Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiIraq's 'National Sovereignty Day' is U.S.-Style Hallmark Hype
The puppet government in Iraq has named June 30 as "National Sovereignty Day," and-without mentioning the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis maimed, killed, tortured or made refugees by the US invasion and occupation-thanked the occupiers for placing them in power. "President" Jalal Talabani termed today "a glorious day," saying, "While we celebrate this day, we express our thanks and gratitude to our friends in the coalition forces who faced risks and responsibilities and sustained casualties and damage while helping Iraq to get rid from the ugliest dictatorship and during the joint effort to impose security and stability."
Meanwhile the Iraqi "Prime Minister" Nouri al Maliki-clearly living in his Green Zone bubble-stated: "The national united government succeeded in putting down the sectarian war that was threatening the unity and the sovereignty of Iraq," adding, "Those who think that Iraqis are unable to defend their country are committing a fatal mistake." Perhaps Maliki has been hanging out too much by the swimming pools and cabanas in the Green Zone and missed these events:
There was a significant spike in violence before the June 30 withdrawal. More than 250 people were killed in a series of bombings, including one on June 20 that left 81 dead outside a mosque in northern Iraq and another in a Baghdad market on June 24 that killed 78.
As we listen to these proclamations from Iraqi "government" officials praising their fake holiday, let's remember this fact from veteran journalist Patrick Cockburn, who has covered Iraq more than almost any other Western journalist:
Iraq is the world's premier kleptomaniac state. According to Transparency International the only countries deemed more crooked than Iraq are Somalia and Myanmar, while Haiti and Afghanistan rank just behind. In contrast to Iraq, which enjoys significant oil revenues, none of these countries have much money to steal.
In a grotesquely symbolic move, the Iraqi government marked
"National Sovereignty Day" by "open[ing] up some of its massive oil and
gas fields to foreign firms," according to the Wall Street Journal:
"In a televised ceremony, international oil companies were invited to
submit bids for six oil and two gas fields, a process that marked their
return 
to
the country over 30 years after Mr. Hussein nationalized the oil sector
and expelled the foreign firms. The fields on offer hold about 43
billion of Iraq's 115 billion barrels of crude reserves - among the
largest in the world." Among the companies bidding were the Western oil
giants ExxonMobil and BP (which reportedly won a contract on Tuesday).
As The New York Times reported,
"A total of 8 of the world's 10 top non-state oil companies are
competing for licenses to help develop six oil fields and two natural
gas fields."
While the U.S. has hyped up the "handover" to the Iraqis, it is largely a show. Underscoring that point, the top US military commander in the Iraqi capital, Maj. Gen. Daniel Bolger, handed over the keys to the former Iraqi Defense Ministry to an Iraqi military commander and spoke of how now "Iraqis take the lead in Baghdad." To keep up appearances, the US military, according to The New York Times, has begun "ordering soldiers to remain in garrison for the next few days to give the Iraqis a chance to demonstrate that they are in control." Note the phrase "for the next few days." As for the official ceremonies marking Iraqi "Independence Day," the Times reports:
The military parade in the Green Zone on Tuesday - at the official monument to the unknown soldier - was attended primarily by Iraqi reporters and dignitaries. The public could not reach it because of extensive security restricting access to the area. [...] Many of the celebrations on Tuesday seemed contrived. Police cars were festooned with plastic flowers, and signs celebrating "independence day"were tied to blast walls and fences around the city. On Monday, night a festive evening celebration in Zahra Park with singers and entertainers drew primarily young men, many of them off-duty police officers.
** The Washington Post's Ernesto Londoño, whose report reads like Iraqi "government" propoganda (it begins: "This is no longer America's war."), reports:
Anchors on state-run television wore folded Iraqi flags over their shoulders, and the station kept a graphic of a small Iraqi flag waving under the date "6/30" on the top left corner of the screen.
Away from the show, US forces will indeed remain in Iraqi cities to "to train and advise Iraqi forces," while huge numbers position themselves just outside the cities and could redeploy or strike in moments:
The U.S. hasn't said how many troops will be in the cities in advisory roles, but the vast majority of the more than 130,000 U.S. forces remaining in the country will be in large bases scattered outside cities.
While a lot of the media hype today focuses on the US "withdrawal," that is hardly the reality. As previously reported, U.S. military commanders have said they are preparing for an Iraq presence for another 15-20 years, the US embassy is the size of Vatican City, there is no official plan for the withdrawal of contractors and new corporate mercenary contracts are being awarded. The Status of Forces Agreement (SoFA) between the US and Iraq gives the U.S. the right to extend the occupation indefinitely and to continue intervening militarily in Iraq ad infinitum. Article 27 of the SoFA allows the U.S. to undertake military action, "or any other measure," inside Iraq's borders "In the event of any external or internal threat or aggression against Iraq."
As the airwaves and internet are flooded with reports of this new Iraqi sovereignty and U.S. withdrawal, it is important to remember a bit of history. Five years ago-almost to the day- President Bush put on an almost identical show. His proconsul L. Paul Bremer "handed over sovereignty" to the Iraqi government just before he skulked out of Baghdad on a secret flight (right after he issued an order banning Iraq from prosecuting contractors). Despite the pronouncements and proclamations and media hype, the occupation continued and real sovereignty was non-existent.
It is very doubtful that-decades from now-Iraqis will tell their grandchildren about where they were on June 30, 2009, "National Sovereignty Day." At the end of the day, this is U.S.-style Hallmark hype and will remain so until every last occupation soldier leaves Iraqi soil.
47 Comments so far
Show AllPerhaps the following article has appeared at CD and I just didn't see it, but will post the link anyway.
"Who Will Control Iraq's Oil?
"Who Knows, We Might Have to Start Importing Crude Oil..."",
by Patrick Cockburn, June 19, 2009
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14053
EXCERPT:
Furious protests are threatening to undermine the Iraqi government's plan to give international oil companies a stake in its giant oilfields in a desperate effort to increase its declining oil production and oil revenues.
In less than two weeks time, on June 29 and 30, the Iraqi Oil minister Hussain Shahristani will award service contracts to the world's largest oil companies to develop six of Iraq's largest oil producing fields over 20-25 years.
Senior figures within the Iraqi oil industry have denounced the deal. Fayad al-Nema, the director of the South Oil Company, which comes under the Oil Ministry and produces most of Iraq's crude, said last weekend: "The service contracts will put the Iraqi economy in chains and ...." Mr Nema is reported to have since been fired ....
The government maintains that it is not compromising the ownership of Iraq's huge oil reserves - .... But the fall in the price of oil over the last year has left the government facing a devastating financial crisis .... Almost nothing is left for reconstruction and it is finding it hard to pay even for vitally-needed items ....
END OF EXCERPT
Reconstruction shouldn't be paid for from the sales of Iraq's oil! It should be paid for by the USA and its coalition of the unwillingly willing and, therefore, the taxpayers of these countries, where the voters voted in and/or allowed hellbent government leaderships to get into and remain in power.
And I don't know what's been happening with the price of oil, but the prices at gas or fuel pumps have been climbing since this past winter, having risen from around 84 cents a litre, so over $3 a U.S. gallon, to, presently, around $1.11 a litre; and there're no signs that the price will drop before it rises ... again. This is the pricing in Sherbrooke, Quebec. In Montreal, etcetera, the prices may be higher, or lower, varying, but nevertheless all on the rise.
The reparations to, or for, and re-construction in Iraq should not be dependent on Iraq's oil sales. These costs need to be provided or covered by ..., mainly, the U.S.; regardless of the oil business.
Electricity, provided by GE and Siemens? Hellbent! It's long been true of both!
Quoting more from Patrick Cockburn's article:
The development of Iraq's oil reserves is of great importance to the world's energy supply in the 21st century. They may be even larger than Saudi Arabia's, as there was little exploration while Iraq was ruled by Saddam Hussein. International oil companies are desperate to get their foot in the door. "Everyone wants to be in Iraq," says Ruba Husari, an expert on Iraqi oil. "Togethor with Iran this is the only oil province in the world that has great potential. It is a great opportunity for oil companies because nobody knows the size of Iraq's reserves. Iraq itself needs to know what is under its soil."
But Iraqis are wary of the involvement of big foreign oil companies in raising production in super giant fields like Kirkuk and Bai Hassan in the north and Rumaila, Zubair and West Qurna in the south. They suspect that the US invasion of 2003 was ultimately aimed at securing western control of their oil wealth. The nationalization of the Iraqi oil industry by Saddam Hussein in 1972 remains popular.
end quote
Even if only one or two western Big Oil cies have secured contracts with the puppet Iraqi government, it's obvious that other cies also want pieces of the big "pie". From articles I've not necessarily read, but nevertheless seen posted at www.uruknet.info over the past year, China and another country have cies with at least servicing contracts in Iraq, for the oil industry.
There's more to the oil industry than only being an exploiter and re-seller; there are also the service cies, like the apparently major one called Halliburton, f.e.
Servicing is evidently important to the ruling elites of the west. After all, Afghanistan doesn't have any oil resources to exploit, but does geographically fit for a pipeline; the purpose of the war there, for there is no other humanly understandable purpose, unless we believe the 9-11 lies and omit the 9-11 truths of the Bush administration. The 9-11 truths of that administration, I say? Sure. Bush said that the Taliban had had [nothing] to do with the attacks in the U.S. on 9-11, which means that war could not be legitimately carried out against the Taliban; not in terms of the 9-11 attacks anyway. Bush said this prior to the launch of that war, Oct 7, 2001; having clearly stated this, that the Taliban had nothing to do with 9-11.
They backed out of the pipeline talks, though.
According to WaPo, Iraq is refusing to give foreign oil companies an ownership stake in the fields, so most of them aren't biting at the contracts yet. Good for Iraq.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
content/article/2009/06/30/AR2009063000568.html
"zmann July 1st, 2009 8:02 am
...
Second part: I never said the damned war was moral! I'm just saying at this point, it's not illegal at present."
SURE IT IS. After all, the UNSC voted against this war, refused to authorise it.
Some idiots in the U.S. prefer to claim that the continuing war is only occupation and not war, but it remains war until the foreign occupiers, who are the invaders, who launched the totally unjustifiable and criminal war to begin with, now it's still war; until they withdraw. Who cares about paper arguments, when reality is what counts?! The reality is that for Iraqis, this remains a war; one that has moved to the stage of occupation, because the initial battle, if we can call it that in this case, ended during Spring 2003, but the situation remains war until the invaders, who are the occupiers, withdraw.
After all, Iraqis haven't regained any security, rights, medical system, etcetera, and the conditions continue to kill Iraqis. The re-construction that's needed for sanitation, f.e., hasn't been done, and many Iraqis continue to fall ill and die because of this criminal lack. They continue to be poisoned with D.U. and toxic chemicals, heavy metals, ... that are in the Iraqi environment due to this war. Etc. It's continued war on Iraqis; just that it doesn't seem like war to people in the U.S. If the same was done to them, however, then they would see this as war until the invaders and occupiers left or were defeated.
It's illegal, immoral, and hellbent. There is no way to legalise the occupation. The UNSC can pretend that we can legalise the occupation, but "man's law is not God's!"; the UNSC is not a body of law or rules that we are somehow obliged to blindly obey. If and when the UNSC is wrong in its votes, and this does happen, then we're not to blindly side with the wrongful decisions or rulings. When it's right, then it's like when anyone is right; simply recognise that the person or organisation is right and support it. When others are wrong, then don't adopt or support the wrongs. Iow, have and exercise [individual conscience].
The continuing war and occupation are illegal. The UNSC pretended to be able to legalise the occupation, but that's a bogus act. It's like a murderer going into your home when you have a family of several members and kills or murders some, while making life hell for the members remaining alive, and the government decides that the occupation of your home by this or these murderers is legal, okay, to be supported. I don't think you'd agree! The situation would remain war for you, only instead of only having the penetrators, into your home, as enemies, now you'd also have the government, "legal" body's decision makers, acting as enemies against you and your family. The government could pretend that the occupation of your home by murderers who've already murdered a number of the family members can legally occupy your home, but you'd most certainly disagree and would do everything you could to try to kill or get rid of these murderous invaders. You wouldn't see the occupation as at all legal!
Similarly for Iraq; the whole damn war is not only illegal, if we carefully apply law, it's hellbent immoral, hypocritical, hegemonic, ....
Negligent application of law does not make the ruling legal or valid. Instead, it's [negligent] and might be criminally negligent.
Ethically, the UNSC cannot legalise occupations of or over others by the rogue criminals who committed the illegal and hellbent immoral wars to begin with! It'd be hellishly oxymoronic and to believe otherwise, the contrary, is to be bigot, hypocrite, ... and damn or hellishly moronic.
There's nothing legally supportable or supportably legal about the foreign occupation of Iraq. NOTHING! It'd be legal for the foreign occupiers to leave, but not for them to stay; and they have clearly refused to leave and clearly enough have no real intentions of leaving until "business" is accomplished, very thoroughly.
If you disagree, then you need murderers and rapists to invade your home and do as already stated, above. We'll then find your viewpoint drastically changing, and faster than we can blink our eyes; becoming the complete opposite from what you pretend to be valid, now.
Go ahead and pretend that I'm mistaken about how you'd react if the situation against Iraqis was, instead, against you, your family, community, .. and country. Go ahead, but if you do, then it'll be an obvious lie; or, obviously damn stupid ignorance. You'd obviously be mistaken; it's just a question of whether it would be an outright lie, or damn ignorance.
johnshaplin posted a link to an article at atimes.com, Asia Times, and it's by Dahr Jamail, dated July 2nd (oddly?). He refers to the situation in Iraq as continuing, instead of referring to it like a bunch of U.S. idiots do, the people who whine about the situation no longer being war, but only occupation, as if the occupation isn't continued war for Iraqis and the only thing that counts is what "Americans" think and rule.
Quoting from that article: "Today, Agosto's remains a relatively isolated act in an all-volunteer military built to avoid the dissent that, in the Vietnam era, came to be associated with an army of draftees. However, it's an example that may, soon enough, have far greater meaning for an increasingly overstretched military plunging into an expanding Afghan War seemingly without end, even as its war in Iraq continues."
Agosto, btw, is someone good to read about. He's an evidently excellent and dissenting U.S. soldier.
Yes, the Security Council did not authorize the war. But also the Security Council gave a mandate for the U.S. presence inside Iraq, which the Status of Forces Agreement replaced when it expired.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/22/
world/africa/22iht-iraq.4.17174376.html
"The UN Security Council resolution that authorizes American troop operations in Iraq expires Dec. 31, and unless the agreement is in place or the council votes to extend the existing resolution, U.S. troops would no legal basis for operations at the end of the year."
If you claim the invasion itself was illegal because the UNSC did not authorize it, you can only claim that UNSC's authorization of the occupation wasn't legal by being a hypocrite. It's really the only legal authority that covers this kind of situation. I don't like it either, and I've written about forming some new global authority regarding military interventions, but it's a hella complex thing.
The oil and gas deal with BP is "sealed", that is, secret.
There is a good article at Asia Times on resistance in the U.S. military and the extent of "search and avoid" missions.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KG02Ak05.html
Thanks again to Scahill for telling it like it is. All these posters trying to justify or rationalize what has been and remains a murderous, thieving venture on the part of the US are just so much white noise.
From the NYT article that Scahill linked:
"After the daylong event, which was broadcast live on national television, the government came away with just a single deal struck from among the six giant oil fields and two gas fields it had put up for bid."
"The single successful contract went to a joint venture of BP and the China National Petroleum Corporation for the largest field offered: Rumaila, near the southern city of Basra, which has proven reserves of more than 17 billion barrels."
Why does Scahill choose to mention "A total of 8 of the world's 10 top non-state oil companies are competing for licenses to help develop six oil fields and two natural gas fields."
but not that there was only a single successful bid?
Well, Amerikans are no different from anyone else, I guess-- people always like to hunt for roses in the killing fields to bring away as souvenirs.
And we're great ones for gilding the skulls.
As Secretary-- then Senator-- Clinton proudly stated of Amerikan combat forces in March, 2008:
"They were asked to give the Iraqi government the space and time for political reconciliation, and they did. So for every American soldier who has made the ultimate sacrifice for this mission, we should imagine carved in stone 'they gave their life for the greatest gift one can give to a fellow human being, the gift of freedom.'"
It really IS a Hallmark Moment: Freedom®, the Gift that Never Stops Giving™!
· Yr Obd't Servant
"zmann June 30th, 2009 10:02 pm
You're using analogies that the conservatives in America use to claim that Obama is turning us into a Marxist dictatorship dude."
A MARXIST dictatorship? Let me know when this begins. I'll be watching and hoping. He didn't want dictatorship, but if you're going to have that, then [real] Marxism certainly seems like one good way; definitely better than capitalism, anyway.
==================================
"Valatius June 30th, 2009 9:49 pm
I agree that the Maliki regime is corrupt but I would not call him a puppet. Sure, he is willing to invite in the foreign oil companies but I'll bet he extorts a far higher percentage from them than they would like."
Ha ha ha ha ha .... You have to be JOKING!
DISNEY is "fun", isn't it(?). Don't ya just dream about living your life in Disney(?).!
Nouri al-Maliki does [not] 'extort' any Big Oil cie. He profits (not benefits, but profits) from agreeing to "deals" with the cies, but he is [not] in any position to be able to extort anything at all from any western Big Oil cie or government. He knows very well that if he became too affirmative as Iraqi citizen, then he could count the number of days remaining for his life, or maybe not; maybe he couldn't count that fast.
Etc.
===============================================
"GwNorth June 30th, 2009 8:57 pm
...
If the people want the US out, then Iraqs Government is not responding to the wishes of its people ."
YEP, and that's a critically objective point to [emphasise]! But it's not a question of 'if', because the [majority] of Iraqis want the damn foreign occuption and corruption ended, and would surely be glad to have replacements for the PM and President that the U.S. "helped" to install, given they both are [traitors], greedy, and so on.
========================
"zmann June 30th, 2009 7:54 pm
Well, how you look at this particular agreement depends on what you believe the motives of either party are. I don't think we're going to stay in Iraq forever, so I don't view it as an immoral thing. "
WORDS OF A MORON!
Sorry, if I'm at all offencive, but I like to describe reality for what it is.
After all, no one is going to stay in Iraq [forever], because all of humanity is going to be extinct before that day, of 'forever', ever happens anyway. Of course I know that zmann doesn't mean 'forever' in absolute terms! I'm exaggerating, a "little", say. But I don't see what is not immoral about this whole damn war on Iraq, for the [whole] of it is immoral; and that, btw, will be a 'forever' matter, truth, reality. Realities past are nonetheless realities; just that they're not present or current.
There is [nothing], absolutely nothing moral, ethical about this war on Iraq. NOTHING!
First part: Of course Obama won't do anything, but those on the Right are fearmongering about it, even though it will never happen. Try watching Glenn Beck sometimes, he has far too many followers for my comfort and it always claiming Obama is a commu-soci-Marxi-Nazi-fascist.
Second part: I never said the damned war was moral! I'm just saying at this point, it's not illegal at present. Facts are important, no matter how we feel about them. Don't try to put words in my mouth (or my keyboard).
Good points. I just want to add: The majority of the people in the US want the war to end too, so the US is as deaf as the Iraqi puppet government when it comes to representing the will of its people.
I agree that the Maliki regime is corrupt but I would not call him a puppet. Sure, he is willing to invite in the foreign oil companies but I'll bet he extorts a far higher percentage from them than they would like.
The biggest problem for the Iraqi people is that Maliki's government is of, by and for his own sect, the Shiites. The Obama administration cannot make him treat non-Shiites with fairness or respect. As I say, he's not a puppet.
Sooner or later, either Maliki's thugs or Sunni fanatics will provoke outright civil war, and then our troops will once again be drawn into the bloodbath. The suicide attacks are already ramping up.
This is why the withdrawl of US troops from the cities is a dangerous sham. We need to get out before we are called upon to do more of Maliki's dirty work.
Transparency International does not seem to be that transparent. Why is the US not listed at the top of the list of kleptomaniacs? Somalia, Myanmar, Haiti, Afghanistan are small fries.
Life imitating art ... paraphrases of favorite quotes from "Apocalypse Now":
"Oh man, the bullsh_t piled up so fast in (Iraq) you needed wings to stay above it ... the war was being run by a bunch of four star clowns who were gonna end up giving the whole circus away ... it was a lie. And the more I saw them, the more I hated lies."
Deepa
What is happening in Afghanistan is underreported. This gives an idea of what the US understanding of SOVEREIGNTY of other countries.
This news is from an Indian Newspaper TIMES OF INDIA:
"Nine Afghan policemen killed in shootout with US-hired guards"
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/South-Asia/-
Nine-Afghan-policemen-killed-in-shootout-with-US-hired-guards/articleshow/4716622.cms
KABUL: A police chief in the restive southern Afghan province of Kandahar was among nine officers killed Monday in a gunbattle between Afghan police and US-hired private security guards, officials said.
Matiullah Qati and eight other police officials, including the head of the crime investigation department, were killed in the fighting in the prosecutor's office in the provincial capital, also called Kandahar, Ahmad Wali Karzai, head of the provincial council and brother of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, told DPA.
The circumstances surrounding the gunfire remained confusing with government officials not commenting so far on what had happened. Earlier, however, a government official said on the condition of anonymity that security contractors hired by foreign forces and used in military operations tried to remove a prisoner detained in the prosecutor's office.
The provincial prosecutor called on the police for help to prevent the contractors from taking the prisoner and fighting started as soon as the police chief exchanged harsh words and insults with the contractors, the source said.
Kandahar is the Taliban's former stronghold and President Karzai's hometown.
Damn. Thanks for the info.
Somebody get Obama an aircraft carrier and a flight suit, this is his "Mission Accomplished" moment.
Not really, since it was the Bush administration that signed this agreement.
Good point.
I wonder if the any of the bands at the ceremonies played "Onward Christian Soldiers"?
"Iraq is the world's premier kleptomaniac state."
Hey, I thought we were #1. What the hell?
Did Iraq create history's biggest Ponzi scheme that has sucked tens of trillions from the world economy so far? NO! Did Iraq gift the country's most notorious white collar thieves with trillions of 3 generations worth of taxpayer bucks? NO! Is the Iraq economy run by the same banksters who created history's biggest Ponzi scheme and were rewarded with said trillions in taxpayer bucks? NO!
Do Iraqis spend as much time as we do figuring out new and interesting ways to screw each other over at the first available opportunity? NO!
America is, hands f#@king down, the world's premier kleptomaniac state!
Hey, you're right! Now we have something to be proud of on the Fourth! Har... har...
frank1569 - you are SO correct! Thank you.
This "Claim of Victory" reminds me of an earlier "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq - and we all know how that went.
This is a victory, for the Empirical Tyrants of the American Regime and BIG Oil.
Does Scahill's reasoning that Iraq is not sovereign stem from the fact that there are U.S. military forces still inside the country? If that's the case, then Germany, Japan, South Korea, etc., are not sovereign either. The SoA agreement was negotiated between the two governments, Iraq didn't have to agree to the articles that Scahill referenced, and I remember articles on here reporting on provisions of the agreement that the Iraqi government forces the U.S. to take out. Like it or not, it's legal.
sierra7
Being "legal" doesn't make it morally correct.
The "law" is not "justice" only a means to an end.
In this case our ability to extend our occupation for decades....or for that matter, generations unless we are thrown out.
And, the "law" is mostly written by the most powerful....not the most moral.
Well, how you look at this particular agreement depends on what you believe the motives of either party are. I don't think we're going to stay in Iraq forever, so I don't view it as an immoral thing. It can be used as a standard to hold our forces to for legal penalties, should our government violate it. I haven't read the agreement (I don't have time to read jack anymore now that I'm working) so I can't really get into specifics of the agreement.
Nazi Germany also had agreements signed with Occupied Poland, Occupied Norway, Occupied France and Occupied Yugoslavia.
In every one of these cases The Conquered Countries signed treaties with Germany permitting the German Military to remain.
The USSR also has treaties signed with Poland, Bulgaria, Latvia, Estonia Rumania and the likes that "permitted" Russian bases inside those countries.
So to answer your question.
If the MAJORITY of Iraqis want The Americans out and America remains, then I really do not care whether the Government in Iraq has signed agreements to allow the US to remain, any more then I would have called Quislings surrender of Norway to Germany "legit" or Russias of Poland.
If the people want the US out, then Iraqs Government is not responding to the wishes of its people .
You're using analogies that the conservatives in America use to claim that Obama is turning us into a Marxist dictatorship dude. Not to mention our government has nothing in common with the Nazi or various Soviet regimes.
As well, the governments installed by Germany were not democratically elected, and were never recognized as legitimate by the international community. Ditto for the Warsaw Pact nations, except for the recognition part.
>>Not to mention our government has nothing in common with the Nazi or various Soviet regimes.
says you.
A military occupation is a military occupation. The majority of people want you OUT just as they did in Vietnam.
>>Ditto for the Warsaw Pact nations, except for the recognition part.
They were all recognized..so they are not legitimate because you say so? What sort of nonsense is that?
You are worse then Tomas more with your "exceptionalism"
If the PEOPLE dont want you there you do not belong there. No matter what "treaty" you have signed.
THATs democratic...
It's not exceptionalism man. There are times military occupations are necessary, such as the occupation of Germany, Japan, and hell the Southern U.S. after the Civil War here. I guess before the MIC became prevalent, our leaders sometimes acted for the best.
Because I say so? I'm sorry that I view a democratic government as more legitimate than a dictatorship installed by another dictatorship.
50 years from now the US is still going to be in Iraq, just like we've been in Germany, Japan and South Korea for 50-some years. It's call Imperialism. Legal or illegal has nothing to do with this.
correct.............global warming will get us all before then!!!
50 years from now the US is still going to be in Iraq, just like we've been in Germany, Japan and South Korea for 50-some years. It's call Imperialism. Legal or illegal has nothing to do with this.
I don't think so, soon enough the country is likely to realize that we can't afford to be an empire.
You could not afford it 40 years ago yet kept borrowing money to pay for it. How much longer will it take?
Now that the MSM has been having a field day over the cost of everything Obama is doing, people are reacting to sticker shock, but unfortunately not yet in a way that decreases support for the MIC.
Legal?! So was slavery in the USA until after the Civil War. Your comment is so naive. Please read "Confessions of an Economic Hit-man" (or listen to his [Perkins'] youtube interview w/ Alex Jones (not usually one of my faves, but good in this instance). Maliki and the rest almost w/o DOUBT got sat down and read the Facts of Life; cooperate and you'll get rich, resist and get buried. Why do you think we get along swimmingly w/brutal, repressive Saudi Arabia, but demonize [nominally] democratic and comparatively secular Iran? Iran wants to dump the US Buck as the international standard and won't play along w/the Anglo-American banks. To say "Iraq didn't have to agree to the articles"...? Yeah, and a psychopath with HISTORY of murder and extortion sticks a gun in your mouth and demands your wallet, you are "free" to say "no", too...
Easy explanation: because conservatives/realists have determined our foreign policy for generations. This would not have happened with real progressives in power. But eh, it's still legal. I'm not saying I like it man.
Jeremy focuses his attention on what Iraqi politicians say and on the violence that still happens and almost completely ignores the wave of "victory feeling" which runs through the Iraqi people. His report is worse than the MSM and deserves to be thrown into the garbage can.
Why? Because the magnificent reaction of the Iraqi people today makes it almost impossible that we, in collusion with El Maliki and others, can change the SOFA agreement to allow our armed forces to remain in Iraq after December 31, 2011.
It is all over except for the "sayonara".
You think our MSM is corrupt, I'm sure independent reporting is flourishing in Iraq. Maybe Jeremy's article will be translated and published there! NOT!
Remove the troops from inside the cities and place them outside the cities.....shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic! We will NEVER leave as long as US citizens keep driving, letting their SUV's idle in parking lots while they buy their cheap disposable plastic crap from Wal-Mart-type stores as they use shopping as a hobby!
We need to REDUCE our use of oil, plastic, personal automobiles, and constant use of a/c and heating devices. REDUCE....RIDE BIKES....WALK....PLAY SPORTS (NON-SHOPPING ONES). HAVE FUN!!!
Reminds me of a documentary on crack babies in which the room with the poor crack baby, premature, sickly and hooked up to life support is festooned with balloons and decorations by the parents celebrating its birth.
Sioux Rose
Wow, RIC, quite a striking parallel, and eerily it holds.
I know it sounds a little out there but that is what first came to mind.