Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Reply To Thread

Bush's parting gift?Follow

#1 Jun 05 2008 at 3:18 AM Rating: Good
Quote:
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 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.


Full story here.

Anyone talking about this in the US?

I can't say I'm surprised about the military bases bit. It's standard US policy when they liberate/invade a country.

But the immunity, and the right to pursue "terrorists" whenever it chooses, without authorisation from the Iraqi governement, seems a bit dangerous. It makes it look a lot like colonialism. And it's gearing up for a nice clash with Iran.

I guess McCain will be pleased, since it's the first step towards staying in Iraq 100 years.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#2 Jun 05 2008 at 3:36 AM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
Yeah, it's not full colonialism, because the Americans won't be running the civilian side, But America will have effective military sovereignty over Iraq, and therefore effectively, for every country in the region, it will be like having a State of America sitting there in the Middle-East. Kind of like Alaska is geographically detached from the rest of the 'States.
#3 Jun 05 2008 at 4:01 AM Rating: Excellent
YAY! Canaduhian
*****
10,293 posts
Yes, McCain is pleased!
____________________________
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
#4 Jun 05 2008 at 6:29 AM Rating: Good
Drama Nerdvana
******
20,674 posts
As much as people like to say the war was about oil, or a petty need to finish what was started in the 90's, or even a legitimate strike at what people genuinely percieved to be a threat to the United States, it was quite obvious that one of the main goals in the end was having a military presence in the ME that was not subject to the whims of the gov't of the country in which it was stationed. Afghanistan being landlocked was obviously not a good choice. Saudi Arabia while allies still had final say over what the US based on their soil did or did not do and could kick the US out if they wished. Iraq is central, access to the gulf etc.

There have been a number of former pentagon staff who have gone on the record talking about this, starting at the time of invasion and onwards.

Edited, Jun 5th 2008 10:29am by bodhisattva
____________________________
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#5 Jun 05 2008 at 6:35 AM Rating: Default
*****
16,160 posts
Actually, Bush's parting gift to us is the creation of new national maritime parks-- on the order of three times anything set aside and saved before. It may very well be that historians will consider Dubya the Teddy Roosevelt of the oceans.

Uh-huh. And not one of you even thought to thank him for his enviromental activism.

Totem
#6 Jun 05 2008 at 6:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Totem wrote:
And not one of you even thought to thank him for his enviromental activism.
I thanked him when he did it. What's he done for me lately?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#7 Jun 05 2008 at 6:43 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
Anyone talking about this in the US?


Of course not. Britney has new shoes, or something.

The military presence is actually less offensive to me than the legal immunity. That's *********

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#8 Jun 05 2008 at 6:57 AM Rating: Default
http://youtube.com/watch?v=iUE-QmH-n4Q&feature=related

A little link, may help clear it up about the 100 years comment. So people can understand what it means.
#9 Jun 05 2008 at 6:59 AM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
bodhisattva, Defender of Justice wrote:
As much as people like to say the war was about oil, or a petty need to finish what was started in the 90's, or even a legitimate strike at what people genuinely percieved to be a threat to the United States, it was quite obvious that one of the main goals in the end was having a military presence in the ME that was not subject to the whims of the gov't of the country in which it was stationed. Afghanistan being landlocked was obviously not a good choice. Saudi Arabia while allies still had final say over what the US based on their soil did or did not do and could kick the US out if they wished. Iraq is central, access to the gulf etc.

There have been a number of former pentagon staff who have gone on the record talking about this, starting at the time of invasion and onwards.

Edited, Jun 5th 2008 10:29am by bodhisattva

This might be a reason, but I don't think it's a justifiable one for starting a war and invading a country.
#11 Jun 05 2008 at 7:47 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
I don't think it's really been talked about because of the Brittany Shoe story, but also because until yesterday the Secret Plans were SECRET.

It doesn't surprise me though. We kicked Iraq's butt. We get some pHat lootZ right?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#12 Jun 05 2008 at 7:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
midgetboy wrote:
since the Dems took congress of congress gas has increased nearly 2$ a gallon.



Smiley: lol Yes, the Dems are solely responsible for why gas has jumped significantly, world wide.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#13 Jun 05 2008 at 8:02 AM Rating: Decent
Drama Nerdvana
******
20,674 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
bodhisattva, Defender of Justice wrote:
As much as people like to say the war was about oil, or a petty need to finish what was started in the 90's, or even a legitimate strike at what people genuinely percieved to be a threat to the United States, it was quite obvious that one of the main goals in the end was having a military presence in the ME that was not subject to the whims of the gov't of the country in which it was stationed. Afghanistan being landlocked was obviously not a good choice. Saudi Arabia while allies still had final say over what the US based on their soil did or did not do and could kick the US out if they wished. Iraq is central, access to the gulf etc.

There have been a number of former pentagon staff who have gone on the record talking about this, starting at the time of invasion and onwards.

Edited, Jun 5th 2008 10:29am by bodhisattva

This might be a reason, but I don't think it's a justifiable one for starting a war and invading a country.


The sole reason for justifying, probably not. However it was clearly weighed and measured as a positive outcome of a military ousting of Hussein. Having that type of free action and positioning in the middle east for the next 20+ years with the current climate puts the United States in a vastly more palatable position than being held at the whims of allies who are easily pressured by regional opinion.
____________________________
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#14 Jun 05 2008 at 8:45 AM Rating: Excellent
that just scares me.
#15 Jun 05 2008 at 8:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

However it was clearly weighed and measured as a positive outcome of a military ousting of Hussein. Having that type of free action and positioning in the middle east for the next 20+ years with the current climate puts the United States in a vastly more palatable position than being held at the whims of allies who are easily pressured by regional opinion.


Right. Because....the middle east is full of Oil. Trust me, if our commercial interests in the region consisted of dates and camel's milk the strategic value of staging from Iraq would be about the same as the strategic value of staging from Somalia.

All war is about money. This one is, too. Saying "It's not about oil, it's about being positioned in the region to defend our interests, which are.. oil." makes you look retarded.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#17 Jun 05 2008 at 9:05 AM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts


Until the Dems allow us to tap anwar every sane person will blame them for the continued rise in gas prices.


You can't possibly be that stupid. No one could.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#18 Jun 05 2008 at 9:06 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Smasharoo wrote:


Until the Dems allow us to tap anwar every sane person will blame them for the continued rise in gas prices.


You can't possibly be that stupid. No one could.

This time Smash isn't exagerating.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#19 Jun 05 2008 at 9:06 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
You can't possibly be that stupid. No one could.

You're too smart of a gambling man to take that bet.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#21 Jun 05 2008 at 9:16 AM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

I know the mere insinuation of drilling US oil drives liberals into an uncontrolable rage. I'm a businessman and the minute someone shows such emotion over anything I know they are illogical and therefore incapable of engaging in any meaningful discusion. Thank you for once again proving this.


No, you're confused. I could care less if we drill in ANWAR. I was astonished that you could be stupid enough to think it would have any impact on Light Sweet Crude prices. I still am, although now that it's clearly true, I'm more inclined to laugh, really.

Also "I work for my brother in a business my dad started" doesn't make you a "businessman", it makes you a failure who lucked into a fallback job he can't be fired from.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#22 Jun 05 2008 at 9:22 AM Rating: Excellent
the bigger problem is 30+ years ago we did not tell OPEC to go jump in the lake and turn our back on them.
#23 Jun 05 2008 at 9:26 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

the bigger problem is 30+ years ago we did not tell OPEC to go jump in the lake and turn our back on them.


Yeah, that would have been a great idea in '78. The USSR would have become their primary source of income, Israel wouldn't exist, and we'd have had a sustained depression.

Genius.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#24 Jun 05 2008 at 9:29 AM Rating: Decent
Smasharoo wrote:

the bigger problem is 30+ years ago we did not tell OPEC to go jump in the lake and turn our back on them.


Yeah, that would have been a great idea in '78. The USSR would have become their primary source of income, Israel wouldn't exist, and we'd have had a sustained depression.

Genius.



can not speak on the loss of Israel, but i can say that we would not of stayed in a sustained depression. alternative fuels and power sources, that have been in the works since before '78, would of matured then instead of today.
#26 Jun 05 2008 at 9:31 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
Singdall wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:

the bigger problem is 30+ years ago we did not tell OPEC to go jump in the lake and turn our back on them.


Yeah, that would have been a great idea in '78. The USSR would have become their primary source of income, Israel wouldn't exist, and we'd have had a sustained depression.

Genius.

would not of...would of
Would not have. Would have. You think its "would of" because of the contraction "would've."
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 345 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (345)