Again, what's the fuss? al-Maliki will cave on this just like he's caved on everything else (remember his order for Blackwater to leave the country?), and I'm sure some phony legalism will be applied to get parliamentary approval for writing away whatever theoretical sovereignty Iraq "enjoys." If nothing else, al-Maliki can always dissolve parliament and call a new round of phony elections.

"Iraq Tells the US It Wants All Troops Back in Barracks" as a sign of the successful occupation of american forces in Iraq.

...which is why we must remain there for the next hundred years...

This Iraq occupation becomes more insane by the day. Does any of this make a lick of sense? ___ Not to me it doesn't.

("You're troops have to stay in their barracks.") _____ My God, they can stay in barracks in the United States.

Halliburton, KBR, and other contractors with Pentagon contracts are pocketing BILLIONS of our tax dollars. POCKETING is the proper word. That is what it is all about, that and the oil. ___ And the price of oil has gone up a tad over the past seven years.

This has to stop. Someone in DC must have the brains to see it, to realize we just cannot offord any more of this insane bullshit.

The first problem is, if anyone wants to be a congress person or a U.S. senator, they have to sell their soul to big business in order to get elected. Once they have sold their soul, big business owns them. That's the problem and that goes all the way to the "buck stops here" seat.

The U.S. will not leave Iraq no matter what you hear politicians say. The U.S. military planners see this region as too strategic to leave; they were always planning to stay that's why they built all those bases.

It amazes me that Americans buy the bull shit about "bring democracy to the middle east" or "ridding the world of an evil tyrant."

"American troops in Iraq would be confined to their bases and private security guards subject to local law if Iraq gets its way in negotiations with the US over the future status of American forces."

That'd be something to see.

An American soldier attends a tech school for 18 weeks and learns how to repair communicantion equipment. He becomes an epxert radio repairman. Two years later, he gets sent to iraq for 15 months. There in Iraq, for four weeks he teaches a civilian from another country how to repair radios and that person works for Halliburton and is a lousy, poorly trained radio repairman and he only cares about his pay check, he don't even like America or Americans.

Halliburton recieves millions to repair radios and the soldier we trained is now performing guard duty at his barrackes in Iraq and "enjoying" the comforts of home and now he hates the Army.

And this crazy insanity goes on, it's not a secret, that is exactly what is taking place as we sit here typing stupid commments and no one who could stop it does anything about it. AHHHHhhhhhhhh. SHIT, SHIT!!!!! It's gotta stop.

KEM PATRICK: "This Iraq occupation becomes more insane by the day. Does any of this make a lick of sense? ___ Not to me it doesn't."

I'm thinkin', Kem, that's because you ain't an oil exec or a politico with ties to same.

Yeah, I'm not ~Surrender~ and that's what I noted in paragraph three. It's Halliburton, KBR, etc, and oil. Oh yeah, Cheney has stock in Halliburton, I just remembered.

I would like to know if the kind of Democracy we are shoving on other countries is the kind of democracy that our forefathers envisioned or the kind of democracy we have under this administration? Because if it is the kind of democracy the neocons have initiated it is quite a different one than the one we all studied in school. If desecrating a country, provoking civil wars, killing and mainimg thousands, leaving untold numbers refugees, setting up a kangaroo government, building many bases as well as the largest embassy in the world, failing to repair or rebuild much of the damage to their infrastructure, and still hold out for victory under the guise of democracy what is left for us to accomplish? Oh, yeah, the oil, how could I forget the oil?

If we really want the Iraqi people to take care of themselves and self-govern, we need to leave. Why is that a complicated formula? The truth is that we want Iraq to self-govern as long as it's OUR way. They can freely elect any leader they want and select any form of government we choose.

annabelle-

The thing is, the democracy that they teach about in American schools has never existed in this country. The Federal Government of the United States has been perfecting genocide in the name of democracy since the country was founded. It started with the indigenous people of this country (aka Native Americans) and has continued unabated here and abroad ever since. If you insert any number of countries into this sentence, you will get the Federal Govt's form of democracy:

Bringing democracy to ________ by "desecrating a country, killing and maiming thousands, leaving untold numbers refugees, building military bases, failing to repair or rebuild much of the damage to their infrastructure, all under the guise of democracy."

You accurately described the glaring hypocrisy, but the only mistake is making a distinction between Bush's form of democracy and the founding father's. There are one in the same in rhetoric and in action, it just took a little while for N. America's natives to be subdued...so that the U.S. could move on to the rest of the world.

...they can stay in barracks in the United States? After what they have done they should be confined somewhere and never allowed to 'Rove' at large.

We were fishing from a dock at a lake three weeks ago. Another family came to fish and the father could not get his fishing reel to work and he started to cry before he went half beserk and finally just stood there moaning with his head down on the railing for several minutes.

He was with his wife and a young child. ___ He was a soldier, home on leave from Iraq, second tour of Iraqi duty. I fixed his reel and we talked about Iraq for a few minutes and then they all left the area. A tough lookin young guy, lots of tatoos, shaved head and stockily built.

Hope he never has a jammed gun. ____PTSD???? Whatever, it was very strange and it left us with bad feelings.

metanoia--good observation.
I just received a letter from my congressman, Jeff Flake (yes that's really his name). He thanked me for contacting him, but said "Victory in Iraq will only be achieved if our commanders on the ground are given the tools necessary to succeed." Obviously, they're planning to drag this out over at least 100 years, until we have total control and submission in Iraq.
Who cares what the Iraqis want?

Someone should warn the Iraqis of Junior's penchant for signing statements. Bush probably doesn't care what the final treaty says. He'll simply add a signing statement that invalidates any of the provisions he does not favor.

Here's what happened - lest we forget:
A United States Blitz on Iraqis
followed by a successful military invasion
followed by an occupation
followed by a Reign of Terror.

"became so fraught recently that President Bush intervened personally to defuse the situation. On Thursday he telephoned Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister, to assure him that Washington was not seeking to undermine Iraq's sovereignty and that America would reconsider any contentious part of the agreement."

yes, what the liar in chief says must be very reassuring to iraqis

"[Mr Bush] has assured Prime Minister al-Maliki consistently we respect Iraq's sovereignty..."

Isn't this a dilly. Since when does anybody in the world believe that Bush tells the truth?

Does anyone think al-Maliki believes Bush's assurances?

What many Americans don't seem to count on is the other way to end US occupation of Iraq; by the Iraqis sending many more Americans home in parts and in boxes.

Despite the delusions of Washington, it is obvious that the US cannot occupy and maintain bases in a country where the vast majority of the population consider them as a barbarous enemy invader, irrespective of any agreements made with a weak and divided puppet government which can hardly be called representative or even is in control of the country, under occupation.

So far the Iraqis have yet to unite to expel the invader, sooner or later they will. They have expelled foreigners many times since the Mongol hordes, and when they do, many American families will have serious cause to morn.

.
The United States illegally invaded Iraq. Now at the end of the U.N. Mandate, the U.S. wants a legitimate Treaty to continue its domination of the Middle East.

The NeoCons have had this secret agenda for an American Empire thru military expansion. Israel has manuvered the U.S. into the Middle East.

Bush and his 2nd rate generals have been tricked into a bloody trap; and don't have a clue to turning this military disaster around.............

.

This 'agreement' is obviously a TREATY, and as such needs the Senate's approval. Economy, culture, economics, agriculture, education, etc are not about status of forces, but about what the country is to be - coditions that are theirs to decide, not a treaty with the U.S. Remember the 100 laws that Paul Bremer left with the Iraqis when he was rotated out - even concerning that the Iraqis could not save their own farm seed - had to buy if from an American conglomerate each year and be totally dependent even in food on the U.S. Now this is NOT what I(or nearly anyone elso) would call a sovereign nation by any stretch.
The U.S. should get out, "leave no soldier behind", and let the Iraqis do their own thing. We take their raw materials and sell them finished goods at great cost to them. That is how we try too make all countries dependent on us, and we become the EMPIRE, and the poor people become poorer and never can take care of their own needs. Wbat a country we are!

you amerikans know something is happening but you don't know what it is! here is what happened; you gave up your rights and commonwealth(money) because you are childish and ignorant and think your vote makes a difference.
it is too late now to do anything about it. you wont go yourself and arrest the bush/cheney gang or pelosi or any of them and they are real criminals. you live in fear because you think if you speak out you will be punished and like children you let your fear guide your life(pathetic cowards). you amerikans are a real disapointment to humanity(and to yourselves.)
the really sad part is that you wont even fight for the future of your own children. what a pathetic bunch you are. and please don't ask me where i am from.

JohnFox1: A treaty? really? How sweet.

How many votes do you think a treaty would get like that in the Senate? 65? 70? 75?

The Iraqis have read Scott McClellan's memoir; they know who they are dealing with. I would not be surprised if most Iraqis consider al-Maliki to be the Supreme Boot Licker.

"metanoia June 9th, 2008 3:53 pm

annabelle-

The thing is, the democracy that they teach about in American schools has never existed in this country."

SURE IT DID; on paper. And that of course is to say, "nothing more real" and, therefore, "nothing more significant". Well, toilet paper is not entirely insignificant; and even Bush Jr agrees on that. He said so about the U.S. Constitution, f.e., that it's "just a piece of paper", nothing significant for the ... anyone, in his view.

Otherwise, I agree with both of your posts and was wondering how annabelle was giving a real description of the real U.S. history as metanoia explained.

It definitely applies and very much in Canada today. There are enough other related websites, but the following two I've used the most.

www.hiddenFromHistory.org

www.MohawkNationNews.com

JohnFox1 ,

Good post; I fully agree with you, only it's apparently idealism, also. The reason for saying that are, f.e., that the Senate authorizes major funding for continuing the war; the Senate's approval for treaties is the reason why the Bush-Cheney cabal refuses to make this "agreement" a treaty; and remember Bush's words about the U.S. Constitution, that it, and having said this with flagrant disrespect, despotism, and so on, that it is "just a piece of paper", clearly saying it had no significance for him. That's how they've been treating the Constitution over all of these years, including with respect to the hijacking of the presidency in 2000. And neither the Congress nor the Senate nor the Justice Dept, State Dept, FBI, and so on have done anything significant about this, so far.

So I agree that you're right, only we sadly are in a situation making your correct assessment and call one of ideal. And that of course means we've all been in Big Trouble over all of these years.

Oh, shit, and how many treaties has the U.S. broken and with serious dishonourability over U.S. history? MANY. The U.S. also disregards the NPT, minimally with respect to the U.S. criminally protecting its selected allies from being required to ratify the NPT; although also disrespecting it in terms of being a direct breaker of the NPT. Or did the U.S. not ratify it?

Let's hope that they really are out of office next January; instead of another false-flag incident being committed and to install martial law, etc. Everything's already in place for doing that, only needing to commit a false-flag ... [again].

Nauseating!

Where you from ~Papercut~?

Impeach.

Another reality that can be referred to for this is how and why Economic Hit Men are used and ... like according to what John Perkins, author of 'Confessions of an Economic Hit Man', exposed about this. Paul Bremmer, his "work" in Iraq, can be thought of very much in this respect; varying in some ways from what John Perkins described, but still being about 'EH'. We can add this present treaty, and the oil laws the Bush-Cheney cabal have been wanting to have established in Iraq and over the past (I think) two years or so, and which I believe the Iraqi govt hasn't yet agreed on enough to establish these additional and stronger oil-racket laws.

From what I recall having read about the U.S. seeing to Saddam Hussein being made the president of Iraq to begin with had much, if not entirely, to do with grabbing Iraq's oil; only Saddam, lacking critical thinking or realisation about the former president having been very good, well, dummy Saddam went for the presidency grab, but excellently didn't de-nationalise what the prior president had nationalised, so the U.S. elites ended up not getting what their whole purpose was to achieve. Saddam made sure to not "play along" for more than grabbing the presidency, which should have been left to the president dummy Saddam partook in outing.

The U.S. elites have been after Iraq's resources for a LONG TIME, though not for as long as Britain's also been after these. I think these are or can surely be called 'Economic Hit' operations, "trick-or-treats" or "tricks-and-rotten-treats"; and while not only this, it still and very much is, obviously too. If Iraq didn't have these highly profitable resources, then the U.S. "involvement" with Iraq would have been very little; instead of feverishly strong, or strongly feverish, and unrelenting.

A lot of the people who say that this war is not for Big Oil, meaning (sometimes explicitly stated, but not always) that it's not U.S. Big Oil that wanted this war and that the industry would've preferred that the war not be launched; well, maybe these people are right about this, in this specific sense. But like I said, I don't recall Big Oil reps opposing the launching of the war and the BO industry has plenty of influence with the Congress and the Senate; but if these other people are right, then it doesn't mean that Iraq's oil resources aren't among the key or principal reasons for launching this war, for it surely was in serious part for Big Oil service cies like Halliburton, f.e.

It's all geopolitical like Michel Chossudovsky of www.globalresearch.ca wrote during the run-up politics, but it's more, for politics much is about or for RACKETEERING in the imperialist, ... West. Racketeers define and employ or apply their politics, but they're not the purpose, only being means and reins. It's all about geopolitics for geo- or global-racket "economics", and racketeering often utilizes very serious and criminal violence, but also non-violent "politics".

And using disguises is another "trick" that's employed; seeing this very clearly with the totally bogus and criminal U.S. drug war, among many other examples. The U.S. State Dept seems to be mostly about disguisement. "Humanitarian" agencies and some NGOs of govts are sometimes employed for disguises and bs or fiendish propaganda, while some "humanitarian" organisations often contribute, but unwittingly and through negligence based on ignorance and/or inadequate [thinking]. The UNSC is a regular contributor to all of this evil; its regularly wrongly ineffectiveness, its authorisations of matters that are actually criminal, such as criminal sanctions against Iraq, 1991-2003, and Cuba, f.e., its authorisations of what critically are criminal vetoes placed against UNSC resolutions to demand that Israel cease its extreme and hellish criminality, the Israeli govt and military, that is, being [some] of the too many real examples of the UN's or UNSC's "generous" contributions.

Some of the actors are witting while others are not, and some are not, but inexcusably so (UNSC allowing blatantly and obviously criminal vetoes of the U.S. being an example, again). Either way, whichever of these cases applies, these many actors on the stage of planet Earth still contribute to the overall and globally-scoped schemes, scams, ... RACKET.

'Economic Hit', 'racket', ... operations through geo-politics, and there's really no other way that such huge, vast, ... criminality can happen; except through the use of criminal states.

This sort of shit has long history. It is found in MUCH of all of U.S. history and much of all of the history of all of the Americas for around 500 years so far. It is also found in not the History Channel docu-drama propaganda version of the story of Joan of Arc, but in what's learned of her real purpose, far more realistic and surely true story, we can learn about from the historical documentation from courts of that time, among possibly other historical documentation from that time; available to learn about online, for anyone capable of simple Web searches.

Those are only a few examples, but with respect to what Joan's real purpose was for, it is seriously similar to the purporse of the real Iraqi Resistance today; the continuing struggling of the indigenous peoples all over Earth; and ... MORE.

Natural resources were always an involved motive throughout these 500 or more years of the histories of all of the Americas; or MUCH of all of them. LAND is a natural resource, and if that was the first of these to be a motive, others became quickly added motives.

Sometimes power, kingdom, empire is the sole motive, but only of some of the leading people interested in supporting this and for their gain, not for the purpose of pleasing sick queens or kings who might only be seeking to expand the reign of his or her permitted power. Such purpose won't remain the leading, main one for long, for the 'EH' people have greater ability to see to their motives. They're always corrupting states or state leaderships.

I realise this and didn't even become a historian. Preferring maths and physical sciences, as well as logic in terms of philosophy, morality, law, socio-psychological understanding, and commonsense, I realise that we don't need to be historians; but also realise that knowing some key parts of history(ies) is also and very helpful. I like history, among many other topic areas, but not to memorize details; instead, only to [understand], so in the form of logic and social understanding and awareness.

I don't give a turd about what the precise date of SCMUCK jack-ass Chris. Columbus came to the Americas; I don't care if it was 1492, 1500, 1460. Knowing what he did and what it was about, and evolved, is what I want to know; damn schmuck the shit was. Some jack-ass faggot (not meaning homo-sexual, who are people I don't even ever think of as 'faggot', except for those who are really 'faggot' in their ways, like too many hetero-sexual jack-asses are, and which is about the best that I can give for my definition of 'faggot'); well, that jack-ass faggotly chose to work for some sick queen with serious ego problems, some pointy- or pin-headed queen boss. Damn brown-noser and ego-tripper that he was.

That's what I want to know when it comes to history of ... the damn kind; while I look at good history in terms of what it offers and lightens my heart with. The latter is good, healthy, helping to keep me from losing all hope, and I like to maintain to some of that. It too often ... disappears though, but it eventually returns. When the Angels of Hope come knocking at my door, then I always want to be ready to promptly reply, open the door, and welcome this ... "visitation": "Come on in, feel at home here, and stick around for as long as you like; you Angels of Hope. To you, this door shall always open!".

:)

But then the stage lights dim again, for those Angels can't stick around all of the time; having other people who also need some refreshening hope to visit.

May they visit us all, all peoples, often enough to keep us alive and doing what each of us can, and while also helping us to be able to endure our various limitations.

They also help with regards to understanding a (simple, but) special parable of Jesus of Nazareth and which is when he asked apostles when they could know or realise that they're exercising real [discernment], and the first two were mistaken, but understandably, while the third realised this, didn't also want to be told that he was mistaken and therefore figured, "Heh, Jesus, you are the teacher and know the answer, so why don't you just tell us" (a little paraphrased, but retaining the essence of the response question). Then Jesus said that you know you excercise real discernment when you SEE the presence of God in your neighbour. There wasno religious qualification with respect to the neighbour, just being 'universal' in scope, holistic, ...; like we find with many true indigenous peoples, but also some of the rest of us.

The imperialist, ... church subtracted, struck out that parable LONG ago, and understandably so; for it became imperialist and so on as of marriage with Rome under "emperor" Constantine, who wanted only the Christian religion to be permitted in the empire and of course for greater assurance of being able to gain more CONTROL over the peoples within this vast empire's reign. But sane people can go without knowing about the parable all while sanely recognising that [all] peoples, as well as all LIFE, need to be [respected] and should be [loved]; as, if a true God really exists, He loves [all] of humanity, only being against Evil.

That latter sanity about human rights and dignity of [everyone], regardless of whether we know of that parable of Jesus or not, is like an example of a [loving] and [just] God's presence in us all. But I also see His presence in wildlife, fauna, and flora, the stars, "heavens", and so on; kind of being an abstract sort of thinker and "artist", say.

Is that a little poetry, or like, and at all? Not quite, heh. Oh well, I'll treat it minimally as, "I'm a poet and you just don't know it; ha ha". :)

May the "Angels of Hope" keep us all ... going. They're related to the "Angels of Peace-and-Justice", "Respect of the Dignity of all ... LIFE", ..., and so on.

I wonder if this could help to wake up the Western "Establishment" elites at all. What about church elites? Neither, you say? Oh ... crappola; I'm feeling nausea coming on again, thanks (please excuse me while I go to the toilet; I have a little vomiting to do, understand).

middlec - well said.

Heh, just think of me as "Little "chief" LONG wind". Oops.

"puck twain June 10th, 2008 1:32 am

middlec - well said."

Really? I wondered.

So, I checked what middlec said, given nothing intelligent, lamplighting, ... was stated by so-called puck twain. And what did I find? A sole [simpleton] word, 'impeach'.

I disagree with that, but not as most people would interpret without knowing more in terms of the reason. MUCH MORE than that is needed, but instead of explaining, I'll just make or state a reference people can easily find with a simple Web search.

Scott Ritter wrote an article of qualitative kind on this very topic and it was posted at ICH, InternationalClearingHouse.info , back in (I believe) June of either 2006 or else 2007, and while he might be possibly mistaken about some things in that article, though I can't say that he is or was at all, I agree with the essence of what he overall said.

The U.S. requires FAR MORE than your simpleton impeachment! Impeachment is deserved, but to solely do that is only going to be inviting of MORE HELL. MUCH MORE needs to be done.

It's more than long past due time to work on being more than simpleton idiots who pretend to be adults. Iow, GROW UP.

People continuing to REFUSE to do that "play right into the hands" of the elites of the Western "Establishment"! So it's just more pretentious BS!

I still cannot understand why the Iraqi parliament has a say so about this treaty and the U.S. Congress does not. It's our money isn't it? From this article it seems though that the Iraqis do not want us there, so why are we staying in an ungrateful country? Why are we spending even another billion in Iraq, when they have over 50 billion in the bank?

"According to a senior Iraqi official, the negotiations between the two allies became so fraught recently that President Bush intervened personally to defuse the situation. On Thursday he telephoned Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister, to assure him that Washington was not seeking to undermine Iraq's sovereignty and that America would reconsider any contentious part of the agreement."

But Bush has never been known for being able to tell the truth about anything! - and the rest of the planet has it figured out

I got distracted with other things yesterday and did not have occasion to read much less comment on any Common Dreams articles.

Let me first say that I am pleased to see Kem Patrick back on the scene. Honestly missed your comments over the past several days. We usually find interest in much the same articles and failing to see any contributions on your behalf, I was honestly starting to become quite concerned; health problems maybe?

In scrolling down through the comments that have preceded me both yesterday and early this morning, I would have to say that collectively they represent a fine representation of how this situation should be looked upon.

To borrow a phrase from an old salesman friend, who years ago traveled the bible belt (picture Ryan O'Neal's Moses Pray in "Paper Moon"). It really tells you where the bear shit in the buckwheat.

I guess it has now been two weeks since the startling revelations by Scott McClellan in his new book, followed last week by that committee headed by Jay Rockefeller saying pretty much the same as to Bush's underhanded manner in convincing us that the attack on Iraq was justified.

But if you've been reading here long enough to catch the preamble to Vincent Bugliosi's book on the subject, nothing brought to the surface in the last two weeks is actually that startling, at best a new spin on things.

I myself have been lax in posting my "old faithful' which I have been doing so at least weekly, so it is once again time to remind you all;

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1028-01.html

Read it and weep.

The US respects Iraqi sovereignty? Really? Then why are the US forces holding more than 27,000 prisoners in Iraq, with more being "arrested" every day? And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

One more Bush lie. Not so many months ago he was saying that the US would leave Iraq as soon as Iraqis requested them to go. Something like 80% of the population has expressed the desire to see the troops and contractors leave their country.

Also the status of forces agreement is designed expressly to avoid Congressional scrutiny and approval which would be the case if it were a "treaty" and not an "agreement."

As to Iran, well, would the US like to see the Iranians enter a status of forces agreement with Cuba?

Wow! An oxymoron pair in a single sentence: "...operate in a manner which reflects respect for, acknowledgment of Iraqi sovereignty and ultimately an Iraqi decision,..."

1) Iraqi sovereignty
2) Iraqi decision