The Iraqi Miracle - From Invasion to "Partnership" »
Posted by: populist 9 months, 1 week agoOne should not be surprised that Iraq's U.S. supported leaders find amenable the terms set for them by Washington. What else would one expect between a dependent client state and its master, the client obliged to obey and the master prepared to reward useful service?
Read Full Story at populistamerica.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 73
-
0%
NelsonR9 months, 1 week ago
The article has merit since the troubling point of concern, why is America constructing one of the largest embassies in Iraq?
Hillary and most politicians know we are there for the long term but the American electorate are unaware of the covert operations that are instilled in our politicians minds.
Our elite and corporate upper crust have an agenda.
Reply-
0%
rimbaud9 months, 1 week ago
"why is America constructing one of the largest embassies in Iraq?" None of Saddam's palaces would suit (although it looks like they would have been better off hiring Saddam's contractors). We are already negotiating our long-term relationship with the Iraqis. We will be there for a very long time. Not even a Clinton can get us out, now, given our investment, there.
Reply
-
-
0%
scriblerus19 months, 1 week ago
People need to stop and think when "leaders" use phrases like "in our national interest." When Bush says an action is "in the interest of the United States," many assume he means it is in the interest of all American citizens. Many of us are coming to learn the hard way that this is not what Bush means at all.
Reply-
0%
cowboygrandpa9 months, 1 week ago
scriblerus1: Yeah. When these clowns say in the interest of the United States. They are talking about the "Corporate United States".
It is sad we pay the salaries and benefits of those who steal from us and lead us into war. They claim to be real Americans. Maybe American Nazi's the way they carry out their policies.
I have said for years we were not in Iraq for a temporary stay. They have wanted that oil from before George Bush Senior was in office. The first war there was to warn Sadam to play ball. He didn't. They whacked him. Welcome to Ultra Conservative Imperialism 101. We want it, you have it, we'll take it.
IMPEACH BUSH AND CHENEY NOW
Reply-
0%
hyperbola9 months, 1 week ago
11/30/2007
Public sentiment for impeachment expands
The percentage of Americans favoring impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney is approaching the percentage who favored impeachment of President Nixon in 1973-74....
http://www.timesrecord.com/website/main.nsf/new...
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
hyperbola9 months, 1 week ago
Iraq as a Pentagon Construction Site
How the Bush Administration "Endures"
... Bases, Bases Everywhere
Among the most tenacious and enduring Bush administration facts on the ground are those giant bases, still largely ignored -- with honorable exceptions -- by the mainstream media. Thom Shanker and Cara Buckley of the New York Times, to give but one example, managed to write that paper's major piece about the joint "declaration" without mentioning the word "base," no less "permanent," and only Gen. Lute's slip made the permanence of bases a minor note in other mainstream reports. And yet it's not just that the building of bases did go on -- and on a remarkable scale -- but that it continues today.
Reply-
0%
hyperbola9 months, 1 week ago
cont'd
...In an end-run around Congress, administration officials continue to present this as merely a typical SOFA-style agreement. "There are about a hundred countries around the world with which we have [such] bilateral defense or security cooperation agreements," Gen. Lute said reassuringly, indicating that this matter would be handled by the executive branch without significant input from Congress. The guarantees the Bush administration seems ready to offer the Maliki government, however, clearly rise to treaty level and, if we had even a faintly assertive Congress, would surely require the advice and consent of the Senate. Iraqi officials have already made clear that such an agreement will have to pass through their parliament in a country where the idea of "enduring" U.S. bases in an "enduring" relationship is bound to be exceedingly unpopular. ...
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174869/a_basis_...
Reply
-
-
0%
rimbaud9 months, 1 week ago
Making treaties is one of the extra-constitutional sovereignty powers that reside in the Executive. Congress can only ratify (or fail to do so).
Reply -
0%
Endoscopy9 months ago
Grow up and read history. This is done all the time with many presidents. If it is a real treaty the next step is ratification by the Senate. I remember times when the senate voted them down.
Did anybody find out what the contents of this was? What it is about is that the UN will cease to be in charge sometime in 2008. All you ranters were always saying that it was just the US doing its own thing. At that point the UN is to ask the US to take over control.
How come you liberals didn't mention that the UN was in control now?
Reply-
0%
Obaku9 months ago
Because it isn't.
The U.S. is theoretically in Iraq now under "a UN mandate", which expires in 2008. This 'agreement' is just a veil to put some legalism in place to justify a continued U.S. presence.
As if the neocons ever had anyu other ideas. 14 permanent bases, which have been under construction since 2003. Where do you THINK all that money has been going?
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Francisca9 months, 1 week ago
Two or three days ago, I was listening a politic debate, and they said that it was cheaper to have had this war, because the price of the barrel of oil became to high...It's very cynical for the simple citizen, but for the Politicians is only an other big deal...I think US are in Irak for a very long time!
Reply -
lovermanComment removed: User banned.
-
0%
canadianrancher579 months, 1 week ago
I really like the word partnership, to me it means mutual advantage for both parties involved. This relationship is nore like a deal with a loan shark, he sets the conditions of the deal and then points out the thug who will break your knees if things go wrong. There will always be a military pesence in Iraq, well until the oil in the mid east is gone.
Reply-
-
0%
HannibalBarca9 months, 1 week ago
You hit the nail on the head, a cupie doll for you!
"Those who are threatened and can not pay for it,"
How true, the oil companies do not want ME oil going to the Chinese.
"they will receive the benefits of others shedding their blood in their place.".
.Again so true, young American soldiers doing what they are told by a bunch who were to busy doing other things to join
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
StarLord9 months, 1 week ago
Natch - why should the corporations pay for anything? It's bad for business to actually be a responsible corporate citizen (is such an entity really exists, which I doubt).
Reply -
-
0%
Natureboy9 months ago
"You speak in truisms. We are all the public... and in the end, the public pays for everything."
Then everything, including the corporations, should be publicly owned, or we are not getting what we paid for.
When the public pays for everything, but the rich own corporations and businesses privately, as is now the case, you have a two-tier system - socialism for the rich and laissez faire for the rest of us.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
DarkWizard9 months, 1 week ago
Tony Soprano would be proud of the way Bush makes the modern day crusades look like the cavalry coming to the rescue. And, someone in the trash business has finally become president. We got us a two-fer.
Reply -
0%
GrainOfSand9 months, 1 week ago
The corporate elite are making billions off this war, just like they did for Vietnam, WWII and WWI. War is for profitmaking, they could care less about the soldiers fighting and dying in these wars.
It's all about profits and making the corporate facists even richer.
Reply -
0%
jrmunro9 months, 1 week ago
"What else would one expect from PopulistAmerica.com? --- Articles such as this."
It`s a very good article, I`m glad you agree.
Thanks Populist.
Reply -
0%
mcgrievysr9 months, 1 week ago
DavidHalko----David, if you were a horse, you'd die of thirst. Despite being led to logic and insight, you continue with your obtuse mental meanderings. At least you don't mindlessly cut and paste as you so frequently used to do. You're not malicious. You're a bit like a gnat that just keeps hanging around.
Reply-
0%
DarkWizard9 months, 1 week ago
mcgrievysr,
If I could give you 2 positives I would have! But, David isn't the only horse I've seen on Propeller that would die of thirst. I think some of them are already dead but reflexes are keeping them typing somehow. I know...they're part of that zombie nation we keep hearing about!
Reply -
JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.
-
-
0%
Raiderwall9 months, 1 week ago
It's taking a little longer for that Iraqi oil to hit the marketplace. This Iraqi government is barely hanging on for it's survival. Local Shieks, mullahs, militia leaders and tribal elders run the society. The Iranians have expanded their influence in the area. Anyway you look at it, this Iraq adventure is from from being a success. Rumsfeld was right, we're in for a long, hard, slog.
Reply-
0%
scriblerus19 months ago
Wanna take bets that a good deal of Iraqi oil is being smuggled out by the CIA and the neocons?
This is somewhat tangential, but it is relevant: Condi Rice was caught in Venezuela the other day making a deal with a drug smuggler and a higher up right wing Venezuelan. That says something about what might be happening to the Iraqi oil.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
Endoscopy9 months ago
I guess you think that the troops in Germany are there to control Germany. Same with South Korea and several other countries. We make noises about removing them and the country has a hissy fit. Why? Answer is Money spent by the men in uniform there. A couple of cases it is to keep the other country from attacking them like South Korea.
Reply
-
-
-
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.3 Replies
-
0%
Commodore19 months, 1 week ago
I believe Bush intends to have a U.S. presence in Iraq to help keep countries like Iran in check. Most of U people are clearly incapable of understanding this. Try to think positively and not like a conspiracy whacko. U people continue to say things that have never been proven. People like Populist need to quit hiring so many whackos. None of U are smarter than Bush and I've never once heard your better ideas. You're just iceholes.
Reply-
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.3 Replies
-
0%
quackpot9 months ago
We are in Iraq to keep a check on Iran?
After stretching the U.S. forces to near breaking for four years in the Iraq (no military powerhouse), How can you, with a name like "Commodore", even think that the U.S. could "keep Iran in check" by being in Iraq? Cheney saying this I might understand, but a Commodore?
Reply-
0%
Natureboy9 months ago
More accurately:
We are in Iraq to make it the base of US operations for the "democratization" of the entire middle-east, with Iran being next. After that, Syria is a likely target. And taking the "Saudi" out of Saudi Arabia. And so on.
Unless the machine collapses first.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
THOMNH629 months ago
I have to admit I was pro bush when he first became pres. The thought of Al Gore as president still sends chills down my neck almost as much as Hillary for pres. I do have to say that I was hopefull that with a rep senate and house they could have done so much to help this great country. SS reform, welfare reform, help for the small business man, helping our youg people get an education. After 911 I was all for Afganistan, secure our borders and strengthen our home land. What did we get a war that costs us a million dallrs every minute we are there. I hold my conservative values dear, but this president has me loosing faith in the party of Lincoln and Reagen. JFK was more of a conservative than this moron. All we can do is vote and pray the next administration will do more for this country than for themselves.
Reply -
0%
Endoscopy9 months ago
This is a typical liberal attack making much ado about almost nothing published in liberal media. They don't really talk about what was signed they just rant that something was signed thinking it is a treaty. Stupid. Even if it was a treaty Presidents sign first and then take it to the Senate to vote on. Everything usually gets lined up for a treaty but sometimes the senate will not go along.
Reply
Submitted By:
populist
The essays we offer are unapologetically presented for you to read & analyze. Many are offered as a similar view to ours & others simply to invite ...
Also submitted:
- 1.0 - Pakistan Raid May Herald More Confrontational Policy
- 1.0 - Beyond the Conventions
- 1.0 - Why the Peaceful Majority of Muslims Are Not Irrelevant
- 1.0 - The Reform Game
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Also Propping This Article
esmLIVE
Helixbuilder
ciera-marie
berkeley- TGrass3001
- NelsonR
DarkWizard
tehranchik
joey-evans- donald51
Groups Watching This
No groups are watching this story. Why not share it with your group?
