|
|
| Next: wholesale marui shoes,mauri gator shoes,mauri sne.. |
| Author |
Message |
kenmabmcc
Joined: Nov 20, 2003
Posts: 7258
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand.
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 8:00 am Post subject: Bush Blackmails Iraq |
|
|
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/us-issues-threat-t...raqs-50
| Quote: |
The US is holding hostage some $50bn (£25bn) of Iraq's money in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to pressure the Iraqi government into signing an agreement seen by many Iraqis as prolonging the US occupation indefinitely, according to information leaked to The Independent.
US negotiators are using the existence of $20bn in outstanding court judgments against Iraq in the US, to pressure their Iraqi counterparts into accepting the terms of the military deal, details of which were reported for the first time in this newspaper yesterday. |
The bush administration is getting desperate to hold on to it's bases in Iraq,
to be able to dominate the Middle Eastern oil fields.
It may be able to get the Iraq green zone government to finally agree,
but outside the green zone the majority of Iraqis don't want it.
There were large demonstrations against the agreement last Friday,
and more to come this Friday.
| Quote: |
| In Iraq, objections to the agreements have provided long-battling political blocs something to agree on. In a letter this week to Congress, representatives of virtually all of Iraq's major political and sectarian groups said they "strongly reject" any agreement without "clear mechanisms [and] an agreed timetable" for U.S. withdrawals. |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mommabear
Joined: Feb 20, 2003
Posts: 6185
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 12:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And a related story:
| Quote: |
Independent.co.uk
Revealed: Secret plan to keep Iraq under US control
Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors
By Patrick Cockburn
Thursday, 5 June 2008
A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.
The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country. ...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/revealed-secret-pl...to-keep
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kenmabmcc
Joined: Nov 20, 2003
Posts: 7258
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand.
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 5:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Iraqis rally over US security deal
| Quote: |
Tens of thousands of Iraqi Shia have taken to the streets of Baghdad and other cities to protest against a long-term security deal with the US.
The rallies after Friday prayers follow a call by Muqtada al-Sadr for weekly protests against the deal that could lead to more US troops and a long-term US presence.
>>>>>>>>
Last week, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's most revered Shia cleric, also reportedly expressed his anger, saying he would not permit the Iraqi government to sign a deal with "US occupiers" as long as he lived. |
Shiites torch US flag in Baghdad
| Quote: |
People torched a US flag in Baghdad's Shiite stronghold of Sadr City after weekly Friday prayers to denounce a proposed agreement to deploy American troops in the country beyond 2008.
The protesters also set on fire an effigy of US President George W. Bush and vowed alliegance to anti-US Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, as Iraqi troops watched from rooftops, an AFP correspondent said. |
Iraqi MPs in Washington: No to Bush
| Quote: |
| Speaking to a civil-society audience of 60 people here in Washington DC today, Iraqi MPs Sheikh Khalaf al-Ulayyan (National Dialogue Council) and Dr. Nadim al-Jaberi (al-Fadhila) both roundly rejected the idea of negotiating any binding longterm Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the United States as long as US forces remain in their country. |
Many Iraqi Government factions are against bush's "secret plan".
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kenmabmcc
Joined: Nov 20, 2003
Posts: 7258
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand.
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 5:39 am Post subject: Bush Blackmails Iraq |
|
|
US pact 'sword poised over Iraqi necks'
| Quote: |
Senior Iraqi cleric, Grand Ayatollah Mohammad al-Modaressi has warned that the US-Iraq pact may lead to an uprising in Iraq.
Speaking to reporters, al-Modarresi depicted the long-term pact with Iraq as a "sword poised over the Iraqis necks."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Al-Modarresi observed that the treaty will raise "a new round of troubles." He said those who support the treaty should take a closer look into history and think of better solutions to end the Iraq imbroglio. |
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article4092919.ece#
| Quote: |
| American troops in Iraq would be confined to their bases and private security guards subject to local law if Iraq gets its way in negotiations with the US over the future status of American forces. |
If bush doesn't get this "treaty" the illegal war would be all for nothing.
But, even if bush signed a "treaty", would it bind the next administration,
or could they make a signing statement to the effect that they are going to ignore it.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kenmabmcc
Joined: Nov 20, 2003
Posts: 7258
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand.
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 6:25 am Post subject: Bush Blackmails Iraq |
|
|
U.S. seeking 58 bases in Iraq
| Quote: |
| "The points that were put forth by the Americans were more abominable than the occupation," said Jalal al Din al Saghir, a leading lawmaker from the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. "We were occupied by order of the Security Council," he said, referring to the 2004 Resolution mandating a U.S. military occupation in Iraq at the head of an international coalition. "But now we are being asked to sign for our own occupation. That is why we have absolutely refused all that we have seen so far." |
| Quote: |
Iraqis are determined to get their nation removed from the purview of the U.N. Security Council under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which allows the international body to declare a country a threat to international peace, a step the U.N. took after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. Iraqi officials say that designation clearly is no longer appropriate.
But even on that basic request, the U.S. has not promised to support Iraq, Saghir said, and is instead withholding that support as a pressure point in negotiations.
U.S. demands "conflict with our sovereignty and we refuse them," said Hassan Sneid, a member of the Dawa party and a lawmaker on the security committee in the parliament. "I don't expect these negotiations will be done by the exact date. The Americans want so many things and the fact is we want different things."
"If we had to choose one or the other, an extension of the mandate or this agreement, we would probably choose the extension," Saghir said. "It is possible that in December we will send a letter the UN informing them that Iraq no longer needs foreign forces to control its internal security. As for external defense, we are still not ready." |
Well, the Kurds are being attacked by the Turks, so I suppose they need help there.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xavierx
Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 3871
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 8:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting spin on this here and in the "fair and balanced" articles that have been posted here.
| Quote: |
Hoshyar Zebari, the Iraqi foreign minister, criticized the lawmakers for poisoning the public discussion before an agreement is concluded. He said U.S. officials had been flexible in the talks, as well as "frank and honest since the beginning."
"This is an ongoing process," Zebari said. "There is no agreement yet. Proposals have been modified, they have been changed and altered. We don't have a final text yet for them to be judgmental."
Zebari, who said a negotiating session was held with U.S. officials on the new accord Monday, said any agreement will be submitted to the Iraqi parliament for approval. Leaders in the U.S. Congress have also demanded a say in the agreement, but the Bush administration says it is planning to make this an executive accord not subject to Senate ratification. |
For those who don't know, when you negotiate, neither side starts from it's final position. You start by asking for the moon and the stars, and negotiate until you get somewhere in the middle that both sides can agree with.
The only issue to me in this is the last sentence - although the President is likely within his legal power to do this by himself, it's not the right thing to do. Of course, I can understand why he thinks he needs to - the Democrats won't pass anything like that treaty, even though we had similar presences in many other countries for decades. Still, he should try a new tactic - go to Congress and go on TV at the same time, putting pressure on the Democrats to compromise, rather than side-stepping Congress completely. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kenmabmcc
Joined: Nov 20, 2003
Posts: 7258
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand.
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 6:30 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| xavierx wrote: |
| Still, he should try a new tactic - go to Congress and go on TV at the same time, putting pressure on the Democrats to compromise, rather than side-stepping Congress completely. |
bush has not got the political "capital" left, in the public arena, to pressure the Democrats. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kenmabmcc
Joined: Nov 20, 2003
Posts: 7258
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand.
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 9:56 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
Iraqi officials outraged by U.S. raid in prime minister's hometown
| Quote: |
Outraged Iraqi officials demanded an investigation into an early morning U.S. military raid Friday near the birthplace of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, saying the operation violated the terms of the handover of Karbala province to Iraqi security forces.
Karbala Gov. Oqeil al Khazaali said U.S. forces killed an unarmed civilian and arrested at least one person in the raid in the southern town of Janaja. The governor's brother, Hassanein al Khazaali, said late Friday that the Iraqi killed in the operation was a relative of the U.S.-backed prime minister. |
This will not help the SOFA at all...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xavierx
Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 3871
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 10:06 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| kenmabmcc wrote: |
| xavierx wrote: |
| Still, he should try a new tactic - go to Congress and go on TV at the same time, putting pressure on the Democrats to compromise, rather than side-stepping Congress completely. |
bush has not got the political "capital" left, in the public arena, to pressure the Democrats. |
His approval rating is twice Congress's.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
micker377
Joined: May 27, 2005
Posts: 869
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 2:10 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
"His approval rating is twice Congress's."
2 X 0 = 0 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xavierx
Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 3871
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:17 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| micker377 wrote: |
"His approval rating is twice Congress's."
2 X 0 = 0 |
    |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seaeagle
Joined: Aug 31, 2004
Posts: 5748
Location: Sydney, Australia
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 8:57 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
I'm sort of laughing at this, because down here the media is talking about Kevin Rudd's honeymoon period as PM being over, and whether he will last a full 3-year term. The concern - his approval rating has nose-dived - from over 70% to only 54%. The talk is that the opposition leader Brendan Nelson is making up ground against Mr Rudd. Dr Nelson's rating has finally gone into double-figures - 15%. I don't think Kevin Rudd has much to worry about - usually 6 months into their term PM's approval ratings are below 50%, especially in the post-budget months as the first budget in a term is usually a tough-on-spending one. They loosen the purse strings in the next 2 of budgets in preparation for the next election.
Getting back to the topic, every time I read an article like the one at the start, I am more & more convinced that the invasion of Iraq was not about Saddam or WMD, but oil. Sadly, in the effort to secure the oil supply, they have helped drive the price of it to unaffordable levels. America might one day get its oil from Iraq, only to find that people have moved on to something else for their energy. What a massive waste of lives and money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Warrior-poet
Joined: Feb 16, 2008
Posts: 101
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 9:49 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
Sometimes I'm surprised at the comments made by some people here.
"I am more & more convinced that the invasion of Iraq was not about Saddam or WMD, but oil."
Seaeagle
Let's just forget about Kuwait for now. Though we were accused of going there for oil too.
So my question to you is this. Do you really believe that the United state's Congress and the potus would rather go to war than drill here at home? Allow me to enlighten you somewhat.
This country is being immobilized by a dysfunctional ideology, so we sit on vast, undeveloped petroleum resources. In the Western United States alone, there are 3 trillion barrels of petroleum in oil shale. At current consumption rates, this is enough oil to provide 100 percent of our domestic oil needs for 300 years. The technology exists to bring this fuel to market for $30 a barrel in an environmentally benign manner. But it's not being developed because of irrational opposition by environmentalists. (Green is the new red)
The Continental Shelves of the U.S. contain enormous quantities of natural gas in the form of methane hydrates. The technology for exploiting this gas source is still being developed, and full-scale production may not occur for another 30 years. But the size of the resource is so large that 1 percent could supply the United States with gas for 100 years.
Rather than pursue objectives that could bring about positive solutions and alleviate some of the strain on our economy brought on by high gas prices, Congress has instead chosen to continue their desperate search for a scapegoat. So far this year, they’ve held 40,that's right, 40 congressional hearings looking for someone else to blame.(These same congressmen I'm sure will be knocking at these executives doors for donations later on)
As this grand quest for a scapegoat continues, oil prices soar to record highs, putting a tremendous strain on the U.S. economy. So,one might wonder, “What is Congress doing to fix the problem?” The answer is not much. Despite President Bush’s too polite requests for the Saudis to boost their oil production, there hasn’t been much of an effort to get more oil from abroad. And despite urging by the president, Congress has been so far reluctant to permit oil exploration in either Alaska or off the coastal United States. Many oppose oil exploration in Alaska, because they say that it would take 10 years for any oil recovered there to reach the market. Interestingly, the same argument was made more than 10 years ago when Congress voted to allow the exploration of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in 1996. The ANWR drilling legislation was vetoed by President Clinton.
So your assumption leads to a government that would prefer to spend trillions on a war for oil instead of trillions to dig, drill and refine right here at home?
Is this a case of BDS? Do you believe that we can be so evil? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seaeagle
Joined: Aug 31, 2004
Posts: 5748
Location: Sydney, Australia
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 10:21 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
I don't believe the people of the USA are evil, but I believe their leadership is.
Regarding shale oil, it is a very risky investment, as the price of $30 you quote would take years to achieve. Initially the cost would be around $100 per barrel (probably more when inflation and the usual cost increases above initial estimates are taken into account), dropping to around $40-$50 per barrel after around 12 years of full scale production.
However, if peace is restored to the Middle East and the price of crude oil drops back down to the price it was a year ago (entirely feasible), then shale oil will be an economic catastrophe, as all that money will have been invested in a product that can't be sold due to it being much more expensive than oil from the Middle East.
The environmental concerns are very real, because extracting shale oil is nothing like drilling for underground oil. It requires open cut mining of vast areas, and produces numerous harmful by-products:
Environmental considerations
| Quote: |
Oil shale mining, necessary for ex situ retorting, involves a number of environmental impacts, more pronounced in surface mining than in underground mining. They include acid drainage induced by the sudden rapid exposure and subsequent oxidation of formerly buried materials, the introduction of metals into surface water and groundwater, increased erosion, sulfur-gas emissions, and air pollution caused by the production of particulates during processing, transport, and support activities.
Oil shale extraction can damage the biological and recreational value of land and the ecosystem in the mining area. Combustion and thermal processing generate waste material. In addition, the atmospheric emissions from oil shale processing and combustion include carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. Environmentalists oppose production and usage of oil shale, as it creates even more greenhouse gases than conventional fossil fuels. Section 526 of the Energy Independence And Security Act prohibits United States government agencies from buying oil produced by processes that produce more greenhouse gas emissions than would traditional petroleum. Experimental in situ conversion processes and carbon capture and storage technologies may reduce some of these concerns in the future, but at the same time they may cause other problems, including groundwater pollution.
Some commentators have expressed concerns over the oil-shale industry's use of water. Depending on technology, above-ground retorting uses between one and five barrels of water per barrel of produced shale oil. (continues) |
Does America really need oil so badly that it would destroy it's environment and the health of its people to get it? Of course not. But it does need oil, and Iraq has massive reserves of easy to extract and process underground oil. The POTUS thought (wrongly) Iraq would be completely compliant within a few months, and that is what made an invasion seem like a cheaper option than digging up one's own country and investing hundreds of billions of dollars into the infrastructure required to extract and refine shale oil. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xavierx
Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 3871
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:03 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
Even if we assume that the President thought Iraq would be "completely compliant within a few months", I can't believe that anyone thinks that he thought that it would be "cheaper" to send American (and coalition) soldiers to die than to drill here. I can't believe that anyone thinks Bush is so pure evil as that, but it explains a lot, including the ridiculous "moderating" that we had a while back that helped push the conservatives out.
Definitely BDS. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kenmabmcc
Joined: Nov 20, 2003
Posts: 7258
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand.
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 7:06 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| xavierx wrote: |
Even if we assume that the President thought Iraq would be "completely compliant within a few months", I can't believe that anyone thinks that he thought that it would be "cheaper" to send American (and coalition) soldiers to die than to drill here. I can't believe that anyone thinks Bush is so pure evil as that, but it explains a lot, including the ridiculous "moderating" that we had a while back that helped push the conservatives out.
Definitely BDS. |
One can believe anything about fundamentalists...
But it is a lot cheaper to get oil from oil bearing strata,
than extracting it from shale, especially considering the environmental costs.
Iraq has vast amounts of oil,
and has potentially a lot more to discover.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seaeagle
Joined: Aug 31, 2004
Posts: 5748
Location: Sydney, Australia
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 9:32 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| kenmabmcc wrote: |
But it is a lot cheaper to get oil from oil bearing strata,
than extracting it from shale, especially considering the environmental costs.
Iraq has vast amounts of oil,
and has potentially a lot more to discover.
|
That is why there is a huge risk in opening up expensive new oilfields. The set-up costs are enormous, and shale oil also has the added extraction costs. What will happen when these oilfields come online, increase the supply of oil, and find that reduced demand and competition from other oil producers (such as an eventually stable Iraq) subsequently reduces the price of oil to a level where their expensive operations are non-viable? For them to operate and pay their costs oil has to be kept at a fairly high price (probably several years for strata oilfields & a decade or more for shale oil).
The environmental impact of extracting shale oil in the mid-west and drilling in ANWR should not be taken lightly. People from both sides of politics now agree in the main that the environment must be protected - not just because of the wildlife, but also because of the long-term health impact environmental damage can have on the population. At the moment there is debate here on whether to evacuate a major mining city of 24,000 people (Mount Isa) due to the damage done to children's health by years of mineral extraction processes. More than 10% of the children there have dangerous levels of lead in their bodies. Does a large part of US mid-west want the same sort of controversy in a few decades time? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kenmabmcc
Joined: Nov 20, 2003
Posts: 7258
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand.
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 7:03 am Post subject: Bush Blackmails Iraq [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
The negotiations for the bush pact move glacially..
US agrees to scrap immunity for security guards in Iraq
| Quote: |
The lifting of immunity for foreign private security contractors has been a longstanding demand from Iraqi lawmakers in the deal that would govern a long-term military arrangement between Baghdad and Washington.
Without immunity foreign security contractors can be prosecuted for crimes under Iraqi law.
Foreign security workers have since the 2003 US-led invasion operated virtually outside the law, neither subject to the Iraq legal system nor to US military tribunals, a right which infuriates Iraqis.
>>>>>>>>>
About 100,000 private security contractors work in Iraq.
Their immunity is a sensitive issue after an incident in which security guards from the US company Blackwater shot dead 17 Iraqis in broad daylight in Baghdad last September. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xavierx
Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 3871
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:50 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
Gee, imagine that. Like I said a while ago, this is negotiations.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kenmabmcc
Joined: Nov 20, 2003
Posts: 7258
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand.
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 5:33 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/world/middleeast/03iraq.html?th&emc=th
| Quote: |
Noting that the United States cannot stay in Iraq without legal authorization, Mr. Zebari cited three options: “Either we conclude a status of forces agreement; or we have an interim agreement until a SOFA can be completed; or we go back to the Security Council at the end of the year and ask for another extension.”
An interim pact, he said, could take the form of a memorandum of understanding and related documents, which would be less extensive than a formal security agreement.
They probably would be appended to the document that President Bush and the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, signed last year that laid out the principles for a continuing relationship between the countries. |
bushs' hopes for a July deal look faint.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
| |
|
|
General