Inside the New U.S.-Iraq Agreement

re: Inside the New U.S.-Iraq Agreement

asclepious — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 00:16:46 GMT

It's time to S--t or get off the pot!

re: Inside the New U.S.-Iraq Agreement

Canadian Fox — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 05:48:12 GMT

You know, it seems like such an obvious question, but I can't find the answer to it anywhere: is Iraq going to be permanently occupied or not? (If not, what new plan do officials have for that big embassy? Why are journalists not asking this question?) And what a sunny view, it seems to me, this journalist has of projected cooperation in the fields of economics, culture, science, technology, health and, ahem, trade. Why does that view remind me of the projected welcome of Americans to Iraq and their projected construction and reconstruction efforts? Well of course, upon arrival the troops lit out to protect the Ministry of Oil instead of the cultural institutions, didn't they, and all the rest is history. The Americans came, they occupied, and there is no sewage system or reliable electric power source. They got some damned sunny petroleum industry contracts, they haven't told anyone yet that they're really, really leaving, and they've got a great track record of skewed trade deals. Does anyone seriously think that the dust-up is over; that the Iraqi people are going to be satisfied with this 'mission accomplished'? It's moronically simple that the Americans really do need to leave the place to which they were never invited and in which they had no legitimate business, and they need to leave the Iraqis in full ownership and control of their national resources. Until the Iraqis have real freedom and independence, the Americans and their Iraqi puppets will never see an end to their troubles.

Inside the New US-Iraq Agreement | damagefreight.com

Anonymous — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:15:44 GMT

PingBack from http://damagefreight.com/inside-the-new-us-iraq-agreement/

re: Inside the New U.S.-Iraq Agreement

stevo b free — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 14:29:05 GMT

Newsweek wins the 'misleading headline of the week' award. A wave of the hand at "the fields of economics, culture, science, technology, health and, ahem, trade," fails to offer any specific description; not top mention that there is no mention whatsoever of specific troop levels or how many of the 50+ bases that we've built in Iraq are going to remain, in fact, permanent. The bottom line is that it wasn't politically feasible for Saudi Arabia to continue hosting the permanent US military presence in the region, nor would we be welcome in any other nation in the region. Therefore, an actual pullout from Iraq would be a pullout from the middle east, particularly our forward bases for a highly anticipated war against Iran. The article goes on to provide a superficial glimpse of Iraqi political factors and ignores the fact that there are no US political factors involved because Congress has failed to acknowledge that this executive agreement is, in fact, a treaty that they are Constitutionally obliged to approve. We aren't merely exporting democracy, we're surrendering OUR democracy to an imperial executive modus operandi.

Unfortunately, this article revealed nothing new about "what's inside" this agreement.