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.

 

Secret US plan for military future in Iraq

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Secret US plan for military future in Iraq


www.guardian.co.uk

A confidential draft agreement covering the future of US forces in Iraq, passed to the Guardian, shows that provision is being made for an open-ended military presence in the country.

The draft strategic framework agreement between the US and Iraqi governments, dated March 7 and marked "secret" and "sensitive", is intended to replace the existing UN mandate and authorises the US to conduct military operations in Iraq and to detain individuals without time limit.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
Secret US plan for Iraq war: Bush orders backing for rebels to topple Saddam
Secret US plans for Iraq's oil
Petraeus Set to Defend Iraq Plan as Democrats Attack (Update1)
VIDEO: Cheney's surprise visit to Iraq all about the oil fields

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Iraq War a Failure - Evidence Mounting (from ATSNN)
Are You Prepared For A Hundred Years War On Terror?
Iraq War a "pure failure", Former UN Chief Weapons Inspector says
WAR: Cheney: Iraq War to End by 2009
Cheney makes surprise visit to Iraq


[edit on 4/8/2008 by biggie smalls]




posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 12:05 AM
link   
McCain's "100 years of war" wasn't so far off now that the US and Iraqi governments are in the process of sealing the deal (if they haven't already).

Cheney was trying to assure the US presence in Iraq went well past his tenure in office. I can't find the link now, perhaps a fellow ATSer can help the rest of us out with the story.

Its rather interesting that the US government will go behind the people's back when they're supposed to be here to help/protect us. I think it has been made abundantly clear that the US government does not act in the best interest of the people its meant to protect and serve, but behaves in such a way to ensure a continued global presence (no matter where that may be or how).

Thanks to the likes of the Patriot Act (part 1 and 2) the Bush administration (and Presidents to follow) do not have to charge a prisoner of a crime and can hold them indefinitely. Well I guess the same goes for Iraq now, not that "insurgents" or "terrorists" were ever given the respect of the Geneva Convention which is required by international law.

But that's how this administration works. Laws, who needs 'em?


The authorisation is described as "temporary" and the agreement says the US "does not desire permanent bases or a permanent military presence in Iraq". But the absence of a time limit or restrictions on the US and other coalition forces - including the British - in the country means it is likely to be strongly opposed in Iraq and the US.


Wait, so why did we spend millions of dollars building heavily fortified military bases if the US military doesn't plan on staying?

Oh, I get it. That's for the mercenaries to stay so this corporate funded warmachine can stay alive. Ok that makes sense.

Again, no time limit as that would "ensure failure for our troops." No Mr. Bush, you're the one who ensured their failure.

You sent them to Iraq with shoddy body armor and below grade Humvees because you cut some corners in the funding of this war.

Our soldiers come back with PTSD and worse, and then are treated like secondclass citizens by the medical establishment. The veterans are arguably treated worse than anyone else, on average.

You have not come through for our people and continue to disgrace the world with our presence in sovereign nations. You have ruined the image of US worldwide and we shall be paying for it generations to come.


Iraqi critics point out that the agreement contains no limits on numbers of US forces, the weapons they are able to deploy, their legal status or powers over Iraqi citizens, going far beyond long-term US security agreements with other countries. The agreement is intended to govern the status of the US military and other members of the multinational force.


That's because we never intended to leave, right McCain? You and all your warmongering buddies have no problem setting up permanent shop to ensure a steady flow of profit.

Transfer of wealth at its finest. Dig up all that oil from below the ground and ship it back here.




www.guardian.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 12:12 AM
link   
Yep-I was reading this earlier...Get ready for the INDEFINITE occupation to be set into place...So much for what the american populace thinks eh?



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 12:20 AM
link   
Well, you had to know that this was the plan all along. They created an un-fixable debacle. We have created a situation where we can choose between leaving and letting Iraq turn into a blood bath, or stay there and police them for eternity. The upcoming administration will not want the blood on their hands, so they will end up staying. Regardless of the fact that it is going to bankrupt our country. George Bush will have toppled 2 nations with this war, Iraq and the US.




Again, no time limit as that would "ensure failure for our troops." No Mr. Bush, you're the one who ensured their failure.


Summed up my feelings nicely.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by biggie smalls
McCain's "100 years of war" wasn't so far off


100 years of occupation or until the oil wells run dry - whichever comes first


As long as they keep it in the ground the last oil on earth might indeed be in Iraq in 100 years, long after the rest of the world runs out. And by then Iraq might be some of the most valuable real estate on earth.

[edit on 8-4-2008 by In nothing we trust]



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 



Come on, you knew the government doesn't actually care what you think. Politicians say what they have to so they can get reelected. If the majority of them cared about their constituents, or the American public at large, they wouldn't be very good politicians would they
?


reply to post by Karlhungis
 



The plan all along has been a resource war and profit for the select few, with a side of dead innocents (possibly unintended, we don't really know though).

We're damned if we leave, damned if we don't. The quagmire called Iraq has cost too many lives on both sides, and when we do leave, Iraq will more than likely split up into several nations (Kurdistan, Baghdadia, and the Southern Iraqi Republic are guesses of the names...maybe Saddamania would rise as a new superpower who knows).

I'd really like to think that Obama/Clinton would withdraw our troops from Iraq, but they've both made it abundantly clear that we won't leave anytime soon (although they say otherwise). Clinton has said on several occasions that we will keep some troops in Iraq to "battle al qaeda" even when the rest of them go home. I'm sure Obama will do the same to appear tough on terrorism. And we all know McCain loves to have blood on his hands anyway...

Bush is really good at bankrupting businesses, why not do the same with the US economy? He has enough experience.



reply to post by In nothing we trust
 



The wells will run dry very soon as the US oil companies are going to oversee production of Iraqi oil and sell it back to us for a hefty profit, while the Iraqis are left to fight over bread.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by biggie smalls
 




Secret US plan for military future in Iraq


Seriously now. Did anyone really think the US would leave? All the US has done in Iraq is install a puppet government who will accede to every US whim. What a shame.

CT



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 02:19 AM
link   
Yeah I thought the US would leave soon after Saddam was taken out. To be honest, I've never been for this war. That doesn't mean I didn't have faith in our military to complete their mission.

We destroyed the Iraqi military in less than a week. That should have been it. We didn't find Saddam for a while because he had so many bunkers in that place he could have been anywhere (and we found him in a little hole of all places).

The Iraqi government is quite a sham, I agree with you. They don't have the people's best interest at heart, just like the US government (and I guess every other government in the world except maybe a few).

I just want to see our troops come home. Iraq is doomed, I'm sorry people...



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 12:43 PM
link   
If you were to visit the additional articles I posted you would notice our reasons for invading Iraq had next to nothing to dealing with Saddam's regime.

Sure Georgey wanted to do daddy a favor by killing the man who attempted to murder him, but that's besides the point.

We went to Iraq for OIL, black gold. Our military needs oil to run itself, and we needed to use our military to invade. Its a conundrum. Iraq is a resource war.

We lied about the pretenses for invasion. We didn't care if Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. That was irrelevant and an excuse to invade.

We sold Saddam WMDs. That's why we knew he had them. If it wasn't for the US, he wouldn't have gassed the Kurds and other Iraqis. He wouldn't have attacked Iran if we hadn't backed him.

Reasons for invading: 1). WMDs 2). Freeing the Iraqi people (bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq) 3). Was there a third reason given?

Clearly the US government did not care about the Iraqi people. If they did, why would we have sold WMDs to Saddam to use on his own people? Just doesn't make sense now does it?

The excuses the US government gave for invasion were put in place to trick the American people for the real reason for invading, and in turn, thousands of American deaths: OIL.

Tell the truth Bush, we know why. I paid attention in school and I'm still paying attention. I can't say the same for the rest of America when they're fed corporate news that don't have anything to do with the truth.

Now we hear that there's no withdrawal plan for the US military to leave Iraq. Well isn't that just great...not that any of the Presidential candidates wanted immediate withdrawal anyway; that's not the point.

What is the approval rating of the Iraq war right now? A recent poll by CBS news (granted it was only a 1000 people, but its a typical slice of America in my opinion) only 34% said Iraq was a good idea and 4% weren't sure.

Recent Iraq war poll

Clearly that ~40% polled haven't been paying very much attention to the quagmire called Iraq.

They bought the lie Bush sold them about the war, hook and sinker. He really is a great salesman, albeit deceitful. I'd trust him a little bit more if he told the truth more often, but alas, he is a politician so I don't know what I expected. Maybe some honesty, but ok.

So 100 more years of Iraq. Woopty freaking do. I can't say I'm excited about it.

Let me ask you something, Mr. Bush. What is the reason we're in Iraq now? Is it preserving the freedoms of the Iraqis from Al Qaeda and Iran? Is that what you're gonna say as your next excuse?

Maybe Al Qaeda (if they exist) wouldn't have been in Iraq if we didn't invade. No, they definitely would not have. Saddam and Bin Laden hated each other (past tense because they're both dead) and they would not cooperate with each other over anything, even their hate for America (for one thing Saddam didn't hate America as they were his number one arms supplier, ditto with OBL; we know all about his CIA money don't we?).

I'm a little sick of the excuses and all I want is for our troops to come home.

Will that happen anytime soon? I doubt it.

Not if the head honchos of the military say otherwise.

I just don't get it, and maybe I never will.

And I'm not the one with blood on my hands...

[edit on 4/8/2008 by biggie smalls]



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by In nothing we trust

Originally posted by biggie smalls
McCain's "100 years of war" wasn't so far off


100 years of occupation or until the oil wells run dry - whichever comes first


As long as they keep it in the ground the last oil on earth might indeed be in Iraq in 100 years, long after the rest of the world runs out. And by then Iraq might be some of the most valuable real estate on earth.

[edit on 8-4-2008 by In nothing we trust]


Half of the reason we find ourselves influenced by what happens in the Middle East is because we subscribe to their oil. Liberals like you have rejected the notion of drilling domestically, though we sit on some of the largest known reservoirs in the world. Yet you bitch when we topple an enemy government and seek alternative fuels which are unobtainable and wholly inefficient. Leftists and Neocons are the same thing, one religious one socialist, this is what's wrong with America.

I have been to Iraq; Bush's plan to topple the government was a disaster. We paid Iranian agents to pay off top Iraqi military officials to disband their army, yet Rumsfeld had no solution to who would assume power. As I predicted after my second tour, I told everyone there would be civil war, as it was the only way to resolve the current conflict it has been slowly waged ever since. I am happy to see Maliki and the constitutional government is wiping out the militias, because the Sunnis, Kurds and everybody else has played ball, but the Shiite have not.

This is due to the Iranians infiltration, particularly in Basra and import of arms and advisors to violent dissident terrorists. I lost a couple of buddies because Iran was sending weapons and I know they were because the #ing mines and explosives read in english MADE IN IRAN.

We are sitting on the Iraqi treasury and Saddam's wealth, this war is not costing us a dime. The Iraqi's are taking long term loans for our involvement and role in securing Iraq and they will pay for it in gold. Without this war the economy would be even more depressed then it's current state. There would be an immediate liquidation of many American industry employees and the foreclosure rate on homes would jump a few percent, as well as the unemployment rate.

Because the Israelis and arabs/persians (same thing) cannot play nice, we have to be involved militarily in that region of the world. If we could drill domestically we would have hundreds of years of oil and plenty of money to transition into fusion/particle, nuclear, solar, fuel cell or oceanic current technologies. Though at this time it would be costly and the dumbass libs and environmentalists wont go for it. It was attempted for 20 years, now it has fallen by the wayside, but we wouldn't be in Iraq if American companies could drill domestically. I am not oppossed to new technologies, but realistically they must be funded somehow, how better to accomplish this task then to use our own oil money? Kuwait, Quatar, UAE and several other non-militant/extremist nations are using their currency for these tasks. Why doesn't America? Instead we quarrel over who's right or wrong for starting a war we can't control or disolve. We won Vietnam militarily and we've won Iraq militarily shut up and deal with it.

Think about it, jobs, jobs, jobs, redistribution of wealth and much needed currency for infrastructure repair to include airport subsidization. Globalism will destroy the world, much like multiculturalism. You can't force those who don't want to to live together peacefully, that is Gestapo/Stalinistic tactics and unless you kill on mass scale it will never happen.

Americans are imbecile to think that we wont be in Iraq for the next 50 years, we are still in Japan, but they own/control their own country. We are still in Germany, again they own/control it. Don't be so naive and take a history lesson will ya?

[edit on 8-4-2008 by N_15L_S01]



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by N_15L_S01We are sitting on the Iraqi treasury and Saddam's wealth, this war is not costing us a dime. The Iraqi's are taking long term loans for our involvement and role in securing Iraq and they will pay for it in gold. Without this war the economy would be even more depressed then it's current state. There would be an immediate liquidation of many American industry employees and the foreclosure rate on homes would jump a few percent, as well as the unemployment rate.


Not costing us a dime? Why is it estimated to cost us THREE #ING TRILLION DOLLARS then? You are clueless.


Originally posted by N_15L_S01Because the Israelis and arabs/persians (same thing) cannot play nice, we have to be involved militarily in that region of the world. If we could drill domestically we would have hundreds of years of oil and plenty of money to transition into fusion/particle, nuclear, solar, fuel cell or oceanic current technologies. Though at this time it would be costly and the dumbass libs and environmentalists wont go for it. It was attempted for 20 years, now it has fallen by the wayside, but we wouldn't be in Iraq if American companies could drill domestically. I am not oppossed to new technologies, but realistically they must be funded somehow, how better to accomplish this task then to use our own oil money? Kuwait, Quatar, UAE and several other non-militant/extremist nations are using their currency for these tasks. Why doesn't America? Instead we quarrel over who's right or wrong for starting a war we can't control or disolve. We won Vietnam militarily and we've won Iraq militarily shut up and deal with it.


1. We didn't win Vietnam in any way, shape, or form.
2. We have the technology, where we wouldn't need oil. However, no one in this administration will use that technology, and the last person who tried to make it mainstream, was assassinated.
3. Yes, the war is about Oil, but not because we need it to survive. The war is about Oil because Bush, Cheney, and Co. are getting filthy rich off it.


Originally posted by N_15L_S01Americans are imbecile to think that we wont be in Iraq for the next 50 years, we are still in Japan, but they own/control their own country. We are still in Germany, again they own/control it. Don't be so naive and take a history lesson will ya?


We didn't invade Japan and kill off their people, and then put military bases around to control the area.

We didn't invade Germany and kill off their people, and then put military bases around to control the area.

We did invade Iraq and kill off their people, and then put military bases around to control the area.

One of these things is not like the other.

[edit on 8-4-2008 by Double Eights]



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by biggie smalls
 


A few updates on Iraq:

Bush to make speech on Iraq after Congress testimony


President George W. Bush will make a brief speech about the troop mission in Iraq Thursday after his top general and ambassador in the war-torn country testify to Congress, the White House said Tuesday.

"The speech will be broad," she said, adding that it would be a daytime speech and that the White House would not request airtime from television networks.

"It will be remarks that cover a range of issues in regards to the way forward in Iraq, taking in account all that he's heard from General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, as well as the experts at the State Department, at Department of Defense," Perion said.


Vague as usual...Thanks buddy.



Petraeus Recommends Troop Pause


The U.S. general commanding the Iraq war called Tuesday for an open- ended suspension of U.S. troop withdrawals this summer, asserting that an overly rapid withdrawal would jeopardize recent security gains.

Gen. David Petraeus told a Senate hearing that he recommends a 45-day "period of consolidation and evaluation" once the extra combat forces that President Bush ordered to Iraq last year have completed their pullout in July. He did not commit to a timetable for resuming troop reductions after the 45-day pause.



Petraeus to face next President


The top military commander in Iraq faces a disapproving public and the next commander in chief during congressional testimony that could help shape November's campaign.

All three presidential candidates - Sens. John McCain, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama - sit on committees that are to receive status reports Tuesday on the war's progress from Army Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by N_15L_S01

Originally posted by In nothing we trust

Originally posted by biggie smalls
McCain's "100 years of war" wasn't so far off


100 years of occupation or until the oil wells run dry - whichever comes first


As long as they keep it in the ground the last oil on earth might indeed be in Iraq in 100 years, long after the rest of the world runs out. And by then Iraq might be some of the most valuable real estate on earth.


Liberals like you have rejected the notion of drilling domestically, though we sit on some of the largest known reservoirs in the world.


????? Excuse me N_15L_S01 do I know you?

You have no idea what my viewpoints are. You seem to have catorgorized me with a group of people that you harbor some hostility against. What exactly is a liberal anyways? Do tell.

[edit on 8-4-2008 by In nothing we trust]



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by N_15L_S01
Half of the reason we find ourselves influenced by what happens in the Middle East is because we subscribe to their oil. Liberals like you have rejected the notion of drilling domestically, though we sit on some of the largest known reservoirs in the world.



I don't know where you got your information that there is no domestic drilling. Where I live there is not an idle rig to be found. Permium Basin, Four Corners, Montana, Wyoming are all experiencing an oil drilling boom.
How can I believe anything you say if you can't even get this one simple fact right?

www.rigzone.com...

^^^and that's just one company. There are currently 100s of oil companies all over west of the Rockies in operation.



[edit on 9-4-2008 by whaaa]



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 02:26 AM
link   
Use war to remove more rights from the American people. Like the right to say "No more!" Dear god I'm so tired of this war.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 02:30 AM
link   
If the US leaves, Iraq can not get any worse then it already is. You never know, the religious leaders could sit down to a nice hot cup of tea and talk about peace. The only reason this has not happened is because the US is occupying the land which in their eyes is disrespect. There might be a blood bath for a little bit and a bigger blood bath for the Christian minorities, but in the end they will probably talk it out.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Double Eights


Not costing us a dime? Why is it estimated to cost us THREE #ING TRILLION DOLLARS then? You are clueless.


Have you been to Iraq? Have you served in the military? Do you know other then what you're being fed in the news? I have been twice and let me tell you we own their treasury, I can't get into detail, but let's just say we've positive control. While on the topic of the budget Illegal immigrants cost damn near 720 billion a year on tax payers, in comparison the war is cheap. Plus, the figures your spewing are innacurate and don't seperate where the money is going, that is the whole of the budget not just allocations for Iraq. I have a google mission for you, go to the congressional budget fiscal year 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, and add it up.



1. We didn't win Vietnam in any way, shape, or form.


Hate to burst your bubble, but we won militarily, Congress and LBJs micromanagement lost the battle for hearts and minds. Our casualties 58,000 theirs 3,000,000 as estimated by your hero Ho Chi Mihn.


2. We have the technology, where we wouldn't need oil. However, no one in this administration will use that technology, and the last person who tried to make it mainstream, was assassinated.


What technology? Who was assassinated? I don't discount that more effecient technology is out their, but biofuels cause more pollution. Less BTUs means more fuel burn, which mean higher emissions, which means more pollutants. Also, what propossed infrastructure is developed or in place to distribute the mystery technology you speak of. I do know that a few major oil companies hold the patents for 1% petroleum and 99% nospecific liquid engines, as well as carburators that get 50 mpg developed over 40 years ago.


3. Yes, the war is about Oil, but not because we need it to survive. The war is about Oil because Bush, Cheney, and Co. are getting filthy rich off it.


It may seem that simple, but it's not. This war was about global and strategic positioning. The amount of oil coming out of Iraq is still not very high, due to foreign insurgents routinely blowing up the pipes. I don't like Bush or Chenney, they're both scumbags, but don't be ignorant. I wouldn't doubt they're making money off of the war, but who is financing them? The international banking system.


Originally posted by N_15L_S01Americans are imbecile to think that we wont be in Iraq for the next 50 years, we are still in Japan, but they own/control their own country. We are still in Germany, again they own/control it. Don't be so naive and take a history lesson will ya?



[We didn't invade Japan and kill off their people, and then put military bases around to control the area.


News flash Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Firebombing of Tokyo= hundreds of thousands of deaths, look it up kiddo. Yes we did MacCarther was the supreme commander of Japan their for a few years and until they could re-establish their government.


[We didn't invade Germany and kill off their people, and then put military bases around to control the area.


Newsflash Dresden, we starved 2.3 million German civillians after the war deliberately, google it I'll bet even wikepedia has it (even though it's not a credible source, it's that well known lol).


We did invade Iraq and kill off their people, and then put military bases around to control the area.


If you've been watching the news lately, Iraqis are doing most of the work. We're their because Arab fighters are just weak period, --it's a weak culture-- we're their so they don't destroy themselves through infighting.


One of these things is not like the other.


Yes they are and Vietnam is not very similiar to this war, but the Occupation of the Philipines is, 10 years of insurgency. How quickly Americans love to forget.

[edit on 11-4-2008 by N_15L_S01]



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 05:55 AM
link   

I don't know where you got your information that there is no domestic drilling. Where I live there is not an idle rig to be found. Permium Basin, Four Corners, Montana, Wyoming are all experiencing an oil drilling boom.
How can I believe anything you say if you can't even get this one simple fact right?


That's nice and dandy for a Brokeback mountain type and all, but

Domestic oil consumption is 20.7 million barrels a year about 1/4 of the world consumption. Domestic drilling is roughly 7.2 million barrels a year which is about 1/3rd of our demand. Now of that oil I believe --I will have to double check-- only 15% is used domestically, most of the rest is shipped to overseas and I believe Japan in particular.


^^^and that's just one company. There are currently 100s of oil companies all over west of the Rockies in operation.[/qoute]

There are about 12 big oil companies in the U.S.; the tear one cateagory sells their unused resevoirs to smaller companies at a discount rate, hence discount gasoline. It's like day old bread. If you wanted clarification there it is. If you don't believe my assesments of the Middle East I can care less. I felt generous and good resources; CIA factbook, Global GDP Index and Stratford Intelligence report- it's an independant company with political and strategic assesments on global situations.





[edit on 11-4-2008 by N_15L_S01]



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 06:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Conspiracy Theorist
 


Well, you only have to look at how the British Government is stalling when we're trying to bring the troops home.

They're acting as if the 'security forces' in Iraq wouldn't be able to function without our help.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 06:06 AM
link   
That's the British help, specifically.

As if you Americans wouldn't be able to handle taking care of the fledgling political establishment yourselves.





top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join