Secret Security Pact Will Ensure Permanent Iraq Occupation

[gonerail]

Details of the secretive U.S.-Iraqi security pact, leaked to the media in the past few days, confirm an agenda that many critics of the Iraq war have been shouting from the rooftops for years.

The neocons in the White House are pushing for permanent occupation of the country and the right to launch pre-emptive military strikes on any country from inside Iraq.

Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...ol-840512.html

[Mary3]

This is definately NOT good for United States of America. Waste and fraud to follow...

[Dumbfounded]

Details of the secretive U.S.-Iraqi security pact, leaked to the media in the past few days, confirm an agenda that many critics of the Iraq war have been shouting from the rooftops for years.

The neocons in the White House are pushing for permanent occupation of the country and the right to launch pre-emptive military strikes on any country from inside Iraq.

Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...ol-840512.html

I'm disgusted and appalled, but not surprised to hear this.

Over time, the White House has learned from its "mistakes" and has ensured that far less information leaks out into the mainstream press;No more Abu Gharibs, ect.

How many Americans actually get their news from 'The Nation,' other truthful mags and look up news on the web?

These bases WILL be built.
The Halliburton/Blackwater Camps, all trains and tracks leading to them WILL be used
And the list goes on-

I would be shocked If a "peaceful" transition from Bush to the next President occurs-Unless McCain somehow "wins" which in that case,
the plans of this administration would continue unimpeded

[Riven37]

I'm disgusted and appalled, but not surprised to hear this.

Over time, the White House has learned from its "mistakes" and has ensured that far less information leaks out into the mainstream press;No more Abeu Ghraibs, etc.

How many Americans actually get their news from 'The Nation,' other truthful mags and look up news on the web?

These bases WILL be built.
The Halliburton/Blackwater Camps, all trains and tracks leading to them WILL be used
And the list goes on-

I would be shocked If a "peaceful" transition from Bush to the next President occurs-Unless McCain somehow "wins" which in that case,
the plans of this administration would continue unimpeded

This is nothing more then a political ruge so Bush looks good by end of his term. It has to pass congress as a bill, and I don't see anything like this happening by end of next month. Then again, the WAR is now in number 3 place of Americans concerns, gas is number one. Hell, America may go to war for oil soon if you start seeing $15.00 per gallon at the pumps.

[LHardy]

Given the responses to the US keeping a security detail in Iraq, I would gather we should remove our presence from all of Europe and Asia while we are at it.

Great diplomatic minds at work.
Screw the world.
Isolationism!

[winfield31]

Details of the secretive U.S.-Iraqi security pact, leaked to the media in the past few days, confirm an agenda that many critics of the Iraq war have been shouting from the rooftops for years.

The neocons in the White House are pushing for permanent occupation of the country and the right to launch pre-emptive military strikes on any country from inside Iraq.

Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...ol-840512.html

click on the link , "The Independant World" , FAR , FAR LEFT WING DRIVEL..............not an once of independant thought , just ruse & BS speculation...............Lokk at some of their sub-stories , a palestian girl killed by Israel , etc. , everything is anti-Israel or anti-USA............

[raoul duke]

Given the responses to the US keeping a security detail in Iraq, I would gather we should remove our presence from all of Europe and Asia while we are at it.

We probably should. It ain't like we're fighting the commies anymore.

[raoul duke]

click on the link , "The Independant World" , FAR , FAR LEFT WING DRIVEL..............not an once of independant thought , just ruse & BS speculation...............Lokk at some of their sub-stories , a palestian girl killed by Israel , etc. , everything is anti-Israel or anti-USA............

Actually, The Independent is a well respected news source. But like most Americans, if it doesn't fit your narrow world view, it must be biased.

[winfield31]

Actually, The Independent is a well respected news source. But like most Americans, if it doesn't fit your narrow world view, it must be biased.

duke , don't you believe it "leans" to the left , I mean come on , give me that at least..............plus my "narrow minded world" is a personal shot for something that's of an "opinion" by us all , not fact , so it's NOT narrow , thank you , the name calling & insinuations are appalling in here , I think Kern is right sometimes...............

[raoul duke]

duke , don't you believe it "leans" to the left , I mean come on , give me that at least..............

Good luck finding a publication that doesn't lean a particular way. The strength of reporting is not the bias, but the factual reliability. The Independent, along with many other news sources may "lean" a certain way (though that is a matter of perspective and not really anything you can demostrate,) but if the reporting is consistently factual and any errors are acknowledged and corrected, it's safe to assume it's reliable. The WSJ, who's editorial board is run by Rhesus monkeys imo, does some of the best reporting in the country. With Murdoch at the helm it remains to be seen how long that will last, however.

Dismiss news stories based on the reported substance, not the perceived "lean" of the paper. Most European news outlets come across as "left" in this country. Though most of those outlets are a whole lot more reliable when it comes to substantive reporting.

[LHardy]

We probably should. It ain't like we're fighting the commies anymore.

Not yet, Russia is bent on returning to it.
I too believe that we should restructure our support in Europe and Asia.
Yet our presence has kept the peace in Europe and Asia.
Just as it can and should in the Middle East. No one else wants to but should.
World peace hinges with the Middle East. Fact.
If the US withdraws diplomatic support in the Middle East, the UN would have to assume diplomatic control for the peace. Anyone really believe the UN could handle the complexities of the middle east without a military presence?
It is open war now that the terrorist have the global stage. What could the UN do without the support of a military capable of handling exactly what the terrorist are known to do? How would the UN suppress a terrorists take over of Afghanistan or Israel?
Who can give us credible evidence that the UN without military superiority has control terrorism? I give you.... Africa, Afghanistan, Syria, Kenya, Turkey, Iran, Palestine.. and on.

[winfield31]

Not yet, Russia is bent on returning to it.
I too believe that we should restructure our support in Europe and Asia.
Yet our presence has kept the peace in Europe and Asia.
Just as it can and should in the Middle East. No one else wants to but should.
World peace hinges with the Middle East. Fact.
If the US withdraws diplomatic support in the Middle East, the UN would have to assume diplomatic control for the peace. Anyone really believe the UN could handle the complexities of the middle east without a military presence?
It is open war now that the terrorist have the global stage. What could the UN do without the support of a military capable of handling exactly what the terrorist are known to do? How would the UN suppress a terrorists take over of Afghanistan or Israel?
Who can give us credible evidence that the UN without military superiority has control terrorism? I give you.... Africa, Afghanistan, Syria, Kenya, Turkey, Iran, Palestine.. and on.

good post hardy , because I agree pretty much with your statement..............

[raoul duke]

Europe is not dependent on America for peace. It hasn't been since the end of WWII for all intents and purposes. The idea that we have to have military installations around the world is absurd in this day and age.

[LHardy]

Europe is not dependent on America for peace. It hasn't been since the end of WWII for all intents and purposes. The idea that we have to have military installations around the world is absurd in this day and age.

I disagree with your assessment of Europe's peace not related to our presence since WWII. That is factually incorrect.
Ask Germany, Russia, the Czech Republic, Poland....
You've avoided my question?

If the US withdraws diplomatic support in the Middle East, the UN would have to assume diplomatic control for the peace. Anyone really believe the UN could handle the complexities of the middle east without a military presence?
It is open war now that the terrorist have the global stage. What could the UN do without the support of a military capable of handling exactly what the terrorist are known to do? How would the UN suppress a terrorists take over of Afghanistan or Israel?
Who can give us credible evidence that the UN without military superiority has control terrorism? I give you.... Africa, Afghanistan, Syria, Kenya, Turkey, Iran, Palestine.. and on.

[raoul duke]

If the US withdraws diplomatic support in the Middle East, the UN would have to assume diplomatic control for the peace. Anyone really believe the UN could handle the complexities of the middle east without a military presence?

They probably couldn't do any worse than we already have. Except they're smart and didn't choose to get involved by launching an ill-conceived and illegal war on a sovereign nation.

It is open war now that the terrorist have the global stage. What could the UN do without the support of a military capable of handling exactly what the terrorist are known to do? How would the UN suppress a terrorists take over of Afghanistan or Israel?

What military is capable of handling terrorists? You don't mean our's, I hope. Because that would be funny. Oh and the "terrorists" are not taking over Israel anytime soon.

Who can give us credible evidence that the UN without military superiority has control terrorism? I give you.... Africa, Afghanistan, Syria, Kenya, Turkey, Iran, Palestine.. and on.

You'd think over the last 25 years (especially the last 5) people would have figured out that you cannot militarily defeat "terrorism." In fact, all the available evidence suggests that military strategies lead to more "terrorism."