Guest Stephen Turner Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 (edited) When you hear any one suggest that America/Britain, is about to pull out of Iraq, its a lie when you hear someone say that Iraq was granted sovereignty In june 2004, its a lie When Bush/Blair/plaint media repeat it, its a lie. Iraq did not get "self rule" nor will it at any time in the forseeable future. America, and its sock pupet own Iraq, and its for sale to the highest bidder but nobody will be allowed to rule Iraq without America's express permission. The truth is: American authorities will be providing "guidance" behind the scenes of any Iraqi so called self government "sovereign" Iraq's policies will be pre- approved by American officials, and any policies that are not pre-approved will not be policies, and any Iraq'i minister who goes against this, wont be a minister for long. Iraqis who hold high level positions will be pre screened by American officials, and any who dont meet with full approval will not be permitted to hold high level positions....Iraqis know all this of course, because Iraqis are not stupid....unlike many of their counterparts in Britain, and America, who swallow this tosh like the junk food they cram down their stupid necks.... Iraqis wont get used to American/British occupation, any more than we would get uesd to living under Chinese occupiers. They wont willingly surrender their weapons, any more than we would willingly surrender ours if a hostile enemy occupied us, Iraqis will fight, in any way they can for as long as there are Iraqis- better get used to the body bags coming home, better prepare yourself for the violent street protests that will surely follow-They will fight, because Iraq belongs to Iraqis, and the next American/British soldier killed in Iraq will be like the first, dead for nothing, save the rich mans insatiable greed. We have invaded, and occupied Iraq for lies. The reasons given for why the war started were bogus, the reasons given after the war are also bogus. "Democracy in Iraq" As if Democracy, or freedom comes at the point of a gun. Or can be impossed on a sovereign nation. "Sadam was bad"Indeed he was, and at his worst, while he was killing Kurds,Iranians and Iraqis, we were underwriting it. "The war on terror" Iraq, of course had little, or nothing to do with international terrorism. But our Iraq will be infuriating Arabs, and Muslims worldwide_ a potential source of terrorism for generations. Thank you Mr President, and your poodle. Weapons of mass delusion, sorry, destruction, where's Scott Ritter when you need him. Edited August 23, 2006 by Stephen Turner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman T. Field Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 I doubt US troops will be in Iraq any longer than how long they were stationed in Japan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Turner Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 I doubt US troops will be in Iraq any longer than how long they were stationed in Japan. Imperialist occupation doesnt usually end until one of three possibilities occurs. The occupying power has bled the occupied nation dry. The geo-political needs of the agressor change. National forces hostile to the agressor force them out. How do members see this one playing out, But what ever happens imperial forces are there to stay for a LONG time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 The U.S. invaded Iraq to secure the oil supply. (The neocons also figured they could use Iraq, once all the flowers of welcome were cleared away, as a base for invading Syria, Iran, etc. Ha ha ha ha ha.) The U.S. will leave Iraq when the oil runs out. How long will that take? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Richardson Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 … but bear in mind the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon. They set up the puppet SLA (South Lebanese Army) in order to make the area south of the Litani River into a permanent buffer zone. Whilst they were there, it looked like they'd stay forever, but when their power collapsed, it collapsed suddenly and almost without any warnings that reached outsiders. The same could well happen in Iraq … especially if the US are dumb enough to attack Iran or to allow Israel to attack Iran. If that happens, we'll find out very quickly just how 'moderate' the moderate Shiites are! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher T. George Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 The U.S. Bases now under construction and other fortified parts of the Green Zone are being built as permanent bases and even the US Military and other Agencies have so listed their construction style and budgeting as 'permanent' facilities......so wouldn't want to waste all that good tax-payer money and pull out before the end of 'permanent' runs out..... If all-out civil war breaks out in Iraq, as seems likely, the American presence in Iraq will become untenable, and this discussion will be moot. George W. Bush's vain hope to "complete the mission" is completely at the mercy of events in Iraq and subject to the likely fall of a frail government which most likely will fall before long. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 Chris, I disagree. I think the Bush regime may have decided that civil war in Iraq was the best way out of its military predicament, meaning the best way to stay in Iraq. With a civil war, the U.S. can just hunker down in its permanent bases and acknowledge that "there's nothing we can do" while the Iraqis fight it out. The bombing of that shrine several months ago that started all the sectarian violence had all the earmarks of a false flag operation. Qui bono? When the civil war is over, the U.S. will still be there, watching that oil. Some accommodation with whatever government emerges, including help to rebuild, will of course have to be reached, e.g. the U.S. telling them, "Okay, mullah for you and moolah for us." Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher T. George Posted August 27, 2006 Share Posted August 27, 2006 Chris,I disagree. I think the Bush regime may have decided that civil war in Iraq was the best way out of its military predicament, meaning the best way to stay in Iraq. With a civil war, the U.S. can just hunker down in its permanent bases and acknowledge that "there's nothing we can do" while the Iraqis fight it out. The bombing of that shrine several months ago that started all the sectarian violence had all the earmarks of a false flag operation. Qui bono? When the civil war is over, the U.S. will still be there, watching that oil. Some accommodation with whatever government emerges, including help to rebuild, will of course have to be reached, e.g. the U.S. telling them, "Okay, mullah for you and moolah for us." Ron Hi Ron The sectarian killings were going on for months before the bombing of the Shiite golden temple in Samarra, in fact from almost the time that the U.S. overthrew Saddam, although I will agree that the bombing ramped up the violence to another level. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Turner Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 A quick question to my perceptive friends. If the Democratic challenger in 2008, made pulling out of Iraq a main policy plank how would this play in America. In Britain the continuing fall out from the invasion could well cost Labour the next election, as trust in Blair continues to be eroded by this issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher T. George Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 A quick question to my perceptive friends. If the Democratic challenger in 2008, made pulling out of Iraq a main policy plank how would this play in America. In britain the continuing fall out from the invasion could well cost Labour the next election, as trust in Blair continues to be eroded by this issue. Hi Stephen To answer your question, despite the naysayers here who believe the United States will hunker down in permanent bases in Iraq and weather out any civil war, if a challenger in 2008 wins on a platform to pull out the troops, I do believe that is exactly what will happen. U.S. politicians value their political lives and their perks, and if the people say get out, that's exactly what will happen. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 A quick question to my perceptive friends. If the Democratic challenger in 2008, made pulling out of Iraq a main policy plank how would this play in America. In Britain the continuing fall out from the invasion could well cost Labour the next election, as trust in Blair continues to be eroded by this issue. It is true that both Bush and Blair have lost support because of the Iraq disaster. However, that does not mean other politicians can gain popularity by calling for a pull-out. This is especially true of the United States who see this as some sort of masculinity test. As with the Vietnam War, the American electorate will have to be convinced that withdrawal is some sort of victory. It is because of this false consciousness over Vietnam that allowed the US to believe that old style invasions are still possible in the modern world. It will only be after this lesson is learnt that there will be an end to American imperialism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 A quick question to my perceptive friends. If the Democratic challenger in 2008, made pulling out of Iraq a main policy plank how would this play in America. In Britain the continuing fall out from the invasion could well cost Labour the next election, as trust in Blair continues to be eroded by this issue. Certainly a lot of things can happen between now and November 2008. The Democratic nominee may make withdrawal from Iraq a major part of his/her platform, but even if he/she were elected, there is no guarantee that it would happen. Bush promised to reform Social Security; it supposedly was a major goal of his, yet nothing ever became of it. In order for a politician to get nominated, he/she will have to have the stamp of approval from the forces that control the major media. Look at what happened to Howard Dean in 2004. When he began showing signs of electability, he was quickly and summarily marginalized by the media. If the economy appears stable, Americans are apt to care little about Iraq. Or, we may be at war with Iran by then. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. do not control the American military. Nor does the Congress. If it's in the Department of Defense's best interest to be in Iraq, one can be sure we will still be there. If not, we will be somewhere else. Americans want and demand a President with good hair, a slight tan, and the ability to look good in a custom-tailored suit. We want them to be a good speech reader, and able to deliver the occasional off the cuff witticism. Do we care if they are honest, sincere, truthful? Not really. A Democrat may indeed occupy the White House in 2009, but in the larger scheme of things, it's likely to make very little difference. Whatever the political climate is like today, next week, or next year.....one major terrorist event in the United States, and all bets are off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Geraghty Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 Chris,I disagree. I think the Bush regime may have decided that civil war in Iraq was the best way out of its military predicament, meaning the best way to stay in Iraq. With a civil war, the U.S. can just hunker down in its permanent bases and acknowledge that "there's nothing we can do" while the Iraqis fight it out. The bombing of that shrine several months ago that started all the sectarian violence had all the earmarks of a false flag operation. Qui bono? When the civil war is over, the U.S. will still be there, watching that oil. Some accommodation with whatever government emerges, including help to rebuild, will of course have to be reached, e.g. the U.S. telling them, "Okay, mullah for you and moolah for us." Ron In a documentary, which I saw about a month ago, about resistance fighters in Iraq, they stated that they thought it was either the US or UK that did it, and it was THEIR shrine that was bombed. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 Iraq for Sale claims Haliburton and Others Profit at the Expense of Safety; Documentary Slams U.S. Companies Working in Iraq by Dan Harris ABC News Sept. 4, 2006 — He's tackled Wal-Mart and Fox News with his scathing documentaries. Now, filmmaker Robert Greenwald is releasing a documentary which argues that private companies helping to fight the war in Iraq don't have the nation's best interests in mind. "Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers" debuts in limited release this week, and presents an assault on companies that provide the kinds of services in Iraq that the military once handled itself, such as supplying food, water and mail delivery for the reconstruction. http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=2392965 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 (edited) Iraq for Sale claims Haliburton and Others Profit at the Expense of Safety; Documentary Slams U.S. Companies Working in Iraqby Dan Harris ABC News Sept. 4, 2006 — He's tackled Wal-Mart and Fox News with his scathing documentaries. Now, filmmaker Robert Greenwald is releasing a documentary which argues that private companies helping to fight the war in Iraq don't have the nation's best interests in mind. "Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers" debuts in limited release this week, and presents an assault on companies that provide the kinds of services in Iraq that the military once handled itself, such as supplying food, water and mail delivery for the reconstruction. http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=2392965 This kind of stuff unfortunately has been going on for a long time, in the US atleast since the Civil War (1861-5). That senior members of the administration are closely connected to many of these companies is distressing to say the least. Len Edited September 5, 2006 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now