It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iraq set to offer U.S. a long-term presence

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Iraq set to offer U.S. a long-term presence


www.msnbc.msn.com

BAGHDAD - Iraq's government, seeking protection against foreign threats and internal coups, will offer the U.S. a long-term troop presence in Iraq in return for U.S. security guarantees as part of a strategic partnership, two Iraqi officials said Monday.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Many of us on this board have been saying that the US will never completely pull out of Iraq, and here is the icing on the cake. Yet another country on this globe where we will have 50,000 troops stationed permanently.

www.msnbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 10:17 AM
link   


They 'offered' huh? Like they had a choice in the matter. If they didn't give the offer, the US troops would have pulled out and the government will get over-thrown. Still better than a blood-bath, I suppose.

Congratulations, Iraq! How does it feel like to be yet another US client state (the new term for imperial colony)?



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Beachcoma


They 'offered' huh? Like they had a choice in the matter. If they didn't give the offer, the US troops would have pulled out and the government will get over-thrown. Still better than a blood-bath, I suppose.


Do you really think we would ever really pull out? Not with all that oil there!


Congratulations, Iraq! How does it feel like to be yet another US client state (the new term for imperial colony)?


Very well said



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Is this really a surprise to anyone?

The title should have read "US Government asks US Government to remain in Iraq".



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Beware that the article said two government officials are asking for this request.

Now we all know that the Iraqi government is composed of more than that.

So what the rest of the members of the Iraqi government said.

After all the last pushing for the privatization of the Iraqi oil went down the hill when the Iraqi government denied the rights to the Iraqi oil to private US companies.

I guess is still hope.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Update


WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush on Monday signed a deal setting the foundation for a potential long-term U.S. troop presence in Iraq, with details to be negotiated over matters that have defined the war debate at home — how many U.S. forces will stay in the country, and for how long.
U.S., Iraq agree on long-term troop presence

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


This morning it was a rumor this afternoon it is fact and a done deal, add yet another country to the American Empire.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 04:59 PM
link   
i geuss congress doesnt get any say in wether we stay there?oh well i just hope that somehow this sends things in a new better direction...somehow...



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Well lets remember that Bush sign also the deal to have US oil companies rights to Iraqi oil and the deal was rejected by the Iraqi government.

This sounds like the same thing Bush gets to push the deals but is up to the entire Iraqi government to rejected or take it.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by LDragonFire
 


Maybe it's just me but I am struggling to comprehend how and why this is a negative development. Greater US global and regional political, military, economical and cultural influence which will also directly and indirectly support Iraq from complete anarchy and from external threats (and or intimidation). Iraq being the new democracy in a hostile and volatile region that it is will have to be shepherded until it can sustain itself. In the process forming a close bond with the US due to generational perception hence becoming another close ally we can depend on. Look at Germany, Japan, South Korea etc… All are models of what I am referring to, you can hardly call them unsuccessful, weak, undemocratic or puppet countries. Yet they all have close political and economical relations with the US and host some of the largest contingent of US military assets outside the CONUS. This romantic meaningless notions of opposing the "American Empire" is a fallacy and one that has no merit. Apart from anything else influence in this day and age is priceless, many of you take for granted when you enjoy the benefits of a Western living style. Quit trying to be a false nobleman and wise up, enjoy what you have and be grateful for it.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
reply to post by LDragonFire
 


Maybe it's just me but I am struggling to comprehend how and why this is a negative development. Greater US global and regional political, military, economical and cultural influence which will also directly and indirectly support Iraq from complete anarchy and from external threats (and or intimidation).


First off paragraphs are a good thing.
Your struggle to comprehend most likely stems from years of governmental training and indoctrination. The truth is we have meddled in this part of the world for decades.

First in Iran until the people rose up against the American backed shaw, with there successful revolution, then we backed Saddam Hussein in a 8 year war against Iran, he was the same dictator then that he was during the 2 gulf wars.

Now if it wasn't for our meddling to over throw Saddam Hussein's government then disband the Iraqi Army and the many other mistake made since invading this country they wouldn't even be close to being threatened by anarchy or external or even internal threats. We created this problem.



Iraq being the new democracy in a hostile and volatile region that it is will have to be shepherded until it can sustain itself.


Again a problem we created.


In the process forming a close bond with the US due to generational perception hence becoming another close ally we can depend on. Look at Germany, Japan, South Korea etc… All are models of what I am referring to, you can hardly call them unsuccessful, weak, undemocratic or puppet countries. Yet they all have close political and economical relations with the US and host some of the largest contingent of US military assets outside the CONUS.


Your really going to compare the occupation of Iraq to those in Germany, Japan, and South Korea. LOL thats rich. Ok once hostilities ended in these countries there where no casualties or very few, thats one big difference between these countries and Iraq.

Hostilities to this day have not ended in Iraq, they continue, and will continue, because the average Iraqi doesn't want us there, see Vietnam. Germany, Japan, and South Korea are success stories, Vietnam and Iraq are Not.


This romantic meaningless notions of opposing the "American Empire" is a fallacy and one that has no merit. Apart from anything else influence in this day and age is priceless, many of you take for granted when you enjoy the benefits of a Western living style. Quit trying to be a false nobleman and wise up, enjoy what you have and be grateful for it.


How exactly does having up to 50,000 American service men stationed permanently in Iraq insure our way of life? We are protected by two huge oceans, if you want to thank anything for giving us protection against our enemies thank god for the thousands of miles of water that protects our East and West coast.

We have bases in over 170 different countries around the world, we clearly have a Empire that is why we must pay so many taxes....

See Ron Paul for further clarification!

[edit on 26-11-2007 by Richard Dreyfuss]

[edit on 26-11-2007 by Ron Paul]

[edit on 26-11-2007 by LDragonFire]



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by LDragonFire
 



Thanks for that refreshing down the memory line post.
sometimes we are so caught up in patriotism that we forget the reason things are the way they are today.

Everything is done it will have a repercussion down the line.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Well Gee, i wonder which country this 'Strategic Partnership' is going to be used against.

My bets are on what could technically be called 'Iraq's nearest foreign Enemy' for those aforesaid government officials - Iran.

EDIT: Propoganda campaigns, Military draftings (From Iraqi population, not american) and forced labour ahoy!



[edit on 26-11-2007 by Throbber]



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by LDragonFire


In the process forming a close bond with the US due to generational perception hence becoming another close ally we can depend on. Look at Germany, Japan, South Korea etc… All are models of what I am referring to, you can hardly call them unsuccessful, weak, undemocratic or puppet countries. Yet they all have close political and economical relations with the US and host some of the largest contingent of US military assets outside the CONUS.


Your really going to compare the occupation of Iraq to those in Germany, Japan, and South Korea. LOL thats rich. Ok once hostilities ended in these countries there where no casualties or very few, thats one big difference between these countries and Iraq.

Hostilities to this day have not ended in Iraq, they continue, and will continue, because the average Iraqi doesn't want us there, see Vietnam. Germany, Japan, and South Korea are success stories, Vietnam and Iraq are Not.


Actually, thats not really true. German resistance to Allied occupation in the form of the "Werwolf" groups lasted significantly for at least 2 years and is attributed to 3,000~5,000 deaths, which is above the death toll currently in Iraq. The main difference here being the media wasn't giving daily death toll updates to push an whichever agenda their company's side with. Korea is a different situation altogether, sense we didn't invade the country, but stepped in when it was invaded by an outside source. Japan didn't really have an resistance to occupation, I'll give you that one. But they all turned out the same, with time, things calmed down.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
reply to post by LDragonFire
 


Maybe it's just me but I am struggling to comprehend how and why this is a negative development.


well because the way america practices its imperialism is only slightly different than the Roman Empire did, or the British Empire, or several dozen other empires, kingdoms or dynasties, which all failed due to spending so much money abroad expanding the empire, while neglecting the local problems. This practice cannot sustain itself, period. It may work for a while, but anything can work for a while, even perpetual motion.


They say those who dont know history are bound to repeat it, well history says very clearly, imperialism, or colonialism leads to collapse every time.

furthermore, dont you find it mildly ironic that a nation founded by people wanting to escape imperialism are now the biggest perpetrators of imperialism?

Historian Sidney Lens says

that the United States, from the time it gained its own independence, has used every available means to dominate other nations. Proponents of the empire view point to the over 700 American military bases worldwide as of 2005 and the use of bombing campaigns (against 22 countries since the Second World War) by the US AirForce to further American objectives. They also argue that the American Empire routinely relies on "governing surrogates" namely governments which would collapse without American support.


also you site Japan, Germany, and South Korea as success stories, i will argue that we STILL have troops in each country. How much do you think it costs to maintain a military base abroad?

You also say these arnt puppet governments, while technically they are not, what do you think would happen if say South Korea decided to not allow a US foreign base on their soil, or american businesses to set up shop there? i'll answer for you, the same thing that happend in iran in the 50's, Guatemala, Nicaragua Chile... etc. and what we TRIED to do in Cuba, and currently TRYING to do in Venezuela and Iran.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 03:48 AM
link   


"Iraq's government, seeking protection against foreign threats"


Yes, if they don't watch out, someone may come along and overthow their government and occupy their country. Maybe if they would have thought about seeking the US's protection back in 2003 we would be in this situation today.




top topics



 
0

log in

join