Yes, folks, in spite of the fact that the Iraqi government has bailed out for a month of vacation, immediately after falling completely apart, in spite of the fact that we're wasting $4,000 per minute there, in spite of the fact that 3 Americans are dying (and roughly 10 times that number being injured) on a daily basis, along with countless innocent Iraqis, in spite of the massive amounts of corruption and unimaginable failures throughout the entire failed US policy in Iraq, we finally have good news to report.
The Iraqi's have refused to ratify the oil deal. It appears that they're not so stupid after all. The oil deal is nothing more than a blatant attempt to privatize Iraqi oil wealth and hand it over to foreign corporations. This is a very positive step for the Iraqi's, to have recogized how bad this would be for them. We should all be applauding their courage and wisdom.
Good news from Baghdad at last: the oil law has stalled
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 44
Another obvious reason to celebrate!
Now the thieving weasels might do something radical, though.
But hell, it's not like getting what they wanted was going to satisfy them, good on the Iraqi's, good on the people, screw the gods.
Hell why not we have already gotten 600,000 + of them killed so far so what the heck.
Anyway, we should not steal their oil, but we should not leave it in the hands of an inept government. Now nothing will get done.
Total war against against a nation that did nothing to us? WTF is wrong with you? You don't think we've killed and maimed enough innocent men, women, and children yet? In case you hadn't noticed, Iraq has no military. You like the idea of fire bombing cities of innocent people? You must've gotten a tremendous hard on when we showered Fallujah with weapons of mass destruction to murder that city.
This gambit failed for Dubya and now for plan B: We will reconstruct and rehabilitate the Baathist Party under a new strongman that will give assurances of cooperation with international oil in exchange for hands off on the Shi'ia and Kurds. We'll sell the new Saddam weapons, provide training etc and keep our embassy and a few first strike bases in the desert while Saddam 2 ruthlessly represses dissent just like the good old days. Bottom line is a workable oil deal favorable to US interests and with the French, Chinese and Russians cut out. Like a century earlier and like what happens in the rest of the Arab/oil producing world we really don't give a damn how the natives slaughter eachother as long as a few bucks can be made.
I agree with News Hound.
We cannot debate this like we are still living in 2003. Right now, our troops are under attack by terrorists and by people who want nothing more than to kill innocent men, women, children, and see the US be destroyed. Katie, the strategy we are using now wont end the killing. Fight this war like we fought the germans and the japanese, and this war will end and it will save millions of lives. This is a war, and it is not easy or pretty. It will take time, effort, and sacrifice. If we are not willing to what is necessary to end and win this conflict, more people, including Americans, will die. More money will be spent. We will face new threats. We may have made a lot of mistakes, but now we have to deal with the situation at hand. Do what is necessary, and save lives, money, and time.
When you say, "Fight this war like we fought the Germans and the Japanese," are you suggesting that we nuke them? That is a sickening thought, not only because it will kill innocent people, but because it will start a global war in unprecedented proportions, with China, Russia and every major nation on earth, killing the planet. Is that what you really want?
I love when these self-professed so-called "conservatives" who generally denounce the UN, turn around cite UN resolution violations as a legitimate reason for the US to send our own into harms way.
You can't call yourself "conservative" (which I know you do, ty phoon), and still advocate using the US military as a global police force.
Nation-building and imperial foreign policy is always going to be a costly endeavor (with the taxpayers footing the total bill, of course; you won't see Dubya or Cheney reaching into their own pockets to pay for "spreading democracy"), and it will always require the centralization and expansion of government power, as well as the the surrendering of civil liberties that typically accompany a "nation at war" mentality -- particularly a nation engaged in an indefinite, vaguely-defined "global war" on an idea or a tactic, such as "terrorism."
You can't call yourself a Hatfield and buy from the McCoy's. Your either a "conservative," or your a supporter of the NeoCon foreign and domestic policies. You can't be both.
"... [Iraq] developed, used, and stockpiled WMD's, killed its own people, oppressed its people..."
No, the U.S. Military-Industrial Complex developed the WMD's, and sold them to Saddam's regime. During the time that Saddam was actually using chemical/bio weapons against Iran and against his own people was the time that he was receiving support from the U.S. government.
When it finally became politically expedient for the U.S. Establishment (or more beneficial for the globalist agenda) to turn against Hussein, all it took was two weeks of military engagement, and a few years of international sanctions to render Saddam and his military useless.
Both Colin Powell and Condi Rice publicly stated that Saddam's capabilities were shattered, and that he posed no threat to anyone in thaqt region, let alone us, in early 2001. They must have thought that no one was really paying attention.
And totalitarian regimes all across the globe are "oppressing their own people," since when is it the responsibility of the American taxpayer to right the affairs of other nations?
Since the NeoCon's got control of the US foreign policy apparatus, that's when.
"...invaded two countries, threatened world oil supplies..."
Yeah; Iraq invaded Iran with the blessing of Washington DC. So its a bit disingenuous to hold that as proper justification for invading them, is it not?
Another little-known fact (or covered-up-by-the-political/media-establishment fact, I should say) is that Saddam was given the green light to invade Kuwait by the GHW Bush administration, as well.
And please explain, exactly when did Saddam "threaten world oil supplies"?
I must have missed that development.
And I mean based on facts and sound reasoning, not just sensationalized NeoCon rhetoric and talking points.
"... Yes, Iraq was a threat."
My ass. All the invasion and occupation of Iraq did was create real enemies and real potential threats, where previously there were only fictional ones, made up for the purpose of scaring the American people into thinking like... you.
Sam, believe me, I know how it would work. Surround cities, give people time to get out and search all of them, bomb the city into dust, and rebuild. Its about what we did during and after WWII, but we did not give people a chance to leave. And to be honest, who cares what the world says. What are they going to do? Write an angry letter to Bush and Congress, hold a rally or two, and take a poll? O boy! That will show America a thing to two.
Steve, I dont denounce the UN. I personally think it is a good organization. There is nothing bad about an organization that helps 600 million people, has stopped wars, and maintained peace throughout the world. I may not agree with them on some things, but overall I respect the UN. Nor do I think that the US should be the policemen of the world, but the problem is that if the US does nothing, the world does nothing. In Bosnia, the Europeans were going to sit back and watch the slaughter in their own back yard. It took the US to do something. When the US left Somalia, the world soon followed. If the US does not take action, the world rarely will.
I will admit that the US helped advance Iraq's WMD program, and that was a mistake. But we also helped Japan build it huge navy before WWII. Were it not for the US, Japan would never have become a superpower. But just because the US aided a nation, does not automatcally mean we cannot stop them. We also have to pick and choose our battles Steve. We have to make examples too.
About the invasion of Iran, maybe that was true. But did that make it right? Did that mean we cannot attack them for what they did? I also doubt your claim concerning Kuwait.
Iraq was a threat to oil supplies because he still maintained a huge and well armed standing army. Had he taken action against Saudi Arabia or Kuwait or other nations in the Gulf region, it would have been devistating. During the First Gulf War, oil prices doubled, and that was when Saddam was trying to control oil. He probably would have destroyed oil infrastructure to screw America and the West and oil would have gone through the roof. And since America's oil base was not very diverse, it would have had a huge effect. I stand by this opinion.
Maybe Iraq did create more enemies and threats. But leaving Iraq wont make them go away. Remember when the Soviets left Afghanistan and the US pulled its support from Afghanistan? The only thing that came from that was more threats and a few thousand dead Americans. We also had to go back. Remember when we left Somalia? That only resulted in more dead Somali's, dead Americans, and the take-over of a radical Islamic government. We had to get an ally to go into Somalia to destroy the threat. Leaving Iraq wont change anything. It will only encourage our enemies, create more threats, and will force the US to spend more money and commit more troops to protect our allies and interests. We have to deal with the situation at hand, and we must fight it ruthlessly. We must send a message to every Iraqi that if you support the insurgency, we will destroy everything you love, and then we will destroy you. But also send the message that if you stop fighting, you will recieve jobs, food, money, security, and other benefits. This is war, not a game, and more than you know depends on it. The consequences of failure are too great. This is the greatest conflict since WWII, and whoever loses will no longer have the legitimate right to exist. We must win, and doing what is necessary will secure victory. It will not be pretty, but it will save countless lives in the long run.
Much of what you say is true. Many things are wrong with the world, and many "threats" exist to stability and peace. The problem with what you say is that Mr. Bush, and the neocon clan, are NOT America. They are using their position to do things which are not in Americas best interest.
The assumption that Mr. Bush and America are synonymous is the problem. The assumption that there cannot be a "regime" here, that has put in motion things which are not intended to benefit the people of America as a whole, but rather further the geopolitical interests of an elite "ruling class", which is not actually loyal to our nation or it's Constitution, is merely that, an assumption. Ruthless people gain control of governments all the time, there is simply no reason to pretend it cannot happen here. I'm rather sure it has.
Please point out which actions or policies by this regime demonstrate the commitment to the rule of law, or governance by a free people. Not what they SAID about their actions and policies, but what those actions and policies actually did to demonstrate a commitment to ANYTHING other than their own power.
"But no matter what we do, no matter what we say, and no matter how much we want it, we cannot change that decision. We are there now, and it is not in America's best interest to leave Iraq. It is not in America's best interest to walk away."
This might be true, but ought not be considered independently of what I spoke of regarding the possibility that we are dealing with a "regime", and not a faithful public servant. That regime will continue to operate for it's own benefit, if that is the true reality, and what might be the "best" course if things were not so, may in fact be a poor course in reality.
You see, a state of war provides numerous opportunities to enhance power, and steer outcomes. I do not believe the potential for benefiting either Iraqis, or the citizens of this country will materialize, but rather, ongoing turmoil. Mr. Bush will remain in control of those potentials, and nothing like a "natural" sequence of events will be allowed to unfold.
This is the real problem. If we could rest assured that this Administration would pursue truly benevolent policies and activities, I would agree with your statement that we ought to seek a rational approach to a continued presence. But realize, the actions thus far carried out yield such troublesome courses as "total war" as prominent options.
This means things have not just been screwed up, but screwed up in a very perverse and dangerous way. Those who moved inexorably to this precarious point, will not simply stop doing this bizarre dance and begin instead to do the right thing. To stay, is to stay wed to both the consequences of twisted leadership, and the twisted leaders themselves.
The WMD's were supplied by us to Saddam a long time ago, and were under the scrutiny of UN inspectors, and being dismantled. We are screwed whether we stay or leave Iraq. Leaving will cost the US taxpayers a lot less, and alot less lives of our soldiers.
We are not fighting a war over there. We are trying to occupy a country with violent sectarain violence between sects there. Take a poll of how many Iraqis actually wanted us there in the first place, and now. We can't go around invading countries because we think they might be a future threat to stability in the middle east. That could be any number of countries that are either in the middle east, or have an interest in their energy!
The money we have wasted in Iraq would have gone a long way to fix some of our problems at home. Like how about securing our borders, and fixing our crumbling infrastructure, and helping the suffering in our country!
David Cox wrote a very good article about the character of George Bush, super-imposed over the character of a genuine man of principles.
The idea that we should take anything that is said by the members of the Bush regime to heart, is just plain crazy. Why should we deludce ourselves into thinking that anything he does is for the best interests of the United States, or in the interest of preserving "our freedoms and way of life," when he has already done so much to undermine those very things?
Ty, I wholly disagree with the idea that our future security depends on staying in Iraq. In fact, quite the opposite. I firmly believe that until we march right out of Iraq -- the same way we marched right in -- the threats to our own national security will increase, and the chance for Iraq to become a stable independent nation will be non-existant. Time will tell which of us is correct, perhaps.
And for the record, I also disagree with you on the UN. I think it is a subversive organization, which has already done enough to undermine our own independent sovereignty. Our best interests have never been and never will be served by our reliance on the UN in dealing with other nations. They are an organization set up and directed by the international financial elite, for the purpose of benefitting them and their agenda, which as stated in their own literature is to promote one-world government, with a one-world central bank (IMF/World Bank), guiding the economic policies and trade policies of all nations (WTO), all for the benefit of the unelected elitist sons of bitches who run it.
John, in some circumstances, I would totally agree with you. What you have outlined has happened over and over again. But I dont think any of that is possible in the United States, where we have an independent Congress and a free-thinking people.
Dave, do you have any idea how much money the US makes? Did you know that the money we have spent in Iraq in 4 years is less than one half of 1% of the money the US has made in that time same time period? Believe me, we can get the money. And the point of destroying everything is not just to kill the enemy and their resources. It is designed to send a message; if you fight against us, we will kill you, your family, your friends, your possessions, and everything else that you love. That kind of message quickly demoralizes just about anyone. Then we rebuild, and we can better moniter and control the situation, and give jobs, money, and security to the natives. Thats what we did in WWII, and it worked wonders. Invading a country before they do something is designed to send a message to other nations. When we invaded Iraq, every dictator in the world watched in fear. They then knew that America was serious. They knew that if you piss of the US, we will get you. The one thing every dictator fears is losing power, and screwing with America is a guarenteed way to lose power. Its not a coincidence that Libya became America's best friend after we invaded Iraq.
Dave, I agree that a lot has been wasted. A lot of mistakes have been made. But as I have said over and over again, leaving wont fix anything. It will, however, make things a lot worse.
Steve, its not just about Iraq. Its about the War on Terror in general. The United States cannot afford to lose a single battle. Every battle lost is just another encouragement to the enemy, just like Somalia was. Every battle lost is just makes things more difficult. The outcome in Iraq will determine the future of America's position in the Middle East and the world. It will play a crucial role in America's security situation. I firmly believe that leaving will accomplish nothing, but will only make the situation worse, just like it did after Somalia, Afghanistan, and Indo-China. But as you said, only time will tell.
The UN is not perfect, but it has done a lot of good things. Of course, there is a lot of anti-US bias, but that can be expected. The world always needs something to blame its problems on, so they look to the greatest nation the world has ever known to blame. But besides that, the UN does a lot. 600 million people depend on the UN for some form of aid. Many conflicts have been solved by the UN. It can change, but its the best there is for now.
"What you have outlined has happened over and over again. But I don't think any of that is possible in the United States, where we have an independent Congress and a free-thinking people."
What I don't think you are realizing fully is; It matters not what is possible, only whether or not is is being attempted. If it is, we are operating under a regime, whether it ultimately succeeds in getting what it envisions or not. They ARE the executive branch, and they are not accepting ANY limits on their authority during "wartime". They are, in fact, running the show. If they are of a despotic mindset, the argument over the possibility of success is moot.
Assuming they can't be doing this, only increases the likelihood of success, since as you say, it is ultimately our own free-thinking which limits authoritarian rule. If we refuse to consider the possibility that our rulers can be despots, we cease to be a fail-safe.
Long ago we reached a critical mass of leadership in Congress who serve the same interests as every president since Woodrow Wilson -- the money powers.
Our "elected" leaders chosen for us by the big money interests. We almost always elect the candidates who get the best media coverage, the candidates who get the best media coverage in the corporate media are the ones who get the most big money power campaign dollars. Our leaders are vetted and chosen for us.
This falls back on the fact that we are not -- for the most part -- a "free thinking" society. Way too many people just let media pundits and political operators do their thinking for them.
If we had a real indendent media, and real independent statesmen in Congress (instead of bought-and-paid for politicians) who told the people the real truth; that our security, and especially our freedoms and way of life, were NEVER threatened by Saddam Hussein; and that Islamic terrorists don't have close to half the true capabilities that one would surmise from 9/11; that all terrorists have the power to do is murder and maim, and not existentially change the USA in any way; then there wouldn't BE so many people who go on thinking like ty phoon -- that we need to cruelly bomb and murder large chunks of foreign civilizations just to be "safer" here at home.
Do tell. What did Iraq do to our nation before our illegal invasion and occupation? I don't know what YOU would do if a foreign army suddenly illegally invaded and occupied the US, but I can PROMISE you that I would become a MAJOR pain in their ass, for as long as I could possibly do so. Ever seen "Red Dawn?" I'll be God damned if I would just willingly submit to foreign occupiers without a fight.
"Iraq violated 17 UN Resolutions, developed, used, and stockpiled WMD's, killed its own people, oppressed its people, invaded two countries, and threatened world oil supplies, and thus threatened global political and economic stability. Yes, Iraq was a threat. "
First of all, the US and Great Britain were the first nations to violate those 17 UN resolutions, not Iraq. Secondly, in case you've forgotten, it was us who armed Saddam with WMD in the 80's, and helped him use them. Even AFTER he'd "gassed his own people," we continued to be his best pal. How come he was no threat during the 80's, when he actually HAD those WMD, but in 2003, he suddenly became a threat, when he no longer had those weapons? Hmmmmm?
Btw, the Gulf War was also built on utter lies. Saddam only invaded Kuwait after we gave him the approval to do so, and he never had his army amassed on the Saudi border, as we were told.
"Fight this war like we fought the germans and the japanese, and this war will end and it will save millions of lives. "
You're utterly clueless. We are not fighting a nation at war with us. We are caught in the midst of a civil war. The only solution is for us to remove ourselves. No amount of innocent deaths will ever stop what's going on there.
Additionally, there is no "war on terror." To keep clinging to that ridiculous notion completely removes you from any sense of credibility in this discussion, imo. We've not done a single thing in the past 5-1/2 years that would be indicative of a nation "at war with a tactic." Which brings up the other rather obvious point. You cannot wage war against a tactic any more than you could wage war against an emotion. It's illogical and irrational, to say the least.
What you COULD do, is work closely with other nations, including and ESPECIALLY those which are known to harbor terrorist groups, pool the intelligence resources of all nations, set up an international court and justice system to deal with captured terrorists, and use special ops forces to erradicate camps, if necessary. You don't invade and occupy a sovereign nation that had no connection to the so-called enemy that you're supposedly going after.
Your staunch defense of hyper aggressive, murderous military tactics in a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11 brings up an interesting question. Why aren't you serving over there yourself? It seems that you've got "the right stuff" that could make a real difference. You seem to have it all figured out. What's holding you back from signing up? And, on a related note, why is there currently such a thing as "campus republicans?" Why is it that the most vocal cheerleaders of our illegal occupation in Iraq are doing so from behind their keyboards, in the safety and comfort of their own homes, rather than strapping themselves into combat boots and showing us all what real heroes they are?
I encourage all of you to read this article to help understand our relations with the world, our history with the world, especially that which has led us up to our present day invasion of Iraq. The article is written by a Christian reporter, for a website called 2007 Endtime Prophecy Net. Now, I don't usually follow the Christian hype that's usually out there for the masses, but this guy did some research, and from what I can make out of most of it, he's telling the truth concerning our history, and the political reasons we took out Saddam. Judge for yourselves.
The link.
http://www.endtimeprophecy.net/EPN-1/Articles/Articles-Poli/eurowar1.html
News Hound, you say:
America needs to be weened off of oil. It's time for some real "meat", from inventors and scientists who can push us into the next age.
I say :
The inventors and scientists, those that are independent and with the right motives, not beholding to those that fund their work, HAVE found the needed technologies to get us away from the oil need ... but ... all of the money is locked up under control of those that already own the oil interests (the oil and money are probably effectively, one and the same) ... so these independent people could never get the funding needed to advance their discoveries into the public realm.
In fact, the private realm of the controllers who actually own most of our governmental 'leaders' have long ago bought up and/or stole (heavy on the latter) the technological information to produce the needed energy via alternate sources ... they have just not yet maximized their leverage with the Oil energies ... maybe they want to first annex a few countries for oil and 'other' reasons (strategic military etc) ... Oil must first be 'milked' for all it is worth ... and the shorter the supply ahead, the more expensive the price ... the public will pay till they have nothing left ...
Then the public will DEMAND replacement energy at ANY COST ... then, as if by magic, it will be handed out with it's entire distribution structure built on demand with what I have said are secretly developed advanced technologies already waiting in the wings ... to be sold to us at very high prices ... which we will be thankful to pay for, as the lessor of two evils, the other being much less desirable no matter what it is. It will be made to look bad by our controllers who are way ahead of us ... we will be happy to take whatever they hand us and we will say thank-you in appreciation ... never knowing in our ignorance cultivated by our media that they own, just how much we 'have been had'.
So, it is not the scientists or the inventions that we need, it is the investors that are not already in cahoots with our controllers that we need.
I have suspected that I have known the preceding for years and as time passes, ever more things come to light that convince me that 'suspicions are confirmed'.
I have just spent the better part of an hour or so reading the suggested link above which is so important that I will reactivate it here again, hoping that more will avail themselves of it ... most enlightening reading!
http://www.endtimeprophecy.net/EPN-1/Articles/Articles-Poli/eurowar1.html
After reading that, it has also confirmed something else I have always suspected, that the interests of the far right Christians that are concerned about end of time scenarios ... though many do not realize it because of their chosen faction of support, republican VS democrat, have the very same interests in the end when you get right down to it ... it is the real evil in this world that seeks to control all by dividing us ... right/left, conservative/liberal, American/other, whites/darks, old/young, rich/poor and on and on ... whatever works the best for only the aims of those 'leaders' that control from behind the scenes the leaders we see which are more like puppets ...
There are large long range plans already in action that we are never supposed to be aware of ... surprise surprise ... would our ultra rich lie to us ... are they doing what they do just for our welfare ... do they even give a crap about us ???