America pushes laws to permanently control Iraq

[Ironslave]

I'll go through, and highlight parts of this. But if anybody (Bulkboy) has any doubts about America being there to help the Iraqi people, and their presence not being THE major factor for violence against Americans, this sets it straight.

WHEN it passes, it will truly be, "Mission Accomplished".

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...lan-to-keep-iraq-under-us-control-840512.html

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 destabilize 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 de-legitimize 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.

 

[El Freako]

Oh dear...

 

[Braaq]

way to prove everything that has been said about you G.W.
This is crazy, it will cause an even bigger backlash like Ron Paul has been talking about. Not only that we will go broke while we pay to maintain those bases, not to mention having our troops away from home for so long. We cannot afford this, we are not getting anything out of occupying Iraq other than I higher death toll for both sides. Hopefully this doesn't pass, but I see it having a very good chance.

 

[Hypocrisy86]

I keep saying it
on the path to self destructtion...

 

[Duality]

george w bush and dick cheney should be arrested and tried for treason. it almost seems as they are intentionally and without care trying to cripple our government and economy as well as put the lives of thousands of young men at risk for no fucking reason. this is absolutey abhorrable.

 

[Tonka]

Bush tried for warcrimes anyone?

 

[Tech]

george w bush and dick cheney should be arrested and tried for treason.

Bush tried for warcrimes anyone?

 

[Braaq]

Wow I had no idea that is atrocious and somehow not surprising at all

 

[TJ]

Too bad so many college students and younger Americans are willing to protest but it wouldn't make a difference since I'm sure the media wouldn't cover it. Plus, every older and "wiser" American would laugh becuase everything, according to them, is just f*ckin' dandy.

 

[Hypocrisy86]

Seems like we're slowly turning into all the enemies we've faced in the past.

 

[Skeptic]

that is crazy.

 

[Hypocrisy86]

that is crazy.

can't be any closer to the truth.

 

[pegasus]

I'm looking for bulkboys response, but i can't seem to find it!

 

[Bulkboy]

I'm looking for bulkboys response, but i can't seem to find it!

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.

 

[Tech]

RON PAUL FTW.

 

[Line]

Odds that this story is fake or extremely sensationalized?

 

[Ironslave]

Odds that this story is fake or extremely sensationalized?

Slim to nill. America is at the point now in Iraq where anything it does in Iraq doesn't surprise anybody anymore.

 

[Ironslave]

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.

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

 

[BigBen]

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.

 

[Line]

Slim to nill. America is at the point now in Iraq where anything it does in Iraq doesn't surprise anybody anymore.

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.