America pushes laws to permanently control Iraq

[BigBen]

British news regarding US foreign policies are often greatly exaggerated and misunderstood though. A story with such magnetic interest as this one possesses would be everywhere if leaked. Call me an optimist for waiting for a second source.

Line is correct, but if it is true it is disgusting.

 

[Ironslave]

British news regarding US foreign policies are often greatly exaggerated and misunderstood though. A story with such magnetic interest as this one possesses would be everywhere if leaked. Call me an optimist for waiting for a second source.

I see where you're coming from, but it's not really that far fetched. It's kinda like Bush/Cheney giving themselves for immunity for war crimes, or the Patriot Act allowing warrentless wiretaps, and so on. Permanent bases are being built there, so it's not much of I surprise. Society is so desensitized to shit like this that it doesn't even really matter anymore.

http://communistpartyillinois.blogspot.com/2008/02/in-iraq-forever.html

 

[Duality]

whats that supposed to mean? what do u want me to say, cuz if u think im gonna sit here and defend this plan then ure mistaken my friend.

I have from the beginning tried to make it clear for everyone that i was in fact against the invasion from the beginning, that i do not want america to be an imperialist power. however i have also underlined the importance of american military presence to stabilize iraq. obviously this plan is about more than stabilizing iraq and secure it, its about securing american economic interests and so forth. im not gonna sit here and defend that while u guys keep calling me a neocon etc. i agree with you, i think this plan is frightening, and especially the part about american troops being immune to iraqi law. but again, american military presence is necessary until iraq is stabilized, economically back on foot and democratic. and IS and others please stop calling me a neocon cuz im not. being a neocon has nothing to do with what i preach in this section. being for military intervention when genocide is occuring is not being a neocon, agreeing with american military presence in iraq to prevent enormous suffering for the civillian population is not about being a neocon. the neocons preach about making the middle east an american hegemony, they believe in a new american century of global control of strategic resources. that has never been my positition.

but you need to understand that its not black and white, its not either RON PAUL FTW or an imperialist neocon. it must be allowed to have another stance, a more middle stance on this forum without being called out for it all the time.

well said bulkboy. very fair and thoughtful. keep doing your thing man.

 

[Duality]

i would love to see what noam chompskey thinks of this. This is absoloutley disgusting. They have done nothing but abuse their power to their own benefit, and it is sickening that they have done so and now appear to be getting away with it. These men cant have peace of mind. You can see it in their faces when they speak that they know they are doing wrong and yet they continue to do so.

Bulkboy: if you think we are not in iraq for our own benefit then why are we their? If your answer is to free the people then how come we have not been in africa for the past 30 years bc the genocide occuring their is much more horrific than what is going on in iraq. We need a military presence in Africa if we need one any where. This is part of the reason why so many people are upset. Why did iraq come before africa? If anyone needs freedom it is the people in africa. If you take the point of view that we need to be in iraq to make sure their economy and situations stablize, then you MUST believe that africa deserved to be helped first bc their situation occured first, and America sure as heck didnt invade the same way we invaded in iraq.

he didn't say that. what bulkboy said was that it was wrong for us to invade and occupy iraq, but now that we are there, we cannot just up and leave. though it is uncertain whether or not we are actually keeping iraq more or less stable, it is easy to see where bulkboy is coming from. i mean 1/5 of the iraq population is shiites isn't it? if we up and leave they'd be in bad shape right off the bat.

 

[Bulkboy]

he didn't say that. what bulkboy said was that it was wrong for us to invade and occupy iraq, but now that we are there, we cannot just up and leave. though it is uncertain whether or not we are actually keeping iraq more or less stable, it is easy to see where bulkboy is coming from. i mean 1/5 of the iraq population is shiites isn't it? if we up and leave they'd be in bad shape right off the bat.

exactly bro

 

[Bulkboy]

We've argued about this too many times, but problem is, when are you going to realize that American presence is what destabilizes the region? Seriously, why can you not get this??

Look back at history dude, there's always a hidden and main agenda for American presence, democracy isn't even close to ever being one. If a true democracy was established in the interests/will of the Iraqi's, America would not have its puppet government it wants! Thus, this is the LAST thing that Uncle Sam wants.

Read these: they're works by Robert Pape, who has compiled and analyzed every single suicide terrorist bombing/attack from 1980-2003.

http://www.danieldrezner.com/research/guest/Pape1.pdf
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa582.pdf



(peer reviewed articles)

Interview:
http://www.amconmag.com/2005_07_18/article.html

And a general collection of literature on the subject. Seriously, America in Iraq will NOT help the region, quite the opposite.

http://www.cato.org/subtopic_display_new.php?topic_id=43&ra_id=13

i think we can all agree that americas motives for intervening has often been wrong. it certainly was in this last war in iraq. but saying that for america to leave iraq in the current shape would lead to a more stabile iraq is plain ignorant. and again u cant denie that things are progressing in iraq with regards to violence rates, the number of suicide bombings has decreased, less and less civillians are getting killed. progress is being made, but it seems to me that u are more conserned with arguing against american foreign policy no matter what then actually caring about the results. for u to say that the iraq war was wrong is totally fine and i agree, but leaving iraq now, NOW, when progress is really being made and things are looking brighter than ever, thats ridicolous.

now saying that democracy is not americas consern in iraq is alittle suspect. sure, america will obviously try to look out for their own interests in the region, but i think that in that regard a stable democratic government is infact in americas best interest. it still cant get any worse than it was under saddam.

 

[Ironslave]

 

[Bulkboy]

im always happy to enlighten you

 

[alex]

as long as amreicans are in iraq there will be violence.the iraqis will never accept the us presence over there and its quite logic.If someone invaded your country,killed your family would you welcome them as liberators?i dont think so.sunnis and shiites makes no difference,when the us was dropping bombs like snow people from both races where killed.On the other side if the us leaves now there will be a civil war between the two races,so either way it would be killings and suffering for the iraqi people wich is sad because they have been suffering for decades now

 

[Zigurd]

I often laugh when people say we are more civilized and socially evolved compared to our medieval history for example.

Nothing has changed. People keep dying for no reason, zealots keep killing people for stupid reasons and some assholes don't care about anything. You know why nothing changes ? Because we are still humans, the only thing that evolves is our technology not our biology.

We are still apes fighting eachother for food with rocks. Although now we wear suits, the food is money and the rocks are politics. Same shit, different ages.