America Demands Iraq sign security deal

[edit on 6-6-2008 by Peruvianmonk]

reply to post by Sparky63


You obviously have not been following the Iraq war, occupation and subsequent resistance over the past 5 years. There will be massive resistance to this deal from the Iraqi parliment and the well educated people of Iraq, they are no fools. Al-Sadr will no doubt unleash his army, rested and re equipped from the recent lull in conflict.

How exactly will this lead to a stabilization in the region? It will only make things worse. With America's continuing presence in Iraq and encouragement Israel WILL feel secure enough to attack Iran, this will be great for stabilization!!

America's posistion in Iraq is ultimately untenable, they are not wanted and will not be tolerated forever, just like in Vietnam.

reply to post by Peruvianmonk


Quite to the contrary, I have followed it very closely.
In war there are always casualties, those in charge have no doubt already reached a conclusion as to how soldiers they are willing to lose. I have no doubt that the current administration Is willing to sustain a lot more loss of lives in order to achieve their goal.

Will it prove successful? Only time will tell. The losses in Irag are nothing compared to the losses in WW1 or WWII. Its good to keep things in perspective.



[edit on 6-6-2008 by Sparky63]

Would a signing at gunpoint work? Seems to have worked the 80 billion other times we've used such method.

reply to post by Sparky63



Er i am well aware that in war there are casulties. This was an invasion in the first sense and a resisted occupation in the second, it is not a war. I was responding to your claims that this deal and the continuting American presence would stabilise the region.

I am uninterested in what the US administartion see as acceptable levels of losses to carry on this occupation as it troubles them little. You talk about keeping things in prespective? Mabye the casulty levels for America are not massive in the historical sense, but keep in mind the 1 million dead Iraqi's, hundreds of thousands wounded, millions displaced internally and externally, and i think that will help YOU keep things in perspective.

Or is an American(Coalition) life more important? And i ask that in all seriousness. Because if anything it is the other way round as the battle being waged is in Iraq!

reply to post by pluckynoonez


Ha ha true say sir. America is just carrying on the behaviour of former colonial powers such as Great Britain France and Spain. It is beyond comprehension that in this day and age this is attempted in broad daylight. Where is the U.N???!!!

reply to post by Peruvianmonk


Perspective, yes.

As Chomsky once said, “war is simply an obscenity, a depraved act by weak and miserable men….”

From that perspective I agree. The men and women whom pen-stroke war, not the soldiers who fight. The former are cowards; the latter, our brothers and sisters.

The same way that the Iraqi people resisted the oil deal in the benefit of the US oil barons they will fight to stop this type of land grab.

But then again it will be shown as nothing more than insurgency and terrorist against the US and their poppet Iraqi government.

That is how our government has justified most of the killings of civilians in Iraq, just blame it on the insurgency and terrorist.

Iraqi native population is now mostly scattered all over the middle east thanks to the liberation.

reply to post by pluckynoonez


Yes i agree to some extent there. This war has turned alot of decent Americans serving over there crazy. And the Army is letting in some people these days as a result of the lack of volunteers, who are truly just going over there to kill Iraqi's. I have met some of these people.

But in the end Bush Cheney etc etc are responsible for this and i would suggest they never try and visit another country after their terms are finished becasue i seriously belive they will be arrested over war crimes.

Great Thread, something to think about and put into perspective and all that good stuff.

But where's the proof here? Links to websites are all fine and good, but even if it appears likely to be true, we can't really accept it based on probability. We don't truly know enough to formulate any reliable criteria to determine probability.

And don't get me wrong, I find it highly plausible that it's true. But my standards of determining truth applies to all questions, not just the ones I already know what answer I want.

reply to post by marg6043


Well whether they blame it on the insurgency or not is irrelavent really, as the insurgency is that of the native Iraqi's, and is a legitimate response to the invasion. We obviously see alot of henious crimes as a result, Iraqi Shia VS Iraqi Sunni and Shia on Shia militia violence, along with the influx of foreign figthers.

But let us remember, this did not occur under Sadame Hussein, it is the invasion that unleashed these long held repressed hatreds and jealousies and allowed terroists to infiltrate the country. They were not tolerated under Sadame's regime.

[edit on 6-6-2008 by Peruvianmonk]

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk



Er i am well aware that in war there are casulties. This was an invasion in the first sense and a resisted occupation in the second, it is not a war. I was responding to your claims that this deal and the continuting American presence would stabilise the region.

Please read my post again before you get your panties in a bunch. I never said that I believed it would stabilize the region. I said that the US no doubt thinks that this would stabilize the region. There is a big difference there my friend.

I am uninterested in what the US administartion see as acceptable levels of losses to carry on this occupation as it troubles them little.

If you are passionate about this subject, as you seem to be, you might want to take the time to consider what the objectives of the US administration are because it has a direct bearing on what it views as acceptable losses. Just a suggestion.

Mabye the casulty levels for America are not massive in the historical sense, but keep in mind the 1 million dead Iraqi's, hundreds of thousands wounded, millions displaced internally and externally, and i think that will help YOU keep things in perspective.

As I stated in my previous post, I was only commenting on the strategic position the US may be trying to gain. I have made no comments yet on whether it was morally right or wrong.

Or is an American(Coalition) life more important? And i ask that in all seriousness. Because if anything it is the other way round as the battle being waged is in Iraq!

Well in all seriousness, I will answer that all life is precious in the eyes of God. too bad it's not precious in the eyes of man. Please don't assume that my comments were in any way supporting the either side in this mess. I was merely attempting to shed some light of the "Possible" goals, objectives, and desires of the current US administration.



[edit on 6-6-2008 by Sparky63]

reply to post by Gigatronix


Good question. The news was originally broken by Patrick Cockburn on the Independent newspaper of the UK and counterpunch website, links for which i provide at the beggining of the thread.

Cockburn is a world renowned independent journalist with close ties in Iraq where he has reported from since the outbreak of the conflict. As a result i believe with some degree of certinty that this is very close to if not the whole truth in what the deal contains and the threats being issued by the US in relation to it.

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
reply to post by pluckynoonez

 

Ha ha true say sir.... Where is the U.N???!!!

I am a girl, not a boy, sir.

The U.N. has no power. They can pressure and vice, but when it comes down to it, USCORP and ISRAEL vote how they want and get what they want.

reply to post by Sparky63


I have examined your post and you seem to agree that it is a 'prudent' step for the U.S to take Militarily & Strategically. I don't know how you have come to that conclusion, seeing as it is quite obvious that the American military is broke as a result of the conflict, and needs to be recalled to fix it. And strategically, staying in Iraq would only exaserpate the situation by creating more, if that is possible, hatred for American policies.

Indeed it is widely believed that part of the reason for the invasion was to keep the area unstable so as to stop any kind of arab co-operation and defiance to the Israel-US hegemony over the region and it's resources.

You said keep things in perspective, trust me i am, and in perspective this is the greatest American disaster since Vietnam and the Greatest Iraqi in their long history, even compared to the excesses of the Sadame era.

And their will be much more real resistance from the Iraqi people than the American Liberals, or as i call them Human Beings, could ever muster.

[edit on 6-6-2008 by Peruvianmonk]

This most certainly cannot be allowed to take place. That would effectively make them a US territory. In ten years the US propaganda machine can erase any sense of national identity. We know this works because they did it here first.

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
reply to post by Gigatronix

 

Good question. The news was originally broken by Patrick Cockburn on the Independent newspaper of the UK and counterpunch website, links for which i provide at the beggining of the thread.

Cockburn is a world renowned independent journalist with close ties in Iraq where he has reported from since the outbreak of the conflict. As a result i believe with some degree of certinty that this is very close to if not the whole truth in what the deal contains and the threats being issued by the US in relation to it.

Well I for one hope he's wrong. Simply because it's too sinister and so utterly horrifying. I won't refute truth thats flying in my face, but like I said, in interest to fairness, I have to give it the same rigorous examination I give anything else I consider seriously.

Although thinking about it, I could probably twist it around to make it sound like a good thing, but I highly doubt anyone would be interested in reading that hehe.

reply to post by pluckynoonez


I am very sorry. I did think, after looking at your avatar that this could be the case. But my sir comment stands as it is a show of respect to you whether you are a Man or Woman.

Your right about the U.N. It is a shame it recieves most of it's budget from the U.S and that it's headquaters are located in New York! You can't help but wonder that if it was located in say Antarctica and the budget was spread out more evenly it could be more impartial and responsive to situations like this.


[edit on 6-6-2008 by Peruvianmonk]

reply to post by Gigatronix


Of course. Even though it is in my eyes the truth, it will not be given any rigourous examination by the mainstream media of America, and to a lesser extent that of the UK.

I still think they won't get it through. I can see the Iraqi government being forced to say no, or forced out by the Americans as a respone to this answer or by the Iraqi's as a result of it's acceptance

In my opinion it does indeed serve the Us interests to drive a wedge into any Arab cooperation in the region. I must agree with you that I believe this to be one of their objectives.
Do I personally agree that is is the right thing to do? No. No one in this war can claim the moral high ground.