:
Tokyo is always in the top 5 or so...but I've seen past surveys that have ranked London as most expensive...these surveys are fairly fluid...check this one out from last year.
http://property.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/property/overseas/article1939874.ece
Tu_triky wrote:
The Russians don't care about bases anymore my friend...they have their OWN oil deposits and they are swimming in f------ loot!!!!! Moscow is now one of the most expensive cities to live in worldwide.
Oh well. I'm sure the Iraquis can say "All your base are belong to us" as well as the Russians ;)
Anime Dad wrote:
Oh well. I'm sure the Iraquis can say "All your base are belong to us" as well as the Russians ;)
Indeed. Indeed. :)
So I finally read through all the posts since my last in here, and I started to write a response but quickly realized it was going to go on forever correcting everyone. So the hell with that. It's funny watching a group of people with absolutely zero knowledge of what they are talking about yammer on like they do and pat themselves on the back for it. So go on believing that it was all a Halliburton plot, Blackwater's motto is "how many innocent people can we make dead", gas companies are doctoring gas prices, and our enemies are all just a Bush scare tactic. No amount of facts or common sense will change what you learn from email chain letters. And I'm in too good of a mood from watching Nodame Cantabile to waste it in this thread explaining.
Gyabo!!
Gyabo!!
They're not worried about the Russians. They're worried about the Chinese.
None of this is new. I mentioned this a long time ago, but if anyone wants to know what the plan is... what the ultimate goal is... read the "Project For a New American Century." (PNAC)
It's sort of the Neo-Con manifesto.
It was written back in the early '90s and ammended in the late 90s. Ammended because both Bush the Elder, and Clinton told the authors to stuff it when it was presented to them.
It's since been dismissed by deep thinkers as just the ramblings of a conservative "think tank". But that "Think Tank" went on to be W's whole freakin' administration when he took office. Anyone who has paid any attention to American politics over the last 7 years knows everyone who signed the document.
These aren't just some academics in a back room somewhere. This thing was written by, and signed by, Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, William Bennet, Scooter Libby, Don Rumsfeld, John Bolton, William Kristol, and more.
In it they talked about their fears about China, its industrialization, and it's need for oil. They talked about the need to secure the oil fields in the middle east. The idea being that the big oil companies would control the middle eastern oil fields, and therefore control China.
There is a section in it where they talked about needing some sort of a "Pearl Harbor" event to make the American people angry, and use that as an excuse to invade and take over Iraq. And then to use bases in Iraq as a pivot point to either threaten or invade other countries in the middle east.
There's also a nice section in there about militarizing space. But we can leave that for another day.
My point is... the guys from PNAC wrote down what they thought the U.S. Government had to do to secure (and expand) what they called "The American Empire".
And when those guys became the Government, they set their plans in motion.
About the only thing that's slowed them down is the complete incompetance in the way they've dealt with Iraq.
They thought they'd have the country subdued, the bases up and running, the oil flowing, and be ready to invade Syria a year after invading Iraq.
None of this is new. I mentioned this a long time ago, but if anyone wants to know what the plan is... what the ultimate goal is... read the "Project For a New American Century." (PNAC)
It's sort of the Neo-Con manifesto.
It was written back in the early '90s and ammended in the late 90s. Ammended because both Bush the Elder, and Clinton told the authors to stuff it when it was presented to them.
It's since been dismissed by deep thinkers as just the ramblings of a conservative "think tank". But that "Think Tank" went on to be W's whole freakin' administration when he took office. Anyone who has paid any attention to American politics over the last 7 years knows everyone who signed the document.
These aren't just some academics in a back room somewhere. This thing was written by, and signed by, Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, William Bennet, Scooter Libby, Don Rumsfeld, John Bolton, William Kristol, and more.
In it they talked about their fears about China, its industrialization, and it's need for oil. They talked about the need to secure the oil fields in the middle east. The idea being that the big oil companies would control the middle eastern oil fields, and therefore control China.
There is a section in it where they talked about needing some sort of a "Pearl Harbor" event to make the American people angry, and use that as an excuse to invade and take over Iraq. And then to use bases in Iraq as a pivot point to either threaten or invade other countries in the middle east.
There's also a nice section in there about militarizing space. But we can leave that for another day.
My point is... the guys from PNAC wrote down what they thought the U.S. Government had to do to secure (and expand) what they called "The American Empire".
And when those guys became the Government, they set their plans in motion.
About the only thing that's slowed them down is the complete incompetance in the way they've dealt with Iraq.
They thought they'd have the country subdued, the bases up and running, the oil flowing, and be ready to invade Syria a year after invading Iraq.
Very interesting, Geez.
Despite being the USA's "best buddy" thanks to Little Johnny Howard, we don't hear much about that sort of thing. But it doesn't surprise me.
BTW the "Russians" thing was a joke :)
Despite being the USA's "best buddy" thanks to Little Johnny Howard, we don't hear much about that sort of thing. But it doesn't surprise me.
BTW the "Russians" thing was a joke :)
Kijinnmaru wrote:So I finally read through all the posts since my last in here, and I started to write a response but quickly realized it was going to go on forever correcting everyone. So the hell with that. It's funny watching a group of people with absolutely zero knowledge of what they are talking about yammer on like they do and pat themselves on the back for it. So go on believing that it was all a Halliburton plot, Blackwater's motto is "how many innocent people can we make dead", gas companies are doctoring gas prices, and our enemies are all just a Bush scare tactic. No amount of facts or common sense will change what you learn from email chain letters. And I'm in too good of a mood from watching Nodame Cantabile to waste it in this thread explaining.
Gyabo!!
Good. Because nobody wants to hear you pontificating in a didactic tone when most of the comments here take on a satirical character regarding political events. Keep your holier than thou sermon to yourself.
Replying needs an account. Registration opens soon.